Kevin Rudd has suffered multiple setbacks in his public life, as politicians frequently do. His removal as prime minister in 2010 by mutinous Labor Party colleagues would qualify as the most scarifying of those. The brutal torpedoing of his hopes of becoming the next United Nations secretary-general role by Malcolm Turnbull on Friday would not be far behind, however.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Mr Rudd had invested considerable time and effort in advancing his candidacy for the UN job, propelled by an abiding self-belief in his diplomatic skills and networking abilities. To be informed by Mr Turnbull that the government had doubts about his "suitability" would have been crushing.
Mr Rudd's first job on leaving university was with the Department of Foreign Affairs, and it's probable he would have risen far within the department had not politics (in the form of a job as Queensland premier Wayne Goss's chief of staff) beckoned in 1988. Mr Rudd's interest in, and aptitude for, international issues, was evident throughout much of his prime ministership. And even his harshest of critics would admit Mr Rudd was an energetic and effective advocate for Australia in forums such as the G-20.
Mr Turnbull's curt brush-off of Mr Rudd's bid suggests Australia's much vaunted political bipartisanship on national security, free trade and diplomacy is not as substantial as is generally believed. It's also overturned a long-standing convention that governments support or back the candidacy of Australians seeking leading roles within large and influential international bodies such as the UN or the World Bank, regardless of their political background or allegiances.
Federal Cabinet was reportedly split on whether or not to support Mr Rudd's nomination, with debate about whether this would also oblige the government to actively support that candidacy complicating matters. It's believed Immigration Minister Peter Dutton and Treasurer Scott Morrison were among those adamantly opposed to nominating Mr Rudd, and that support for him was lukewarm only, with the exception of Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.
That Mr Turnbull chose to adopt the naysayers' viewpoint has been interpreted as a further instance of his preparedness to pander to the Coalition's right wing elements, most of whom had been openly hostile to Mr Rudd's UN ambitions. Cabinet's failure to agree on a course of action on Thursday certainly left Mr Turnbull in an awkward position. While he may have figured this was not an issue worth expending valuable political capital on, a more pragmatic way out would have been to argue that nominating Mr Rudd was neither here nor there politically since his prospects of becoming UN secretary-general are actually low.
But concerns over Mr Rudd's at times erratic style, the dysfunction of his office while prime minister and at times questionable judgment calls made his nomination a risky proposition. These issues ultimately contributed to the demise of his bid to the UN. For these Mr Rudd needs to shoulder much of the blame.
