Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull last week declared Kevin Rudd unsuitable for the role of UN Secretary-General, despite that Rudd had the support of foreign minister Julie Bishop and attorney-general George Brandis.
I’d previously heard politician Bob Katter describe Rudd as a good pick because he’d been a successful diplomat.
Being a successful diplomat is not the only skill needed for effective leadership.
The UN Secretary General is, in effect, leader of the UN.
In my opinion Rudd has previously demonstrated his leadership dysfunction as Prime Minister and leader of the Labor Party.
I believe the UN is already a somewhat dysfunctional and ineffective organisation. Adding more dysfunction would not serve the organisation nor its members.
Of course there is the thought that perhaps the best thing for the UN would be to destroy it and build a new model. Kevin could be sent on a mission to destroy it.
The argument that Australia should endorse Kevin Rudd because it would benefit Australia is a selfish and short sighted rationale.
The whole idea behind the United Nations is for the global good, not selfish purpose.
The leadership of the UN must be for the global good and the UN leader needs to be above parochial and personal interests.
I can’t accept that Kevin Rudd’s interest in the global good is above his self-interest.
I support Malcolm Turnbull’s decision.
It’s easy to blame the decision on party politics. I think Turnbull is better than that.
What do you think?