The recent political turmoil and in-fighting that afflicted Australia has rendered it perhaps difficult to imagine a politician like Kevin Rudd – down-to-earth, amicable, and more forthcoming than most politicians in his approach to life – once leading the country as a two-time Prime Minister.
It was thus perhaps rather aptly surreal for me to be on the phone line with Rudd little over a few hours after the Australian Labor Party’s motion to suspend standing orders – calling for “this ramshackle, reactionary government [led by the Liberal Party] to stop fighting itself and start focusing on the needs of the Australian people” – was debated in the highly polarised Australian parliament. The motion was proposed in response to the deeply fragmented and ineffectual ruling government, and was narrowly defeated by a mere margin of 2.
A man whose approach to politics was guided by equal shares of conviction and pragmatism, without the proclivity for backroom dealings that many of his peers perhaps held, Rudd’s soft-spoken yet comprehensive answers over the phone line was a welcome breeze in the otherwise stifling era of contemporary politics.
Rudd’s biggest achievement as Prime Minister, he reminisced, was his leadership of the country in overcoming the domestic economic crisis spurred by the Global Financial Crisis. He steered his cabinet in making active, prompt decisions that prevented Australian banking institutions from failing, which would have – had they collapsed – triggered a catastrophic recession and unemployment crisis for the country. Rudd took to himself to ensure that the government undertook reasonable, absolute and prompt actions to ascertain the stability and security of the banking system. “We succeeded in saving the jobs of thousands of ordinary, good Australians”, he added, crediting his team and economic advisors in the process.
In a way, his answer was perhaps emblematic of a wider trend in his political leadership. Whilst what he brought about was certainly no mean feat – ranging from his proactive fiscal position (“a 5.8% injection in our GDP stimulus […] was the result of our choice to act decisively”) to his engagement with international institutions in areas of financial regulatory and trade consolidation; it was the economic crises that he prevented from happening that he should perhaps best be remembered for, as a restorer and rebuilder emerging from political chaos. Indeed, he played a key proactive role in elevating the role of the G20 as an international leader-level summit, through steering its members to develop a concerted, efficient response to the financial crisis.
Amidst his recollection, Rudd’s humility showed through in the interview; he was grateful, he added, for the “reasonable working order” provided by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the Central Bank, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which formed a bulwark in his post-recession rebuilding of the Australian economy.
As a DPhil candidate studying Chinese politics and the first Australian Prime Minister to speak Mandarin fluently, Rudd’s relationship with China was both complex and mutually defining. Rudd’s scholar identity came through as he offers a lucid assessment of China’s politics.
“People are far too romantic about the prospects of liberalisation in China,” Rudd observed, “China never really had this on the table.” Rudd sees Xi Jinping as a mere re-assertion of a persistent truth of Chinese politics – that is, a centrality of party power and consolidation of authoritarianism. The prognosis of democratic transition is little more than “wishful thinking”, he speculates, on the grounds that China had never accepted democratisation in that sense.
With all that said, Rudd seemed cautiously sanguine as he offered a non-political analysis of China – as China’s economic power accumulates, Rudd argued, it will become increasingly capable of engaging the world on economic terms more suited to their own interests, and thus turn to playing a greater, more innovative, and more preeminent role within global institutions. Whilst China has historically been a status quo power, it is currently initiating a series of apparent shifts in its geographic strategy. The case in point, Rudd noted, was China’s South China Sea policy.
Rudd’s complex prognosis coheres rather fittingly with his complex foreign policy. I took to asking Rudd a question made retrospectively relevant by the shifts in global politics since his exiting of his office. “Various critics of yours have claimed that you were excessively conciliatory and optimistic about China’s ‘peaceful rise’. What would be your answer to these critics? Were they right?”
Rudd did not hold back in offering a robust response. “It’s lazy, floppy analysis.” He stridently observed, before divulging into a sophisticated diagnosis of his China policy. He came under attacks from “[…] both the left and right”, with some charging that he was too soft, whereas others accused him of being excessively hard.
“The direction of the attacks depended on the season and the political faction.” He added, with his characteristically humorous way with words.
Rudd stated that his tenure reflected a highly cost-effective, balancing strategy towards China. There were four characteristics – firstly, Australia would be unapologetic regarding its alliance to the US; secondly, the island nation would be robust in its defense of liberal democracy; thirdly, the country would be positive about the prospects of expanding trade and investment between China and Australia, and finally, Australia would remain positive on the possibility of working with China within multilateral systems, such as the G20. Rudd’s words matched up to his track record as a pioneer in steering Australia towards undertaking a greater leadership role in efforts against climate change.
What Rudd’s critics would be best served by, perhaps, is a revisiting of the long list of hard and concrete policies his cabinet adopted. From expanding the Australian navy (“our efforts in sustaining the conclusions of the 2009 defence white paper”), to rejecting Chinese investment in the Rio Tinto group, to (I must note, somehow prophetically, perhaps, in light of recent events) banning Huawei from being a part of the national broadband network. Rudd’s decisive and stern condemnation of China’s human rights policy in Xinjiang and Tibet, as well as his efforts in defending the legal rights of Australian citizens, appeared to be all but too conveniently overlooked by many of his skeptics and critics – perhaps motivated by the “political opportunism” Rudd mentions.
Rudd is hopeful that a sensible China strategy could restore the much-needed balance to Australian-Chinese relations – the problem with the consecutive (and often alternating) governments in Australia was that they often ended up behaving in a bipolar fashion towards China: either they were excessively in love, or took to vehement aggression, towards China. It is critical that Australia resumes the “middle course”, Rudd insists, such that its China strategy can once again serve the interests of Australian citizens whilst not necessarily undermining their counterparts in China.
On the pivot of political opportunism and Australia’s political path forward, our conversation turned swiftly to the current state of politics in Australia. I probed Rudd for his thoughts and potential advice to Scott Morrison, his arguably not-so-successful successor (separated by a couple of generations). The no-nonsense, straight-talking Rudd offered the following thought, “Scott Morrison is not capable.” The conservatives in Australia have seen a “Congo Line” of successive leaders, Rudd half-jokingly added; whereas the Labor Party has been led by the same leader – Bill Shorten – since Rudd. Rudd was optimistic that an incoming Labor government (the Australian general election is due to take place this year) would offer a better alternative to Morrison. He adamantly added that the Labor Party would be the party of stability and certainty for the Australian public, but concluded his thoughts with the characteristically cheeky caveat, “Anything could happen.”
Kevin Rudd came across as a wizened veteran who preferred getting straight to the point with forthcoming, honest discussions compared to the long-winded pedantry of other politicians. In an age of Trumpian demagogues and political polarisation, Rudd’s straight-to-the-point yet prudent brand of pragmatism offers a refreshing take on politics that the world needs, but perhaps not what it deserves.