The question is: how to explain this apparent diplomatic U-turn by Australia? To answer this, this article places Australia’s recognition of Palestine in its historical context, arguing that the government’s decision to recognize Palestine stems from the interaction between Australia’s strategic culture and its liberal internationalism in defining what it means to be a “good international citizen” (GIC). International relations professor Hakan Mehmetcik defines GIC as “a multidimensional concept that encompasses not only the actions of states, but also their motivations, commitments, and broader ethical considerations that guide their behavior on the world stage.”
On one side of the GIC debate is Australia’s strategic culture. This is a distinct set of beliefs, attitudes, and practices regarding the use of force, stemming from a unique and prolonged historical process. This process reflects Australia’s Anglo-Saxon colonial heritage and the corresponding need for protective powers to defend its interests against potential foreign aggression. Consequently, Australia’s strategic culture favors Israel’s continued security over Palestinian claims to a state. Since Israel’s creation, Australia has followed the orthodox line of US foreign policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which tolerates, appeases, and supports Israeli colonial settlement policies aimed at subduing and pacifying Palestinians until they no longer pose a threat to the Israeli state. From this perspective, for Australia to consider itself a GIC, its foreign policy must be finely aligned with US strategic calculations.
On the other side of the debate is Australia’s adherence to a liberal international foreign policy framework that promotes diplomatic openness, sovereign equality, respect for human rights, and democratic responsibility. This translates into Australia’s support for collective peacekeeping operations, the promotion of the rule of law, and the range of international institutions designed to address complex global issues. As Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong stated, “We want a world that is peaceful, stable, prosperous, and respectful of sovereignty. A world where differences are resolved in accordance with law and international norms, and not by force and size.” From this perspective, for Australia, considering itself a GIC means not only acting in accordance with these principles but also refusing to accept or tolerate actions by other states that are contrary to them.
The interaction between these two concepts sometimes creates tensions in the formulation of Australia’s foreign policy, as strategic culture favors maintaining the status quo, while respect for liberal internationalist values requires vigilance and sometimes necessary changes.
>>> This Briefing is available in English only.
