The question is, how can we account for Australia’s apparent diplomatic U-turn? To answer this question, this paper places Australia’s recognition in a historical context, arguing that the government’s decision to recognize Palestine is a consequence of the interplay between Australia’s strategic culture and its liberal internationalism in determining what it means to be a “good international citizen” (GIC). Professor of International Relations Hakan Mehmetcik defines GIC as “a multidimensional concept that encompasses not only the actions of states, but also their motivations, commitments, and the broader ethical considerations that guide their behavior on the global stage.” 

On one side of the debate over GIC stands Australia’s strategic culture. This is a distinct set of beliefs, attitudes, and practices concerning the use of force that arises through a unique and protracted historical process. This process reflects Australia’s Anglo-Saxon settler-colonial heritage and the corresponding need for great power patrons to protect its interests against potential foreign aggression. Therefore, Australia’s strategic culture prioritizes Israel’s continued security over Palestinian claims to statehood. Since Israel’s inception, Australia has followed the United States’ (US) foreign policy orthodoxy on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict that condones, appeases, and supports Israeli settler-colonial policies aimed at subjugating 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 attuned to the strategic calculations of the US. 

On the other side of the debate stands Australia’s adherence to a liberal international foreign policy framework that promotes diplomatic openness, sovereign equality, respect for human rights, and democratic accountability. This is reflected in Australia’s support for collective peacekeeping, the promotion of the rule of law, and support for the array of international institutions intended to resolve complex global problems. As Australia’s Foreign Minister, Penny Wong stated, “We want a world that is peaceful, stable, prosperous, and respectful of sovereignty. Where disputes are addressed in accordance with international law and norms, not by power and size.” From this perspective, for Australia to consider itself a GIC means not only acting in accordance with these tenets but refusing to accept/tolerate actions from other states that run contrary to them. 

The interplay between these two concepts occasionally creates tension in Australian foreign policymaking because strategic culture favors maintaining the status quo, while maintaining liberal internationalist values requires vigilance and occasionally necessary change.