The abuse has been coming thick and fast at Julia Gillard for her Asian tour. “Frumpy” declared the talkback callers. “Out of her depth,” opined Andrew Bolt, although that appeared to worry him less than Tim Mathieson wearing a sports jacket and no tie. Miranda Devine thought the tie attack was a bit much, but suggested a more serious problem — that Ms Gillard wasn’t married. “Why,” wondered Devine, “when visiting conservative Islamic countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia, did she decide to bring her de facto partner and flaunt a non-marital domestic situation.”
Apparently our Prime Minister should have left her partner at home to avoid causing “confusion and awkwardness”.
Iceland’s Prime Minister Sigurðardóttir should probably forget about visiting the region any time soon then.
At The Australian, Greg Sheridan offered no sartorial analysis and hadn’t spotted any “confusion and awkwardness” about the Prime Ministerial domestic arrangements, but wondered why she was bothering to visit the region at all. Doubtless if Gillard had failed to embark on an overseas trip she’d have caught hell for ignoring her foreign policy responsibilities. After all, she has publicly confessed that foreign policy is not her passion. And Labor’s foreign policy critics aren’t too fussed about consistency — recall how Kevin Rudd was pilloried for somehow being too close, and yet too antagonistic, to China?
Here’s an alternative take on Julia Gillard’s foreign policy potential. For a generation, we’ve had Prime Ministers who convinced themselves they were players on the world stage. Bob Hawke referred to himself “and other world leaders” and spoke of our ‘special relationship with China’, at least until 1989. Paul Keating tried to put APEC at the centre of world diplomacy and spoke repeatedly of Australia’s embrace of Asia. John Howard — who ignored APEC until it became a stage on which he could parade his dying Prime Ministership — so enthusiastically embraced the Bush Administration that he effectively outsourced Australian foreign policy (and our trade policy) to the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party.
And Kevin Rudd — well, you know about Kevin Rudd.
If Julia Gillard doesn’t see herself as a player on the world stage, if she isn’t obsessed with Australia “punching above its weight” in diplomacy but instead sees it primarily as an extension of domestic priorities, rather than as an opportunity to parade with “other world leaders”, then that might yet represent a refreshing change from a succession of Prime Ministers who struggled to distinguish between their own ego and Australian foreign policy.
Extremely well said!!!
The idea of Julia Gillard not being ‘Prime Ministerial’ is ridiculous. I was astonished at how little media exposure she was getting on that tour. She looked great, was suitably dressed, carried herself well amongst all those other ‘suited’ gents, and talked sense. Tim carried himself well and looked as personable as any of our head of state’s partners have ever been.
Imagine – here we have a woman PM, frankly an atheist, unmarried, openly in a long term relationship with a good looking guy. He travels as her ‘partner’ on official state business and is accepted seemingly without criticism of him or of her. He seems to know how to be friendly with foreigners, stand at a respectful distance when required and to choose the right fork at formal functions.
Wow – times have changed! I bet the powers that be on the right are terrified that Julia will dig in and be there for years to come. No wonder they’re doing all they can to downplay her brilliance as an example of how women’s lives can and should be in modern Australia.
Who gives a continental sh-t what Bolt, Devine and Sheridan think. Their opinions are as worthless as a grain of sand. I prefer Julia the way she is, not some spotlight seeking prima donna. Bolt in particular talks bollocks all of the time. The others not far behind. Go Jules, you are doing just fine on the international stage.
I have never been a major fan of Gillard but the ongoing p*ssweak and inane commentary by the above-mentioned usual suspects in the media has begun to rile me.
One can only speculate about what heads of state would make of Tony Abbott. He was a mighty fizz with David Cameron, that trip was a waste of aviation fuel.
I was at a dinner party in Dubai last weekend, the other guests (I’m a green self employed builder) were senior traders and lawyers, the smallest corporation had a turnover of $B70 pa. One was a past VP of one of the biggest oil companies. Out of my league, but talk turned to Oz politics. These people thought both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard presented themselves really well when they have seen them on Oz, EU, Asia and Middle East news and current affairs. They thought their policies were well thought out and articulated. Each of them expressed the view they would be glad to have leaders with the same level of skills. They would love a Treasury and Treasurer as we have. Then on Monday I returned to Oz and rediscovered how pathetic, fault finding and partisan our media is, and how shallow and self serving we are as voters. Demanding all and offering nothing. Demanding Education, health, water, climate and social change and turning to Abbott and his Howard policies when we were offered it. A village Indian has more political understanding than the majority of Australians, a view shared by the way by most people I spoke to while in the UK and Dubai. It is little wonder the above mentioned can get away with what they write, because half of Australia agrees with the mindless dribble they come out with, highlighting the fact that they prefer a lie rather than think for themselves.
Thank God for Crikey