In some ways it is impossible to prove that our foreign policy is being distorted by this bid. But the circumstantial evidence is mounting.
Exhibit No1 is the continued indecision of the Rudd Government about whether to attend the UN anti-racism conference, officially titled the Durban Review Conference, to be held in Geneva in late April. This meeting is commonly called Durban II. Durban I was notoriously one of the most disgraceful and counter-productive official international gatherings ever held. Instead of making a strong consensus statement on the evil of racism, the conference focused obsessively on the alleged racism of Israel.
Durban I called Israel an apartheid and racist state and promoted boycotts, sanctions and legal harassment of the country. This is not remotely consistent with Australian government policy or any sincere effort to combat racism.
The draft text of Durban II looks even worse and will also embrace "defamation of religion" in an attempt to outlaw critical scrutiny of Islamic movements. Some time ago, the Canadians walked away from the process and said they would not attend such a charade. The Bush administration did not make a decision but quite properly left it to the Obama administration.
Now the Obama administration, in a decision personally approved by Barack Obama, has decided to withdraw from Durban II. Obama sent senior officials to a planning meeting for Durban II. They were so appalled by the behaviour at the meeting, and the wholly destructive nature of the draft text, that the US pulled out altogether.
Since then Italy has pulled out and some European foreign ministers have said their nations will too unless all references to Israel are dropped.
Yet the only guidance I can get from the Rudd Government on this is that it has not yet made up its mind and that a decision ultimately will be made on the basis of whether Australia can positively influence the outcome of the conference and the extent to which the conference is likely to be marred by anti-Semitism.
Well, excuse me, but what on earth is Australia doing attending a conference that could be marred by anti-Semitism? What possible reason could there be for the Rudd Government to dillydally on this decision?
Rudd, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith and other senior ministers are strong supporters of Israel. They certainly do not regard it as an apartheid or racist state. So what gives?
The only explanation is Canberra fears it will earn hostility from Arab League and African nations if it denounces Durban II. Then they may not vote for us in the Security Council election. If that is the case, we have already paid too high a price for our UN Security Council seat bid.
The Opposition, including its latest foreign affairs spokeswoman, Julie Bishop, forever in a fitful slumber on these issues, had no position at all on whether Australia should attend.
Only after prompting from this newspaper yesterday had Bishop taken the position that the Government should not attend Durban II as, like Durban I, it would become an instrument promoting racism rather than opposing it. Better late than never.
Similarly, in February the Rudd Government switched previous Australian policy on two UN resolutions that were the normal, one-sided, anti-Israel stuff. The Rudd Government voted in favour of two completely unbalanced, anti-Israel resolutions, where previously Australia had abstained or voted no.
At first this looked as if it might be a new pattern of voting. However, after a previously unpublicised but substantial revolt from within its ranks, the Government did not change Australia's traditional support of Israel on any other resolutions. Again, what could be the motive except trying to look like a less conspicuous pro-Israel force in front of the Arab and African blocs for the purpose of securing UN Security Council votes?
But we are paying for this UN bid in other ways, too. In this budget year the Government has allocated $1.9 million for the UN bid. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is stretched beyond breaking point in terms of resources. This special funding does not remotely cover the full effort that our diplomatic missions across the world will have to put in for this vote.
Already Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has travelled to Addis Ababa in pursuit of elusive African votes. Yet there are many allied and friendly countries with which we have important defence relations that Fitzgibbon has notvisited.
Australia always has trouble winning African votes because we have only five small embassies in all of Africa (and only four in Latin America).
In 1996, the last time we campaigned for a Security Council seat, we sent former prime minister Malcolm Fraser to Africa. His efforts were singularly unsuccessful. You may conclude that this reflects the limits of Fraser's charm and diplomatic skill. But in fairness to the former PM, it is impossible to convince a country that you take it seriously if you can't be bothered having a resident embassy. Special envoys, whose message is we love you but we couldn't be bothered stationing anybody in your country, never work.
Now Quentin Bryce is off on a seven-nation tour of Africa; nine if you count the stop-overs, as The Age's political editor Michelle Grattan points out. She is visiting Ethiopia, Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania and Kenya, having been already to France, Singapore, Malta, East Timor, Afghanistan and the United Arab Emirates. This is a spectacular misallocation of resources and represents a misunderstanding, at the top, of the Governor-General's role. Governors-general should only travel overseas to funerals, to ceremonial occasions and sometimes to comfort afflicted Australians.
They should do this only if no senior minister is available. This is not a frivolous point but a deadly serious one in the environment of grotesquely strained diplomatic resources that Australia confronts. To put it at its baldest, a governor-general's visit is as much trouble, expense and use of diplomatic capital as a prime minister's, but has no pay-off for Australia.
In any country the Governor-General visits, protocol will demand appointments with the host head of state and often head of government. This is precious face time that is always hard to come by. But the Governor-General has no policy role so her meetings are useless. The foreign head of government cannot ring her if there's a problem with Australia or if he wants to co-operate with Canberra in some initiative. It's high-level tourism.
Unlike the Queen, who can at least gain publicity for Britain, no one knows who the Australian Governor-General is or what she does. So there's no pay-off even at that level.
If Australia had munificent diplomatic resources this might not matter. But we don't. The Rudd Government is starving DFAT of funds for core business and this is likely to get worse because of the financial crisis, while lavishing funds on gimmicks and fripperies.
Silly, silly, silly.
