Albanese used his UN address to champion international law, dialogue and Australia’s credentials as a middle power. The real test lies in whether those principles are applied consistently, from Gaza and AUKUS to climate, aid and Australia’s closest allies.
The Australian prime minister’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly was well crafted to reflect on the past and consider future challenges in a divided and disrupted world. It was delivered in a presentation suggesting that Anthony Albanese is a leader who wants to use dialogue to manage international conflict and reform at the United Nations.
These are impressive goals and the prime minister’s commitment to rational debate is in sharp contrast to the loud invective and hyperbole used by certain global leaders who still rely on the bullying tactics they developed in school playgrounds.
Australia has launched its bid for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council in 2028/29 and the prime minister was obviously delivering a speech to attract support for that opportunity. However, some of the worthy statements made on this occasion contradict his government’s decision-making in both foreign and defence policy.
In emphasising the importance of international law, he denounced Russia’s ongoing military attacks on Ukraine but could not speak of the gross atrocities in the destruction of Gaza. Even when speaking about the targeted killing of Australian Zomi Frankcom, the prime minister dared not mention who was responsible nor explain why hundreds of humanitarian workers have been killed by the Israel Defence Forces.
Australians will welcome commitment to focus on the importance of ‘guardrails’ to maintain human control over artificial intelligence. Yet Australia and too many Western nations have avoided the existing ‘guardrails’ of international law which clearly established such measures in defining war crimes and protecting civilians.
There has been no official disclosure of any Australian Government response to the provisional measures made by the International Court of Justice in July 2024 when it identified the risk of genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and illegal occupation. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s ‘Freedom of Information’ log specifically records public requests about whether there was a serious risk of genocide being committed by Israel, but it excludes any privileged legal advice. The political response at the time from the prime minister was “we are not a party to proceedings” and from the foreign minister: “Australia’s respect for the independence of the International Court did not mean Australia accepted the premise of the case”.
Consequently, over the following two years the Australian Government has strenuously avoided using the language of the international court, presumably because any such acknowledgment would require specific action by ministers. The Attorney-General’s Department has never revealed any legal assessment of Australia’s legal obligations under Article 1 of the United Nations Genocide Convention. Therefore, when the prime minister earnestly tells the United Nations General Assembly he wants to strengthen the ‘rules-based order’, many Australians will accuse him of double standards and hypocrisy.
It is admirable to put forward many of the sentiments included in the prime minister’s speech, but the Federal Government has much work to demonstrate that it is indeed a middle power that treats all nations and their citizens equally. The Australian Government needs to be seen as an independent middle power, yet it is obvious to many nations that the US alliance dictates the expenditure and direction of Australia’s defence policy. That is why there has been such a public demand for an inquiry into AUKUS, one that could have been initiated by government yet instead has become a community-based initiative.
Many hearing Albanese’s speech will appreciate our nation’s commitment to human rights and peace, but we will be closely watching the actions that follow. We will be asking why Australia sanctions some countries while excusing others. Why do we grant generous military aid to select nations but deny humanitarian aid where it is most needed? Why is our Pacific family not entitled to far greater financial support to manage the impact of climate change? Why do Australian immigration requirements place a higher burden of compliance on citizens from some countries compared with the ease with which other citizens have unquestioned entry to Australia?
Governments are elected to act in the best interests of all their citizens and any leader speaking at the United Nations is expected to voice concern for all humanity. In delivering his speech, the prime minister has shown he is able to articulate priorities for the international community. However, the Australian Government must strengthen its resolve to take action when confronted by gross breaches of international law. As the prime minister told the ABC as he prepared to head to the United Nations: “We cannot afford to be bystanders.”
If we seek to offer advice about defending international law, we must immediately examine our current failures and act to fully comply ourselves.
Margaret Reynolds represented the Australian Parliament at the United Nations General Assembly in 1997.
Margaret Reynolds has a long commitment to the peace movement dating back to the Anti-Vietnam Moratorium to current advocacy against militarism as National President of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.(Australia )
She was a Labor Senator for Queensland 1983-1999 and a member of Bob Hawke’s Ministry 1987-1990. She taught Human Rights and International Relations at University of Queensland 1999-2004 and has worked with a number of international non-government organisations.