Middle power nonsense: Australia, Canada and capitulating to the Iran War

In his January speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney gave the impression of a banker turned soothsayer, a Daniel coming to judgment. Here was a born-again man of international relations who would rally the middle powers (from the middle) and try to assert influence and power in a way deemed fit for this rule-torn world.

So far, the middling powers have not gotten far. In fact, they have shown themselves despicably fawning and incapable of taking a stance on the legality of the US and Israeli strikes on Iran. Even worse, acts of predation and villainy in breach of the United Nations Charter have received the seal of approval. Suggestions that they can also do things separately from the United States in some fictional coalition of law-abiding states are risible. It's rather difficult to talk about sound and sober independence when your real estate is essentially part of a foreign imperium.

During his official visit to Australia earlier this month, Carney did little to address this corrupting blight on a program of independence that is compromised before it begins. He expressed admiration for the role played by Canada and Australia in developing a structure of international order after the Second World War without conceding that they had been complicit in undermining it. Cowardice can never be officially accepted as policy, though governments do their best in behaving along such lines.

His colleague and host, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, dared mention Iran in his welcoming address, not as a target and victim of the crime against peace – a grave offence in international law – but as a unilateral aggressor in firing missiles, in retaliation, against various countries either friendly or directly allied to the US with American military bases. These attacks had been "indiscriminate", adding to the "orchestrated antisemitic attacks on a synagogue and a small business here in Australia in 2024." (Evidence of Iranian involvement in those events has been skimpy at best.) And, as the Australian PM said in a joint press conference with Carney, "the possibility of Iran getting a nuclear weapon [was to be] removed once and for all", a remark both disingenuous and politically illiterate.

Refusing to point any finger at the outlawry of Israel and the US, Albanese basked in middle power smugness. "Australia and Canada must seek and create new ways to stand with – and for – each other." Both countries worked together as a "positive choice – not a necessity." Peace, security and prosperity should not be seen as "the preserve of the great powers alone. They are our common cause – and our collective responsibility."

The Australian opposition leader, Angus Taylor, proved sinister in his interpretation of the Davos speech as effectively warranting a continued trashing of the rules-based order precisely because the rules were a sham front to begin with. But instead of pointing out the brigands responsible for repudiating that order, Taylor swanned off with mentioning "autocratic regimes that behave with impunity". (Now who could he have been referring to?)

In his address to Australia's parliamentarians, Carney spoke of building something more positive from the "rupture" in the international order. "In an era of rupture in the global order, middle powers like ours must step up. By deepening our partnership, Canada and Australia can lead in creating resilient economies, secure supply chains, and a safer world for our citizens." It was up to middle powers to "help write the new rules that will determine our security and prosperity" rather than leaving things to the "hegemons". Multilateralism had not been abandoned so much as evolving.

These vague views about middle power heft as strategic gold dust are far from convincing. They have nothing of the resonance of the non-aligned movement born at Bandung in April 1955 when twenty-nine governments from Asia and Africa sought a third way that would involve no participation from member states in "collective defence agreements" favourable to the US or the Soviet Union. Neither Carney nor Albanese have even mentioned that salutary precedent. Given the security, military and economic ties shared by Australia and Canada with the United States, a third way of noble virtue and high principle is hardly tenable. The lamentably subservient conduct of both governments to the illegal predations of Washington against Iran are a case in point. When international law needed to be defended, it was smeared and distorted.

As if to illustrate the inability of middle powers to sever the yanking chain of superpower submission, it subsequently emerged that three Australian personnel were on board the US attack submarine responsible for the deaths of 87 sailors in the strike on the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena off the coast of Sri Lanka. Absurdly, Albanese asserted that Australian personnel did not participate "in any offensive action against Iran" despite being part of a crew responsible for the lethal exercise. There were "long-standing third-country arrangements that have been in place for long periods of time, and what they do is ensure that Australian Defence personnel, where there are embedded in third countries' defence assets, they act in accordance with Australian law, Australian policy, and that is, of course, taking place across the board." Middle power nonsense, at its best.