A seat at the big table… but would it be as an activist?
Kevin Rudd’s assertion today that Australia will be seeking temporary membership of the UN Security Council for the 2013-14 term is a welcome and not altogether surprising move. The Rudd Government’s time in office so far has been characterised by a strong interest in re-engaging in a multilateral sense with the international community, and a willingness to commit to fairly long-winded plans that could conceivably only come to fruition beyond the life of the current government. In a foreign policy sense, it is refreshing. One imagines that John Howard was never that interested in seeking representation for Australia on the security council; probably partly because he didn’t have much belief in the United Nations, and partly because there was no need given that the United States spoke for Australia while he was in power anyway.
What I am hopeful of is that Australia takes an activist role in its interactions with the United Nations. In relation to most of the metrics one can conceive of, we are of course a bantam-weight at best on the international scene. Our twenty million people are barely a drop in the ocean when compared to the billions of people shared between the likes of the United States, China, and India. Australia may not be in the position to throw its weight around in the international political arena, but we are perfectly suited to playing a “fixer” intermediary role between the most powerful nations in the world. We have strong friends and the respect of nations in both the West and Asia. Kevin Rudd has the unique power to talk to the Chinese in a way that no Australian leader ever has. The prospects for Australia’s role in global politics to become greatly enhanced over the coming five years or so are extremely good, and this is an exciting and wonderful thing.
Tags: China, India, Security Council, United Nations
This entry was posted
on Saturday, March 29th, 2008 at 10:44 pm and is filed under Foreign Policy, Rudd Labor Government.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 30th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Will Rudd be still there in 2013?
March 30th, 2008 at 10:43 am
That’s a good question. If I was going to bet on the outcome, it would put money on Federal Labor winning the 2010 federal election, just based on the current parlous state of the Opposition. However, things can change quickly in politics, and I don’t think victory in 2010 for Labor is by any means certain at this stage of the game.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Then why put up such a proposal when there is an uncertainty of the leader being there to implement it. Let alone would Australia even have a chance in getting such a seat?
March 30th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I think Australia would have a good chance, given that we haven’t had a presence on the council for quite a while. It’s definitely worth pursuing initiatives that may outlast the live of the current government though - otherwise you’re stuck with a kind of policy short-termism in which any plans made need to happen within three years at a maximum.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Who do you think is correct, Alexander Downer or that person who last held the position in the Security Council for Australia, in relations to the need to amending foreign policy to suit the voters?
April 1st, 2008 at 9:50 pm
It’s a bit of balancing act I think - of course there is some responsibility on the part of government to ensure that their foreign policy does not contradict the wishes of the people. On the other hand, a government must also do what it thinks is right. I am not sure a hard and fast rule exists that dictates from occasion to occasion which of these central drives takes moral precedence.