NATO FRACTURES
Leaders of Japan, South Korea and Australia will not attend NATO summit in The Hague. Albanese and Wong Worried, Albanese 2003 speech on Iraq.
Japanese leader joins regional allies in skipping NATO summit
By Yoshifumi Takemoto (Reuters)
TOKYO/WASHINGTON, June 23 (Reuters) - Japan said on Monday its Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has cancelled plans to attend this week's NATO summit, joining other Indo-Pacific countries in saying that their leaders will not attend and raising questions about future regional cooperation.
Japan's foreign ministry announced the scrapping of Ishiba's June 24-26 trip just three days after announcing he would attend the meeting in The Hague to "reaffirm with NATO allies and others the recognition that the security of Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific is inseparable."
The decision came after U.S. President Donald Trump joined Israel's air war against Iran and mooted the possibility of the Tehran government being toppled.
The Japanese ministry said "various circumstances" led to the cancellation. The U.S. State Department said it had no comment on the cancellations and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Japan's Fuji Television said Ishiba was pulling out because a planned meeting between NATO and the group of four Indo-Pacific nations (IP4) was not likely to take place, and because a meeting with Trump was also unlikely.
South Korea and Australia, which along with Japan and New Zealand are key U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific and make up the IP4, have also said their leaders would not attend. Trump had wanted to hold a summit with the IP4, a source told Reuters previously.
Japan said Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya will travel to the Netherlands to attend NATO-related functions and hold bilateral meetings.
Little Benefit
Japan's leader has attended every NATO summit since 2022, when it was first invited to participate following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Former President Joe Biden pushed European allies to pay more attention to the threats in the Indo-Pacific, particularly from China, and for Indo-Pacific countries to get involved with Ukraine, but the Trump administration has encouraged regional allies to focus on their own security.
Christopher Johnstone, a former Biden White House official now with Asia Group strategic consultancy, said the absence of the Australian, Japanese and South Korean leaders signalled, at least for now, a symbolic breaking of the connection between security in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.
"Although it appears that the proximate cause of Ishiba’s withdrawal was his inability to secure a meeting with President Trump, it’s also probably the case that all three leaders see little benefit to joining a meeting that will feature intensified U.S. pressure on allies to increase defense spending," he said.
Last week the Financial Times said Japan had canceled an annual high-level meeting the United States after it asked Tokyo to boost defense spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product, higher than an earlier request of 3%.
At NATO this week, Trump is expected to press his demand that all European allies boost defense spending to 5% of GDP. The Nikkei reported on Saturday that the Republican president was demanding the same level from Asian allies, including Japan.
The FT said the higher spending demand was made in recent weeks by Elbridge Colby, the third-most senior Pentagon official, who has also recently upset Australia, another key U.S. ally in the Indo-Pacific, by launching a review of a massive project to provide it with nuclear-powered submarines.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-prime-minister-ishiba-skip-nato-summit-source-says-2025-06-23/
View from the Hill: Albanese supports US bombing, reluctantly
By Michelle Grattan (The Conversation)
When Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong went out on Monday to back the United States attack on Iran, it was obvious their support was through gritted teeth.
Albanese told their joint news conference: “The world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. And we support action to prevent that. That is what this is.
"The US action was directed at specific sites central to Iran’s nuclear program. We don’t want escalation and a full-scale war. We continue to call for dialogue and for diplomacy. As I’ve said for many days now, we are deeply concerned about any escalation in the region and we want to see diplomacy, dialogue and de-escalation.”
At the news conference and in Wong’s media round beforehand, one big question was, why did they take so long to appear?
The attack is a seismic event in the Middle East conflict. Yet on Sunday the government only put out a tepid statement attributed to a “spokesperson”, which did not endorse the American action.
This suggests the prime minister and foreign minister are, at the very least, uncomfortable with the action.
It is further evidence of the current distance between the Australian government and the Trump administration. Whether it affects Albanese’s attempt to get the now much-sought after bilateral remains to be seen.
At every stage of the Middle East conflict, as the situation has progressively escalated, the Australian government has been urging restraint and/ or de-escalation.
Albanese is caught between not wanting to repudiate the Americans, the conflicting pressures of domestic lobbies, and his Labor constituency.
Over the years, Albanese has moved to the political centre. But he hasn’t taken down from his website a strong speech he made in 2003 opposing the Iraq war (see below).
“In the short term, the conflict that is now clearly about to start can only make things worse, perhaps much worse,” Albanese told parliament then. “Iraq does not represent a threat to Australia. We are, with this [Howard government] decision, supporting a pre-emptive strike, which changes forever the way that international politics works.”
In that war and this war, some of the same issues are at play. Iraq was thought to have weapons of mass destruction – later it was found it did not. Iran has long been on the path to developing nuclear weapons, but there are varying intelligence assessments of how much progress it has made.
One can’t help thinking Albanese probably has the same sort of reservations about the Iran strike that he did about the Iraq war.
For Australia’s there is one big difference: there is no thought of involving Australian defence forces, as happened in Iraq.
Former Labor senator Doug Cameron, in parliament from 2008 to 2019 and a firebrand of the left, on Monday recalled how then opposition leader Simon Crean opposed Australia’s support for and participation in the Iraq war. (Crean said, “Never allow our foreign policy to be determined by another nation. Never commit to unnecessary war when peace is possible.”)
Cameron, now a national patron of Labor Against War, issued several tweets condemning the government’s stand, and saying “time for Labor backbenchers to speak up”.
But the Labor backbench is far from what it once was. Hardly anyone speaks up to challenge anything. As for the left, it is a shadow of its old feisty self.
“What has happened to the left?” Cameron asks. “To be honest I don’t understand it,” he admits to The Conversation.
Cameron recalls how the left – and indeed the wider caucus – was up in arms when Bob Hawke in the mid-1980s wanted Australia to facilitate the Americans’ testing of MX missiles that would splash down in the Tasman Sea. Hawke had to back down.
He wonders if it’s a matter of not wanting to contradict a “left prime minister, and a left foreign minister”. “Personal support and party solidarity have come before common sense.”
There are many causes of the demise of the ALP left, as Cameron knew it. They include the loss of what power Labor’s rank-and-file once had, the splintering of the left more broadly to minor parties notably the Greens, and the decline of ideology within Labor (and generally). There is no current “Doug Cameron”-equivalent in the caucus. The factions no longer fight over ideas – they preside over spoils.
Those who contest the thesis of the decline of the left argue the contemporary Labor left has been shaping the Albanese government’s agenda on key issues from within, for example on industrial relations, industry policy, climate policy, and gender issues.
If the Albanese of 2003 could have foreseen what the caucus left of 2025 would be like, he’d have been surprised, and possibly shocked. As it is, he’s pretty pleased the left is so quietly behaved.
https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-supports-us-bombing-reluctantly-258967
Albanese rejects suggestions of flat-footed response to Iran crisis, saying Trump has not forgotten Australia
Meeting with US president ‘will take place at a time that is convenient for both of us’, PM says
By Tom McIlroy (The Guardian)
Anthony Albanese has rejected suggestions Labor was flat-footed in its response to US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, or Australia was being forgotten by Donald Trump, and says his government wants a nascent ceasefire between Israel and Iran to be fully implemented.
Hours after the US president claimed a permanent ceasefire had been agreed to end the war in the Middle East on Tuesday morning Australian time, Israel continued to strike Iran with bombs, putting an immediate pause in hostilities in doubt.
“What we want to see is the ceasefire announced by President Trump implemented,” Albanese told Sky News on Tuesday afternoon. “We do want to see dialogue and diplomacy replace any escalation.”
Albanese and the foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, spoke to the media in Canberra on Monday morning, a full day after Trump ordered damaging strikes on Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Labor has been criticised for a lacklustre response to the crisis, and Albanese would not say whether Washington had given Canberra any prior notice of the military action.
Overnight Iran launched new strikes against a US military base in Qatar, though US troops had pulled out before the bombing amid expectations of retaliation from Tehran.
Asked on Tuesday if his government had been flat-footed in its response, Albanese said his was a “considered, orderly government”.
“We were very clear for some period of time that Iran could not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” he said. “We called for Iran to come to the table to ensure that the United States wouldn’t have to take the action that they did.”
He said Australia was not being forgotten by the Trump administration, days after his first face-to-face meeting with the president was abruptly cancelled at the G7 summit in Canada.
“We have agreed that we will have a meeting and that will take place at a time that is convenient for both of us. That will be a good thing.”
The defence minister, Richard Marles, looks likely to represent Australia at key meeting on the sidelines of this week’s Nato summit in the Netherlands, after Albanese opted not to attend.
The meeting of the “IP4” group – which includes the Indo-Pacific nations Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea – is expected to include talks about Trump’s demands that countries including Australia increase defence spending to 3.5% of GDP.
But it is expected to be a ministerial- or officials-level discussion, since the prime minister and the leaders of South Korea and Japan will not be in The Hague for the talks. New Zealand’s prime minister, Christopher Luxon, has travelled to the summit.
Albanese last week said he had considered travelling for talks with Trump and European leaders but government sources said the trip would only take place if a meeting with Trump could be confirmed.
On Tuesday Albanese said two of the other IP4 leaders not being present “was a part of the decision-making process” on the last-minute trip.
The opposition leader, Sussan Ley, and the acting shadow foreign minister, Andrew Hastie, welcomed the potential Iran-Israel ceasefire.
“Any step that deescalates tensions, and prevents a wider regional conflict is a moment to be recognised,” they said. “A ceasefire is a vital step to prevent further suffering and to give space for diplomacy and stability to return.”
The pair urged Albanese to travel to the Nato talks to meet Trump.
A meeting between Albanese and Trump could take place in September, with Albanese expected to travel to the US for the UN general assembly.
Jim Chalmers confirmed Tuesday afternoon that he would speak to his American counterpart, US treasury secretary Scott Bessent, early on Wednesday. The impact of the Iran-Israel war is expected to be on the agenda, along with tariffs.
The treasurer confirmed the call amid strained relations between the two traditional allies as a result of Trump’s April decision to slap duties of at least 10% on imports from all countries, including Australia.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/24/anthony-albanese-defends-response-to-us-strikes-on-iran-richard-marles-heads-for-nato-meeting
Anthony Albanese Speech on IRAQ
20 March 2003
Mr ALBANESE - I wish to add my voice to those who oppose this unjust war. This morning the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, said:
Whatever our differing views on this complex issue, we must all feel that this is a sad day for the United Nations and the international community.
I know that millions of people around the world share this sense of disappointment, and are deeply alarmed by the prospect of imminent war.
.........
... in the short term, the conflict that is now clearly about to start can only make things worsen, perhaps much worse.
I am sure all members of this Council will agree that we must do everything we can to mitigate this imminent disaster, which could easily lead to epidemics and starvation.
When the Prime Minister spoke in Denpasar at the memorial service for the victims of the Bali bombing, I think he represented this country well. He spoke of the tremendous, easygoing, adventurous spirit of young Australians travelling the world, being open to other cultures and meeting everyone as friends and of how he was sure that that would continue. But how will the rest of the world view Australian travellers now? Will they see us as representatives of an egalitarian people from a diverse and tolerant society or will they see us as warmongers?
In World War I, Australia fought as part of the British Empire “that was who we were” but the experience at Gallipoli helped forge our own separate national identity. In World War II, we fought a just war against fascism. In Korea, we were part of a force with UN backing against aggression. In Vietnam, the coalition government of the day lied to the Australian people by telling this parliament that South Vietnam had requested our assistance. In the first Gulf War, we were part of a UN force, as we were in East Timor. There is no UN mandate here. We are not bringing peace; we are invading a sovereign country and making war. This is an unjust war without UN backing.
The comments of the Prime Minister and those in the government in trying to justify our involvement have been nothing short of disgraceful. We have heard a lot about the evils of Saddam Hussein. There is no doubt that it is correct that he is an evil tyrant who has oppressed his own people. But, in the Gaza Strip this week, six Palestinians in a refugee camp were killed by the Israeli army, including a toddler shot in the head. What is the government saying about that? What is our government saying about the death of an American peace activist ”23-year-old Rachel Corrie” crushed by an Israeli army bulldozer? Ariel Sharon has already ruled out any so-called `roadmap for Middle East peace' proposed by the Americans. He has declared that Israel will continue its occupation of Palestine in defiance of UN resolutions. What is the government saying about that?
Our government is about to redefine us in the eyes of the world as willing backers of US militarism. We had three nations meet in the Azores: the United States, the United Kingdom and Spain. We were not even invited to the meeting which determined that there would be war! The Prime Minister took a phone call and immediately said yes to President Bush, because we all know that that decision was made many months ago, before the predeployment of troops. We were not even at the meeting where the decision was made, and yet one of the nations which was at the meeting ”Spain” is not sending troops to this war. Just three nations are sending troops: the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. What does that say about the sort of nation that we are? We are a multicultural nation, and yet here we are sending a message, particularly to the Islamic world, that we are a part of the old, white, Anglo-Christian order and we have the President of the United States who invokes God in defending his government's actions. I say that Islamic fundamentalism is a danger and a threat, but I also say that Christian fundamentalism is a danger and a threat. We should not be revisiting the Crusades, because that is how this war is being perceived by the international community.
We have heard a lot of criticism of France and its statement that it might use its veto, and yet it indicated very clearly that, if we were to wait just one month, it would take the veto off the table. But let us have a look at the record of vetoes. The United States has used the veto 76 times, 35 of them on resolutions on Israel. During the 1980s, the United Nations was concerned with Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons provided by US corporations with the backing and sanction of the US government. On 21 March 1986 the Security Council President, speaking on behalf of the Security Council, stated that the council members were:
... profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by the Iraqi forces against Iranian troops ... [and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons.
The United States voted against the issuing of this statement. What hypocrisy! The United States was then supporting Iraq against Iran, because it knew that Iraq, whatever the criticisms of Saddam Hussein was, and remains, a secular nation. It has no connections with al-Qaeda or with Islamic fundamentalism. Indeed, Osama bin Laden will be very happy with the decision of the so-called coalition of the willing to go to war.
Iraq does not represent a threat to Australia. We are, with this decision, supporting a pre-emptive strike, which changes forever the way that international politics works. The United Nations has been extremely damaged, not by its own actions but by the actions of the United States, the UK and Australia. There are alternatives to war. The UN weapons inspectors were doing their job, and we should have allowed them to finish that job. The great contradiction was pointed out by Robin Cook, in his courageous speech, when he said:
Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
That contradiction is very stark, as is the contradiction when you open up the Daily Telegraph of last week and see `the mother of all bombs'. Here we are talking about weapons of mass destruction, but the Western powers are proudly saying, `We've got a bomb which is the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever produced.' Do you think that is not going to kill civilians? This is an outrage, and we should not be a part of it.
In conclusion, the argument that we have on this side is very much with the government's decision; it is not with our forces in the Australian Defence Force. We hope that each and every one of them is able to return safely to Australia. But it is our argument that they should not be there. The best way to keep those forces safe is for them to return as soon as possible. We do need regime change in some places of the world, it would certainly be a good thing in Iraq but it should be brought about peacefully, just as we should bring about a peaceful regime change against this warmongering government.