On Palestine, history shows the way: a comparison of Labor Foreign Policies

Jul 29, 2024
1948 Holden 48-215 with Australian Prime Minister J.B. Chifley.

In handling the Israel-Palestine problem, the Albanese Government could learn much from how the Chifley Government navigated the Netherlands’ dispute with the Indonesian Republic in the 1940s.

Chifley and Indonesia

Nearly 80 years ago, on 17 August 1945, Sukarno and Mohammed Hatta, President and Vice-President of the Indonesian Republic, declared Indonesia’s independence from the Netherlands.

At the time, Australian military forces were responsible for the surrender of the Japanese in the eastern part of the Netherlands East Indies (NEI). Ben Chifley’s Labor Government wanted first-hand reports on political developments in other parts of the NEI. Accordingly, it sent an envoy, William McMahon Ball, to report about Java where British military forces were paving the way for restoration of Dutch colonial administration. Ball made sure to introduce himself to the leaders of the Indonesian nationalist movement.

Anxious not to be involved in an insurgency against the former colonial rulers, the British persuaded the Dutch to conclude a political agreement whereby the Indonesian Republic based largely in Java and Sumatra would be one of three states in a federal Indonesia under the Dutch Crown.

In 1947 the agreement broke down when the Dutch used military force against the Indonesian Republic in what it called a ‘police action’. By this time, key unions in Australia were boycotting the loading and unloading ships that could help restoration of Dutch rule.

At this point, Chifley’s Government took the bold initiative of referring the conflict in Indonesia to the United Nations Security Council. Australia was serving at the time as an elected temporary member on the council. Although this was not a conflict between nation states and arguably beyond the jurisdiction of the Security Council, Australian diplomats persuaded other members of the council to intervene to stop the bloodshed.

The Security Council, reflecting rare Soviet-American agreement during the Cold War, ordered a cease-fire. Reluctant to arbitrate between the two sides, as Australia’s External Affairs minister H.V. Evatt was recommending, the Security Council agreed to set up a ‘committee of good offices’. This was a body offering its ‘good offices’ to the Dutch and the Indonesian Republic to help them reach an enduring political settlement. The Indonesian Republic elected Australia as its representative on the committee.

The Australian-instigated involvement of the United Nations, and thereby the United States, in this political process proved essential in Indonesia’s winning independence from the Netherlands. The Dutch tried first to swamp the Republic in an Indonesian federation consisting of as many as fifteen mostly Dutch-influenced states and territories. Then, at the end of 1948, they launched a second ‘police action’ that resulted in the capture and imprisonment of most of the Indonesian Republic’s civilian leadership.

Australia was then at the forefront of international criticism of the Netherlands in the United Nations. The Security Council responded by strengthening the powers of the committee of good offices, now renamed the UN Commission for Indonesia. Australia also sent its top diplomat, John Burton, to attend a regional conference in New Delhi consisting of Asian and Middle Eastern states supporting the Indonesian Republic. UN and regional pressure were supplemented by American economic threats to withdraw Marshall Aid from the Netherlands in protest at the Dutch use of force. The Netherlands ultimately bowed to pressure and in 1949 transferred sovereignty to a federal Indonesia in which the Republic was the strongest force.

A Labor Government led by Chifley thus played a crucial part in Indonesia’s struggle for independence, recognising the Republic de facto in 1947 and de jure in 1949. Its diplomacy in favour of an untested, nationalist and substantially Muslim movement against the interests of a white European ally had attracted political opposition at home. Moreover, Australia’s opposition to the Netherlands had often irritated its great power allies.

Albanese and Palestine

After the British were forced to abandon their mandate in Palestine in the 1940s, Evatt was involved in devising a plan in the UN General Assembly for a two-state solution in Palestine. The plan envisaged creating independent Jewish and Arab states linked economically and a Special International Regime in Jerusalem. The partition plan triggered the 1948 war that resulted in establishment of the state of Israel but no counterpart Palestinian state. Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan the West Bank.

As a result of its stunning military success against adversary Arab states in the 1967 ‘Six Day War’, Israel began military occupation of the Palestinian territories, the West Bank and Gaza. The Security Council’s Resolution 242 of 1967 called for withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the war and linked this call with another for the end of belligerency between Israel and neighbouring Arab states.

Following the Oslo Accords from 1993-1995 that provided a framework for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) relocated from Tunisia to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, establishing the Palestinian National Authority. In 1988 the Palestine Liberation Organisation had claimed sovereignty over internationally recognised Palestinian territories. 23 years later, the Palestinian Authority tried but failed to gain UN membership as a fully sovereign state encompassing the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In 2012 Palestinian representation was, however, upgraded to non-member observer state and its mission title was changed to ‘State of Palestine’.

As of June 2024, the State of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign state by 145 out of 193 member states of the United Nations. Its limited status remains largely due to the permanent veto power of the United States on the Security Council being used to block Palestine’s full UN membership.

Australia is among the UN states aligning with the United States in not recognising Palestine. By 2023, however, the platform of the Australian Labor Party was affirming a commitment to support ‘the recognition and right of Israel and Palestine to exist as two states within secure and recognised borders’.

Despite this commitment, the Albanese Government has not moved to recognise the State of Palestine. Its conditions for doing so include that ‘recognition will advance the cause of peace and progress towards a two-state solution’. The conditions also require a ‘reformed Palestinian governing authority that is committed to peace, that disavows violence and is ready to engage in a meaningful political process’ (Documents Reveal why Australia Voted Yes in Key UN Motion on Palestinian membership, Guardian, 11 July 2024).

Recently, however, the Israeli Knesset has voted against a two-state solution as an ‘existential danger’ to Israel. It is hard to see how the Government’s requirements could be satisfied in the face of such opposition. Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice has ordered Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories ‘as rapidly as possible’ and to make reparations for ‘internationally wrongful acts’ leaving Australia increasingly out of step with international and regional opinion.

The Albanese Government could have joined with Ireland, Spain and Norway in recognising Palestine in May 2024. This would have avoided the loss of the Western Australian Labor Senator Fatima Payman, the continuing alienation of Australians of Arab background and the disappointment of neighbours such as Indonesia and Malaysia, who were some of the first countries to recognise Palestine and have consistently urged Australia to do so.

The example of the 1940s illustrates how an earlier Labor Government was able to play an important role in helping to settle the dispute between the Netherlands and Indonesia, a country in which Islam remains the largest religion. In doing so, the Chifley Government followed a bold policy that attracted friends in the region despite at times being out of step with great power allies and attracting political criticism at home.

Share and Enjoy !