Australia the ‘good international citizen’? The limits of a traditional middle power

ABSTRACT

Australia is often described as a ‘good international citizen’ (GIC), which is intertwined to its status of ‘quintessential’ middle power. However, a number of elements might undermine both notions. This research reviews the concept of GIC and contributes to this niche of IR theory by providing a dedicated definitional framework, which consists of: i) the respect of the international law; ii) multilateralism; iii) the pursuing of humanitarian and idealist objectives; iv) an active support for the rules-based order; and v) a congruous identity matched by consistent domestic policies. After assessing the country’s foreign and domestic policies against this, it finds that Australia has damaged its GIC credentials due to a number of reasons, including: the hard-line policies against seaborne asylum seekers; the participation in missions that are not sanctioned by the UN; the transformation of its global multilateralism into a selective regionalism; the budget cuts to foreign aid; a controversial attitude towards climate change mitigation; and a preference for the US-led global order over a rules-based international society. Far from criticising the country’s foreign policy in its entirety, it argues that in the 21st century Australia behaves as a ‘neutral international citizen’, and a traditional but not ‘quintessential’ middle power.

KEYWORDS:

• Australian foreign policy
• good international citizen
• middle power
• international law
• multilateralism

Acknowledgement

The author wishes to thank the journal’s editors, the anonymous reviewers, and Thomas Wilkins for their helpful comments on this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Dr Gabriele Abbondanza is a Visiting Fellow and Sessional Lecturer at the Department of Government and International Relations, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney. His research interests include Australian and Italian foreign and security policy, national power, and regional, middle, and great power theory. He is co-editor, with Thomas Wilkins, of Awkward Powers: Escaping Traditional Great and Middle Power Theory (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021).

Notes

1 Evans’ (1989a, 1989b) description of enlightened self-interest was framed in terms of reputation and ‘national self-respect’. Distanced from the idea of being ‘the foreign policy equivalent of boy scout good deeds’, it was rooted in the need to address human rights, respect the international law and UN values, maintain a credible foreign aid program, and address climate change as well as refugee care and resettlement. Distinct from a realist view of national interest, it was conceived as ‘an expression of idealistic pragmatism’ in an interdependent world.

2 The BLI’s variables are housing, income, jobs, community, education, environment, civic engagement, health, life satisfaction, safety, and work-life balance.

3 The CDI’s main parameters are aid, climate, finance, migration, security, technology, and trade.