National Interest

In early 2006, when the news hit that Australia's Defence Minister Robert Hill was to be made Ambassador to the United Nations, Kevin Rudd described his appointment as "the comprehensive prostitution of Australia's diplomatic service". Mr Rudd, shadow foreign minister at the time, said John Howard needed to learn that the Australian foreign service was not a Liberal Party employment agency.

Now Robert Hill is working with the Rudd Government and its increased faith in multilateralism in a pitch to gain a seat on the UN Security Council. We ask about this bid, and about the scope for humanitarian intervention following natural disasters like those in Burma and China.

Transcript

This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

Peter Mares: In early 2006 when the news hit that Australia's Defence Minister Robert Hill, was to be made Ambassador to the United Nations, Kevin Rudd described his appointment as 'the comprehensive prostitution of Australia's diplomatic service'.

Mr Rudd, Shadow Foreign Minister at the time, said John Howard needed to learn that the Australian foreign service was not a Liberal Party employment agency.

Plenty of water has flowed under the bridge since then. Kevin Rudd is now Prime Minister of course, and seems to have no problem with the fact that Australia's man in New York spent 25 years as a Senator on the other side of politics.

And Ambassador Hill seems to have little problem representing a Labor government that has a much more engaged approach to the United Nations than its Coalition predecessor.

I spoke to Ambassador Hill from his office in New York. Ambassador, welcome to The National Interest.

Robert Hill: Thank you.

Peter Mares: Now before we come to Australia's changing approach to the UN, I have to start by asking you about Burma, and the incredible sense of frustration and distress at the difficulty to getting the Generals to let in any aid.

Robert Hill: Well that's right. We're pleased that aid is being flown in now; the worry is, whether it's being distributed as widely and effectively as we would like. And also our disappointment that they won't take extra resources such as medical teams and those with particular skill sets that have worked so effectively in such disasters elsewhere in the world.

Peter Mares: And they seem in fact to be expelling some foreign aid workers.

Robert Hill: Some, yes, and then others they give short visas, and it's all quite puzzling in that regard.

Peter Mares: British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has announced that there'll be a summit to be held somewhere in Asia on the Burma issue. Do you think that can make any difference?

Robert Hill: The Secretary-General thinks in principle that it's worthwhile. It might include a further pledging event for funding for the remedial efforts. There's also other major meetings coming up, the ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting with be exploring the issue. Every effort is being made to communicate to the Generals that this is a humanitarian response, that politics is being set aside. The international community simply want to help the Burmese people at a moment of great tragedy.

Peter Mares: There have been suggestions that there needs to be some kind of coercive humanitarian intervention. I think even the French Foreign Minister has made this suggestion, that the world can't just stand by and there should be some kind of coercive intervention. Is that being seriously discussed at the UN?

Robert Hill: No. No, the world is frustrated and disappointed, but there's not a serious discussion about a coercive response.

Peter Mares: Because it's mentioned that there's the right to protect now in international law: the idea that the international community at times has to intervene ... but that's not seen as giving a mandate or any kind of mechanism by which the world could do more to pressure Burma?

Robert Hill: The right to protect really rose out of such genocides as Rwanda, where it was said that the international community couldn't stand by and watch deliberate mass slaughter of civilians. This is really a different situation, this is whether the international community believes that a national response to a humanitarian disaster is sufficient, and at the moment we think it's insufficient and we believe the best approach is to persuade the Generals to allow better access and wider access for those that can actually help their own people.

Peter Mares: Clearly what's going on in Burma is not a genocide case like Rwanda, but it could still be argued that it's a crime against humanity to deny your people effective relief.

Robert Hill: Well it's the same argument that foreign workers are not going in to help with the crisis in China at the moment either. Basically States have the primary responsibility to address the needs of their peoples in these difficult times. It's good that others offer assistance; whether it's accepted really depends on the national government in place at the time.

Peter Mares: For critics of the United Nations, the inability of the international community to intervene in this way is fuel to the argument that the UN is an ineffective organisation.

Robert Hill: Well the UN is an organisation of nation-states, 192 countries of the world joined together to seek to resolve international issues, and it's the view of the 192 countries at this time that you don't coercively interfere in the internal affairs one State.

Peter Mares: Although we've known that, for example, the United States to argue that unilateral action is warranted because the UN can't get its act together, in the case of Iraq for example.

Robert Hill: Well the US did go to the Security Council in the case of Iraq and the US put together a coalition of states, but certainly there have been instances where big powers have been frustrated by the inability of the Security Council to take hard decisions. But I don't think that's a debate that's relevant to the humanitarian disaster occurring in Burma.

Peter Mares: Is it fair to say that Australia under the Labor government, as I suggested in my introduction, is more engaged, more enthusiastic perhaps about the United Nations than was the case under the Coalition?

Robert Hill: I think that's fair, yes. Yes, they projected that in their foreign policy statements during the election, and have sought to act accordingly since they were elected.

Peter Mares: And is that a good thing, in your view?

Robert Hill: Well I believe in multilateralism, otherwise I wouldn't be here. I think that in a globalised world, so many more issues can really only be resolved through global solutions. And that requires efforts to bring these 192 countries together, to co-ordinate and co-operate towards solutions. And I guess climate change is the classic example: you can't solve the issue of climate change without a global approach.

Peter Mares: So in your time in the Howard government, were you uncomfortable with the approach to the United Nations then, which was much more critical?

Robert Hill: Well I don't know that that's an appropriate debate for me to get into now. I took the job in the United Nations when I retired from politics, when it was offered to me, because as I said, although it can be very frustrating I think the UN is still a very important organisation, and I believed I could add value.

Peter Mares: You also arrived at the United Nations a little before the appointment of a new Secretary-General, the former South Korean Foreign Minister, Ban Ki-Moon, so you've seen the organisation through that transition of Secretary-Generals; is it changing, the United Nations?

Robert Hill: It does change a bit with a new Secretary-General, because as I said, it is an organisation of member states, but the Secretary-General has a special role under the Charter, and his identity, his approach, the way he particularly uses his good offices role, is in some ways I guess the public manifestation of the United Nations, and each of them are different individuals, come from different backgrounds and cultures, and you therefore can reasonably expect some change.

Peter Mares: But can we see a different character with the Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon? I mean for example, going back to Burma, he's stressed that he would like to go to Burma to try to talk to the Generals himself.

Robert Hill: Yes, I wouldn't say that his predecessor wouldn't do that. Kofi Annan also got himself involved in international crises. Even in retirement he's doing that, as we saw recently in Kenya. But certainly Ban Ki-Moon has the attitude that when an issue comes up, he shouldn't sit in New York, he should get out there and try and use that special influence that he has to bring better outcomes.

Peter Mares: We've also seen a shift in the United States' approach towards the United Nations, well we've seen a switch of UN Ambassador of course from the United States. We had the very, let's say confrontational John Bolton and he's now been replaced by US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. Is that significant in the international effectiveness, if you like, of the UN?

Robert Hill: Well I think it does reflect the changing approach, or a changed approach by the US to the UN. Obviously they take into account the personality of their representative, and certainly John Bolton had a more confrontational style than Ambassador Khalilzad.

Peter Mares: Well he suggested didn't he at one point that the best way to reform the UN was to cut off the top 33 floors?

Robert Hill: Yes, that's right, well you wouldn't hear Khalilzad speak that way. So to the extent that Ambassador Khalilzad sees US interests in drawing member states together, it does reflect a different approach, and I presume that approach has come from the political masters in Washington.

Peter Mares: Ambassador Hill, one of the Rudd government's diplomatic initiatives is to seek a seat for Australia on the UN Security Council. Now what's in it for Australia to get on the Security Council?

Robert Hill: Well it still is the premier body internationally in areas of peace and security. It is the body that still has the power to make binding determinations and to enforce those determinations. And for a country such as Australia, which holds itself out as a contributor to finding solutions to global conflicts, it's a logical aspiration.

Peter Mares: To use a hackneyed phrase, does it allow us to punch above our weight?

Robert Hill: I wouldn't use that expression at all. It would provide another avenue within which we could contribute to helping achieve peace and security in the world.

Peter Mares: And it's going to cost us a lot to secure a seat on the Security Council, or to try to get one. Why does it cost a lot of money?

Robert Hill: Well some of the figures I've heard I think are out there in the sky somewhere, but obviously if you're conducting a campaign, and it's 192 countries and it's keenly contested, and all campaigns, certainly within the European and Others group, which includes us, are keenly contested, then there are costs involved.

Peter Mares: What's the money spent on?

Robert Hill: Ah, emissaries, envoys, materials to be communicated -

Peter Mares: So not promises of foreign aid or trips for foreign dignitaries.

Robert Hill: No, we're not into that.

Peter Mares: Won't that cruel our chances a bit?

Robert Hill: Well that's an interesting debate. We'd like to think that our competitors won't behave in that way either.

Peter Mares: How do you rate Australia's chances of getting a seat on the Security Council?

Robert Hill: I rate them as good, but in a difficult contest. At the moment we're up against Finland and Luxemburg. Finland has got extensive contacts throughout the developing world: in Africa for example, where there's 53 countries. It's taken a high profile in multilateralism for a long time. Luxemburg has never been on the Security Council. It will argue that it should be a place for small countries as well as large, that it reflects the French-speaking world. They're both in the European Union, they therefore have a strong base of support there. It'll be a difficult contest.

Peter Mares: And how would Australia counter those arguments? What would we say in our favour?

Robert Hill: We reflect a different part of the world. We have a history, as I said, of contributing to resolving issues of conflict or potential conflict. We played a high profile in major UN missions such as Cambodia and Timor. We are a significant contributor and have been from day one of the United Nations. We haven't been on the Security Council since 1986, and we have a capacity to make a very worthwhile contribution.

Peter Mares: Ambassador Hill, you have another year to run on your term I think. When you step down, would you like to be replaced by a career diplomat, or do you think someone like Kim Beazley say, or perhaps Bob Carr might make a good UN Ambassador?

Robert Hill: Obviously everyone comes to these jobs with different backgrounds, and I think they should be judged on their experiences and skills, and I would hope that the person who succeeds me is well capable of doing a good job.

Peter Mares: Ambassador Hill, thank you very much for your time.

Robert Hill: OK. Thank you.

Peter Mares: Australia's Ambassador to the United Nations and former Defence Minister, Robert Hill, speaking to me from his office late on Thursday New York Time.

Guests

Robert Hill
Australia's Ambassador to the United Nations Former Liberal Senator for South Australia Former Defence Minister Former Minister for Environment & Heritage

Presenter

Peter Mares

Producer

John Standish

Radio National often provides links to external websites to complement program information. While producers have taken care with all selections, we can neither endorse nor take final responsibility for the content of those sites.