First Nations Foreign Policy: A Fundamental Contradiction

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nations practiced diplomacy long before the settler colony of “Australia” was established. Yet the systemic framework of settler colonialism has rendered genuine First Nations foreign policy impossible within the settler state’s structures. Today, despite claims of incorporating First Nations perspectives into foreign policy, Australia’s approach appears more about optics than genuine transformation. The Australian Labor Party’s (ALP) 2023 proposal for a constitutional advisory committee, The Voice, was proposed as part of a broader governmental agenda to incorporate First Nations values into governance.

However, the Australian public’s rejection of The Voice referendum underscores an      incapacity for the settler state and its society to embrace First Nations perspectives authentically. As a settler colonial state, Australia’s institutions are designed to prioritise settler interests. For example, while Australia claims to value First Nations custodianship, it continues to approve mining projects that desecrate Country that Mob have nourished for millennia. Similarly, while First Nations diplomatic principles emphasise reciprocal and just relations, Australia’s global alliances with the US and Israel reflect its prioritisation of settler interests over global Indigenous solidarity. This makes true support of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agency inherently incompatible within the existing colonial framework.

Settler Colonialism: A System of Domination

Settler colonialism is not just a historical event but a structure designed to displace First Nations peoples, knowledge, and societies. Its logics are overarchingly embedded in white supremacy, capitalist exploitation, and patriarchal domination—values that underpin the institutions of settler states like Australia. These structures perpetuate systemic violence against First Nations peoples, from frontier massacres to assimilation policies and today’s overrepresentation of First Nations peoples in incarceration.

This same colonial logic informs Australia’s foreign policy, which cannot authentically integrate First Nations perspectives while being predicated on the erasure of Indigenous sovereignty. Settler states inherently prioritise maintaining their power, making them incapable of supporting decolonial movements, whether within their borders or globally.

Performative Policies and Blakwashing

The term “blakwashing” refers to an entity, group or individual that aims to be perceived as  decision-making involving Blak people, cultural authority, cultural practices or values. However, these groups and individuals are creating a false and misrepresented external identity as they internally, are not comprised by Blak decision-making, cultural authority, practices or values, yet still enter Blak spaces under this guise.  Much like pinkwashing creates the facade of LGBTQIA+ support, or greenwashing in products misleads consumers into thinking their products are the more eco-friendly choice.          

Common culprits of blakwashing can be found in industries such as fashion, music and the arts which frequently capitalise on Blak talent while failing to provide support for First Nations artists. Similarly, government institutions and corporate bodies co-opt First Nations voices for optics—such as city councils rebranding their streets with Aboriginal names while simultaneously greenlighting developments that require the destruction of Land. The environmental sector also exploits Indigenous knowledge, invoking ‘caring for Country’ while continuing land grabs and extractive practices without First Nations consent. 

In the context of First Nations Foreign Policy (FNFP), blakwashing is the settler state’s superficial adoption of First Nations perspectives to signal domestically and globally that Australia is progressive on environmental and Indigenous affairs. 

FNFP is one of many tools in Australia’s foreign policy arsenal, but like all settler colonial mechanisms, the approach ultimately serves the state’s priorities. Just as economic interest overrides First Nations Land and environmental protections, FNFP remains subordinate to Australia’s broader geopolitical stratagem. This ensures that First Nations perspectives are acknowledged only when they align with settler interests, rather than fundamentally reshaping policy. 

Australia’s FNFP approach is performative because it allows Australia to appear progressive by invoking First Nations knowledge to serve its national interests without any benefit to Mob domestically. Such symbolic gestures not only fail to empower First Nations peoples but also reinforce the settler state’s dominance by co-opting Indigenous values and knowledge without enacting substantive change.

For instance, while Australia’s environmental diplomacy acknowledges First Nations custodianship, it simultaneously supports fossil-fuel dependence and extractive industries on First Nations Lands. The appointment of an Ambassador for First Nations Peoples suggests a shift toward Indigenous representation in international affairs, but the reality is far more constrained. The position operates within the limits of the settler state, ultimately serving Australia’s national interests rather than those of First Nations peoples. While it signals inclusion, it cannot advance an independent First Nations foreign policy because it remains tethered to the priorities of a colonial government. True First Nations diplomacy requires an ambassadorship that exists beyond the settler state—one that represents Indigenous nations on their own terms, forging international relationships free from the constraints of colonial governance. Without this, the role risks functioning as little more than a symbolic gesture, reinforcing the settler state’s authority rather than challenging it. In addition, these foreign policy decisions centring First Nations values are weakened by the lack of bipartisan support, considering Peter Dutton’s proposal to remove the Ambassadorship position entirely if the Liberals-Nationals coalition are elected in the upcoming 2025 federal election.  

The Australian Labor Party’s (ALP) 2023 National Platform reveals these contradictions of advancing the settler state’s values and interests through the guise of advancing First Nations perspectives. While the platform acknowledged the economic value of protecting First Nations cultural heritage, it frames this value within a capitalist mindset: “Labor recognises that looking after Country and the protection of First Nations cultural values has significant economic value”. This commodification of cultural heritage underscores how settler policies prioritise economic interests over genuine respect for First Nations sovereignty of Country.

Additionally, the ALP’s rhetoric of incorporating First Nations identity into the Australian “national identity” is the epitome of blakwashing. The platform’s statement that “Labor will assert the strong national interest in valuing and protecting First Nations spiritual, cultural, and physical heritage as the embodiment of the oldest continuous culture on earth, and as an essential part of our national identity” subsumes First Nations identity under the settler state’s narrative. This rhetoric overlooks the historical exclusion of First Nations peoples from the settler national identity, rendering such statements hollow without substantive policy to back them.

Settler Resistance and Symbolism

The failure of The Voice referendum highlights settler Australia’s resistance to sharing even consultative political power with First Nations peoples. While positioned as part of a broader strategy to integrate First Nations knowledge into governance, The Voice referendum ultimately lacked autonomous control and remained under the purview of the settler state. This tokenistic approach underscores Australia’s performative stance, as international audiences perceive these gestures as progressive without recognising its domestic limitations.

The failure of The Voice was not merely a rejection of a specific policy but a reflection of Australia’s settler colonial framework. While not every ‘No’ voter was explicitly racist, the overall rejection reinforced a system that upholds white supremacy and denies First Nations agency. The very premise of The Voice reflects the contradiction at the heart of settler colonialism—offering Indigenous peoples a consultative role in decisions about their own Land while maintaining ultimate settler control. While framed as a step toward inclusion, it ultimately reinforced First Nations political subordination, illustrating the limits of ‘recognition’ within a colonial framework. 

The ALP’s approach to The Voice mirrored its broader strategy of symbolic gestures, much like its 2023 promise to recognise Palestine, an empty commitment abandoned in favour of appeasing settler allies. Domestically, Australia continues to grapple with overrepresentation of Mob in incarceration, desecration of sacred sites, and the neglect of longstanding demands for Land Back, Paying the Rent, Closing the Gap, and Truth-Telling. The gap between rhetoric and action demonstrates how the settler state exploits First Nations knowledge for global prestige and self-interest without addressing structural inequalities.

Colonial Hypocrisy on Palestine

The ALP’s 2023 National Platform’s campaign promises exemplify the disconnect and contradictions between rhetoric and action. It stated: “The National Conference: … Calls on the Australian Government to recognise Palestine as a state”. However, during Israel’s and the United States’ (US) recent year-long Genocide of Gaza, the ALP government’s inaction revealed a deeper prioritisation of alliances with colonial powers over meaningful support for Indigenous Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination. This hypocrisy strengthens the argument that settler states, bound by colonial logics, are incapable of genuine advocacy for Oppressed peoples, especially Indigenous-focused policy both domestically and internationally.

How can Australia claim to value the incorporation of Indigenous sacred knowledge and cultural practices, while simultaneously being a bystander to the genocide of Indigenous Palestinians, committed by its colonial allies? This hypocritical position emphasises that domestically and internationally, the settler colony of Australia’s interests and approach to First Nations affairs and injustice is performative, superficial and motivated by optics. 

 Dismantling settler colonial constraints with First Nations leadership 

A genuine First Nations-led foreign policy requires dismantling the colonial structures that underpin Australia’s governance. This would involve rejecting longstanding alliances with colonial powers like the US, England, France, and Israel, whose foundations and thus its policies are rooted in shared histories and practices of Indigenous oppression. Instead, Australia must align with global decolonial movements and prioritise relationships that reflect First Nations values of reciprocity, equality, justice, and self-determination.

Advocating for movements like Palestinian statehood and Kanak’s Liberation from French colonial rule aligns with the principles of First Nations diplomacy. However, such positions remain unthinkable within the settler colonial framework, as they fundamentally challenge the foundations of Australia’s domestic make-up and its international relations.

A decolonised approach to foreign policy could empower all Indigenous Nations globally to lead their own diplomatic initiatives, free from the constraints of settler colonial logics and functions. By establishing independent alliances rooted in shared struggles and values, First Nations could create a global coalition of Indigenous movements. This approach not only prioritises centring Indigenous sovereignty and decolonial solidarity but also directly challenges the settler state’s dominance by addressing critical issues such as climate justice and human rights without the interference of settler interests, rationales and practices.

Domestically, this shift requires the Australian government to relinquish state, federal and private control over First Nations Lands, Waters, Skies and natural resources, and support grassroots Indigenous leadership. Only by prioritising substantive changes over symbolic gestures can Australia begin to align with First Nations principles authentically.

A significant step toward this vision would involve endorsing decolonial movements worldwide. For instance, Australia must advocate for Palestinian self-determination and oppose Israel’s illegal Occupation, reflecting solidarity with oppressed Indigenous communities universally, not selectively. Additionally, prioritised partnerships with non-colonial nations could set a standard for decolonised diplomacy.

 A Call to Action

If Australia is serious about a First Nations foreign policy, it must move beyond tokenism and performative gestures. True progress requires dismantling colonial systems and empowering First Nations peoples to lead on their terms. Until then, Australia’s claims of incorporating First Nations perspectives will remain a facade, masking the enduring violence of settler colonialism.

This is not merely a critique; it is a call for action and imagination. Indigenous Nations and their global First Nations allies must assert their sovereignty and leadership, forging a path toward a decolonised future where Indigenous values guide global diplomacy and governance free from the dominance of settler values, interests and practices.

By dismantling the settler colonial framework, First Nations-led foreign policy can champion justice, reciprocity, and self-determination on the global stage, setting a transformative new status-quo for international relations.