The international rules-based order faces a crisis of credibility, raising an uncomfortable question for Australia: does the Albanese government genuinely believe in international law, or only when defending it doesn’t have any consequences?
The controversy surrounding Navi Pillay, the Nobel Peace Prize and Israel’s conduct in Gaza exposes a deeper struggle over justice, accountability and political power. Attacks on Pillay following her investigation of allegations of genocide and war crimes reflect a familiar strategy: when evidence becomes difficult to confront, discredit those responsible for examining it. The implications extend beyond Gaza to the selective application of international law by Western governments.
Donald Trump’s confrontation with the International Criminal Court represents a dangerous escalation. US sanctions targeting ICC officials and operations demonstrate how financial power can undermine institutions established to investigate serious international crimes. Neither the United States nor Israel belongs to the ICC, yet Washington has an extraordinary capacity to obstruct its operations. The message is clear: accountability is acceptable, provided it doesn’t reach the ones who are powerful enough to resist it.
For Australia, this is a critical issue. Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong repeatedly champion international law and multilateralism, yet become very cautious when those principles need to be applied against the US or Israel. Australia’s delayed participation in international opposition to US sanctions against the ICC also raises questions about the independence of Australian foreign policy and whether diplomatic considerations are overriding these principles.
Other American allies, including Canada and European governments, have demonstrated that challenging Washington doesn’t mean abandoning relationships but Australia’s reluctance suggests a political culture increasingly confusing loyalty with national interest.
The question isn’t whether Australia should abandon its American alliance, but whether that relationship has become so dominant that successive governments struggle to articulate an independent national interest. Is Australia an independent middle power with principles of its own, or just a pliant supporter of American power, regardless of how that power is exercised?
