Thanks, Joel. Pieces like this are maddening because they show how far we’ve drifted from our better selves. Australia used to have flashes of genuine international leadership: Evatt shaping the UN Charter and the UDHR, Gareth Evans driving the Cambodia peace process and pushing Responsibility to Protect. At our best, we were a creative middle power: building bridges, championing multilateralism, occasionally punching above our weight for something bigger than trade or security deals.
Compare that to the Albanese photo-op era. Our UN presence now looks like a karaoke version of diplomacy: recycled talking points, desperate alignment with Anglosphere moods, and a refusal to call genocide by its name. It’s not just embarrassing, it’s strategically suicidal; shrinking our influence while the world realigns around us.
Australia’s foreign policy shines when it’s bold, independent, and principled. Right now, it’s timid, derivative, and hollow. We’ve gone from helping draft the rules of the game to mumbling along while others tear up the rulebook.
Good piece, Joel. 'Something significant was occurring at the (UNG) assembly, as the tide of global opinion against Israel finally manifested in the assembly hall.' Bravo to Colombian President Gustavo Petro and Prabowo Subianto for promising to support an international armed intervention to end Israel’s nearly two-year genocide in Gaza. We might hope that some ethically minded European Nations would join these leaders, and ensure multi-regional support for human rights and global peace law. When the UN's RtP doesn't want to use the power on a genocidal apartheid Nation, just because it's backed by US imperialism (or because it's white), we have a global war crime enforcement problem. I don't expect the USA, Germany, UK, and the Anglo colonies to sever all diplomatic ties, but following Uncle Sam and Auntie Britain in supplying arms to a genocide is just not acceptable in this or the previous century, it's time to bid Greater Israel (2020s crusader Vaterland) goodbye, and send the ringleaders to the ICC.
Subianto's offer seemed different from what Petro was talking about. He wanted the world's armies to "unite to liberate Palestine" which sounded a bit more interventionist than Indonesia's offer of UN-mandated peacekeepers. I wasn't sure the two leaders were talking about the same thing.
But now that I've read more widely, I can see Petro was only calling for peaceful intervention too, so I guess they are similar offers. Petro needs some European countries to match the offer. Although whether Hamas will accept what Trump wants is another thing.
If you were Hamas, do you think you would agree to this takeover agreement?
I wouldn't because it would be the exact same for years upon year until they finally killed all Palestinians.
The world needs to inetervene - now. Satanyahu has told the world he will not stop until the zionist Jews have the whole of Palestine to themselves then the y will move onto the rest of you. Ribes won't work, his ego would take that as a gift, and carry on killing
Prime Minister Albanese's UN address is not a roadmap for his government's future actions, but a strategic communication tool of the highest order. It is the capstone of the "controlled demolition" strategy.
The UN address must also be analyzed through the "Proxy Leader" hypothesis, which posits that the government's primary function is to manage Australia's position within a broader international alliance, executing a shared agenda under the guise of sovereign policy. The speech is a flawless performance of this role.
The rhetoric is perfectly calibrated to reinforce the legitimacy of the "international rules based order," a cornerstone of the Western alliance's strategic posture. The emphasis on investing in "capabilities," "defence," and "diplomacy," deepening engagement with "like-minded countries," and seeking a UN Security Council seat are all actions that strengthen Australia's utility and standing within this alliance structure.
Even the most seemingly sovereign act mentioned—the recognition of the State of Palestine—is consistent with this hypothesis. As established in the previous analysis of the government's foreign policy timelines, this decision was made only after a critical mass of allied nations (such as the UK, France, and Canada) had provided the necessary political cover, allowing Australia to follow an emerging consensus rather than lead it. The act itself provides an immense shield of progressive credibility, allowing the Prime Minister to project an image of moral courage that helps to mask the more pragmatic, alliance-management functions that dictate the majority of his government's foreign and security policy, most notably the unwavering commitment to AUKUS. https://wwsutru.vercel.app/
Australia’s belief in its own exceptionalism is now an observable mythology. Albanese and his neoliberal-infused gang of status quo dinosaurs clearly haven’t seen the writing on the wall yet. At some point he will need to confront a very different vibe!
Thanks, Joel. Pieces like this are maddening because they show how far we’ve drifted from our better selves. Australia used to have flashes of genuine international leadership: Evatt shaping the UN Charter and the UDHR, Gareth Evans driving the Cambodia peace process and pushing Responsibility to Protect. At our best, we were a creative middle power: building bridges, championing multilateralism, occasionally punching above our weight for something bigger than trade or security deals.
Compare that to the Albanese photo-op era. Our UN presence now looks like a karaoke version of diplomacy: recycled talking points, desperate alignment with Anglosphere moods, and a refusal to call genocide by its name. It’s not just embarrassing, it’s strategically suicidal; shrinking our influence while the world realigns around us.
Australia’s foreign policy shines when it’s bold, independent, and principled. Right now, it’s timid, derivative, and hollow. We’ve gone from helping draft the rules of the game to mumbling along while others tear up the rulebook.
Good piece, Joel. 'Something significant was occurring at the (UNG) assembly, as the tide of global opinion against Israel finally manifested in the assembly hall.' Bravo to Colombian President Gustavo Petro and Prabowo Subianto for promising to support an international armed intervention to end Israel’s nearly two-year genocide in Gaza. We might hope that some ethically minded European Nations would join these leaders, and ensure multi-regional support for human rights and global peace law. When the UN's RtP doesn't want to use the power on a genocidal apartheid Nation, just because it's backed by US imperialism (or because it's white), we have a global war crime enforcement problem. I don't expect the USA, Germany, UK, and the Anglo colonies to sever all diplomatic ties, but following Uncle Sam and Auntie Britain in supplying arms to a genocide is just not acceptable in this or the previous century, it's time to bid Greater Israel (2020s crusader Vaterland) goodbye, and send the ringleaders to the ICC.
Subianto's promise was troops only as peace keepers:
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/indonesia-palestine-prabowo-subianto-israel-un-5365771
So?
Subianto's offer seemed different from what Petro was talking about. He wanted the world's armies to "unite to liberate Palestine" which sounded a bit more interventionist than Indonesia's offer of UN-mandated peacekeepers. I wasn't sure the two leaders were talking about the same thing.
But now that I've read more widely, I can see Petro was only calling for peaceful intervention too, so I guess they are similar offers. Petro needs some European countries to match the offer. Although whether Hamas will accept what Trump wants is another thing.
If you were Hamas, do you think you would agree to this takeover agreement?
I wouldn't because it would be the exact same for years upon year until they finally killed all Palestinians.
The world needs to inetervene - now. Satanyahu has told the world he will not stop until the zionist Jews have the whole of Palestine to themselves then the y will move onto the rest of you. Ribes won't work, his ego would take that as a gift, and carry on killing
Spot on Joel. Thank you for this clear articulation of the failure of our spineless gutless hypocrite of a PM.
Prime Minister Albanese's UN address is not a roadmap for his government's future actions, but a strategic communication tool of the highest order. It is the capstone of the "controlled demolition" strategy.
The UN address must also be analyzed through the "Proxy Leader" hypothesis, which posits that the government's primary function is to manage Australia's position within a broader international alliance, executing a shared agenda under the guise of sovereign policy. The speech is a flawless performance of this role.
The rhetoric is perfectly calibrated to reinforce the legitimacy of the "international rules based order," a cornerstone of the Western alliance's strategic posture. The emphasis on investing in "capabilities," "defence," and "diplomacy," deepening engagement with "like-minded countries," and seeking a UN Security Council seat are all actions that strengthen Australia's utility and standing within this alliance structure.
Even the most seemingly sovereign act mentioned—the recognition of the State of Palestine—is consistent with this hypothesis. As established in the previous analysis of the government's foreign policy timelines, this decision was made only after a critical mass of allied nations (such as the UK, France, and Canada) had provided the necessary political cover, allowing Australia to follow an emerging consensus rather than lead it. The act itself provides an immense shield of progressive credibility, allowing the Prime Minister to project an image of moral courage that helps to mask the more pragmatic, alliance-management functions that dictate the majority of his government's foreign and security policy, most notably the unwavering commitment to AUKUS. https://wwsutru.vercel.app/
In other words he's pretty Damn useless and has bent the knee to rogue states leaving Australia without a leader with a spine.
Excellent article, Joel.
I guess without strength of character it is relatively easy to be seduced by pomp and pageantry and indulge in narcissistic behaviour.
We may have been a lucky country once but we continue to be led in the main by mediocre politicians distinguished by their vacuity.
Australia’s belief in its own exceptionalism is now an observable mythology. Albanese and his neoliberal-infused gang of status quo dinosaurs clearly haven’t seen the writing on the wall yet. At some point he will need to confront a very different vibe!
👀💣