Australia’s recent decision to officially recognize Palestine marks a significant shift in its foreign policy, aligning it more closely with many Southeast Asian neighbors while diverging from its Pacific counterparts. This welcomed move is in line with growing recognition of Palestinian statehood by Asian countries. By contrast, Pacific nations usually have been the most reliable friends of the United States and Israel.
The recognition of Palestine has long been an incredibly controversial topic within global politics. Countries have responded in different ways, depending on their own historical and geopolitical circumstances. Southeast Asian countries, including Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei, have recognized Palestinian statehood since its declaration in 1988. On the other hand, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore demonstrated their support as recently as April of this year but have not made their recognition official. In sharp opposition, several Pacific states have refused to recognize Palestine’s status for fear of reconciling relations with the great Western powers.
Diverging Regional Perspectives
Australia’s recognition of Palestine would find it in good company with its Southeast Asian neighbors who have already blazed a trail towards a more pro-Palestinian position. Malaysia has been one of the most vocal supporters of Palestinian statehood in Southeast Asia. As Dr. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat told me, Malaysia has a deep history of supporting Palestine. Their support is firmly rooted in anti-colonialism and the tenets of human rights.
“There are already some divisions within the bloc regarding Palestine, with countries like Myanmar and Laos being less vocal, while Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines are strong supporters,” – Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat.
Australia’s decision would go a long way to boosting solidarity among ASEAN members. It could damage America’s standing with countries that reject this position or focus on other national priorities. In Dr. Rakhmat’s view, the main importance of the recognition would be to bring together these conflicting nations. It risks straining relations with those who are more in line with the United States and Israel.
For Australia’s Pacific neighbors, Australia’s decision to recognize Palestine could not be more different. In 2023, PNG bolstered its relationship with Israel. It accomplished both by opening an embassy in Jerusalem. This divergence highlights the complexities within regional alliances, particularly as many Pacific nations tend to follow their own foreign policy paths concerning Middle Eastern issues.
Climate Commitments vs. Political Stance
Analysts write that Australia’s climate pledges will need to take priority over its position on Palestine when building goodwill in the Pacific. Dr. Tekiteki posits that Australia’s efforts to address climate change will hold more significance for its Pacific neighbors than its recent political shift regarding Palestine.
“Past UN voting records show that Pacific nations often take their own course on Middle East issues and do not consistently follow the voting patterns of Australia and New Zealand,” – Dr. Tekiteki.
Furthermore, Dr. McDougall agrees that Australia’s approach to regional security and its posture toward China will likely weigh more heavily on Pacific perceptions than its recognition of Palestine. The dynamics of these relationships are crucial as Australia navigates its position amid complex geopolitical tensions in the Asia-Pacific region.
Implications for Future Relations
As Australia seeks to reshape its role in the region and the world, the consequences of acknowledging Palestine are more than just symbolic. It begs the question of how this pivot will affect its relationships in Southeast Asia as a whole. Some analysts argue that Australia’s decision could lead to a more balanced approach in Southeast Asia while potentially alienating Pacific partners who prioritize relationships with Western allies.
Dr. Ainslie emphasizes that many of these Southeast Asian states have been criticized for their ties to groups such as Hamas. This ambiguous relationship makes Australia’s new position even more problematic, as it is likely to invite criticism of Australia’s own human rights practices at home and abroad.
“Calling out potential abuses in another state points to similar internal problems, such as the treatment of the Rohingya refugees fleeing genocide [in Myanmar] and the generally poor treatment of minorities and migrants in these nations,” – Dr. Ainslie.
Dr. Rakhmat warns that while non-interference has historically served these nations well, shifting stances on contentious issues like Palestine could destabilize existing relationships within ASEAN.
