We now take our place among the global giants: Luxembourg and Rwanda.
The direct costs of the bid were exorbitant enough, but the dramatic increase and redistribution in aid funding does no credit to Australia, will harm the economic development of recipient countries and damage Australia’s budget further. These aid pledges are just like the Rudd Government’s pink bat fiasco.
But I almost choked reading Michael Fullilove’s fawning drivel in the Drum.
Let’s examine Fullilove’s comments:
Australia’s election to the Security Council earlier today is a magnificent win for Australian diplomacy. All those involved in the initiation and prosecution of the campaign deserve kudos.
No, the taxpayer purchased the votes. There is no proof that any of the Australian public servants or ministers changed even one vote.
Membership of the Security Council is manifestly in our national interest.
Quite the contrary, membership (temporary, non veto) is demonstrably against Australia’s national interest as demonstrated by Sheridan. It diverts Australia’s foreign policy to trivia and away from our region, as Sheridan states: “Now more than ever our foreign policy will be caught up in the boutique trivia of UN reform, the media-friendly issues of the Middle East and Africa, where we can have no impact, and in the great global gabfests.”
It is the pointy end of the United Nations. UN bashers hate to hear this, but the 2002-2003 debate over the invasion of Iraq demonstrates the centrality of the Council in conferring legitimacy on the use of force, or denying it – which in turn affects the risks and costs of a military operation.
A stupid comment. The five permanent members of the Security Council always meet separately and then dictate to the other members. Do you really think that Rwanda is going to be consulted before a UN military action is contemplated? No, the temporary members just suck it up.
Sitting on the Council will increase our international leverage. It will add to our international reputation. Like our alliance with the United States, Council membership will be a source of international prestige, but a different and complementary source of prestige.
Oh, please, what crap. Does it increase the international reputation of Luxembourg, Rwanda and Argentina? Will that reputation be lost when we relinquish membership two years later? Australia’s international reputation is made or lost by our behaviour and our trade. It is made by our economic prosperity and freedoms. What an Ambassador does or does not do inside a Security Council meeting does not enhance Australia’s prestige.
We now have the opportunity to make our own arguments in our own name. Anyone who has a large opinion of Australia’s possibilities should welcome this.
No, this will be making Julia Gillard’s arguments, not ‘our’ arguments. Personally I think that Finland would better represent Australia’s national interests than the Gillard Government.
This is a big opportunity for Australia. We are a country with global interests and capacities. We have the 12th largest economy in the world and a highly professional military. We have a remarkable record for contributing to international security. Now we can bring those capacities to bear in the Security Council. The benefits to us will spill over into many of our other bilateral relationships, including in the region.
No, it is a big opportunity for the Australian Ambassador to the UN. It makes no real difference to Australia – our influence is best met outside the United Nations. The Australian economy has grown substantially since we last held a temporary position on the UNSC. It is inconceivable that there will be any significant bilateral benefits to Australia from the next term.
But this will also be a test for Australian politicians and officials. It will stretch our foreign policy establishment, which is severely under-resourced. Sometimes Australian policy makers have let important global issues go through to the keeper. As a Security Council member, we can no longer do this. This result will push Australian foreign policy in a global direction.
In fact this is the biggest risk to Australian taxpayers, who will now be tickled for more money to fund an already bloated foreign service. Our foreign service should be cut (there is substantial fat) and yet the SC membership will be used as a tool to increase spending on DFAT and the public service generally. I guess Australian winemakers should rejoice, with the new spending on Embassy receptions.
The writer of that drivel should be fired without asking what he’s smoking.
John A
20 Oct 12 at 8:12 am
Shouldn’t the buying of votes be illegal? This is after all debasing the entire democratic process. It worked in the UN why not try it in the AU election? More proof Gillard should be behind bars.
I feel ashamed that Labor with its wanna-be totalitarian mindset has dragged this country so low in their contempt for democracy.
Chris M
20 Oct 12 at 8:26 am
Labor has an excellent track record of buying votes. It’s how they got into government.
Gab
20 Oct 12 at 8:28 am
It is not surprising that the denizens of that disintegrating rag would applaud this. The left in general have a blind worship of the UN. The further left you go, the more worship on offer, until you get to the greens.
The realists seem to like that they can get around democratic institutions. They can lobby the UN, out of sight, produce seemingly authoritative judgements (like the IPCC Reports) and sign us up to conventions. The Refugee Convention has us locked into an approach we would likely have long since re-legislated if we had a freer hand.
The Full-o-love has a bit of the romantic about him, though. He is not clear on how the UN works but has allowed himself to be swept up in all the pretty rubrics about ‘all nations having equal say’, ‘a forum to talk and to prevent wars’ etc.
Aqualung
20 Oct 12 at 8:37 am
They really do believe that winning the Euro-vision song contest means the other countries in the world finally like Australia.
That lot got bullied a lot by the mean girls at High School, didn’t they?
Token
20 Oct 12 at 8:41 am
In parts, possibly. HMAS Success rarely gets past The Heads without breaking down. The last (or was it second last; in the last month anyway) breakdown required a vital part to be couriered from a ship-breaker’s yard in India. Just as well there’s not a war or international naval exercises on.
Walter Plinge
20 Oct 12 at 9:05 am
HMAS Success rarely gets past The Heads without breaking down.
You can add HMAS Choules as well as HMAS Tobruk to the list.
Gab
20 Oct 12 at 9:12 am
The guy is executive director of the Lowy Institute! From reading the extracts Samuel gave I thought he might be a foreign policy adviser to the ACT Greens.
Ronaldo
20 Oct 12 at 9:12 am
“Personally I think that Finland would better represent Australia’s national interests than the Gillard Government”
Priceless!
MichaelC58
20 Oct 12 at 9:23 am
maybe there was a reason that previous governments did not bother trying to get elected to the security council? The Cold War is over?
Jim Rose
20 Oct 12 at 9:38 am
You are all wrong. This our big moment.
Abbot can direct that the chair be left utterly unoccupied for the remainder of the term thereby very publicly exhibiting the deep and abiding contempt in which the UN is held.
Rudd will not be getting a job there a pissing-off like that.
WhaleHunt Fun
20 Oct 12 at 10:03 am
So we are allowed to pay bribes for votes, but not to bribe for selling our wheat.
What are the odds on KRudd being appointed to get him out of Gillards hair?
Helen Armstrong
20 Oct 12 at 10:53 am
Helen Armstrong @1053,
Unlikely – that ratbag could’nt follow instructions!
Mike of Marion
20 Oct 12 at 10:59 am
couldn’t
Mike of Marion
20 Oct 12 at 11:00 am
No chance of Gillard appointing Rudd- he’d have to vacate his seat and the subsequent by-election would see Labor losing it in a massive protest vote. With Wilkie offside, the Labor regime would be at risk of losing confidence and being forced to an early election.
Cold-Hands
20 Oct 12 at 11:29 am
Hadn’t thought of that angle, Cold-Hands. You are right.
Helen Armstrong
20 Oct 12 at 11:56 am
Didn’t Fullilove break cover and nominate for a Labor preselection?
blogstrop
20 Oct 12 at 12:09 pm
Can someone explain to me how buying votes for the UN Vote is different to paying Sales Commission “Trucking” fees for AWB in Iraq, or paying “Sales Commission” in Malaysia by the Reserve Bank Note Printing Australia?
OldOzzie
20 Oct 12 at 12:20 pm
Wikipedia puts him as a former adviser to PM Paul Keating.
Cold-Hands
20 Oct 12 at 12:27 pm
The ALP did it.
Token
20 Oct 12 at 12:58 pm
…and a
highly professionalpolitically correct military.FTFY
jupes
20 Oct 12 at 1:42 pm
Quite so Jupes – I have the ugly feeling it would take a purge of Stalinesque proportions to get our Armed Forces back into war winning shape.
Winston Smith
20 Oct 12 at 4:02 pm
Isn’t buying votes for the UN Vote pretty similar to what Shagger did?
Tiny Dancer
20 Oct 12 at 4:10 pm
I agree, this is a great day for the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation.
Abu Chowdah
20 Oct 12 at 5:22 pm