In 1917, in a shell hole in France, a dying lieutenant employed his last minutes to instruct my father on the immediate safety of the platoon. Such heroic attention to duty should be glorified. It is the fortitude that bears such discomforts as dysentery, starvation, lice, trench feet and terror while defying the Fates unto death, rather than war that we commemorate each April 25th. Nevertheless, as time has passed the need for ANZAC Day to do more than honour willing sacrifice has increased.
My earliest memory is that of my parents discussing the outbreak of World War II and, like others of my age, I have not had my fortitude tested in battle. Therefore, I risk being likened to the spectator who tells the batsmen how to play Shane Warn. Nevertheless, we have reached a time when, if the mere spectators do not speculate on the meaning of "ANZAC", it risks losing meaning. World War I veterans are dead; World War II veterans are dying off; veterans of the Korean conflict are few in number; Australians are still divided over Vietnam; there has been a huge influx of migrants who inevitably bring traditions of different flags and different battles; and the black armband view of Australian history has been employed to weaken pride in Australian nationhood. For all of these reasons ANZAC has lost emotional appeal. It is, therefore, more important that its celebration should be given more of the colder appeal of reason that explains why Ausralian practices and institutions are worth defending. Even if it could be sustained, it would no longer be sufficient to rely upon Australian tribalism to generate the will to defend the nation.
First, however, a statistic that demonstrates that armed defence can be well worth its cost: In the first 80 years of this century, absolutist governments killed over 95 million people or 477 in every 10,000 of their own subjects whereas 35.6 million or 22 per 10,000 of the relevant populations died in battle. Communism was 20 times more deadly than war. There have been times when it clearly paid to fight the sort of regimes that resort to gas chambers and gulags and there may be others. However, the task of ensuring that Australia can defend itself and that it is worth the sacrifice of its young men is not a periodic one.
We were not spared the horrors of National Socialism and Communism in Australia because we are an inherently superior people. On the contrary, in spite of recent immigration, Australians are genetically and culturally similar to the Germans who tolerated the "final solution". We heard and rejected the Siren calls of those flawed philosophies because the civilising institutions and practices that deliver our social order were robust enough for us not too desperately to crave Utopia or class or racial scapegoats.
The truth is that our liberal society offering approximate equality of citizenship, personal security, justice and personal opportunity, far from being the natural order, is achieved in only a small portion of the world. Our freedoms and prosperity are the legacy of quite recent Australians. We will continue to enjoy that legacy only if we deserve it and our duty, like that of my father's lieutenant, is to those who will live beyond us.
I understand the argument that ANZAC should not be complicated by current arguments. Nevertheless, it is a duty that cannot be satisfied by retreat before controversy. Surely we do the ANZAC tradition no disservice by encouraging people to think about what makes Australia a place worth defending (and migrating to) and what is needed now to insure that future enemies do not enjoy easy victories. It is perhaps the things we think we agree about that most need defending. For instance, we claim to be committed democrats, but we stretch the rules of the political game, particularly within the parties, almost to breaking point; when we agree with them we applaud governments and unelected judges who usurp the authority of parliaments; and compared with the years just after World War II few of us feel obliged to contribute in a voluntary capacity to democratic politics.
Again although we know full well that security lies in a strong economy with only manageable foreign debt, we allow our votes to be bought by unprincipled politicians with policies that will weaken the Australian economy. I have especially in mind continuing budget deficits and lax monetary policy, and immunities from competition granted to professions, unions and protected industries. We seem to believe in self reliance only for the other fellow.
We are anything but clear about what we mean by equality, equity and justice, even though we rightly believe that they are ideals that go to the heart of the mutual understandings that enable us to live peaceably and prosperously. Only when understood as all embracing principles can they unite. Without that understanding, they serve the culture of complaint of one Australian against another.
Future external threats may be avoided in a better world dominated by strong and honourable alliances. History is, however, a catalogue of disasters following wishful thinking. Most Australians claim that they are prepared to pay for a defence force that makes us too prickly for most aggressors to attack but not, it seems, if that means taking funds from middle class welfare or the Olympic games.
It is asking a lot of the ANZAC tradition that it should be employed to reinforce duties about which peace-time citizens may disagree, but it is in the defeat of hypocrisy that our security currently lies. It beggars belief that the men who bore arms for their country in war should not wish to risk something to defend it in peace. It would be the saddest of betrayals if another generation were to plunder its economy and to neglect its civil institutions making Australia both less defendable and less worth defending.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment