Speech: A former Australian diplomat's perspective on the changing world order

Rotary Club of Booragoon

Western Australia 

28 May 2024

JOHN NA’EM SNOBAR

Thank you to Booragoon Rotary Club President Peter Best, and to John Feary for inviting me to speak here today. 

I wish to  acknowledge the indigenous people of the land on which we gather today, the Beeliar people, who are a subgroup of the Whadjuk dialectical group of the Noongar nation. The country south of the Darbal Yaragin (known now as the Swan River), and Booragoon (known now as the Canning River) was called Beeliar. In 1829 – at the time of colonisation, the most prominent of the people in this country were Midgegooroo and his son Yagan, after whom Yagan Square in now named. 

I was pleased to be invited to speak here, after accompanying Bethlehem Rotary Club President, and Founder of the Palestine Museum of Natural History, Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh last month. I am especially pleased to bring along my friend, and Sub-Deacon of the Melkite Catholic Church, and Chair of the Palestinian Community of Western Autralia, Jason Dammouni. 

By way of a short introduction – my name is John Na’em Snobar. I am a lawyer, and former Australian diplomat, who served in Egypt and Pakistan, until I left the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) in October 2023. Through no fault or doing of my own, I am a Palestinian Christian, whose experiences and perspectives on the world are also shaped by having spent time with my grandfather, Bishop Faik Ibrahim Haddad, who was the first Palestinian Bishop of Jerusalem in the Anglican Church. 

This is my first public engagement since I left DFAT in October last year, following the tragic events unfolding in the Holy Land. 

The topic I am here to speak about is my perspective on the ‘changing world order’. In doing so, I am conscious of my legal obligations, as a former Australian diplomat, and of course, my enduring allegiance to Australia, as its citizen, having had the great honour of representing us overseas. 

As we look around us today, it is clear that the world order is changing rapidly. Russia’s attack on Ukraine’s sovereignty, which began in 2014, with the taking of Crimea, took a turn for the worse in 2022, when  Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a ‘special military operation’ that would see Russia in possession of nearly 18 per cent of Ukraine’s territory – or what President Putin has calls ‘Russia’s historic land’. Whichever one sees it – Russia has no doubt inflicted a tragic loss of life and catastrophic damage for Ukraine’s civilian population. 

Although these events have been described as ‘flagrant violations of international law’ by many, it is worth noting that they are preceded by other similar events, which with time, we will come to be seen as the first nail in the coffin of the international world order, that is thought to have largely kept us safe, since the Second World War. 

Indeed, for those of us capable of holding, and discerning between multiple world-views, I recall a particular Valentine’s Day in 2003, when as a teenage student at an international American school in Jordan, as I watched on television, the Former Swedish Foreign Minister Hans Blix hand down his report into UN-Security Council mandated investigation into Iraq’s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction. It read that Blix had, and I quote – ‘not found any such weapons’. 

Within weeks, Jordan changed around me, as I watched the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ – led by the United States, and joined by Australia and others, roll tanks into the streets of Amman. The illegal invasion would cause the death of an approximate one million Iraqi civilians, the dismantlement of the Iraqi Army, and the eventual vacuum that led to the creation of Islamic State. The war on Iraq – which was conducted outside the legal framework of the international world order, given the Blix’ report – would ultimately go on to strengthen Iran’s hold on the region, tipping the balance firmly, and perhaps, permanently against Australia’s interests.

As a matter of principle, the international world order written at the end of the Second World War, was sound. It proposed to construct a world in which power was administered according to rules and norms that were agreed to by major stakeholders, with other, smaller countries, having an opportunity to voice concerns. 

On a smaller, but relevant and demonstrative scale, it is known that Australians are generally law abiding people. Putting aside – although not flippantly – the misapplication of the law to Australia’s indigenous population – most Australians would believe that the law is largely fair, because it applies to everyone equally. This in turn drives behaviour.

Having served as a diplomat, I can firmly confirm that nation-states are just the idea that narrates how people choose to live together. In that way, the nation-state is both the idea, and the group of people who consent to subscribe to it. Those same elements apply for indigenous people, except usually without the element of consent – given that colonisation is forced.

Whichever way the nation-state came into being – it is clearly a vehicle through which people can achieve things. Make no mistake: it is the nation-state itself, as a structure and model of power, which is presently under threat, along with the world order itself.  

I turn now to the events occurring in my ancestral homeland, the Holy Land, (known as Palestine, and to others as the State of Israel, West Bank and Gaza). It is these differences in name that narrate not only the stories either Palestinians or Israelis subscribe to, but rather the phenomena of non-nation-state, and nation-state structures. 

In policy and political terms, those who are concerned with order, rules, and accountability have seen the value of the nation-state model. Whatever you might think of the tax-man, there is undeniable evidence that the common good at large can be better served when a group of people all pull together. 

Indeed, as someone who has administered the State in its various functions and manifestations in Australia over my nearly 20 year career – I personally see both the value and the pitfall of the nation-state model. In my view, the value still outweighs the pitfall. 

The creation of the State of Israel – as a nation-state, although often confused, for a biblical construct – as a Jewish State had practical impacts, which are playing out today. I will not be addressing the theological aspects of the conflict, as others are better placed to do so. 

It is worth noting that the realisation of a Jewish nation-state in Palestine faced the immense challenge of demographics. 92% of the land of Palestine was inhabited by non-Jewish people. A Jewish state required a Jewish demographic majority. Without it, how else could you justify having a Jewish state whose national emblem, coat of arms, symbolism on its flag, the lyrics of the national anthem, the national holidays, the nature of its laws, the control over its parliament, its government departments and its armed forces correspond directly to Jewish culture when the majority of the population was 92% Christian and Muslim? The aspiration for a nation-state with a distinct cultural and religious identity necessitated significant demographic shifts, and the expulsion of Palestinians in the Nakba of 1948. 

One aspect of the creation of the nation-state construct of the State of Israel was that it was largely predicated on the creation of a second state, for the non-Jewish inhabitants, known as a Palestinian State. No matter one’s perspective as to the conflict – even the most polarised and opposite viewpoints will agree: that the Palestinian State did not come into being when the State of Israel was created 76 years ago. 

Just as the Jewish people were granted their right to self-determination in 1948 with the creation of the State of Israel, with Tel Aviv as its capital, so too have the Palestinian people sought their rights, for the State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital. 

The present situation in Palestine and the State of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank are inextricably linked to the health of the world order, which many see value in retaining. 

Untold suffering has occurred to the Palestinian people – over the last 76 years in which justice has not been done for their cause. As a Palestinian Christian who believes in non-violence, it saddens me to see the present circumstances that have arisen – in my view – out of a failure to apply the rules, which all nation-states have agreed to play by. 

It should thereby come as no surprise to the policy-maker, or diplomat, that the international world order is on the brink of collapse, in its present state, given the failure by mature countries, whose leadership others were right to look to, to promptly resolve the situation. 

Indeed, the failure to do so has led to the deaths of 1,200 people in the State of Israel, committed by Hamas on 7 October. An extremist political party – Hamas – was funded by some elements of the State of Israel in order to undermine the formation of a Palestinian State. This is well-documented. This should be concerning to us all.

The State of Israel’s response on the people of Gaza, has been called by the International Criminal Court as a ‘plausible case of genocide’. The prosecutor is now seeking warrants for the arrests of the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, and its Defence Minister (alongside leaders of Hamas).

The amount of suffering in Gaza stretches the limits of ones imagination. Over 50,000 Palestinian civilians, most of them women and children were killed. Nearly one fourth of Gaza’s 1.7 million people are starving to death. Most of those human beings have been pushed to Rafah, on the edge of the Gaza Strip, where the State of Israel continues to drop bombs these families, many now living in tents, some eating grass to survive, many others are sickly. That this is allowed to continue heralds the potential end of the international world order, not to mention also being an enormous failure our collective human civilisation.

No matter ones political views, there is no doubting that the continuation of the war puts the security of the world – including Australia’s security – in danger. 

The learning we should take away from these circumstances, starting with the examples I provided with Russian President Putin’s war on Ukraine, and the non-adherence of rules pertaining to the invasion of Iraq, and the failure to create a Palestinian State should not be missed on us. When we do not follow the rules: we are all less safe. We need not just a world order that purports to keep us safe, but one that we can seek to adhere to sincerely. 

Sincerity is the virtue of trustfulness in words and actions; honesty and enthusiasm toward others. A virtue here means a behaviour, which demonstrates a high moral standing. Indeed, it was in the aftermath of similar times that the international order was written, in adherence to virtue. 

It is with that sincerity that I can apply my deep and nuanced understanding of the differing equities at play, and agree, at present, with the Australian Government’s assessment that a Palestinian state offers the Palestinian people an opportunity to realise their aspirations, and break the cycle of violence. 

I spoke earlier of the first nail in the coffin of the world order that has kept us safe – which in my view, was the second Iraq war. It is worth heeding the warning then about the last nail of the coffin, which would be the failure to offer the Palestinian people their right to self-determination, in the form of a Palestinian State. 

Should we fail to so, we should not be surprised when all  nation-state constructs, including our own, fall apart. 

Thank you.