“Obsessive” journalists who asked the “nonsense” question of whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese would appoint Kevin Rudd as US ambassador were apparently not so silly.
The announcement that the ex-PM will be Australia’s top diplomat in Washington came just months after Albanese dismissed the notion altogether.
“Complete nonsense,” Albanese told radio station 4BC in April when asked about speculation Rudd would be considered for the job if Labor won the election.
“Seriously, [journalists] need to get over the obsession.”
In the Tuesday press conference at Parliament House where Albanese revealed Rudd would get the nod, he said the former Labor leader would “bring unmatched experience to the role”.
“He has served as prime minister, foreign minister, held prominent academic roles and worked extensively in the US,” Albanese said.
One journalist put to Albanese that some of his parliamentary colleagues had described Rudd as “a psychopath, a micromanager, a control freak”.
“Is this the person who your government needs to have in Washington?” the reporter asked.
“Are you worried about essentially having a second foreign minister in the United States?”
Albanese responded by saying Rudd would be an “outstanding” ambassador, given his experience.
Albanese also dismissed a suggestion from a journalist that Rudd’s strong and vocal opinions on two prominent Americans — Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump — could complicate work on “delicate issues” in the US.
The prime minister responded that he had faith Rudd would “conduct himself in a way that brings great credit to Australia”.
Rudd said in a statement on Tuesday he was honoured by the appointment and that he looked forward to continue strengthening the bond between the US and Australia.
“Australia currently faces its most challenging security and diplomatic environment for many decades,” he said.
“Our national interest continues to be served, as it has for decades past, by the deepest and most effective strategic engagement of the US in our region”.
He declined to comment further when contacted by Crikey.
The opposition’s foreign affairs spokesman, Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham, wished Rudd well in his new role.
“In appointing former prime minister Rudd, Prime Minister Albanese has personally chosen a friend and confidante, a former parliamentary and ministerial colleague, and someone in whom Mr Albanese clearly has faith and confidence,” he said.
He went on to say the AUKUS partnership involving Australia, the US and the UK would “be a most challenging undertaking” that will “require the unqualified support and attention of our ambassador”.
Whatever his difficulties to work with, his qualifications and experience are exemplary. A diplomat fluent in Mandarin, understanding of Chinese culture and known in Washington DC is perfect for the moment. And I see no donors there.
Yes he understands Chinese culture. We see how they deal with their enemies or people they don’t agree with. Even prolix, policy-free zone, windbag Kim Beasley would do a better job. And the equally useless, non-achieving policy free zone Bob Car would do the same. But Rudd? On the basis that he knows Chinese culture. I actually think Rudd would be better off as our rep at the UN. That is a safer bet. Him as our man in Washington is a cause for great concern.
The comment starts with a prejudicial opinion. How do they deal with their enemies or people they don’t agree with? Surely not as bad as Australia and the US treat Assange? Not to mention other whistle blowers.
What is the great concern?
I was surprised, when Rudd was first elected, by the comments made by suppliers when I next visited China. A very positive aura. Also surprised how much Chinese Business acquaintances knew about him. Made business negotiations much friendlier.
Great concern??! Uighurs. Tibetans. Human rights activists. Pro-democracy supporters in HK. Desire to invade and incorporate Taiwan into China. Military posturing in the South China Sea and elsewhere, antagonistic to Filippino fishermen. Support for North Korea. Past support for the Khmer Rouge. Present support for the Taliban. There isn’t much to admire in China except to say they are better than a few others but this is hardly encouraging to have a Sinophile in the US Capital. As for you being engaged commercially with China, I suppose you have to get them where you can and make a living but I would say “So what”. I hear what my department says about issues and things and I have a mind of my own to not agree. If these “supplier” colleagues of yours said Rudd was rubbish would that change your opinion of him in this context of a lucrative, prestigious diplomatic appointment?
I bet, and I really hope I’m wrong, but I bet he eventually brings down the Albanese Government. They have certainly taken the viper into their bosom.
America funded a rag tag gang of desert nomads who later became the Taliban. They invaded Iraq causing more deaths and possibly refugees than Russia has caused in Ukraine. Installed the Shah over a deposed democratic government leading eventually to the theocracy in Iran . Tried to bomb Vietnam back into the stone age.
Yeah I know America’s rooted but you have got to tell truth when you see it. The Taliban would have zero credibility or little force without the military assistance provided by Pakistan and China.
US foreign policy always comes back to bite them. A bit like ours, really.
Dear Metal Guru, just how does the USA deal with their enemies? Send the CIA in for regime change? invade militarily? Funny how the USA undertakes more military actions against its supposed enemies than does China
That is correct but China is not at the developed stage of wanting to be an empire like it used to be. If that happens, look out! There are many in America who are isolationist but their geography and economic development meant they had to engage with the world and others in their region. China has acquired Tibet. It should give it back. China does interfere in Australian politics and in our economy and we don’t lock up their businessmen do we!!?? China does to ours on spurious grounds.
America is a more modern country and China is a different country to what it was in 1949.
And being difficult to work with is not something you can dismiss lightly. Working with people and having the capacity to get along with people and listen to their ideas is crucial for diplomacy and is something eh seldom exercised when has was our PM. One he faces a challenge, he loses it. Look at this video preparing to meet the Chinese Ambassador. That was embarrassing and a window into his soul.
It’s an obvious choice. A career diplomat, highly regarded senior public servant, ex-prime minister, foreign affairs minister and an academic with detailed knowledge and experience in the USA. Certainly better qualified for the job than any that we have seen in the last 30 years or so
Who says he is a highly regarded senior public servant? When he was running the QLD public service for Wayne Goss he engineered nastyism to new levels. He put troublesome public servants, you know, the ones who provide frank and fearless advice, he put them into highly unpleasant positions where they had no alternative but to resign. He was a foreign affairs minister who showed no interest in foreign affairs. He using this as a freelancing talking point or jump off point for his repositioning back to the PM’s job after undermining the Gillard Government for years. Gillard should have made him ambassador to the Vatican – like Vince Gair. There’s no Aussie equivalent of Elba or St Helena. Maybe he could reconvert to Catholicism which would moderate his happy clappy evangelical Protestantism he adhered to through his university days, singing his annoying hymns with his band of merry men and women, keeping his fellow college dwelling students awake at night.
Who needs a detailed knowledge of US culture, society and government. I don’t see how that has assisted Australia in its relations with the US. We still have a Free Trade Agreement which stitched us up and we are still running a trade deficit under this deal. No help there. Would he and did he advocate for Julian Assange? He most certainly did not.
Who the hell are these Labor acolytes on this forum advocating for such a detriment to our nation? Obviously those who obey orders unquestioningly and have no analytical filter.
Yes, Prime Minister
Sir Humphrey: Unfortunately, although the answer was indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.
Hacker: Epistemological — what are you talking about?
Sir Humphrey: You told a lie.
Bless them both!
Has the credentials, let’s see how he goes. Better than Scotty and Tones for 2 and you can add in Hockey.
Rudd has been sucking up hard to the US recently. Not surprised if he is the captains(Biden) pick for the job. Strange that labor would choose him after all the turbulence he has caused.