Federal cabinet needed to show leadership and consign political cynicism to the background in dealing with Kevin Rudd's United Nations leadership ambitions. It failed – and so did Malcolm Turnbull. His authority has been diminished – and so has Australia's role in world affairs.
Mr Turnbull says Mr Rudd is "not well suited" for the job, but is not saying why. An information vacuum makes this appear even more politically motivated.
Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull has chosen not to support Kevin Rudd's bid for the top United Nations post.Credit: Bloomberg
Some will say it's a moot point that cabinet was so divided that Mr Turnbull had to make the final decision and, inevitably, take the blame for withholding the government's support. Mr Rudd would not have been elected secretary-general anyway, the argument goes. Former Portuguese prime minister Antonio Guterres is a deserved favourite for the job of secretary-general. If an outsider were to get up, former New Zealand Labour prime minister Helen Clark has the credentials to do well – and she has the full support of the National Key government.
Mr Turnbull is right on one point: "This is far from the most important issue confronting the government."
But the principle and implications at stake for Australia are important.
The cabinet split over the Rudd candidacy shows some within the government cannot put the national interest above political interests.
The Prime Minister has bowed to the Coalition's conservative wing and rebuffed his foreign minister, Julie Bishop.
The nation needs a united government; one which recognises that advocacy for Australia at the UN must be bipartisan, just as the choice of envoys should be non-political and based on merit.
The Turnbull cabinet has sent a message to other nations that we care less about international conflict resolution than we do about domestic personal vengeance.
The decision betrays Australia's proud record of global contributions, most recently as temporary president of the UN Security Council.
Back decades, the former High Court judge, Labor foreign minister, attorney-general and eventually leader H.V. (Bert) Evatt played a key role in establishing the UN. He was president of the general assembly for its third session in 1948-49. He helped develop the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and counted the creation of Israel among his greatest contributions at the UN.
In 1983 former senior diplomat Alan Renouf wrote how "the reputation Evatt won for himself as the voice of Australia long endured in the United Nations. It brought great credit to his country; more than any other national leader, Evatt made Australia known universally and made it known as a country of courage, responsibility and liberalism."
When Evatt spoke for Australia, Renouf wrote, the world knew our nation had something worthwhile to say.
Evatt, like Mr Rudd, was often accused of struggling with teamwork yet excelled at the UN.
The extremes of the Liberal Party, reflected by Tasmanian senator Eric Abetz, attacked Mr Rudd's "temperament and capability" for the job. Former Labor figures have also attacked Mr Rudd. While Mr Rudd is a Sinofile, he offended Beijing when he was prime minister, and was not helped when his imprudent reference to the Chinese as ratf---ers later became public. The Herald has highlighted many times the dysfunction to which Mr Rudd contributed when in government. He is a noted micro-manager and carries personal grudges.
Still, it is difficult to dispute that Mr Rudd's credentials as a former diplomat, foreign minister and supporter of global cooperation make him a worthy candidate for secretary-general. The Turnbull government should have accorded Mr Rudd respect and recognition for his service to the nation.
The UN is quite capable of determining whether his personal qualities diminish his professional experience for the position.
Mr Turnbull's decision sets a worrying precedent. Now every time a well-qualified Australian wants to nominate for a similar position, he or she will think twice if their politics do not meet the government of the day. Let's say John Howard wanted to lead a UN anti-guns committee and needed government support. Would the coalition expect Labor's backing and receive it? Of course it would – and rightly so.
Mr Turnbull's call against Mr Rudd is not egregious, but it nonetheless raises questions about his judgment.