Media pearl-clutching over Trump’s Rudd comments shows real historical amnesia

Australia’s corporate media still gets a little frisson of excitement when the Americans choose to notice us, a little echo of back in the ’70s when Australia being mentioned in a Hollywood movie or TV show would make the news.

Such cultural cringe was put to work yesterday when journalists began hyperventilating over Donald Trump’s remarks about Kevin Rudd, current ambassador to the United States. Asked by the head prefect of British xenophobia Nigel Farage — at the behest of Sky News — about Rudd, Trump didn’t seem quite sure who he was talking about. That’s understandable (Trump’s cognitive decline makes Joe Biden’s look benign), with the 77-year-old offering “I don’t know much about him. I heard he was a little bit nasty. I hear he’s not the brightest bulb. But I don’t know much about him.”

Clearly Rudd has made less of an impression than Anthony Pratt, whose repeated meetings with Trump — including Trump telling him highly secret defence information — at least had the former president recalling him as the “red-haired weirdo”.

Trump’s vague remarks got local journalists very animated, with The Australian’s unfortunate Adam Creighton declaring it was “a major problem for Australia” and that Anthony Albanese’s choice of Rudd as ambassador was “reckless”. One Nine hack declared Rudd was “[damaging] Australia’s most important security alliance” and that he “will imperil Australia’s standing in Washington and make it harder to convince Trump to hand over America’s precious nuclear-powered submarines”.

Hilariously, that would actually be one of the few positive outcomes from a second Trump term, enabling Australia to free itself from the absurd AUKUS debacle we’ve locked ourselves into, and taking pressure off the US nuclear submarine production process.

Only at the Financial Review did James Curran mock this ridiculous pearl-clutching by News Corp and Nine, pointing out some much-needed historical context.

There’s some more historical context that is worth pointing out as well. Whom did Trump appoint to be his ambassador to Australia? Why, that would by A.B. Culvahouse, who arrived in Australia… in March 2019. Trump didn’t even bother filling the position for two years, leaving a gap of 30 months, or more than half his entire term, between ambassadors. Nothing quite says a good relationship like letting years go by without appointing a representative. Everyone at the time (including us here at Crikey) loved to say what a good job Joe Hockey was doing in the unpleasant task of cosying up to the Trump shambles in Washington, but it was repaid with utter contempt back here.

And for those who seem to think Australia should be taking its cues on diplomatic appointments from Trump, how about some other ambassadorial behaviour? Those with long enough memories will recall George W. Bush’s ambassador to Canberra, Tom Schieffer, during the illegal and disastrous Iraq War. What did Schieffer do? Publicly attacked then opposition leader Simon Crean for his criticism of the war and said Australia would struggle to negotiate a free trade agreement with the US if it elected a Labor government. Schieffer later attacked Crean’s successor, Mark Latham, over his commitment to withdraw Australian troops from the Iraq disaster (Rudd was Latham’s shadow foreign minister at the time), suggesting that would encourage terrorism. In a disgraceful breach of diplomatic protocol, Schieffer attended a Liberal Party fundraiser.

Crean — whose stance on Iraq has since been as strongly vindicated as Bush, John Howard, Alexander Downer and Schieffer have been disgraced — hit back at the ambassador at the time: “He does not have the right, nor does any ambassador, to interfere into the domestic politics of this country,” Crean said. “That’s unprecedented and unacceptable.”

The criticism of Rudd relates to comments he made before he agreed to take up the position in Washington. No one is suggesting his performance in the role has been in any way problematic — whereas Schieffer aggressively violated protocol, interfered in Australian domestic politics and engaged in clumsy partisanship.

At the time, many in the media, especially the pro-war US-owned News Ltd papers, cheered Schieffer’s egregious behaviour on. Strangely enough, 20 years later, many are cheering on Trump against an Australian diplomat.

Let’s at least hope they’re right, and in a second Trump term, Rudd brings the same touch to AUKUS as he brought to the Gillard prime ministership. History will thank him.

Should Anthony Albanese pick someone else to be ambassador to the US if Donald Trump is reelected, or should he stick with Kevin Rudd? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.