Albanese flags potential trip to NATO summit in the Netherlands to reschedule canned Trump meeting within days
Anthony Albanese has flagged a trip to the NATO summit in the Netherlands next week after his meeting with US President Donald Trump was canned.
While he planned to cosy up to key ally America in a much anticipated first in-person meeting on the sideline of the G7, the PM missed out after Mr Trump made an abrupt exit.
Speaking in Kananaskis in the Rocky Mountains on Wednesday, Mr Albanese said 'yes, that is being considered' when asked if he would travel to the upcoming summit in The Hague on June 24-25.
It could mean the pair meet within days instead of the next likely date which would have been in September in Washington around the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York.
Mr Trump had departed a day earlier citing the escalating Israel-Iran conflict, prompting the cancellation of a string of meetings with world leaders, including Mr Albanese.
Mr Albanese labelled Mr Trump's departure as 'understandable' and hit back at questions of why he hadn't received a phone call from the president after the cancellation like India and Mexico's leaders had.
'We're mature about the circumstances of what happened. It's perfectly understandable,' he said.
'We'll reschedule a meeting. From time to time, that is what occurs.'
Despite his headline meeting falling through, Mr Albanese had face time with several key figures during the trip, including the heads of Canada, Italy, France, India the UK, Japan, and South Korea.
'As well as saying G'day to a whole bunch of other people during the day,' the PM added.
'It's a real opportunity for Australia to engage with a range of partners.'
It also included a trilateral with European Commission's President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council's President António Costa.
'I'm pleased to announce today that we will commence negotiations on a security and defence partnership with the European Union,' he said.
'We see this as an important framework for our current and future cooperation in areas like defence industry, cyber and counter-terrorism.
'We will have our respective ministers progress that (agreement) over coming weeks. But we hope to conclude those discussions pretty quickly.'
In Mr Albanese's most recent meeting on Wednesday morning, he met with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.
It marked the duo's first official bilateral after the pair had first met on the sidelines of Pope XIV's inauguration mass in Rome last month.
'We discussed how we can deepen our economic and infrastructure ties through our enhanced strategic partnership with further trade and business cooperation in the energy transition,' the PM said.
'We also reiterated our commitment to the ongoing need in Ukraine and uphold international law.'
It comes as Penny Wong on Wednesday announced further sanctions by Australia on 60 vessels linked to Russia's shadow fleet, echoing sanctions imposed by other nations.
While Mr Albanese didn't get the chance to raise the importance of the trilateral AUKUS agreement with Mr Trump he said confirmed he had strong support from UK PM Keir Starmer.
He labelled his British counterpart as a 'good friend' and revealed Mr Starmer had extended the PM an invite during their engagement.
'I also met my good friend, Keir Starmer,' he said.
'We welcome the progress that we've made to bolster the UK-Australia relationship.
'We discussed continuing to work together on both AUKUS Pillar 1 and AUKUS Pillar 2. And Prime Minister Starmer invited me to the United Kingdom over the coming period.'
Alongside AUKUS the pair discussed the Australia-UK Climate and Energy Partnership and 'very effective' Free Trade Agreement.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
35 minutes ago
- ABC News
In international law, is Israel's use of force against Iran justified by self-defence? - ABC Religion & Ethics
On 12 June 2025, Israel launched a major military operation against Iran targeting its nuclear programme — including facilities, individual scientists and military leadership. I want here to inquire into the legality of Israel's use of force against Iran as a matter of the jus ad bellum . As I will explain, Israel's use of force against Iran is, on the facts as we know them, almost certainly illegal. The only justification that Israel can provide for its use of force is self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter — which legitimises the use force to repel an armed attack, subject to the criteria of necessity and proportionality. The first point to clarify here is that the nature and stated goals of Israel's use of force — damaging Iran's nuclear programme and preventing it from developing a nuclear weapon — are explicitly about deflecting a future armed attack by Iran against Israel. Which is to say, it seeks to prevent an attack that is yet to occur. In other words, this is not a situation in which Israel is allegedly responding to an Iranian attack occurring now , whether directly or through proxies such as the Houthis in Yemen or Hezbollah in Lebanon. Prior uses of force between these two states can be legally and factually relevant as context, but the issue here is squarely about stopping a future nuclear attack by Iran. Assessing the legality Israel's use of force against Iran thus depends on the legal conception of self-defence being applied and on the facts to which the legal rules can be applied. There are three possible legal positions (with some variations on a spectrum) on uses of force in response to future armed attacks: 1. That states can act preventively to deflect threats, especially existential threats. 2. That states can act to deflect future armed attacks that are imminent. 3. That states can only act to deflect armed attacks that have occurred. If one regards the third position as correct, then Israel's use of force against Iran would be manifestly illegal. But, while it is difficult to reliably establish what the majority view on some of these issues is, I think we can say that reasonable scholars and states have argued that the third position is too restrictive. We can easily say, however, that there is unanimous agreement among international lawyers that the first position is legally untenable. It is associated, for example, with some of the arguments that lawyers in the Bush administration used to justify force against Iraq — that it might give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist actors who might use them against the United States, and that the threat is so grave that the United States would be defending itself from Iraq. It is also similar to arguments that Russia has used to justify its invasion of Ukraine — that after joining NATO, Ukraine might attack Russia at some future point. The facts of these two examples aside, the problem with this approach is that it is so boundless that it completely eviscerates the prohibition on the use of force: a state could act whenever it perceives an existential threat. After all, Russia, the United States and China have the ability to destroy each other within hours, but that kind of capability cannot automatically mean that they can start a war and call it 'self-defence'. In short, this 'preventive' form of self-defence is simply not self-defence at all. With regard to Iraq, even the UK — America's closest ally — expressly disavowed such a legal theory, and the United States itself did not formally rely on this argument internationally. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei attends an event in Tehran, Iran, on 10 May 2025. (Photo by IRANIAN LEADER PRESS OFFICE / Anadolu via Getty Images) Therefore, Israel could only justify its use for against Iran by relying on the second, intermediate position — that Iran's nuclear attack on Israel was imminent . The question of anticipatory self-defence against imminent attacks has been much debated. Broadly speaking, there are two theories of what constitutes an 'imminent' attack is. The first, restrictive one is temporal in character: an imminent attack is one that is about to happen. The second, more expansive understanding is causal in character: an imminent attack is one where the state concerned will obtain the capability to conduct the attack and intends (has irrevocably committed itself) to the attack at some point in the future. This more expansive approach is often coupled with the necessity of an immediate response — that now is the 'last possible window of opportunity' to act to stop the attack. On the temporal understanding of an imminent attack, there is simply no plausible way of arguing that Iran was about to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, which it doesn't even possess. Thus, the only plausible legal theory of self-defence that Israel could invoke would be the causal, non-temporal one. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that this theory is correct. If so, Israel could justify its use of force only if the following two propositions of fact were both true: 1. That Iran's leadership has irrevocably committed itself to attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon, once such a weapon has been developed — which is to say, it intends to attack Israel in the future once it has the capability to do so. 2. That today was the last window of opportunity to stop the attack from happening — it was necessary to act now and no non-forcible alternative could have removed either Iran's future capability or its intention to attack Israel. Now, obviously, I am not privy to the information that, say, Israeli, American or British intelligence services have about the intentions of Iran's leadership. Working solely from information that is publicly available, I would say that the situation as it stands is as follows: There are many public statements by various Iranian officials over the years calling, expressly or impliedly, for Israel's destruction. There are many public statements by various Iranian officials over the years calling, expressly or impliedly, for Israel's destruction. That kind of rhetoric, however, is mainly meant for domestic political purposes in Iran and does not, in itself, directly translate to an intention of the Iranian leadership to use a nuclear weapon against Israel, despite the fact that Israel itself already has nuclear weapons and could retaliate against Iran decisively. That kind of rhetoric, however, is mainly meant for domestic political purposes in Iran and does not, in itself, directly translate to an intention of the Iranian leadership to use a nuclear weapon against Israel, despite the fact that Israel itself already has nuclear weapons and could retaliate against Iran decisively. Maybe Israeli officials do have some intelligence about the intentions of Iran's leaders — especially Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, but they have not provided the public with any such intelligence. Maybe Israeli officials do have some intelligence about the intentions of Iran's leaders — especially Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, but they have not provided the public with any such intelligence. This means that the first prong of the test above fails — there is little evidence, as things stand, that Iran intends to use a nuclear weapon against Israel once it obtains the capability to do so. Inflammatory, even genocidal, public statements by some Iranian officials do not suffice on their own, because they are not sufficiently probative about the intent of those Iranian officials who actually make the relevant decisions. This means that the first prong of the test above fails — there is little evidence, as things stand, that Iran intends to use a nuclear weapon against Israel once it obtains the capability to do so. Inflammatory, even genocidal, public statements by some Iranian officials do not suffice on their own, because they are not sufficiently probative about the intent of those Iranian officials who actually make the relevant decisions. Even according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran was months from building a bomb, while negotiations between the United States and Iran were actively taking place. (It is significant that the UN Secretary-General expressed his concern about 'Israeli attacks on nuclear installations in Iran while talks between Iran and the United States on the status of Iran's nuclear programme are underway'.) Even according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran was months from building a bomb, while negotiations between the United States and Iran were actively taking place. (It is significant that the UN Secretary-General expressed his concern about 'Israeli attacks on nuclear installations in Iran while talks between Iran and the United States on the status of Iran's nuclear programme are underway'.) Thus, while militarily Israel undoubtedly found itself in a convenient position to attack Iran — which was already weakened due to prior engagements between the two states — it is difficult to see how this was the 'last possible window of opportunity' to deflect a future nuclear attack. In other words, that the use of force was necessary, the only available option to stop this attack. Even if the broadest possible (legally plausible) understanding of anticipatory self-defence was taken as a correct, Israel's use of force against Iran would be illegal. This is because there is little evidence that Iran has irrevocably committed itself to attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon, once it develops this capability. And even if such an intention was assumed — again, it would be for Israel to provide any further evidence of such intention — I don't see how it could plausibly be argued that using force today was the only option available. I have limited myself here to an ad bellum analysis. In short, unless Israel is able to provide substantially more compelling evidence than is currently available to the public, it cannot reasonably be argued that Iran would imminently attack Israel, or that using force was the only option to stop that attack. Israel is therefore using force against Iran unlawfully, in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Which is to say, it is committing an act of aggression. There are also in bello issues to be discussed. One point that I found particularly problematic is the apparent direction of attacks specifically against Iranian scientists working for the nuclear programme. If such scientists are members of Iran's armed forces, they are combatants and can lawfully be targeted as a matter of international humanitarian law. But scientists who are civilians — and most probably are — cannot (as persons) lawfully be made the object of an attack. Simply working on a weapons programme as a researcher does not entail direct participation in hostilities that could remove civilian immunity from an attack. To give an analogy, the hundreds of civilian scientists or engineers who worked on the Manhattan Project would not (in today's terms) be qualified as combatants or civilians taking a direct part in hostilities. The facilities in which they worked would qualify as military objectives — as would a munitions factory, for instance. But the scientists themselves as persons would not. Marko Milanovic is Professor of Public International Law at the University of Reading School of Law, and Director of the Global Law at Reading (GLAR) research group. An earlier version of this article was published on EJIL:Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law, and appears here with permission.
SBS Australia
38 minutes ago
- SBS Australia
When Australia 'couldn't help', Ron took leaving Israel into his own hands
Ron Gelberg arrived in Israel shortly before the Israel-Iran conflict erupted. Source: SBS News Nearly 2,000 Australians want to leave Israel and Iran as the conflict between the two countries continues to intensify, with family members fretting and some abroad taking matters into their own hands to leave. As speculation grows that the United States is preparing to enter the conflict, more than 1,000 Australians have registered with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for help to leave Israel. A further 870 Australians and family members want to leave Iran, after Friday's escalation in the conflict with Israel attempting to wipe out Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Iran's airspace, and Israel's main airport, Ben Gurion International, are both closed "until further notice". Ron Gelberg arrived in Israel shortly before the conflict escalated and had planned to holiday there as part of an international trip. The Australian had been staying put at his hotel, where he and other guests had been sent to its bomb shelter on several occasions, and while he felt relatively safe there, he wanted to return home. Gelberg, who was in Israel's capital Tel Aviv, told SBS News on Monday he had called Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) which he said couldn't do much to help because there were no scheduled repatriation flights. "So I took matters into my own hands," he said. Gelberg said he had paid a driver who would take him across the border into Jordan and fly from there to Denmark and then on to Australia. He said he would have preferred to have been repatriated from Tel Aviv. He acknowledged the difficulties the Australian government may face in organising such flights amid missile fire, but believed they could have offered assistance getting to Jordan and repatriating from there. Meanwhile, Asal (not her real name) is helplessly watching from Melbourne as missiles fall around her mother's home in Iran. A brief phone call each day is the only contact she can make with the eighty-year-old, who has now fled north of the capital. "My mum is quite a strong woman. All my life, I never … heard her being that vulnerable," she told SBS News. "But I could see her voice was shaking." The journey to what Asal called a "safer city where there are not many military bases" took her mother more than 12 hours, with traffic gridlocked for hundreds of kilometres out of Iran's capital, Tehran. Many of the Iranian capital's nearly 10 million residents have either left the city or taken shelter indoors as Israeli airstrikes continue to pound major cities across the country for six consecutive days. "It's pretty much everywhere being bombed now," Asal said. Iranian officials said at least 224 people have been killed, mostly civilians, and another 1,200 injured in the recent strikes. Israel says 24 civilians have been killed in attacks by Iran. Kambiz Razamara, who is the vice-president of the Australian Iranian Society of Victoria, said the difficulty in getting hold of people in Iran had exacerbated the worry many in the community were feeling. While his own family has been confirmed as safe after the bombing attacks, he was concerned about an escalation of violence in the region. "A big part of my family is near where the main nuclear reactors are, and if the reactors are bombed, then my whole family is exposed," he said. "People are trying to reach people, but you can't contact people online and you can't call." Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the Australian government was examining options for those who want to return, but evacuations were proving difficult due to airspace being closed. "We're obviously working very closely with those Australians via the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade," he told ABC Radio on Wednesday. "We're monitoring developments in that very dangerous part of the world very closely. The treasurer said Australia and other countries were examining US President Donald Trump's statement about the conflict. The president has demanded Iran unconditionally surrender . "The US President has signalled that he wants a deal. I think there's a broad, there is broad international support for a return to dialogue and diplomacy," Chalmers said. "It's a perilous place, the Middle East right now, it's a perilous time for the global economy." DFAT is asking anyone in the region who wants to return home to register with the government's Smartraveller website. Israel launched its air war, its largest ever on Iran , on Friday after saying it had concluded the Islamic Republic was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons and has pointed to its right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, including enrichment, as a party to the international Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel, which is not a party to the NPT, is the only country in the Middle East believed to have nuclear weapons. Israel does not deny or confirm that. Netanyahu has stressed that he will not back down until Iran's nuclear development is disabled, while Trump says the Israeli assault could end if Iran agrees to strict curbs on enrichment. Before Israel's attack began, the 35-nation board of governors of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in almost 20 years. With reporting by the Australian Associated Press and Reuters news agencies.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Giorgia Meloni caught giving ‘eye roll of the century' to Emmanuel Macron
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni was caught rolling her eyes while French President Emmanuel Macron whispered to her. The moment was captured on Monday during a roundtable meeting for the G7 summit that featured leaders from seven countries. Leaders from the US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the European Union and the United Kingdom all met on Monday. During the meeting, a camera panned around the room where the meeting took place and captured Meloni's cheeky eye roll.
