Rudd and Shearer aren’t enough. Washington needs to see more Australian heavy hitters
We need more than two Australians who are well-known in Washington.
We do have two who are remarkably well-known, but they alone aren’t enough in a political scene that’s increasingly influenced by personal connections and therefore reputations.
The two are ambassador Kevin Rudd and the director-general of the Office of National Intelligence, Andrew Shearer. In dozens of meetings with officials, politicians, industry and think tanks in Washington on a recent trip, I repeatedly heard people mention Rudd and Shearer—but rarely other Australians.
What happens when one or both of those people are no longer in office? This country should systematically promote other people with strong reputations and work on developing more heavy hitters for the future.
Australia’s overriding national security issue is the risk that China dominates our region, establishes its authoritarian political system as the norm and uses coercion to extract what it wants from other countries at the expense of their liberty and prosperity.
While Australia must do what it can to look after its own security, we are much better placed with a strong US commitment to our region and to the alliance. It is therefore essential that our voice is heard in Washington.
Traditionally, a person’s access to US officials was determined mainly by his or her position, though reputation and contacts have always been important. But, even before the re-election of Donald Trump, reputation and contacts were pulling ahead of office as influential factors.
I saw in Washington in March and April that they were now dominant. My discussions took place in the usual departments and sensitive compartmented information facilities (known as SCIFs) but also in cafes, restaurants and bars. If you are a government official and work only 9 to 5 on Monday to Friday, on Monday morning you will be behind and scrambling to catch up.
Business these days is done everywhere all the time, and when it’s done away from the office, it’s more likely to be arranged at a personal level.
We are lucky to have Rudd and Shearer, who are well known by Republicans, Democrats and senior bureaucrats. They have both done excellent jobs in building their international networks over many decades, especially in Washington, the hub for international, security and defence debates. It shouldn’t be missed that both have spent time in think tanks and have diverse work experience across government and non-government.
Rudd is seen as a globally recognised, Mandarin-speaking expert on China. He also has great prestige as a past prime minister, which is a stronger factor in the United States, with its presidential system of government and respect for former leaders, than is generally appreciated in Australia.
Shearer is further elevated by being seen in Washington as the Australian official who is most nearly a national security adviser, a position that grabs attention in Washington.
It’s not his job that gives him this status, but his reputation for understanding global security issues. It isn’t hard to understand that we need to offer more than two people whom influential Americans are keen to meet, especially with Shearer based in Canberra.
Behind Rudd and Shearer, the bench is not deep. There are former and current intelligence chiefs, for example, who are listened to globally and have built strong relationships in the US intelligence community, including Australian Security Intelligence Organisation boss Mike Burgess.
Why do we have so few others of the status of Rudd and Shearer? The best explanation is the increasingly domestic focus of Canberra. Serving ministers and responding to a 24-hour media cycle is busy, urgent work. Talking points, possible parliamentary questions, Senate estimates, meeting records and minutes, reams of briefs absorb enormous resources.
I don’t exaggerate too much in saying that we’re incentivising the development of bureaucratic clones.
Yet we do have people in the public service with potential to become heavy hitters internationally. For the medium term, say, the 2030s and beyond, we should identify and begin cultivating them now, putting them in positions in which they can build reputations.
Foreign and security policy requires big picture strategic thinking, an understanding of defence, diplomacy, economics, politics and culture. People with this stature globally have worked through the major crises and twists of recent history.
They’ve built the confidence to be risk managers, not risk-averse. They’ve been mentored by the previous generation of giants. They’ve stood at the shoulders of influential leaders, ready to provide whispered sober advice at moments when an ability to see the forest rather than just the trees was most crucial.
They painstakingly earn their reputations, which then precede them through the doors into the most powerful rooms on earth.
We must identify those Australians who are already on their way to developing strong reputations—perhaps people in government but particularly in academia, business and think tanks.
ASPI is only one of several suitable hosts for the task, but we are also the only one with an office in Washington. Unfortunately, support for our DC office was cut in a government review of national security think tanks.
It’s poor timing to have fewer Australian voices and less convening power in Washington, which is why we aim to keep the office open.
One move that is guaranteed to deliver short-term results is for the next government to create a position of national security adviser. American officials notice that we don’t have one. So do friends in Europe and Asia.
All of our Quad partners, for example, have the role and they meet regularly, with no Australian at the table. In general, a job title may have lost its lustre in gaining traction in Washington, but the job title of national security adviser hasn’t.
Moreover, its lustre will stay with its office holder after he or she has moved on to other things.
So it’s a national priority: create people who, in an increasingly personalised Washington, are attractions not because of their jobs, but because of the wisdom for which they’re recognised. That’s what, and who, we need more of.
