Bob Carr brings a lot to the foreign minister job, writes former noted diplomat James Dunn. But he carries baggage as well, particularly in how he sees human rights. With CLA long advocating before parliamentary committees that the Department of Foreign Affairs needs to put much more – not less – emphasis on human rights, especially in the Pacific, Carr has a difficult and possibly uncomfortable road ahead.
The coming of Carr – rights or wrong?
By James Dunn*
The selection of Bob Carr to join Cabinet and become foreign minister has been widely and deservedly welcomed. It will no doubt strengthen the Government’s front bench, as well as the position of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who needs a strong foreign minister at a time when her government’s knife-edge majority places her at a significant political risk.
It was also a smart move to bring one of Labor’s outstanding politicians into a cabinet weakened by Rudd’s departure, and facing his experienced scrutiny from the backbench. Carr has a strong intellect and has long been closely interested in foreign affairs, especially in our key relationship with the United States. Stephen Smith would also have been a worthy choice for this portfolio, but is needed in the difficult defence role right now, as it deals with some tricky internal problems, as our contingent prepares to extricate itself from an uncertain Afghan security scene.
Whether Carr is a better choice than the experienced Smith is going to be tested in the year ahead. Carr’s intellectual attributes and his long interest in foreign affairs provide him with the right kind of equipment, but he assumes the post of Australia’s leading diplomat without the experience of a practitioner that Rudd had acquired through his time in our foreign service. Carr says he intends to be an activist, but at first he should be cautious, because unlike Rudd he is without experience of the pitfalls an activist diplomat encounters. However, as an astute politician, with a close interest in foreign affairs and a special interest in American history and politics, he should fit well into his new role, and come up with policies appropriate to Australia’s standing as a middle power, with strong interests and experience in our Asian region, as well as in the Middle East and Africa.
This year our US relationship needs to be handled circumspectly with that tight embrace loosened rather than tightened, bearing in mind that there could be a change of government in Washington, bringing in a rather right wing regime, with new policies not necessarily in our interest (please no more regime change ventures). Also we do need to develop a more independent policy, especially towards Israel and the Palestine question. Instead of yet again declaring our support for Israel, it is time Australia focussed more on ways to make some real progress with the peace process that has become bogged down, thanks to the obstinacy of Netanyahu, and the strong influence of the US Jewish lobby in an election year. To many people in the Middle East, Australia is less interested in searching for durable diplomatic solutions than in joining in military solutions. PM Gillard’s bland support for Israel really needs to change or be modified.
It is good that Carr is meeting with Pacific leaders in New Zealand first, but I am less impressed with his aim to talk with Henry Kissinger. The latter belongs to a period of Machiavellian diplomacy that has little relevance today if we are out to strengthen UN-based collective responses. It included that dark period when Kissinger apparently endorsed the abandoning of the East Timorese to years of brutal Indonesian occupation, with not even diplomatic help from Canberra or Washington. As for our US relationship, it needs to be placed on a more even basis, in which Australian views are considered more important than our blind loyalty.
The European Union deserves more understanding and respect than it has received from PM Gillard. It is after all the region of the forebears of most Australians, and the inspiration of our democracy. Europeans also give more prominence to human rights. Here some of Carr’s past views are a bit of a worry, in particular his strong opposition to the campaign for a Human Rights Charter to make Australians more aware of, and committed to, those UN humanitarian instruments we have obligations to heed by virtue of ratification. As for the shortcomings of the United Nations, he should reflect on the fact that its responses to international crises will be as effective as its major members are prepared to make it.
Hopefully, our new foreign minister will give more attention to strengthening the UN system, especially the composition of the Security Council. The UN has established high standards of international behaviour, but it needs reform and much more support to bring about their effective implementation. If we actively support that end, securing a Security Council seat would be well worth while. It is time, Mr Carr, to reconsider your strong, and ill-considered, opposition to an Australian Human Rights Charter. You might reflect on the fact that the effective implementation of these rights provides a litmus test of the quality of Australian democracy. To dismiss their fundamental relevance casts a shadow over the functioning of that democracy.
ENDS
James Dunn is a former diplomat and UN advisor, who has had a special link with Timor Leste for 40 years. He is a member of Civil Liberties Australia.