Anthony Albanese was tight-lipped on Monday when asked how Australia might vote in the looming debate on giving Palestine full member status of the United Nations.
It’s not surprising that he would be treading carefully here: the last time an Australian government considered the status that should be afforded to Palestine in the UN system, it triggered an almighty cabinet and backbench revolt.
Julia Gillard had wanted, in 2012, to actively vote against upgrading Palestine’s status to be on equal footing to the Vatican, as a “non-member permanent observer state”. Just two cabinet ministers – Bill Shorten and Stephen Conroy – backed the then prime minister’s position; most of the speakers disagreed.
Gillard initially stuck to what she viewed as a judgment call for the leader. The next day, however, clear warnings of an imminent defeat at a caucus meeting prompted Gillard to change tack and settle for a compromise “abstain” position.
Now, Australia faces another such choice. In some respects, it may be even more politically contentious this time, coinciding with inflamed tensions over the war in Gaza and signs of an imminent Israeli military ground invasion of Rafah.
At least internally within the Australian government, however, the issue may not be so difficult to manage – compared with 2012 – because this time Albanese isn’t contending with protracted leadership tensions in the background.
In Canberra on Monday, Albanese was quizzed on whether his government was prepared to support the idea of upgrading Palestine’s status to full UN member state when the general assembly holds a vote currently scheduled for Friday 10 May.
“Well, you’re pre-empting a bit there, mate,” Albanese said in response to questions from Guardian Australia’s Paul Karp.
“We’ll address issues when we address them, and we’ll announce them when we’ve made decisions, when we’ve seen the texts of any resolutions – if you’ve got it, I’d be happy to see it.”
The prime minister reiterated the government’s overarching position to support a two-state solution that enabled Israel “to continue to exist within secure borders, but the right of Palestinians to have justice as well, to have self-determination and also to be able to live in security, peace and prosperity”.
Incidentally, Albanese could have read Guardian Australia’s story last Friday revealing the contours of the proposed draft resolution. The text is already being intensely debated among diplomats in New York.
The Palestinian-backed draft resolution says the general assembly “determines that the State of Palestine is, in its judgment, a peace-loving State within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter, is able and willing to carry out the obligations of the Charter, and should therefore be admitted to membership in the United Nations”.
At present, diplomats representing the Palestinian Authority (the Fatah-dominated rival to Hamas) can participate in all UN proceedings but do not have voting rights.
UN rules require membership to be backed by both the security council and the wider general assembly. That is why the new resolution laments that the US used its veto to scuttle the membership proposal backed by 12 others in the 15-member security council last month, including US allies South Korea, Japan and France. The UK and Switzerland abstained.
According to the draft text, the general assembly should recommend that the UN security council “reconsider the matter favourably” – the part of the resolution that basically means this is a symbolic vote calling for a rethink.
Contentiously, however, the draft resolution would see the general assembly “confer upon the State of Palestine the rights and privileges necessary to ensure its full and effective participation” in the UN general assembly “on equal footing with member states”.
Western diplomats have questioned the inclusion of the clause, raising concerns about potential inconsistencies with the UN charter. This is because those rights appear to take effect regardless of whether the security council revisits the membership issue.
The conventional wisdom is that the more broadly worded the question is, the more difficult it will be to win support from countries such as Australia that have yet to recognise Palestinian statehood but still want to signal political support for a two-state solution.
Australia may have some political cover from US allies such as South Korea, which have made clear that they see voting for UN member status as a gesture to try to kickstart negotiations and is not the same as bilaterally recognising Palestine as a state.
The argument goes that peace won’t be possible unless Palestinians are given hope that something better is around the corner. Many countries – including the UK and some EU members – are talking about the need to do something different to crystallise “irreversible” progress towards a two-state solution, contrary to Peter Dutton’s claims that Penny Wong’s speech floating the issue last month was merely a thought bubble intended to serve domestic political purposes.
But the US and Israel will argue that granting UN member status while Hamas remains in a position of power in Gaza is ill-timed and a “reward for terrorism”. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has vowed not to compromise “on full Israeli security control of all territory west of the Jordan River”, an indication he has no intention of enabling a sovereign Palestinian state.
The Albanese government will soon have to decide where it lands. The shape of the final text and the view of allies will likely be key factors in the decision. Like in 2012, however, it will ultimately involve a prime ministerial judgment call.
