Australian voters are sharply at odds with the Prime Minister over the release of classified US government cables, a new poll has found.
The survey suggests just one-quarter of voters agree with Julia Gillard that the diplomatic cables recently published by WikiLeaks should have remained secret.
The findings show 59 per cent support WikiLeaks in making the cables public and 25 per cent oppose it.
The survey of 1000 Australians by UMR Research was conducted between December 16 and 21, three weeks after the cables began appearing.
UMR’s managing director, John Utting said support for the release of the cables was strongest among men, the more affluent and younger voters, and the better educated.
“There is little difference between the two major parties, while Green voters overwhelmingly support the release,” he said.
…
Mr Utting said he most significant finding was ”the almost complete lack of support” for prosecution of Mr Assange.
“The public is overwhelmingly against this. There is just no support for it.”
Tag Archive for 'Julia Gillard'
A fine historical reminder in the UK Guardian:
There is a precedent for Julian Assange’s predicament. Australian journalist Wilfred Burchett in the late 60s was banned from Australia for reporting the Vietnam war from the North, and for allegedly asking prisoners taken during the Korean conflict to confess to Chinese interrogators. Authorities attempted to turn the accusations into charges but to no avail, the ban stayed. He wanted to return to Australia to face his detractors. For a time he was stuck in New Caledonia.
I was working for Gordon Barton’s The Sunday Observer and had been impressed by Burchett’s revealing stories for several decades. After the bombing of Japan at the end of the second world war he travelled to a site, under great personal danger, where he managed to see the wounded. He observed that survivors of the blast were dying of radiation sickness. Scientists in the New York Times disputed this but the rest is history.
I approached Barton to bring Burchett to Australia to test the government’s fortitude in the face of growing media unrest over the ban. Our first concern was that an Australian citizen without criminal convictions could be banned from his country. Burchett stated his passport had been stolen by ASIS.
Burchett had also been attacked by members of the Liberal government who for days blithely libelled and defamed him. We announced that we were going to bring him back with or without permission to leave the country … or to enter it again. To make the story short, the government caved in and we legally flew him to Brisbane in a small plane, despite bomb threats.
Assange has his rabid homicidal detractors, his vague accusers, and for a time was banned from entering Australia by the confused prime minister Julia Gillard. Both Assange and Burchett are, and were, fighting to reveal truths.
Several weeks after he arrived in Australia, Burchett travelled voluntarily to Washington where he was questioned (not interrogated) by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger about conditions in North Vietnam. Apparently the meeting was civilised, not something Assange can expect. No doubt for him water-boarding will be considered. We tend to persecute those who show us the lies.
Bill Green
Talbot, Victoria, Australia
It looks like many Australians believe in greater transparency in global dealings. Governments and corporate journalists, are you listening?
Most Australians support the release of the WikiLeaks cables, say that Julian Assange should receive legal support, and are critical of the federal government’s rhetoric on the issue, new polling reveals.
And support for Assange and the diplomatic document leaks is largely uniform across party lines, with Labor and Coalition voters approving the right of WikiLeaks to release the highly sensitive information.
A weekly online poll from Essential Research found more than half of voters approve of the release of the cables (33% approve; 20% strongly approve), compared to a quarter who expressed concern (14% disapprove; 11% strongly).
Support for WikiLeaks was, not surprisingly, highest among Greens voters (80% total approval) but still strong across party lines — 55% of Labor voters approve in total compared to 51% of Liberal/National supporters. Disapproval ratings were the same (30% in total) across both sides of politics.
The following letter by Greens leader Bob Brown was sent to Murdoch’s Herald Sun newspaper:
Dear Editor,
Andrew Bolt has blood on his hands. He stridently insisted on the invasion and killings in Iraq which led to millions fleeing. Some of those millions ended up in the ocean off Christmas Island on Wednesday.
Andrew Bolt’s call, while bodies were still in the ocean, for Julia Gillard’s resignation (but the Labor Party opposed the war in Iraq) lacked human decency. He should resign.
Senator Bob Brown
Another day and more information about Canberra’s almost authoritarian desire to suck up to Washington. Please America, protect us from invasion by (insert country here but make sure it’s full of brown people):
Julia Gillard’s speechwriter has been a confidential source of information for United States embassy officials in Australia.
US diplomatics cables released by WikiLeaks reveal that the Prime Minister’s speechwriter Michael Cooney had been designated a “protected” source by the US embassy.
Cable 08CANBERRA609, sent on June 13, 2008, reveals that Mr Cooney, a former senior adviser to Labor leaders Mark Latham and Kim Beazley, spoke in glowing terms of his future boss to US officials.
The cable states that Mr Cooney, speaking before he took up the job with Ms Gillard, told US officials:”She has been very impressive as a minister: knowledgeable on the issues, listens to advice from subordinates and civil servants and is not afraid to delegate responsibility.”
It is unclear if Mr Cooney remains a protected US source, and he was unavailable for comment when contacted by The Australian Online.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said: “The government has made it clear that it will not be commenting on the contents or veracity of confidential US cables.”
Mr Cooney’s comments on Ms Gillard are contained in a cable sent by former US ambassador to Australia Robert MacCallum.
The cable states that: “Two stars have emerged in the government of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd: Rudd himself and Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard.”
The cable focuses on the prominence Ms Gillard had achieved since Labor won government in November 2007, stating: “Through the first seven months of the Rudd government, Gillard is the only ALP politician who has approached PM Rudd in national prominence.”
In the same section containing Mr Cooney’s comments, titled “Gillard the pragmatist”, another protected source, NSW Labor aenator and powerbroker Mark Arbib described Ms Gillard as “one of the most pragmatic politicians in the ALP”, while Australian Workers Union boss Paul Howes, another protected source, points out that although she is a member of Labor’s left faction “she votes with the Right”.
Capital Circle understands that Ms Gillard and Mr Cooney developed a good working relationship during the period in which Mark Latham was leader of the ALP.
Mr Cooney kept his job as a senior policy adviser for Mr Beazley when he took over as Labor leader in early 2005, but he stopped working as a federal Labor staffer when Kevin Rudd took over from Mr Beazley, as the pair are said to have had a fractious relationship.
Mr Cooney went to work for left wing think-tank Per Capita, before becoming chief of staff to ACT Education Minister Andrew Barr.
From a man who knows a few things about Australia abandoning its own citizens:
Former Guantanamo Bay inmate David Hicks says WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will never receive a fair trial if he is handed over to US authorities.
Mr Hicks says he hopes the Australian government won’t abandon Mr Assange, as they did with him.
He also says it’s clear Mr Assange is the victim of a politically motivated campaign.
The WikiLeaks editor-in-chief is facing allegations of sexual assault and rape made against him in Sweden.
He has been granted conditional bail by a British court but remains in prison while Swedish authorities appeal the decision.
Mr Assange’s British lawyer Mark Stephens has claimed a secret US grand jury has been set up in Virginia to work on charges that could be filed against the Australian.
He fears Sweden might hand Mr Assange over the US, which has been embarrassed by WikiLeaks’ publication of US diplomatic cables.
Mr Hicks, who claims he was tortured at the US-run prison camp in Cuba, has told Fairfax Radio he’s worried about what might happen to the WikiLeaks boss if he’s sent to the US.
“He will never receive a fair trial,” he said.
“We have already established that it’s a political decision rather than a legal one. It’s important that our governments are held to account for any war crimes they may be involved in and that is why the work of WikiLeaks is so important.”
Mr Hicks said he was hopeful some of the documents being leaked might expose the political interference that tainted his case.
“I will watch with interest in more leaks released because I have heard that they might contain information about my treatment in Guantanamo and the political interference in my case,” he said.
“I just hope the Australian government doesn’t abandon him like they did to me.”
Mr Hicks, who pleaded guilty to a charge of supporting terrorism, was held at Guantanamo Bay for more than five years after being captured in Afghanistan in December 2001.
In March 2007, under a plea bargain, he was sentenced to seven years’ jail but ordered to serve only nine months with the rest of his sentence suspended.
He returned to Australia and was released from Adelaide’s Yatala Jail in December, 2007.
Today’s rally for Wikileaks in Sydney was a success, apart from the excessively brutal police force seemingly determined to not allow citizens the right to protest in the streets.
Before the event itself, the Sydney Morning Herald reported under the misleading headline, “We’ll march anyway; Wikileaks protesters to defy police” – suggesting the police were completely correct to oppose the holding of the event – and the story included this:
According to the Facebook page, the rally will be addressed by Mr [NSW Greens MP David] Shoebridge, independent journalist Wendy Bacon and author Antony Loewenstein.
Mr Loewenstein, a spokesman for the rally, accused police of having ulterior motives for denying the protest.
“We have been given the reasons [for denying the protest], yes, but we don’t accept them,” he said.
“We feel the real reasons [for police denying the protest] could be rather that they might be overwhelmed with the Oprah circus in town and they don’t want the embarrassment for the Gillard government while the international media is in town.
“We have a democratic right to protest and we will do so at Town Hall at 5.30pm today.”
Mr Loewenstein said the protest was planned to be peaceful, but could not rule out possible violence.
“Look, you know … it is planned to [be] a peaceful protest … but what they, the police do, well that’s up to them,” he said.
The rally took place (roughly 800 people attended), we all spoke and then the crowd wanted to march. A number of people tell me that the police were overly aggressive and keen to provoke the crowd. State-sponsored thugs, in reality:
Protesters have clashed with police at a rally in central Sydney in support of the WikiLeaks website and its jailed founder Julian Assange.
About 70 officers, including mounted police and the riot squad, tried to keep the crowd of several hundred people on the footpath.
The protesters marched down busy George Street alongside a wall of police, chanting slogans and waving banners reading “Hands off WikiLeaks” and “We deserve the truth”.
But when some of them tried to run on to the road, police stepped in and made a number of arrests.
The crowd reacted angrily and continued to march to Martin Place, where another arrest was made.
Police allege one man punched an officer and three protesters tried to block traffic at an intersection.
The man has been charged with assaulting police and the trio have been released with a penalty notice.
Greens MP David Shoebridge, who was among the protesters, says police could have handled the situation better.
“There were two ways the police could have dealt with it,” he said.
“They could have worked with the organisers and there would have been a peaceful march to the consulate.
“The police refused to give permission to the organisers and instead there was a confrontation on the streets caused by that police intransigence.”
Police say the protesters were refused permission to march through the city because the mandatory five days’ notice was not given.
Inspector Chris Craner says police had a deal with the organisers that the protesters stick to the footpath.
“From the outset we’ve had a bit of non-compliance in relation to the issue of the scheduled one (march),” he said.
“We’ve been in negotiations with them, some of the organisers have been quite fine to talk to.
“There’s always a crowd of people who try and disrupt certain events. Some people are here purely for a peaceful protest which is what we’re happy with, we’ve facilitated that. Those that play up, end up being arrested.”
But activist Pip Hinman says the protesters staged a peaceful rally and did not disrupt peak-hour traffic.
“The police I saw were grabbing people from the footpath. They were pulling people onto the street. At the same time they let out their dogs from their vans and that’s where I saw a few people getting dragged away,” she said.
She says they were trying to send a message to Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
“It was a message to Julia Gillard that Julian Assange is not a criminal,” she said.
“If any charges have been laid, he has a right to have them heard in a court of law and not be tried by governments and the media.”
Meanwhile, about 600 people protested in support of WikiLeaks in Melbourne, marching along Swanston Street to the British consulate.
Police say the protest was peaceful and no arrests were made.
Let’s not forget the main reason people are protesting. Defending Wikileaks and its right to publish important information for the public good.
Who is running the Australian government these days?
Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday mounted a strong defence of Julian Assange’s legal rights.
The WikiLeaks founder is preparing to face court in London early Wednesday morning (AEDT).
Mr Rudd said he was prepared to intervene to have a laptop computer provided for Mr Assange in London’s Wandsworth prison to help the Australian prepare his defence and obtain bail at his appearance at Westminster Magistrates Court.
Following suggestions by Julia Gillard and Attorney-General Robert McClelland that Mr Assange may have his Australian passport cancelled, Mr Rudd said any such decision was his as Foreign Minister. “Under law, I’m responsible for the Passports Act, therefore the decisions concerning the withdrawal or otherwise of passports rests exclusively with the foreign minister based on the advice of the relevant agencies,” Mr Rudd told The Australian in Cairo.
And a woman supposedly of the Left bows to Labor tribalism and sells out her ideological heritage. Has she not heard of freedom of speech? The shame:
A minister in the Gillard government has defended the push to charge Julian Assange for publishing secret US cables on his WikiLeaks website.
Human Services Minister Tanya Plibersek told Sky News’ Australian Agenda the leaks were very serious and threatened the workings of international diplomacy and the quality of advice public servants were willing to give.
She broke ranks with some of her factional colleagues in the Labor Left, who told The Weekend Australian the government had overreacted to the leaks and should stop treating Mr Assange like a criminal. Backbencher Laurie Ferguson said the information the 39-year-old Australian had released was crucial to democracy and to exposing the truth.
Ms Plibersek said yesterday that at the heart of the issue was the fact that the documents were classified and had been stolen.
“I don’t think that it’s a terrific thing for world security for people to go stealing classified documents and sticking them on the internet,” she said.
“I think everyone in the Left of the party, the Right of the party and the Australian public would expect that Julian Assange would face the law, as any other Australian citizen would face the law.”
Ms Plibersek said the language used by those calling for Mr Assange to be assassinated and accusing him of being a terrorist was extreme and unwarranted.
“But the Australian government has not said those things. The Australian government has said that this is based on an original criminal act, which is a theft of classified documents,” she said.
“It’s yet to be seen who has stolen those documents, and those are matters best left to the police, both in the United States and here.”
Ms Plibersek said anyone publishing anything had to apply a degree of responsibility.
“If we find that someone, say a businessman in Iran who is pro-American, is strung up by the Iranian government because these documents have been published, do you say that Julian Assange has no responsibility for that?
This is the not the behaviour of an ally; it’s the actions of a country utterly incapable of viewing the human rights of Arabs as equal to Israelis:
The Israeli ambassador to Australia found Kevin Rudd to be “very pro-Israel” and senior Australian diplomats warned the former prime minister that his condemnation of Iran risked retaliation against Australia’s embassy in Tehran, according to leaked US diplomatic cables.
The secret cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and provided exclusively to the Herald, reveal the Israeli ambassador, Yuval Rotem, was pleased with Mr Rudd’s “very supportive” attitude towards Israel’s position in the Middle East peace process and his strong attacks on the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The revelation of Mr Rotem’s description of Mr Rudd last year comes as the Foreign Minister wraps up a visit to Cairo where he expressed concern that ”no real progress” has been made in the US-brokered Middle East peace process.
Following a weekend meeting with the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Ahmed Abul Gheit, Mr Rudd said Israeli settlements on Palestinian land were ”destroying” the chances of peace. He said he would visit Israel this week and reiterate his position, but added Israel had security fears that needed to be taken into account.
The leaked cables reveal that Israeli diplomats saw Mr Rudd as an important ally.
Mr Rotem told US officials in July 2008 that during his first meeting with Mr Rudd after the 2007 federal election, the newly elected prime minister had described Mr Ahmedinejad as a ”loathsome individual on every level” and that his anti-Semitism ”turns my stomach”.
The US embassy noted that while opposition leader, Mr Rudd had taken a “very strong stance” on Iran, including calling for Mr Ahmadinejad to be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court for his calls for the destruction of Israel.
The Israeli ambassador said that the secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Michael l’Estrange, and the director-general of the Office of National Assessments, Peter Varghese, had “met several times to convince the PM to think through the consequences of his rhetoric on Iran”.
“The Israeli ambassador believes PM Rudd is very concerned about the Iranian nuclear program and firm in his desire to do whatever possible to signal Australia’s opposition to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions,” the embassy reported. “The Israelis believe Rudd is very firm in his overall support for Israel.”
Asked by the US embassy about whether Mr Rudd’s views on Iran had elicited any response, Mr Rotem said the Iranian government had reacted to the prime minister’s statements by taking ”retaliatory measures” against the Australian embassy in Tehran.
“These measures make it harder for the embassy to conduct its day-to-day business,” Mr Rotem observed.
The Australian government has never publicly acknowledged any Iranian response to Mr Rudd’s public criticism of Iran and its President.
Mr Rotem went on to tell the US embassy that Israel saw Australia “as playing an important role in the ‘global PR battle’ on Iran because PM Rudd is viewed favourably by the ‘European Left’, many of whom are sceptical about taking a tough line towards Tehran”.
The ambassador said Israeli officials would normally have been concerned at the prospect of a Labor government: “However, this was not the case because Rudd had long gone out of his way to stress his strong commitment to Israel and appreciation for its security concerns.”
”Commenting that DFAT officials are very frank in expressing their annoyance with the PM’s micromanaging of foreign policy issues, Rotem laughingly said that ‘while I understand their point of view, how can I complain about having that kind of attention from the PM’.”
The Israeli ambassador’s enthusiasm for the Labor government extended to the deputy prime minister, Julia Gillard, with the US embassy reporting in January last year that Mr Rotem was “very satisfied” with the Australian response to Israel’s military offensive in Gaza.
“Rotem said he had been impressed with acting PM Julia Gillard, who has taken the lead in co-ordinating the [Australian government] public and private response to the Gaza fighting … Rotem said that Gillard and [national security adviser Duncan] Lewis have been very understanding of Israel’s military action, while stressing the need to minimise civilian casualties and address humanitarian concerns.”
Mr Rotem said Ms Gillard’s public statements surprised many Israeli embassy contacts as being “far more supportive than they had expected”.
Mr Rotem told his US counterparts that several senior Labor Party contacts had told him privately that Mr Rudd had been “a bit jealous of the attention garnered by Gillard” and that this led him to speak to the Gaza issue later in January 2009.
The ambassador added that he would be “playing to Rudd’s vanity” to encourage him to pay an early visit to Israel and continue to speak out in support of a hard line against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
And fears that the Zionist state isn’t a rational player:
Australian intelligence agencies fear that Israel might launch military strikes against Iran and that Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities could draw the US and Australia into a potential nuclear war in the Middle East.
Australia’s top intelligence agency has also privately undercut the hardline stance towards Tehran of the United States, Israeli and Australian governments, saying that Iran’s nuclear program is intended to deter attack and that it is a mistake to regard Iran as a ”rogue state”.
The warnings about the dangers of nuclear conflict in the Middle East are given in a secret US embassy cable obtained by WikiLeaks and provided exclusively to the Herald. They reflect views obtained by US intelligence liaison officers in Canberra from across the range of Australian intelligence agencies.
“The AIC’s [Australian intelligence community's] leading concerns with respect to Iran’s nuclear ambitions centre on understanding the time frame of a possible weapons capability, and working with the United States to prevent Israel from independently launching unco-ordinated military strikes against Iran,” the US embassy in Canberra reported to Washington in March last year.
“They are immediately concerned that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities would lead to a conventional war – or even nuclear exchange – in the Middle East involving the United States that would draw Australia into a conflict.”
Wikileaks is bringing together some strange coalitions in Australia, individuals with different political views who recognise Julian Assange as a man who has dared challenge the establishment in ways rarely, if ever, seen. Of course the powerful hate him. But truths aren’t so easily dismissed. Only those who care so deeply about maintaining society’s status-quo won’t be moved to support this paradigm shifting idea.
Here’s Laurie Oakes in News Ltd:
The high point of the week on television was Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd flapping his elbows like wings and saying: “Quack, quack, quack.”
He was, of course, illustrating his claim that US embassy criticism of him in the WikiLeak cables is “water off a duck’s back”.
What else could the former prime minister do? It was either laugh or cry.
Miranda Devine in the Murdoch press:
The official fury unleashed against Assange is largely about the embarrassment WikiLeaks has created for diplomats.
But the United States is lucky it is Assange controlling the information, because he does abide by some sort of virtuous moral code.
Today’s Australian:
Julia Gillard is facing a revolt from MPs in her left-wing parliamentary faction, enraged at the treatment of Julian Assange.
The MPs are demanding the government stop treating Mr Assange as a criminal and protect his rights as an Australian citizen and whistleblower.
A large number of MPs have spoken to The Weekend Australian to express grave concerns at the language ministers and the Prime Minister are using in relation to Mr Assange.
Laurie Ferguson, a friend and factional colleague of Ms Gillard who was dumped as parliamentary secretary for multicultural affairs and settlement services, told The Weekend Australian the government had overreacted to the WikiLeaks release of secret US documents. He said the information that had been released was crucial to democracy and exposing the truth.
“It hasn’t been borne out that people have been endangered by this information,” Mr Ferguson said.
“On the other side of the ledger, I think it is important that the world is informed on how intense the Saudis are about Iran’s nuclear program and, for instance, that some members of the federal Labor Party caucus are so heavily engaged in briefing another nation.”
Mr Ferguson took a veiled swipe at Sports Minister Mark Arbib, saying he was glad it was now well-known that the right-wing Labor frontbencher was a secret source for the US government.
His comments came as Attorney-General Robert McClelland was yesterday unable to explain how Mr Assange had broken Australian law.
Mr McClelland indicated an Australian Federal Police investigation into whether WikiLeaks had committed a criminal act could go on for more than a year.
The government has come under fire after Ms Gillard appeared to pass judgment on Mr Assange, declaring that “the foundation stone of this WikiLeaks issue is an illegal act”.
One senior left-wing MP said, on the condition of anonymity, that the government had taken a “harsh” line on Mr Assange and had “angered” its left-wing base internally and in the community.
Another said Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd had “got it right” on the WikiLeaks case while Ms Gillard had “messed it up”.
Mr Rudd this week took aim at US security levels surrounding the handling of classified confidential information, rather than Mr Assange. He said those who originally leaked the documents were legally liable.
The left-wing Labor MP who heads the economics caucus committee, Sharon Grierson, said she had sympathy for Mr Assange because he believed in freedom of information and the public interest test being applied.
“It’s terribly important to keep asserting that Australians will always and do always look after their citizens,” Ms Grierson said. “They have rights and protection under the law, and we would all want to see those applied in that case.”
Ms Grierson said the world had embraced the open, globalised flow of information, and had to deal with its consequences. “We now have to find ways to respond to that which are reasonable, not irrational in any way,” she said.
West Australian Labor MP Melissa Parke said the Swedish rape charges against Mr Assange were unusual and he should not be treated as a criminal.
“I am concerned about the statements in the United States that Julian Assange or his family should be subjected to physical violence, and I strongly condemn them,” Ms Parke said.
“The charges from Sweden sound highly unusual on the basis of the information available, and I expect the British courts to take a long hard look at that before any decision on extradition is made.
“As to the actions of WikiLeaks and whether they have broken any laws, the fact is we don’t know. I think it is therefore wrong for anyone to suggest Julian Assange is a criminal.”
Hundreds of people in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne protested yesterday against the treatment of Mr Assange.
Criminal lawyer Rob Stary told a Melbourne rally the Australian government was a “sycophant” of the US.
He compared Mr Assange to fellow Australians David Hicks and Jack Thomas, saying their conviction on terrorism charges were helped by the government’s “propaganda machine”.
In Brisbane, lawyer Peter Russo, who defended Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef against failed terrorism charges, told a rally it was important to understand that the real issue at stake in the WikiLeaks case was freedom. “It’s not only the freedom of the individual, it’s the freedom of all of us.”
Activist group GetUp is buying advertisements in The New York Times and The Washington Times newspapers defending WikiLeaks. More than 50,000 people have signed the petition circulated by the group, which ran a vocal campaign against the treatment of Hicks.
Queensland MP Graham Perrett said he was a strong supporter of whistleblowing and transparency. “However I’m unsure that any indiscriminate mass release of information is going to ensure no lives are put at risk,” he said.
It was the government’s job to ensure Australian citizens were given full legal protection, Mr Perrett said.
“I would suggest we need to look after all of our citizens abroad, irrespective of what they are charged with,” he said.
“We must preserve the rule of law, and a fair trial is an essential part of this.”
Mr McClelland yesterday stressed it was not his responsibility to determine guilt or innocence.
He said the Australian Federal Police had been asked to examine whether any Australian laws had been breached by Mr Assange. But asked to clarify the government’s position, Mr McClelland repeated his assertion that it would be illegal in Australia to obtain or distribute classified documents.
“I said by way of analogy that if . . . serving military personnel or officer of the commonwealth had access to a similar database in Australia and took confidential national security classified information off that website and revealed it, I have no doubt it would raise issues of potential criminality.”
Asked about the AFP inquiries into the case, Mr McClelland said it took a long time for the investigation into leaks by public servant Godwin Grech to reach a conclusion, and people needed to take a “reality check”.
And Paul Kelly, the Serious Murdoch hack, writes in the Australian that closeness between Australia and America (who is fellating whom here?) is jolly healthy for all concerned:
Nobody should be surprised that the US embassy was speaking regularly to Labor figures such as NSW powerbroker Senator Mark Arbib, former minister Bob McMullan and MP Michael Danby.
It is a long tradition. The intimacy of political exchanges between the nations helps make the relationship special and has been facilitated by annual meetings of the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue.
In past decades the Americans had close ties with Bob Hawke, Kim Beazley and former senator Stephen Loosley. Rudd himself was a valued intimate of high-placed US officials in Washington when Labor was in opposition. This week Loosley told The Australian he had briefed the US nearly 20 years ago to expect Paul Keating to replace Hawke as PM. Insights into key events in domestic politics on both sides are integral to such exchanges.
You can lay money, however, these cables are mild compared with cables from the US embassy when Mark Latham was ALP leader. This provoked the greatest period of US alarm about Australia for decades. Concern about the damage Latham might perpetrate resonated at high levels in Washington, and Rudd and Beazley were involved in talks with US officials on how Latham could best be managed.
The practice of close ties between Labor’s right wing and the US tended to be overlooked during the Howard era given the media’s obsession about the links between John Howard and George W. Bush. That Arbib reassured the Americans about Julia Gillard is hardly a surprise. It is interesting, however, that he told them he backed the Iraq military commitment. The tradition of political intimacy between the ALP right wing and the US has passed to a new generation; witness Chris Bowen, Stephen Conroy, Bill Shorten and Arbib, each of them increasingly wired into US networks. These exchanges, of course, are not just one way. Australia has had a succession of Washington ambassadors with excellent inside contacts; witness John McCarthy, Andrew Peacock, Michael Thawley, Dennis Richardson and now Beazley. One of the consequences is that Howard expected Bush to become president in 2001 and had an agenda ready to greet him. In the context, talk about Arbib being an “agent of influence” or a US spy is naive and ignorant of how Australia-US relations are conducted.
Al Jazeera English covered the Sydney rally for Wikileaks yesterday:
Pro-WikiLeaks demonstrations have been held across Australia against the arrest of Julian Assange, the whistleblowing website’s founder.
In Sydney, around 500 demonstrators [editor; more like 1500 people] gathered on Friday, to push for the release of Assange, who is in a British jail fighting extradition to Sweden on sex crime allegations.
A group of WikiLeaks supporters also staged a rally in Brisbane, calling on the Australian government to respect freedom of expression.
WikiLeaks, which has provoked fury in Washington with its publications, vowed it would continue making public details of the 250,000 secret diplomatic US cables it had obtained.
Assange, an Australian citizen, has been in a UK jail waiting for news on whether or not he will be extradited to Sweden in relation to a number of allegations of sexual crimes made against him in that country.
Those who attended the rally in Sydney also condemned the Australian government for its stand on the issue.
“To say to the Australian government, the [Julia] Gillard Government … behaviour in the last two weeks has been utterly outrageous, outrageous,” Antony Loewenstein, one of the organisers said while addressing the crowd.
The US government and others across the world have argued the publication of cables is irresponsible and could put their national security at risk.
The WikiLeaks website was shut down after apparent political pressure on service providers, but WikiLeaks said there were now 750 global mirror sites meaning the data so far released remained publicly available.
Embarrassment
WikiLeaks has continued to embarrass the Australian government, with the latest batch of leaked cables revealing that Kevin Rudd, the foreign minister. derided the contributions of France and Germany in Afghanistan.
The cables, published in the Australian newspaper Fairfax, reported how Rudd likened the European fight against the Taliban to “organising folk-dancing festivals”.
In another of the cables sent to Washington in November 2009 Rudd, as prime minister, confided that the outlook in Afghanistan “scares the hell out of me”.
Protesters in Sydney said they were angry that Assange was arrested after voicing the truth.
Australia has previously faced some criticism in the media for not standing by Assange.
Robert McClelland, the attorney-general, and Gillard, the prime minister, have voiced strong criticism of Assange and WikiLeaks.
Today’s big rally for Wikileaks in Sydney (I think around 2000 people were there) saw a wide cross section of people outraged with the intimidation of Wikileaks and Julian Assange and the Gillard government’s capitulation to American demands. I spoke and chaired the event. This story appears in the Daily Telegraph:
Protestors today converged on Sydney’s town hall demanding that the Gillard government protect Australian-born Wikileaks frontman Julian Assange in the first offline mass action in the country since “cablegate” broke.
The message from the handful of speakers to the 1200-strong crowd, from Greens MPs through to an American businessman, was simple: the Australian government needs to do a better job in protecting citizens abroad and Wikileaks is critical for the democracy both here and internationally.
Independent journalist and author Antony Loewenstein said Prime Minister Julia Gillard had to condemn the death threats on Mr Assange’s life and should support the besieged whistleblower with as much government assistance as possible.
“We should not make the mistakes that we made with David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib,” Mr Loewenstein said today.
And he questioned just how much the Australian government is independent of the US after leaks this week revealed that Labor senator Mark Arbib was an American informant.
“Are we independent or are we a client state of the US?” he said to the cheers of the crowd.
Get Up’s Sam Mclean, one of a number of political groups represented in the crowd, said that in just 12 hours close to 50,000 people had donated a total of almost $250,000 to buy advertisements in the New York Times supporting Mr Assange.
“We want to make a statement to our allies in the States that the Australian people support Wikileaks,” Mr Mclean said.
“We are buying full-page ads in the New York Times because our government has failed to represent us.”
Former Get Up CEO Brett Solomon will appear on the Bill O’Reilly show today in the US taking Get Up’s message to conservative America, Mr Mclean said.
Greens senate-elect Lee Rhiannon said: “Right now our government should be celebrating the work of Julian Assange.”
But Ms Rhiannon said the government had instead engaged in sycophantic behaviour in claiming that Wikileaks had broken the law but could not say which laws had been broken.
“The government is big on sharing information on MySchool and MyHospital but not on My Government,” she said.
Melbourne-run website WL Central moderator Asher Wolf said recently the site had received 1.9 million hits per day as interest in the diplomatic cables had spiked.
However, she said that US government talk of listing Mr Assange and Wikileaks associates as terrorists was effectively a death threat against her and her colleagues.
During the speeches an elderly man made his way onto the town hall’s steps and held up a series of signs in support of free speech.
However, he drifted off topic with one anti-gay sign sparking an angry response from one member of the crowd who tore the placard off him and tore it up.
My following article appears on ABC Unleashed today:
Who can now say that the WikiLeaks cables detail no new information?
It was only last week that ABC TV’s 7.30 Report featured a story with supposed foreign affairs experts, including the Lowy Institute’s Michael Fullilove, who largely dismissed the significance of the document dump. Within a few days these men were all proven wrong.
Now we know Labor powerbroker Mark Arbib sends confidential information to the Americans. He’s not alone.
Crucially, however, our media class aren’t asking the next obvious questions.
The Australian’s Paul Maley argues that communication between politicians, journalists and diplomats is part of the daily job.
“It is no surprise the Americans were talking to Arbib,” he writes, “They talk to everyone.”
And yet the senior Murdoch journalist doesn’t understand that the general public are rarely told about such meetings. What is discussed? What are the agendas? Is there transparency in such dealings? And who is telling what information to whom? Who benefits and what stories are not being told to avoid embarrassing somebody?
The cosiness between these players is exactly what WikiLeaks is aiming to challenge. Why shouldn’t the voting public be privy to whims and wishes of the American government and their relationships with key government ministers, individuals voted in by all of us? If Arbib was warning the Americans he thought Rudd may fall, why wasn’t he telling his constituents, the ones who put him in office?
The fact that the US had followed the rise of Julia Gillard and approved her views on the American alliance, Afghanistan and Israeli aggression is worrying though unsurprising.
It’s extremely rare that a leader rises who hasn’t received American approval or extensive years of obedience grooming. Former Labor leader Mark Latham was loathed by the US because he publicly expressed scepticism about the US alliance, the war in Iraq and then-president George W Bush.
It’s worth recalling that Latham called former prime minister John Howard an “arselicker” of the Bush administration and described a delegation of Liberal party politicians going to Washington as “a conga line of suckholes”.
Latham would undoubtedly use equally colourful language to describe Arbib and Kevin Rudd. So why did ABC TV’s 7.30 Report feel the need to mitigate the damage to Rudd and Australia with the latest release of cables this week by featuring a soft-ball interview with assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell?
Host Kerry O’Brien didn’t even blush when he acknowledged that, “he [Campbell] asked to come on the program to counter the damage from today’s exposure in Fairfax newspapers of the US embassy cables”. Since when is the ABC designed to offer air-time to a senior US official with a clear agenda to kiss and make up with Canberra? Moreover, viewers were expected to believe that Rudd was one of Barack Obama’s “best mates”?
The interview was symptomatic of the greater media malaise in this massive story; journalistic jealousy and closeness to state power.
The latest leaks that show profound Australian Government doubts over the Afghan mission are damning. Ministers are complicit but what about the journalists who visit Afghanistan, embed with our troops and paint an overly rose picture of brave men and women in a winnable war? Scepticism is often in short supply when reporting from the front lines.
When Hillary Clinton recently visited Australia, she was treated to a light interview with ABC’s Leigh Sales (who even Tweeted a grinning photo of the two). There were no challenging questions, just friendly banter and space for the Secretary of State to spin lines about loving Australia and its hospitality.
To learn a few weeks later, via WikiLeaks, that Clinton directed US officials across the world to spy on unsuspecting governments and UN officials should elicit outrage from a media fraternity that recently offered little more than obsequiousness before American power. There’s been not a peep.
Such obedience doesn’t come naturally; it takes years of practice. Annual events such as the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue – a secret gathering of politicians, journalists and opinion-makers – consolidate the unhealthy, uncritical relationship between Australia and America. Many corporate journalists have attended, including the Sydney Morning Herald’s Peter Hartcher and former Labor MP and ABC reporter Maxine McKew. It aims to consolidate American hegemony rather than challenging it.
It’s largely a one-way street. Australians display loyalty to an agenda and the Americans are allegedly thankful. As US participant Steve Clemons wrote in 2007:
“Phil Scanlan, founder of the Australian American Leadership Dialogue, is proud of the fact that in 15 years, no-one has leaked any of the internal conversations of the conference. I won’t either… unless I get permission from one of the speakers or commentators to do so which is allowed by the rules.”
The Australia-Israel Leadership Dialogue, inspired by the American one, is once again about to head to Israel for a short burst of Zionist propaganda. Journalists and politicians invariably return with the required Israeli talking points (let me guess this year; Iran is the greatest threat to the Middle East and the world?).
The Age’s Michelle Grattan tweeted this week of the post-WikiLeaks reality of the tour:
“All those pollies travelling to the Aust-Israel dialogue might be a bit more inclined to zip their lips in private.”
But why are such gatherings so secret? Why do journalists allow themselves to be romanced without revealing the kinds of agendas they’re pushing? It’s obvious why; being close to top officials and politicians makes them feel connected and important. Being an insider is many reporters’ ideal position. Independence is secondary to receiving sanctioned links and elevated status in a globalised world.
The WikiLeaks documents challenge the entire corrupted relationship between media and political elites. Founder Julian Assange is an outsider and doesn’t attend exclusive and secret meetings where the furthering of US foreign policy goals are on the cards. He aims to disrupt that dynamic. Many in the media resent not being leaked the information themselves and are jealous. Others simply dislike a lone-wolf citizen with remarkable tech-savvy to challenge their viability.
One can dismiss The Australian’s bragging of knowing virtually everything in the WikiLeaks cables before they were released – if only they more deeply scrutinised the effect of war policies they backed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and beyond – because the key point here isn’t merely covering disillusionment over Rudd or Gillard or anyone else. It’s something far bigger; a fundamental re-writing of the relationship between journalists and governments.
The WikiLeaks cable dumps have revealed a chasm between establishment attitudes towards truth-telling and furious attempts to protect the embarrassed. The sign of any healthy democracy is the ways in which it deals with the most sensitive of information. Senior media figures and government authorities are often remarkably consistent in their messaging. They move in similar worlds and they often rely on each other for sourcing.
It’s this kind of dangerous, mutual sycophancy that WikiLeaks could break.
Antony Loewenstein is a Sydney journalist, author of My Israel Question and The Blogging Revolution and currently working on a book about disaster capitalism
After winning the country’s top journalism prize last night, the Walkleys, reporter Laurie Oakes had a message for his fellow scribes. How many will speak up?
Oakes also attacked Ms Gillard and Attorney-General Robert McClelland for their response to the release of secret US diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks.
“What they said was ridiculous,” he said.
“To brand what the WikiLeaks site has done as illegal when there’s no evidence of any breach of the law, I think is demeaning… I think as journalists we should make that our view.”
I was interviewed yesterday by the Sydney Morning Herald online (audio here and here) to discuss the vital importance of Wikileaks for democracy and the Gillard government’s shameful damning of Julian Assange in the name of placating its Washington masters.
At least there are some rational and strong political voices in Australia:
Key independent MP and former whistleblower Andrew Wilkie has accused Julia Gillard of trashing freedom of speech and ignoring Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s right to be presumed innocent.
As the fallout from the WikiLeaks revelations continues, the Tasmanian federal crossbencher also said today the Prime Minister had shown contempt for the principles of the rule of law, sovereignty and freedom of speech.
Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks to Fairfax newspapers revealed that Labor powerbroker Mark Arbib provided inside information to the US embassy in Canberra on the ALP and the Australian government.
Ms Gillard had initially described the WikiLeaks website as “illegal” but has subsequently toned down her language, describing the release of thousands of confidential embassy cables as “grossly irresponsible”.
“It would not happen, information would not be on WikiLeaks if there had not been an illegal act undertaken,” she said at a press conference earlier this week.
But Mr Wilkie declared this morning that “in talking about ‘illegal acts’, the Prime Minister has ignored Mr Assange’s presumption of innocence and potentially comprised any chance of a fair trial, if in fact he is even charged over publishing this information”.
“Moreover, Julia Gillard has shown contempt for Australia’s sovereignty by defaulting to the interests of the United States of America above the interests of an Australian citizen.
“She has also trashed the principle of freedom of speech because, although we might not agree with Julian Assange’s actions, we must always respect the right to speak out so long as lives and national security are not placed at risk.”
Mr Assange was denied bail earlier this week by an English court and is facing extradition to Sweden to face charges of sexual assault.
But a British judge says the WikiLeaks founder may be released from jail next week unless Swedish prosecutors produce evidence in London to back up their allegations.
Senior district judge Howard Riddle said Swedish authorities would need to show some convincing evidence if they wanted to oppose bail for the 39-year-old Australian when he appears in court next Tuesday to oppose extradition to Sweden.
It’s almost inevitable that anybody who would become Prime Minister of Australia has been vetted by Washington. By the time a person is near the top job, their views on a range of issues is known. Not being utterly in thrall to America would cause angst in the corridors of power. Pressure would be applied. Julia Gillard, consider yourself approved:
US diplomats closely followed the rise of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, applauded her shedding of past Labor Left allegiances and confidently predicted she would be the next prime minister more than eight months before she deposed Kevin Rudd as federal Labor leader.
Secret United States embassy cables obtained by WikiLeaks and provided to The Age reveal US diplomats in Canberra paid close attention to Ms Gillard, identifying her at an early stage as the ”rising star” of the Rudd Labor government, rapidly outshining Treasurer Wayne Swan and all others.
Although an early report by ambassador Robert McCallum noted Ms Gillard was ”a loyal and competent deputy” to Mr Rudd, US diplomats had no doubt about the full extent of her political ambitions and as early as June 2008 declared her the ”front-runner” to replace Mr Rudd as Labor leader, a goal she would achieve two years later.
Advertisement: Story continues belowIn this context, US diplomats were anxious to establish Ms Gillard’s attitudes towards Australia’s alliance with the United States and other key foreign policy questions, especially in regard to Israel.
Numerous Labor figures were drawn by US diplomats into conversation concerning Ms Gillard’s personality and political positions with ”many key ALP insiders” quickly telling embassy officers that her past membership of the Victorian Labor Party’s Socialist Left faction meant little and that she was ”at heart a pragmatist”.
New South Wales Right powerbroker Mark Arbib described Ms Gillard as ”one of the most pragmatic politicians in the ALP”. When US embassy officers reminded Paul Howes, head of the right-wing Australian Workers Union, that ”ALP politicians from the Left, no matter how capable, do not become party leader, he said immediately: ‘But she votes with the Right.’ ”
The US embassy privately expressed pleasure at Ms Gillard’s preparedness to affirm her support for the US alliance. But there was some lingering doubt about the strength of her commitment.
”Although long appearing ambivalent about the Australia-US Alliance, Gillard’s actions since she became the Labor Party number two indicate an understanding of its importance,” the embassy reported to Washington in mid-2008.
”[US embassy political officers] had little contact with her when she was in opposition but since the election, Gillard has gone out of her way to assist the embassy.
”At our request, she agreed to meet a visiting member of the [US] National Labor Relations Board, after prior entreaties by the board members’ Australian hosts had been rebuffed.
”Although warm and engaging in her dealings with American diplomats, it’s unclear whether this change in attitude reflects a mellowing of her views or an understanding of what she needs to do to become leader of the ALP,” the embassy reported to the State Department.
”It is likely a combination of the two. Labor Party officials have told us that one lesson Gillard took from the 2004 elections was that Australians will not elect a PM who is perceived to be anti-American.”
More broadly, the US embassy noted that Labor factional differences over foreign policy had largely disappeared and that the US alliance enjoyed broad support within the Labor government.
In a further report, the embassy recorded that Victorian Labor senator David Feeney had told embassy officers that ” there is no longer any intellectual integrity in the factions” and that ”there is no major policy issue on which he, a Right factional leader, differs from Gillard”.
Senator Feeney later emerged as one of the key figures behind Ms Gillard’s election as Labor leader in June.
The embassy also applauded what it described as Ms Gillard’s ”pro-Israel” stance, reporting in October 2009 that she had ”thrown off the baggage of being from what one analyst called the ‘notoriously anti-Israel faction.’ ” of the ALP.
Cameron Stewart writes a perceptive piece in the Australian on the troubles for the Australian government. It either stands up for its citizen, Julian Assange, or is made to simply follow Washington’s dictates. The evidence thus far is not good:
Australia faces potentially the greatest political fallout of any non-American nation from the WikiLeaks controversy.
Not only must the Gillard government contend with the embarrassing contents of the leaked cables, which have already diminished the standing of Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, but it also faces an acute political dilemma if WikiLeaks’ Australian founder Julian Assange is eventually extradited to the US.
Mr Assange’s Australian passport means that Canberra cannot be divorced from his long-term fate, both legally and politically.
The federal government is already in the unusual position of having to provide full diplomatic assistance to the arrested Mr Assange at the same time as it has slammed his actions in releasing thousands of classified documents on his website.
Imagine how much more difficult this will become if – as many suspect – Mr Assange ends up in the US facing espionage-related charges.
Lawyers for Mr Assange fear that this is the ultimate motive behind his arrest on a Swedish extradition warrant in relation to alleged sex offences.
If he is extradited to Sweden, they believe that the Americans will request his extradition to the US.
Yet Washington is struggling to identify precisely what case it could bring against Mr Assange.
US Attorney-General Eric Holder is examining whether Mr Assange could be charged with a crime under the 1917 Espionage Act which prohibits the transmission of defence-related documents.
But this 1917 act was never designed for a case such as this and there has been no espionage-related prosecution in US history that remotely resembles the WikiLeaks case.
The absence of a clear-cut legal case against Mr Assange means that any attempt to prosecute him will reek of a political agenda.
This will further elevate his status as a cult hero and a symbol for free speech, and will place political pressure on Australia to ensure that his rights are not trampled.
In many ways, Mr Assange’s case could have parallels to that of convicted terrorist David Hicks, who won sympathy in Australia because of the perception that he had been unfairly treated by the Bush administration.
Mr Assange has hardly trained with al-Qa’ida and one would expect that he would have widespread popular support in Australia if he is seen to be the victim of US politics.
Suddenly the Gillard government would have a cult hero on its hands and a political headache.
Australia would be faced with the choice of robustly defending one of its own citizens and therefore undermining its relations with Washington, or effectively abandoning Mr Assange to his fate and taking a hit in the opinion polls.
It is a bleak choice and one which may prove to be far more difficult and damaging for Australia than the contents of the cables themselves.
More invaluable insights into how diplomacy really works. Egos and bowing to the US and Israel. That’s quite a vision for world peace and security (and what’s a few thousand civilians killed by our cluster bombs?)
Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd is an abrasive, impulsive ”control freak” who presided over a series of foreign policy blunders during his time as prime minister, according to secret United States diplomatic cables.
The scathing assessment – detailed in messages sent by the US embassy in Canberra to Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton over several years – are among hundreds of US State Department cables relating to Australia obtained by WikiLeaks and made available exclusively to The Age.
”Rudd … undoubtedly believes that with his intellect, his six years as a diplomat in the 1980s and his five years as shadow foreign minister, he has the background and the ability to direct Australia’s foreign policy. His performance so far, however, demonstrates that he does not have the staff or the experience to do the job properly,” the embassy bluntly observed in November 2009.
Advertisement: Story continues belowThe cables show how initially favourable American impressions of Mr Rudd, as ”a safe pair of hands”, were quickly replaced by sharp criticism of his micromanagement and mishandling of diplomacy as he focused on photo and media opportunities.
In a December 2008 review of the first year of the Rudd government, US ambassador Robert McCallum characterised its performance as ”generally competent” and noted Mr Rudd was ”focused on developing good relations with the incoming US administration [of President Barack Obama], and is eager to be seen as a major global player”.
Despite this, what were described as ”Rudd’s foreign policy mistakes” formed the centrepiece of the ambassador’s evaluation. Mr McCallum thought the prime minister’s diplomatic ”missteps” largely arose from his propensity to make ”snap announcements without consulting other countries or within the Australian government”.
According to the embassy, the government’s ”significant blunders” began when then foreign minister Stephen Smith announced in February 2008 that Australia would not support strategic dialogue between Australia, the US, Japan and India out of deference to China. ”This was done without advance consultation and at a joint press availability with visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi,” Mr McCallum wrote.
Mr Rudd’s June 2008 speech announcing that he would push for the creation of an Asia-Pacific Community loosely based on the European Union was cited as a further example of a major initiative undertaken ”without advance consultation with either other countries (including South-East Asian nations, leading Singaporean officials to label the idea dead on arrival) or within the Australian government (including with his proposed special envoy to promote the concept, veteran diplomat Richard Woolcott)”.
Similarly Mr Rudd’s establishment of an international commission on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation was ”rolled out … during a photo-op heavy trip to Japan … His Japanese hosts were given insufficient advance notice and refused a request for a joint announcement”.
The US embassy noted that Mr Rudd did not consult any of the five nuclear weapons states on the United Nations Security Council and that Russia had lodged a formal protest. One of Mr Rudd’s staff gave the US embassy a few hours’ advance notice of the announcement ”but without details”.
The cables also refer to ”control freak” tendencies and ”persistent criticism from senior civil servants, journalists and parliamentarians that Rudd is a micro-manager obsessed with managing the media cycle rather than engaging in collaborative decision-making”.
Eleven months later, in November 2009, the embassy delivered another sharp assessment that Mr Rudd dominated foreign policy decision-making, ”leaving his foreign minister to perform mundane, ceremonial duties and relegating the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to a backwater”.
”Other foreign diplomats, in private conversations with us, have noted how much DFAT seemed to be out of the loop,” US Charge d’Affaires Dan Clune reported. ”The Israeli ambassador [Yuval Rotem] told us that senior DFAT officials are frank in asking him what PM Rudd is up to and admit that they are out of the loop.” Mr Clune added that morale within DFAT had ”plummeted, according to our contacts inside as well as outside the department”.
The embassy also assigned blame for DFAT’s decline to the weakness of Mr Smith, who was dismissed as being ”on vacation”.
”Surprised by his appointment as foreign minister, Smith has been very tentative in asserting himself within the government,” Mr Clune wrote. ”DFAT contacts lamented that Smith took a very legalistic approach to making decisions, demanding very detailed and time-consuming analysis by the department and using the quest for more information to defer making decisions.”
David Pearl, a Treasury official who served on Mr Smith’s staff in 2004, told American diplomats that the foreign minister was ”very smart, but intimidated both by the foreign policy issues themselves and the knowledge that PM Rudd is following them so closely”.
Former DFAT first assistant secretary for north Asia, Peter Baxter, lamented to embassy officers that ”Smith’s desire to avoid overruling DFAT recommendations meant that he often delayed decisions to the point that the PM’s office stepped in and took over”.
The US embassy further recounted that after Israel initiated its military offensive in Gaza in December 2008, Israeli Ambassador Yuval Rotem contacted Mr Smith at his home in Perth to ask for Australia’s public support. Despite the obvious diplomatic and political sensitivity of the issue, ”Rotem told [the embassy] that Smith’s response was that he was on vacation, and that the ambassador needed to contact deputy prime minister Gillard, who was acting prime minister and foreign minister at the time.”
Paradoxically, Mr Rudd’s determination to dominate the foreign policy agenda diminished the influence of his own department, with one DFAT assistant secretary explaining to the embassy that the foreign policy staff of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) were ”overwhelmed supporting Rudd’s foreign policy activities, particularly his travel, which has reduced its ability to push its own agenda”.
In concluding his assessment, Mr Clune suggested that Mr Rudd’s ”haphazard, overly secretive decision-making process” would continue to generate foreign policy problems.
Seven months later, Mr Rudd lost the prime ministership, but he remains very much in charge of Australia’s diplomacy.