Let's talk teamwork

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

Advertisement

This was published 13 years ago

Let's talk teamwork

Gillard and Rudd need to get over their history and truly work together.

By Daniel Flitton

For the second time inside a year, Australians are left wondering what really transpired in a private conversation between Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. When the Prime Minister talked to her Foreign Minister yesterday morning, did she complain he was out of line, confusing a personal quest to be seen as a global statesman with the interests of the Australian government? Or did two weary travellers simply offer each another a quick ''g'day'' so they could go out to front the cameras and honestly say they had spoken?

The Gillard-Rudd dynamic is confusing the presentation of Australia's foreign policy. The official position on Libya is a muddle and there was more awkwardness yesterday in the response to the disaster in Japan.

Rudd's strident demand for the Japanese to keep the world informed about the safety of its nuclear facilities - when Tokyo appears to be doing precisely that - was at odds with Gillard, who showed no pressing concerns.

Working closely together was always going to be tricky after she seized the top job last year and he decided to stay on, insisting on his choice of portfolio. The truth is, the relationship between the leader and foreign minister in any government invariably sparks tensions - Bob Hawke rode roughshod over Gareth Evans on occasion; John Howard had moments with Alexander Downer. Rudd, when prime minister, had a run-in with Stephen Smith over the selection of ambassadors.

But the history between Gillard and Rudd is what makes their relationship so piquant - and the fact that minority government means Rudd holds an executioner's axe above Gillard's neck, despite having lost the support of his party as leader. Should he decide to quit politics, Labor would likely lose the resulting byelection and with it the claim to government.

With Rudd travelling so much - find Kevin in Parliament or on a plane, one wit remarked to me - the two need not often come into contact. The routine of administration will mostly take care of itself, and Gillard must be given credit for letting her ministers have a bit of free rein, a marked contrast with the Rudd era.

But the potential for tension arises when dealing with complex problems and deciding how to position Australia diplomatically. The crisis in Libya has made plain the difficulty Gillard has working with Rudd, and it won't be the last time. The trouble centres on the idea of casting a flight-exclusion zone across Libya to stop Muammar Gaddafi deploying his air force to cling to power. The call first arose when Gaddafi was reportedly using fighter jets to fire on protesters. When it soon became clear this was an armed rebellion, some countries became reluctant to intervene in a civil war.

Rudd put Australia's position on February 28 at a speech in Geneva, and it is important to look closely at the language he used. He called on the United Nations Security Council to ''embrace'' a no-fly zone to help protect the Libyan people.

When Gillard took up the issue on March 2 in Parliament, she used a different formula, calling on the Security Council to ''consider'' a flight-exclusion zone.

This might seem a semantic difference, but it is a crucial one. Language is all-important in diplomacy. Remember, only a couple of words separated the claim Saddam Hussein ''has'' weapons of mass destruction from was ''wanting'' them - but the cost of misunderstanding is high.

Advertisement

Gillard was adding Australia's voice to the call for international action on Libya, but in a way that did not suggest making a direct contribution. As she rightly pointed out yesterday, ''We are a long way from Libya.'' Any military action would need to be taken by European or US forces.

Rudd's demand to ''impose'' a no-fly zone, by contrast, prompts the obvious question: if Australia is so ginned up, how many fighters would we send? Or is Australia offering to risk the lives of other countries' pilots? Foreign diplomats were left confused and Canberra insiders were amazed it took until late last week for the media to pick up on the mixed messages Australia was sending.

Despite Gillard now professing her view is ''exactly the same'' as Rudd's, she is still asking the UN to consider action, while he is demanding it happen.

Rudd yesterday described the international talks on a flight-exclusion zone as a ''tortuous diplomatic trail'' and acknowledged that getting the Security Council to authorise action is far from certain, with Russia and China wielding a veto. Fresh backing for the idea from the Arab League countries helps, though events on the ground may make the whole enterprise too late. The rebels are fighting with small arms against Gaddafi's heavily armoured forces.

But for Australia, what is at issue here is a judgment of national interest. Rudd brings great enthusiasm to the role of foreign minister and looks to be having tremendous fun. He is a relentless campaigner and clearly wants to be involved in the big issue of the day. Yet Australia has not much cared about Libya since World War II, and only then for reasons of grand strategy. The natural inclination of the foreign policy establishment in Australia, including most government advisers, is that our diplomatic energies are better directed closer to home. Every moment Rudd spends on Libya is one lost on drumming up regional support to tackle asylum-seeker movement, for example, or shoring up Australia's interests in Thailand or Cambodia.

Gillard made a mistake last year when confessing to a lack of passion for foreign policy. It leaves her suspect in the area and feeds the perception that Rudd is running the show. He has built a reputation in foreign policy; together, they could make an effective team. But that means speaking with one voice and trusting each other.

Daniel Flitton is Age diplomatic editor.

Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU

Most Viewed in Politics

Loading