Foreign Minister Penny Wong has said she wants Australia to be an active, “architect” middle power – a stabilizer, mediator, and constructive partner in the Indo-Pacific.
For anyone concerned about peace in Australia’s neighborhood, that is good to hear, because a number of factors are conspiring to make future conflict more likely: the return of big power politics, the erosion of long-accepted international norms, marginalization of competent multilateral organizations (such as the United Nations) from peace processes, and the growing complexity of conflicts themselves.
Such times call for trusted middle powers to play a sensible good offices role. Australia, which is running for the U.N. Security Council in 2029-30, would be a welcome addition at the international mediators’ table, a rarefied though expanding group of states that insert themselves between conflict protagonists with a view to crafting diplomatic solutions. Apart from the obvious lifesaving benefits of skillful mediation, the diplomatic kudos Australia earns from positioning itself this way would certainly enhance its standing as a prospective Security Council member.
Australia has already earned the requisite trust for such a role and, through clever diplomacy, built a privileged global reputation. This includes a proud peacemaking record in its region, leading the 1999 peacekeeping intervention in East Timor, the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, mediating between factions in Bougainville in partnership with New Zealand and the U.N., and earlier playing a pivotal role in the Cambodian peace agreement.
More recently, Wong spearheaded the Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel, a U.N. initiative endorsed by over 100 states to protect aid workers in conflict zones. Australia’s history of proactive engagement on humanitarian issues grants it the stature of a constructive and principled actor punching above its weight.
Recent global convulsions signal an urgent need for exactly these types of players. In light of Russia’s war in Ukraine, a proliferation of conflict elsewhere (nowadays there is more than at any point since World War II), and waning U.S. interest in championing multilateral norms, Wong’s statements suggest that Australia could do more to promote international peace. Among others she has promised to “use our [U.N. Security Council] candidacy to champion what we think matters most, like conflict prevention, peacebuilding, the protection of civilians,” and asked parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade to explore how Australia’s international development program can prevent conflict.
As great power rivalry intensifies, small states in the region are vulnerable. Australia, which enjoys good relations with most states, therefore has a special responsibility to help devise “diplomatic guardrails” to prevent geopolitical competition escalating into conflict in the region. Moreover, it already has the know-how and the global standing to craft a prominent role as a needed mediator for the times.
That will involve promoting a model in the Indo-Pacific that reaffirms sovereignty, addresses environmental risks, strengthens local economies, and withstands coercion from big powers. It is all easier done if peace, open trade, and cooperation can be preserved in the Indo-Pacific, which has been a growth engine for both Australia and the world.
Others are also trying to take up the mantle of regional peacemaker: Japan is developing a mediation unit within its foreign ministry, while China recently launched the International Organization for Mediation in Hong Kong. A little further away, several Gulf states have long positioned themselves as niche mediators.
However, few states can boast Australia’s unique mix of credentials: internal diversity and cohesion, multilateral leadership, enviable peacemaking record, true middle power status, and geographic “separateness” from most hot conflicts, which can allay perceptions of bias.
As part of the parliamentary committee’s inquiry into preventing conflict, Australia should therefore consider reasserting itself as a viable mediator. This would be a tremendous contribution to preserving the rules-based system that has allowed Australia to thrive; and an apt response to growing calls, including famously from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, for middle powers to rally to save a challenged international framework for peace and prosperity.
Both Carney and Wong recognize the importance of state-to-state collaboration. At the Peace Dividend Initiative, we would welcome a similar acknowledgement of the utility of collaborating with the private sector and non-governmental organizations, which can provide meaningful niche support for promoting dialogue and economic opportunity, especially in fragile countries.
Australia’s security is reinforced by a stable Indo-Pacific, and Australia has time and again demonstrated the wherewithal to contribute in an outsized way to that stability. In turbulent times, this is best achieved by supporting the near neighborhood to build resilience for the shocks ahead. In that regard, Australia can help itself and its region by burnishing its impressive diplomatic toolkit, including its natural credentials as a trusted international mediator.
