tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/gareth-evans-2463/articlesGareth Evans – The Conversation2017-10-18T06:24:54Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/859082017-10-18T06:24:54Z2017-10-18T06:24:54ZPolitics podcast: Gareth Evans on being an Incorrigible Optimist<p>This podcast is a recording of an In Conversation with Gareth Evans, former foreign minister and currently chancellor of the Australian National University, which took place on October 12 in Canberra at a dinner of university chancellors from around Australia.</p>
<p>The occasion was hosted by University of Canberra Chancellor Tom Calma in collaboration with ANU.</p>
<p>Evans talks with Michelle Grattan about his new book, Incorrigible Optimist, in which he writes of his decades of experiences in politics and the policymaking process. The memoir is fashioned around issues, but with lots of personal touches and anecdotes.</p>
<p>Among other subjects, Evans puts forward his views on education – and how to be a good chancellor.</p>
<p>This recording was produced in collaboration with ANU and Melbourne University Publishing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85908/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Gareth Evans talks about his new book Incorrigible Optimist, in which he writes about his experiences in politics and the policymaking process.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/762182017-04-13T10:45:57Z2017-04-13T10:45:57ZPolitics podcast: Gareth Evans on Australian self-reliance<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165188/original/image-20170413-25894-88n83t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C492%2C1336%2C820&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pat Hutchens/TC</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a speech to the National Press Club on Thursday, former Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans lambasted US President Donald Trump and called on Australia to become more self-reliant. Evans described Trump as “manifestly the most ill-informed, under-prepared, ethically challenged and psychologically ill-equipped president in US history”.</p>
<p>Evans, who is chancellor of the Australian National University, was speaking at the launch of Allan Gyngell’s book Australia’s Fear of Abandonment: Australia in the World Since 1942. Gyngell is adjunct professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy and a former director-general of the Office of National Assessments. </p>
<p>In an interview after his speech, Evans tells Michelle Grattan that Malcolm Turnbull should handle Trump “rather more diplomatically than I did today”. </p>
<p>“I fully acknowledge the reality that when you’re dealing face-to-face with these people you’ve got to go through the motions of decency, however indecent you think their behaviour has been,” he says.</p>
<p>“I think the very important thing is for Turnbull to give, as he apparently did in that famous phone conversation, some pretty clear messages about what Australia’s interests are and how they might be distinct from those of the United States.”</p>
<p>Reflecting on Trump’s strike against a Syrian air base last week, Evans has a “complicated response”.</p>
<p>“Half of me, or maybe a bit more than half of me is absolutely applauding, saying ‘wow, yes’ … when we see an overtly humanitarian response to catastrophic behaviour of the kind that we saw from [Syrian president] Assad, your first instinct of course is to cheer.</p>
<p>"But, and there are quite a few buts you have to add up, will this be effective in at least stopping chemical weapons? Well, if it is, that’s good but there’s a lot of other deaths being perpetrated, and will it be possibly counter-productive in terms of bringing this impossibly protracted war to a diplomatic conclusion?”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76218/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In a speech to the National Press Club on Thursday, Gareth Evans lambasted Donald Trump and called on Australia to become more self-reliant.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/620922016-07-19T20:08:19Z2016-07-19T20:08:19ZAustralian foreign policy needs a broader conception of our national interest<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130837/original/image-20160718-2133-1sd93h8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australia’s current public-policy space is too small to grapple with the huge geopolitical and environmental shifts underway.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Mast Irham</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a world of growing uncertainty – exemplified by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-stage-right-what-britains-decision-to-leave-the-eu-means-for-australia-61278">UK’s Brexit vote</a>, the possibility of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-ways-a-trump-presidency-would-impact-australia-for-the-worse-56366">Trump presidency</a> in the US, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-the-legal-implications-of-the-south-china-sea-ruling-62421">recent decision</a> on China’s activities in the South China Sea, and a <a href="https://theconversation.com/turkey-struggles-to-make-sense-of-a-surreal-failed-coup-detat-62596">near-coup in Turkey</a> – Australia needs a clear bipartisan vision of its role in the world and a strategic agenda for the long-term national interest.</p>
<p>Australia, like every nation, must define its interests in a realistic way, in line with its core values, domestic priorities and financial resources. Australia’s national interest lies first and foremost in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as in key relationships with bilateral allies.</p>
<p>However, Australia’s current public-policy space is too small to grapple with the huge geopolitical and environmental shifts underway. Australia’s conception of its national interest is too narrow and too exclusively focused on the Asia-Pacific region – and, even there, too focused on a short-term agenda.</p>
<p>In the days leading up to the Brexit referendum, journalist Greg Sheridan <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/greg-sheridan/brexit-fear-campaign-of-hysteria-rests-on-threat-and-paradox/news-story/7bc31f2913e8995110dd6d686c47f9e1">advocated</a> that Britain’s potential departure from the European Union might provide scraps off the table for Australia in the form of a new bilateral trade agreement. </p>
<p>Rather than asking what such an outcome could pose for Britain, for the EU, and for the entire post-war international order, this short-sighted view of the world seems to typify the knee-jerk “what’s-in-it-for-us” attitude so prevalent in how Australia sees its place in the world today.</p>
<h2>A longer view</h2>
<p>Trying to broaden the debate around how we define our national interest is often considered to be idealistic, unrealistic, sentimental even. But why is a broader debate not to be dismissed? Because relationships matter. </p>
<p>Engaging with institutions and in diplomatic processes is not an end in itself. The relationships built will pay off – not always immediately, but often in a crisis, when needed most.</p>
<p>Things were not always as they are today. What happened to the Australian national interest as defined by <a href="http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/evatt-herbert-vere-bert-10131">“Doc” Evatt</a>, who played a leading role in founding the United Nations and was one of the drafters of both the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? </p>
<p>What happened to the Keating government’s principled but pragmatic strategy for foreign engagement? This balanced the need to engage the region and to participate beyond it, including through multilateral fora.</p>
<p>Paul Keating and his foreign minister, Gareth Evans, knew that for a middle-size country we would fare better by investing in a fair, rule-based system of norms and international engagement. They <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Engagement.html?id=v6GeAQAACAAJ">also believed</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The humanitarian instinct to do something to help, which Australians invariably show when confronted by famine or war, will always give us an interest in alleviating the cause of suffering wherever we see it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>How do we measure ourselves against this history when we look at our <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-does-international-condemnation-on-human-rights-mean-so-little-to-australia-53814">inhumane treatment</a> of asylum seekers and refugees, illegal under treaties we have ratified? Or at how we are spending <a href="https://theconversation.com/savage-budget-cuts-pull-australia-down-in-foreign-aid-rankings-58854">less on international aid</a> than ever before, while the rest of the OECD is increasing theirs at this time of unprecedented humanitarian need? </p>
<p>And what can be said of Australia’s watering down of its international climate-change commitments?</p>
<p>From the outside, Australia’s successive changes of governments and leadership coups have made it difficult for partners and allies to identify a consistent position on many issues. This is why a bipartisan engagement strategy would benefit us. </p>
<p>We can look as close as New Zealand or as far away as the Nordic countries to see how other small- and medium-size countries conceive of their national interest in a broader way, and do a better job of linking their purported values to their international positions.</p>
<h2>Building better relationships</h2>
<p>There was some scepticism at the UN about Australia’s 2013-14 bid for a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-01/australia's-time-on-un-security-council-comes-to-an-end/5994380">Security Council seat</a>. This was partly because the effort didn’t fit with any apparent longer-term strategy of multilateral engagement. </p>
<p>Much as Kevin Rudd’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/brendan-nelson-declares-kevin-rudd-is-tailor-made-for-united-nations-secretary-general-job-62648">almost-candidacy to be secretary-general</a> is perceived as his own personal initiative and not a considered strategy of the government, the Security Council bid was too.</p>
<p>This scepticism goes both ways. At the annual Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law conference in June, there was debate over the utility of Australia’s council seat. </p>
<p>However, the relationships Australia built and what it contributed were clearly valuable. As one Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officer who served on the UN Security Council noted at the conference:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The opportunity to demonstrate that you can make a serious contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security on the most powerful body in the UN system is an unparalleled one. We hadn’t had that opportunity for 26 years. Given the activities that we were engaged in, such as combat operations in Iraq and Syria, and our contributions in a number of other fields (<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/world/un-resolution-on-mh17-how-australia-achieved-what-other-nations-could-not-20140722-zvnli.html">MH17 resolution</a>), absolutely it was worth it. </p>
<p>The benefit it has given us in terms of understanding how that system works and how we might make contributions in terms of our regional security and also globally and how, if we ever, as was the case in the 1990s and earlier, needed to have a UN deployment in our region, we would understand now how that works and how we could contribute to, or even lead it, as we did in Timor.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Should Australia ever need that system of multilateral support – for example, in the context of climate change – it would be better-placed to get it if stronger knowledge and relationships were in place.</p>
<p>The real question now is: how do we build on the Security Council experience and the relationships it engendered to ensure the investment supports a bipartisan, long-term foreign policy strategy?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130836/original/image-20160718-2122-1xpyz5t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130836/original/image-20160718-2122-1xpyz5t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130836/original/image-20160718-2122-1xpyz5t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130836/original/image-20160718-2122-1xpyz5t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130836/original/image-20160718-2122-1xpyz5t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130836/original/image-20160718-2122-1xpyz5t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130836/original/image-20160718-2122-1xpyz5t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The relationships Australia built on the Security Council and what it contributed were clearly valuable.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Jason Szenes</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Learning to listen</h2>
<p>The current gaps between government and parliamentary policy processes, academia and international peace and security practitioners are too wide. The think-tank space is too small. There’s little room for thinking outside the box or learning from other nations.</p>
<p>There are Australians engaged in international processes and representing Australia, officially or informally, all over the world and in all kinds of roles. In that sense, it is better represented and connected than many other countries. </p>
<p>Australian contributions, bilateral and multilateral, are consistently well-thought-through and well-received. Take, for example, the Australian Federal Police involvement in capacity-building of national police forces, <a href="https://www.afp.gov.au/about-us/publications-and-reports/cyprus-foundations-peace">such as in Cyprus</a>, or the <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/AEC_Services/International_Services/Involvement.htm">Australian Electoral Commission’s contributions</a> to internationally supported national elections. Such contributions are good examples of how we can engage.</p>
<p>We need to open up the debate about how we define Australia’s national interest. We need to re-establish an Australia that is both open to learning from others, and feels a responsibility to share our own strengths and what we have learned. </p>
<p>We need a policy outlook that can bring together different aspects of our international engagement – diplomacy, development, humanitarian aid, trade, peace and security – in a coherent way, and to our best advantage.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62092/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Leanne Smith is affiliated with Get Up and a member of the ALP. She is currently on sabbatical from her role as the Chief of the Policy and Best Practice Service of the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations.</span></em></p>Australia needs a clear bipartisan vision of its role in the world and a strategic agenda for the long-term national interest.Leanne Smith, Visiting Fellow, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/520692015-12-31T21:23:54Z2015-12-31T21:23:54ZCabinet papers 1990-91: the new world order that fizzled<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/106772/original/image-20151221-27894-1wqzi0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gareth Evans, foreign minister in the Hawke government, brought an ambitious vision for Australia's international diplomacy to cabinet.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With the <a href="http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/photos/fall-of-the-berlin-wall-a-short-history/ss-CC8qY2?fullscreen=true#image=1">fall of the Berlin Wall</a> in November 1989, the reunification of Germany the following year and the winds of change blowing across the Soviet Union and much of Eastern Europe, it seemed as if a new world order was on the way.</p>
<p>Selected key cabinet records for 1990 and 1991 released today by the National Archives of Australia convey little of that sense of excitement. The language of the cabinet submissions, memoranda and decisions is certainly not that of a government intent on rethinking Australia’s international relationships.</p>
<p>The Hawke cabinet’s approach to foreign affairs, security and defence during this period is well captured by its handling of three issues: relations with China in the wake of the Tiananmen events of June 1989, the response to Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in August 1990, and the Cambodian peace initiative.</p>
<h2>China</h2>
<p>In January 1990, cabinet agreed to lift some of the restrictions it had imposed on official dealings with China in July 1989. Reciprocal visits by some ministers as well as Chinese provincial governors and Australian state premiers could now proceed. Other political and security exchanges could be considered on a case-by-case basis.</p>
<p>More important than the decision’s specifics was its underlying rationale. The submission to cabinet found it reassuring that the downgrading of the bilateral relationship and representations on human rights had not jeopardised “trade and working-level exchanges in most areas”. </p>
<p>Foreign Minister Gareth Evans indicated that it might soon be prudent to resume “a correct relationship with China”. Two national interests were said to be critical:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… encouraging China to be receptive to Western influences;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and Australia’s:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… substantial commercial interests based on the complementarity of the two economies and China’s potential for growth.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Pragmatically speaking, the thought that these two interests might have to trump human rights concerns was relatively straightforward. But, in time, Australia’s China conundrum might not be so easily resolved. What if Australia’s future dilemma came down to choosing between its perceived security interests (its alliance with the US) and its commercial links – specifically its economic ties with China? </p>
<p>To this unpleasant prospect, cabinet was – for now – happy enough to turn a blind eye.</p>
<h2>Gulf War</h2>
<p>The first Gulf War was in some ways even more revealing of the drift of Australia’s foreign policy thinking. </p>
<p>In August 1990, Prime Minister Bob Hawke took charge of Australia’s response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. On August 6, he announced a package of sanctions to be imposed on Iraq. On August 10, the government made public its intention to despatch two guided missile frigates and a replenishment tanker involving a complement of 600 sailors to join the US-led blockade of Iraq.</p>
<p>Having duly noted these decisions on August 14, cabinet agreed to review the Australian ships’ future operational role in the light of changing circumstances. </p>
<p>Though cabinet was responding to a submission from Defence Minister Robert Ray, it was left to Foreign Affairs and Trade to offer a more elegant justification for these decisions. It cited Australia’s commitment to international peace and security and the threat Iraq’s actions posed to Australia’s strategic and commercial interests.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most illuminating part of Defence’s submission was the acknowledgement that Australia’s contribution was made in response to a US request, and that US objectives went far beyond enhancing the effectiveness of UN sanctions. These were said to include restoring Kuwait’s government, ensuring the security and stability of the Persian Gulf, protecting American citizens abroad and US vital interests in Saudi Arabia.</p>
<p>The larger US agenda would in due course be facilitated by further UN Security Council resolutions, in particular <a href="http://i-cias.com/textarchive/modern/un678.htm">Resolution 678</a> (November 1990). This authorised member states “to use all necessary means” should Iraq fail to comply with previous UN resolutions by January 15, 1991. </p>
<p>Soon after this deadline had passed and US air attacks against Iraq began, Hawke formally committed Australia to the war. He placed the guided missile destroyer HMAS Brisbane and the guided missile frigate HMAS Sydney under the control of the USS Midway carrier battle group and authorised them to use force as required. </p>
<p>Available records suggest the cabinet’s role was limited to receiving and duly noting oral reports from Hawke on January 16, January 29 and February 27.</p>
<p>In the parliamentary debate on January 22, 1991, Labor MP Barry Jones, though reluctantly supportive of the government’s decision to enter the war, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F1991-01-22%2F0009;orderBy=_fragment_number,doc_date-rev;page=0;query=Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansardr80%20Decade%3A%221990s%22%20Year%3A%221991%22%20Month%3A%2201%22;rec=0;resCount=Default">voiced five misgivings</a>: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>the remoteness of the parliament and the caucus from the decision-making process; </p></li>
<li><p>the eagerness and speed with which the government acted; </p></li>
<li><p>the failure to recognise the West’s complicity in building up Hussein’s power; </p></li>
<li><p>the belated recognition of the centrality of oil as an issue in the Gulf crisis; and </p></li>
<li><p>the lack of a clear post-war strategy. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Cabinet submissions and prime ministerial decisions took little account of these concerns.</p>
<p>The war lasted no more than six weeks and the coalition sustained only 166 fatal casualties; none of them Australian. But the war left at least <a href="https://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/gulf/">100,000 Iraqis dead</a> and set in train a simmering conflict that would trouble the region for the next decade and eventually unleash the second Gulf War, which began in 2003. </p>
<p>Australia’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/abbott-denies-mission-creep-as-more-australian-troops-committed-to-iraq-38304">current involvement in Iraq</a> is very much part of the unfinished business of the first Gulf War.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/106776/original/image-20151221-27884-c0fwt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/106776/original/image-20151221-27884-c0fwt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/106776/original/image-20151221-27884-c0fwt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/106776/original/image-20151221-27884-c0fwt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/106776/original/image-20151221-27884-c0fwt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/106776/original/image-20151221-27884-c0fwt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/106776/original/image-20151221-27884-c0fwt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australia’s current involvement in Iraq has roots in its participation in the first Gulf War.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Cambodia</h2>
<p>Australia’s international engagement struck a happier note in Cambodia. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.gevans.org/speeches/old/1990/130390_fm_ausindochinecambodia.pdf">For Evans</a>, Australia’s activism in promoting the peace initiative reflected its interest in regional security and economic co-operation and the need to stem the flow of refugees. He also saw it as a “humanitarian obligation to help resolve the tragedy”.</p>
<p>Evans’ untiring efforts eventually bore fruit with the Paris agreement of October 1991. In anticipation of the agreement, cabinet approved on October 9 a substantial Australian involvement in the UN peacekeeping force in Cambodia. </p>
<p>Cabinet’s decision to maintain a high profile, seek “to provide the force commander and headquarters staff and observers” and open a greatly enlarged diplomatic mission in Cambodia was a measure of the ambition Evans had brought to Australian diplomacy generally and to global and regional multilateralism in particular.</p>
<h2>Lessons</h2>
<p>Over the two years, cabinet considered a number of other issues, including the relationship with Taiwan, the international terrorist threat to Australia, and nuclear non-proliferation. In these as in most other areas the analysis remained cautious and the initiatives at best modest. </p>
<p>On a somewhat less conventional note, cabinet agreed in May 1991 to introduce legislation to exempt from compulsory military service those with a conscientious objection either to war in general or to particular wars.</p>
<p>The cabinet papers are particularly telling for what is left unsaid. We find here little of Evans’ sweeping analysis of a rapidly changing world order or of his vision of good international citizenship.</p>
<p>Evans often <a href="http://goo.gl/SURbQe">castigated the media</a> for its failure to engage in intelligent debate and informed discussion on global and regional security, the role of the UN system, the changing nature of alliances, the arms control and disarmament agenda, and ways of advancing human rights. One could be forgiven for thinking that much the same criticism could be levelled at a good many of his cabinet colleagues.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52069/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joseph Camilleri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There is little of Gareth Evans’ sweeping analysis in the cabinet papers of 1990-91 of a rapidly changing world order or of his vision of good international citizenship.Joseph Camilleri, Emeritus Professor of International Relations, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/255792014-04-14T01:41:39Z2014-04-14T01:41:39ZGareth Evans: ‘Bob learned early self-deprecation is for dummies’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46288/original/y5mgyxr6-1397436772.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bob Carr 'obviously revelled being back in the middle of the action' in his 18 months as foreign minister, says former Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Bob Carr took on the job of Australian foreign minister believing, as he doesn’t hesitate to tell us in his Diary of a Foreign Minister, that it was highly unlikely that he would be there for very long. </p>
<p>And although he doesn’t put this in quite so many words, it is clear that he approached the role, in these circumstances, with three basic objectives: to keep himself, and Australia, out of trouble; to have a ball; and to write up the whole experience for posterity in the most readable and colourful possible way. On the evidence of our eyes and ears over the last two years, and now of his book, it is clear that, on all three counts, he succeeded admirably.</p>
<p>He slid effortlessly into the presentational role at home and abroad, and kept himself out of trouble with the media (even maintaining, miraculously, the adoration of Greg Sheridan for the whole of his tenure – not the five weeks maximum that I told him was the previous record).</p>
<p>He kept Australia’s flag comfortably flapping through countless multilateral forums and bilateral exchanges; contributed significantly to our spectacularly successful UN Security Council bid (though he graciously acknowledges the central and critical role of our UN Ambassador Gary Quinlan in that success). He saved us from at least one spectacular own goal (on the Palestinian statehood issue), and navigated his way through what has been, and will remain, Australia’s biggest current and future foreign policy challenge by not offending either Washington or Beijing.</p>
<p>He obviously revelled being back in the middle of the action, and basking in the company of the world’s great, good and glamorous. Although it’s also clear that he derived huge and genuine pleasure from his less obviously glamorous encounters in the South Pacific and the African Commonwealth.</p>
<p>And he has given us a book which, in describing all this, captures, as well as anything you’ll ever read, both the crazily sleep-deprived, adrenalin-charged, exhilarating and frustrating life of a contemporary foreign minister – and the crazy combination of excitement and despair, idealism and cynicism, that characterises domestic Australian politics.</p>
<p>Cabinet diaries – a subset of the rather large genre of political diaries, and the much larger one still of political memoirs and autobiographies – tend to fall into two distinct categories, as Bob himself noted back in 1999 reviewing Neil Blewett’s <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/32639152?versionId=45870443">diary</a> of the first Keating government. </p>
<p>One kind focuses on “providing the arguments and raw material for historians” of which Richard Crossman’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Diaries-Cabinet-Minister-Richard-Crossman/dp/003017466X">record</a> of the Wilson government in the UK in the 1960s is the daddy of them all, and Blewett’s a reasonably clear Australian example. The other kind focuses on “providing episodic colour and personality”, of which the leading Anglo-Saxon example – until now – has been Alan Clark’s wonderfully tasteless and entertaining <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/oct/15/politicalbooks.politics">diaries</a> of the Thatcher years in the UK.</p>
<p>Of course, most such diaries try to do both to some extent. All policy debates and no egos, infighting and eccentricities would make for a pretty dull read. But all colour-and-movement, with no real policy substance at all, would be a little too much like daily journalism as it is now practised to be worth putting between hard covers.</p>
<p>But there is a noticeable distinction within the genre, and it is pretty clear on which side of the line Bob’s diary falls. To the extent that he had any role model for his own diary, I think he would be the first to acknowledge that it was Clark rather more than Crossman.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46301/original/xpzjmbj5-1397439237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46301/original/xpzjmbj5-1397439237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46301/original/xpzjmbj5-1397439237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=855&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46301/original/xpzjmbj5-1397439237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=855&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46301/original/xpzjmbj5-1397439237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=855&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46301/original/xpzjmbj5-1397439237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1075&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46301/original/xpzjmbj5-1397439237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1075&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46301/original/xpzjmbj5-1397439237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1075&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gareth Evans as Australia’s foreign minister.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There’s plenty of incidental meat for analysts and historians to relish. How could there not be with so many encounters at such a high level on so many issues with such key players? </p>
<p>But Bob doesn’t pause very often or for very long to analyse in detail the multiple policy issues with which he wrestled, or to explain how they were resolved within government or advanced in international negotiations. It is not that kind of book. His primary target – and he has hit it – is a general audience interested in reading a very skilfully written account of what it was like to be there.</p>
<p>There are not many of us in Australian public life who have had that privilege, of being there.</p>
<p>I was one of them, and a great many people, as a result, have been asking me how Bob’s experiences, and his approach to the role, compared with my own when I was Australia’s foreign minister. So I hope you won’t mind me spending a little time telling you.</p>
<p>The short answer about the nature of our experiences is that they were remarkably similar, even if many of the issues we dealt with were different. I don’t just mean here the manic pace of it all, the stresses of travel even at the front of the plane, the strain of constant tightrope walking in one’s public utterances, the pressures of meeting the expectations of domestic constituencies, the sense of exhilaration and excitement on the big occasions and when things go well, and the disappointment and despair when they don’t.</p>
<p>I mean also that sense which we both had – although Bob has been subject to some pummelling over the last week for the way he put it (in terms of not feeling “humble” in the presence of the great) – that Australia thoroughly deserves any place it can win at the top international tables, that competent Australian representatives can match it in any company, and that we can be justly proud of the contribution Australia has made and can continue to make as a good international citizen.</p>
<p>There is an issue, about which some in the government have been particularly critical, about the propriety of putting those experiences quite so fully on the record so soon after the event. I have to say that I feel something of a wimp in this respect, waiting nearly 30 years to publish – as Melbourne University Publishing will in August – my own diary potentially offending my colleagues in Hawke-Keating cabinet in the mid-1980s, rather than the less than 30 weeks it has taken Bob to potentially offend his colleagues at home and abroad.</p>
<p>I don’t think Bob has much to be apologetic about in this respect. No confidences of any consequence are revealed, and certainly nothing of any security sensitivity. Some of the exchanges he details have the potential to be slightly embarrassing to the participants – and go further by way of revelation than I might have been prepared to as foreign minister 20 years ago. </p>
<p>But times have changed and much more is out and about in the media, and social media, than ever used to be the case. I don’t believe that any of our relationships will be prejudiced, or future dialogue made more difficult, by what he has recorded.</p>
<p>On the question of Bob’s and my approaches to the job, there are some evident differences between us, partly reflecting the difference in the circumstances in which we held office and partly just because – although we have a number of literary/historical and other nerdy interests in common, have been friends for a long time, and he is kind enough to describe me as his mentor in this book – we really are very different kinds of people, with very different personal and political styles.</p>
<p>As to the circumstances in which we held office, I knew, like most of my predecessors, that in the absence of catastrophe I would have at least three years in the job, and hopefully rather longer. Bob knew that only a political miracle would give him longer than 18 months. And having a longer time horizon certainly enables you to be patiently proactive in creating and building diplomatic initiatives, rather than essentially just reacting, however deftly, to events.</p>
<p>The other contextual difference was that I had the enormous good fortune of working to two prime ministers, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, who each in their different ways had fine instincts for the issues and dynamics of international relations, and who instinctively understood the nature of the relationship that must exist between prime minister and foreign minister if things are not to end in tears. They were mutually respectful, highly communicative and interactive, and always willing to find common ground on sensitive issues and not to resolve them simply by the prime minister pulling rank.</p>
<p>Bob, by contrast, had much more difficulty in all these respects with Julia Gillard. However, she did have many admirable prime ministerial qualities, including great professionalism in mastering complex briefs, and very effective interpersonal skills, evident in her international as well as domestic dealings, as I can personally testify.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46290/original/fm467xzk-1397437191.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46290/original/fm467xzk-1397437191.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46290/original/fm467xzk-1397437191.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46290/original/fm467xzk-1397437191.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46290/original/fm467xzk-1397437191.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46290/original/fm467xzk-1397437191.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46290/original/fm467xzk-1397437191.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bob Carr had occasional difficulties in dealing with prime minister Julia Gillard.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But beyond the very different contexts in which we operated, we have also been very different in other ways. And I’m not just talking here about my total lack of interest in knowing what “steel-cut oats” are, let alone eating them, and my total lack of ambition – as will be apparent – in achieving “a concave abdomen”, let alone one “defined by deep-cut obliques”, whatever they might be.</p>
<p>There’s a relentlessly pragmatic cast to Bob’s approach to the world which comes through regularly in the diary which I don’t completely share, never having abandoned my belief that you can marry necessary pragmatism with a quite strong commitment to liberal, and indeed idealistic, principles. </p>
<p>One example is the enthusiasm with which he embraced as a “masterstroke” Kevin Rudd’s Papua New Guinea solution to the asylum seeker problem. We could all understand the need for a deterrent dimension to stop the deaths at sea of boat people. But I for one think that this needed to be accompanied by a huge diplomatic effort in the region to address the problem at source, which we never saw.</p>
<p>Another example is Bob’s willingness to be, I think, much too kind – again for reasons related to stopping the flow of asylum seekers – to the Rajapaksa regime in Sri Lanka, which was responsible for some horrific violence against civilians in the course of its (otherwise entirely legitimate) military response to the terrorist Tamil Tigers, and has never made an atrocity-accountability commitment it hasn’t breached. </p>
<p>I guess Bob would go along in this respect with my friend Jim Baker, who said to me once when he was US Secretary of State, in that inimitable Texan drawl of his:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Well, Gareth, I guess you sometimes just have to rise above principle.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Moving to less fraught differences between us, an obvious one is that Bob is and remains – as he cheerfully acknowledges – a “media tart” of the first order who absolutely revels in today’s twittering 24/7 news cycle madness, and is never happier than when contributing soundbites to it. I, by contrast – while not exactly, in my prime, a media recluse – can’t help but regard today’s environment as closely approximating Dante’s ninth circle of hell.</p>
<p>There is a more substantive dimension associated with this differing preoccupation of ours with the media. I saw set-piece foreign ministerial speeches, which I probably spent an inordinate amount of time developing, as really important tools of advocacy, record and instruction. They were crucial vehicles for articulating ideas about Australia’s place in the world, and getting other opinion leaders at home and abroad to understand and wrestle with its complexity.</p>
<p>Bob, by contrast, as he frankly acknowledges throughout the book, saw his speeches in less highfalutin terms: primarily as vehicles for communicating his very engaging personality. Recognising, with his intimate knowledge of media attention-span, that no more than a few lines or soundbites would ever be widely retailed, he took the view that there was not much point in taking substantive discussion much further than that. I think that was a missed opportunity, and that there is another one in this respect in this book, but it was an understandable call.</p>
<p>I think it’s probably fair to say, while on the subject of presentation, that we also seem have rather different senses of self-referring humour – albeit in neither case of a kind sufficient to keep us out of trouble. I have always leaned to self-deprecation in this respect (“Whatever you do don’t call me Biggles”, the “Streakers Defence” and so on), being very slow to learn that this is very dangerous politically. </p>
<p>This is not only in the case in the world’s irony-free zones like the US, but also locally, because there is always the risk that you will be taken literally, and regarded as being as big a dill as you say you are.</p>
<p>Bob, by contrast, learned early on that self-deprecation is for dummies, and there is plenty of evidence of his education in this respect in this diary. His preference now is for laying on his mastery of the universe so thick that the comedy (“I sing, I dance, I fly … I am the master entertainer”, “the wonderful one-legged Romanian deadlift” and all the rest) will be seen, as one commentator <a href="https://theconversation.com/bob-carrs-diary-reveals-a-true-satirist-a-self-made-grotesque-25453">described it</a> last week, as that of “a true satirist, a self-made grotesque”. </p>
<p>The trouble is of course, again, that even in the world’s irony-receptive zone – in which Australia usually counts itself – there will be a lot of people out there who don’t get the joke. But if he’s cheerfully prepared to take that risk, that’s his call.</p>
<p>All these differences duly noted, there is plenty on which Bob and I have agreed, and for which his efforts as foreign minister deserve attention and recognition, albeit not discussed in his book in the degree of detail I for one would have liked.</p>
<p>There was the new approach he pioneered to dealing with Myanmar, recognising that isolation and sanctions had largely run their course and there needed to be some greater international engagement with the military regime to edge it toward change.</p>
<p>There was the careful way in which he picked his way through the competing imperatives, in a rapidly evolving strategic environment, of keeping the US alliance alive and well but at the same time staying close friends with our major economic partner China.</p>
<p>There was the role he played in overseeing the crucial last phase of the UN Security Council campaign, projecting an image of Australia as engaged with Africa and the developing world generally, committee to generous international assistance, and committed to global public goods like managing climate change and achieving arms control.</p>
<p>And there was what I regard as perhaps his signature achievement, his leadership role in ensuring, in November 2012, that Australia did not vote “No” on the UN General Assembly resolution to give Palestine observer status there.</p>
<p>As Bob records me saying at the time, a No vote “would have been the worst Australian foreign policy decision for a generation”, being not only wrong in principle, but leaving us totally isolated from every friend we had in the world apart from the US and Israel, and mortally wounding our credibility and effectiveness on the Security Council to which we had just been elected.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46291/original/nh76cxqf-1397437433.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46291/original/nh76cxqf-1397437433.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46291/original/nh76cxqf-1397437433.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46291/original/nh76cxqf-1397437433.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46291/original/nh76cxqf-1397437433.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46291/original/nh76cxqf-1397437433.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46291/original/nh76cxqf-1397437433.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bob Carr’s views on the so-called ‘Jewish lobby’ in Australia have caused some consternation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Abir Sultan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s important to appreciate that while questions of eroding Labor support in Sydney’s western suburbs was a relevant factor in the debate for some NSW members, the argument in Bob’s eyes – as in mine – was wholly about doing the right thing for Australia – and at the same time not acting against Israel’s real interests but in fact very much in support of them. </p>
<p>We had both come to share Bob Hawke’s strong view – and no Labor leader had ever been a firmer friend of Israel – that the Netanyahu government, along with its rusted-on supporters in Australia who were lobbying fiercely for a No vote, was shooting itself in the foot with its intransigence.</p>
<p>On the question of those rusted-on supporters, in particular in the Victorian Jewish community, I don’t think we should get as excited as the press has been in the last few days. This is a lobby group like any other, which wins some and – notwithstanding all the donations and duchessing – loses some. It influenced me to campaign vigorously against the Zionism as Racism resolution when I was foreign minister, which I was proud to do because the cause was just. </p>
<p>But it also lost me – and my fellow Victorian Bob Hawke – when it lost its way, as it has continued to do to this day, on the larger Palestinian issue. It certainly very strongly influenced Gillard, but I am sure she made the judgements she did – cloth-eared they may have been – on what she believed to be a principled basis.</p>
<p>Bob Carr took the view, as Bob Hawke and I had before him, and with the overwhelming majority of the cabinet and caucus agreeing, that pressure had to be mounted to achieve once and for all, and sooner rather than later, a two-state solution – without which Israel will be condemned either to lose its Jewish identity, or to maintain it at the price of ceasing to be an equal-rights-respecting democracy. And the UN vote was simply a legitimate way of increasing that pressure. It left full membership of the UN to be determined and final status issues to be negotiated, and contained no language remotely offensive to Israel. </p>
<p>Forcing the issue in the cabinet and the partyroom, and ensuring that the majority view prevailed – even if Gillard was deeply embarrassed in the process – was not about crude local electoral politics. It was about ensuring that Australia was not seen internationally as being on the wrong side of history.</p>
<p>The treatment of the Palestinian issue is about as detailed as the analysis and argument gets in this diary about the great substantive issues of foreign policy with which Bob and the government – and indeed the region and the world – were wrestling during this period. And whether or not he felt constrained by the rules governing cabinet secrecy so close to the event, you won’t find in the book anything very secret, and previously unsuspected, being disclosed.</p>
<p>But what you will find is, again, a wonderfully engaging account of what it’s like to be there¸ where and when it’s all happening, written with great flair and obviously huge enjoyment of life. This is a book which should fly out of the stores and on to the shelves of anyone with even a passing interest in politics and public affairs. And so it should. It’s a great read.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This is an edited version of Gareth Evans’ speech given at the launch of Diary of a Foreign Minister on April 14, 2014.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25579/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gareth Evans is a former Foreign Minister of Australia and Labor MP.</span></em></p>Bob Carr took on the job of Australian foreign minister believing, as he doesn’t hesitate to tell us in his Diary of a Foreign Minister, that it was highly unlikely that he would be there for very long…Gareth Evans, Chancellor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/56782012-03-02T04:00:01Z2012-03-02T04:00:01ZCabinet reshuffle: Gareth Evans on Bob Carr<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8293/original/vc7p8352-1330658983.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bob Carr is Australia's new foreign minister after a cabinet reshuffle by Julia Gillard</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC News24</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Prime Minister Julia Gillard today delivered a political surprise by announcing former NSW premier Bob Carr as Foreign Minister in her reshuffled cabinet.</p>
<p>Carr takes over from Kevin Rudd, who returns to the backbenches after his failed leadership challenge on Monday.</p>
<p>There had been speculation all week that Carr was being sought by Gillard but most observers had ruled out the Labor veteran making such a dramatic comeback.</p>
<p>The Conversation spoke with former foreign minister and ANU chancellor Gareth Evans about what the nation can expect from Foreign Minister Bob Carr.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>What is your view of Bob Carr, especially in the light of this dramatic comeback?</strong></p>
<p>This is a brilliant appointment. Bob Carr is an outstanding figure in Australian history already and I think he is now poised to make his mark in a wholly new and quite spectacular way.</p>
<p>He is a guy that combines policy smarts of the first order with brilliant communication skills, and that is a formidable combination for a foreign minister.</p>
<p><strong>What would you say are the key foreign policy priorities facing Australia?</strong></p>
<p>There are multiple priorities. Obviously our own region is central. The biggest single issue for Australia in the years and decades ahead will be avoiding being dragged into a zero sum choice between the US and China - our crucial security ally on the one hand and our crucial economic partner on the other.</p>
<p>Developing and sustaining a relationship with a new emerging giant in India will also be very, very high on the list, as of course will be developing and sustaining intimate relations with our own neighbours in South East Asia.</p>
<p>We also have to do a bit more work on the South Pacific which has been showing signs of agitation - Papua New Guinea especially - in recent times, and where the world expects us to know what is going on there and to have strong and personal relationships with the key figures.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8302/original/d7hswcyx-1330659965.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8302/original/d7hswcyx-1330659965.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8302/original/d7hswcyx-1330659965.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8302/original/d7hswcyx-1330659965.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8302/original/d7hswcyx-1330659965.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8302/original/d7hswcyx-1330659965.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8302/original/d7hswcyx-1330659965.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gareth Evans addressing the National Press Club in 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porrit</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On top of all that, of course, there are major global issues which can’t be neglected and are a very high priority for us as good international citizens - a phrase that I have often used and Bob Carr repeated today at the press conference. </p>
<p>I think there are two high priorities for us at the moment in that respect. One is to develop the role of the G20, that global policy making organisation which is assuming real significance, and not just in economic matters, where Australia does have a seat at the table along with all the other major countries.</p>
<p>Secondly, the Security Council candidacy. I have <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/national-interest-and-pride-demand-we-fight-to-join-the-un-security-council-20120229-1u38x.html">written on this</a> so my views on this are very clear. I was delighted to hear Bob Carr saying today that he will be absolutely determined to maintain the candidacy and fight for it and to win Australia back, after 27 years, a seat at that global table.</p>
<p><strong>Will there be any changes in foreign policy direction or emphasis after Rudd’s term?</strong></p>
<p>I think Kevin Rudd was an outstanding foreign minister, attending very actively and energetically to all the issues that I have described. Perhaps there was a little less attention at his level to the South Pacific issues that might have been desirable in an ideal world but of course he did have a parliamentary secretary – Richard Marles – working full time on those issues.</p>
<p>I am not in the slightest bit critical of Kevin Rudd for the concern that he showed for the atrocity crimes in Libya and the whole situation in the Middle East and North Africa. This was Australia playing its role as a creative middle power with a long record of commitment on these great issues of principle, and using our aid budget in a very constructive and helpful way on major issues.</p>
<p>There will be all sorts of criticisms that will continue to be made about Kevin’s style, which I think was perhaps a little bit over-exuberant in terms of trying to do an enormous number of things simultaneously. </p>
<p>I’m not being personally critical of Kevin Rudd. Everybody has their own style and Kevin Rudd is a guy of absolutely outstanding intellect and absolutely extraordinary physical energy. I think he did a first class job and I was very, very sad to see him go.</p>
<p>But there is a case, as I have indicated publicly and privately for a slightly more ordered approach to setting and implementing priorities than was visible during the Rudd foreign ministership, and it is highly likely that Bob Carr will be responsive to that need.</p>
<p><strong>How would you characterise Bob Carr’s style, both on a personal and professional level, that he will bring to the role?</strong></p>
<p>Bob has an omnivorous appetite for information, is interested in a huge range of issues, and has written on a huge range of issues, in books and <a href="http://bobcarrblog.wordpress.com/">blogging</a> and so on.</p>
<p>He’s intellectually adventurous and he is interested in other countries and their political system and he’s interesting in terms of the way in which he will be perceived as a human being. He has a very funny and witty cast of mind; and he has a great capacity to charm people personally, which is hugely helpful in this job that has got a very big personal dimension to it.</p>
<p>The personal relationships that you develop around foreign policy are just as important as the policy positions that you take in the way that the world actually works, and how diplomacy works at that level.</p>
<p>I think Bob Carr will be an absolutely outstanding performer in that respect.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5678/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gareth Evans is former Foreign Minister of Australia and Professorial Fellow at the University of Melbourne</span></em></p>Prime Minister Julia Gillard today delivered a political surprise by announcing former NSW premier Bob Carr as Foreign Minister in her reshuffled cabinet. Carr takes over from Kevin Rudd, who returns to…Gareth Evans, Chancellor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.