Kevin Rudd’s historical criticisms of Donald Trump have caught the eye of some in the US president-elect’s inner circle – and prompted renewed debate about whether the incoming administration could seek retribution.
This week Dan Scavino, a senior adviser to Trump, reposted Rudd’s congratulatory statement to the president-elect on social media with a gif of an hourglass.
That move has reignited suggestions that the incoming president may prefer another Australian representative in Washington when he takes office in January.
A new video emerged earlier this week of Rudd in an interview in 2021 describing Trump as “a village idiot” and “not a leading intellectual force”. Rudd last week – after the US election – deleted old social media posts criticising Trump.
The former prime minister is Australia’s highest profile envoy in one of its most important diplomatic posts. His status highlights the distinction between career diplomats and political appointees and the processes for sending them abroad – and home.
While some Australian critics are calling for Rudd to be replaced, others – including his predecessor and former Liberal senator Arthur Sinodinos – have warned that kowtowing would be a damaging move.
The Albanese government continues to stand by Rudd as the best person to serve as Australia’s ambassador to Washington DC.
But could Trump do anything to remove him?
How is an ambassador appointed?
Diplomatic appointments are governed by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. When a country nominates a new ambassador, the advance clearance process involves a “demarche” – a formal request from one government to another that allows the destination country to raise any significant objections it may have. The convention allows the host to reject a nominee but it’s usually a routine approval process. Once accepted and dispatched, the appointee presents credentials formally on arrival, usually in person to the host country’s leader.
That approval transcends a change of host-nation administration.
Could Trump really fire Rudd?
Under article 9 of the convention, the host nation’s leader can declare a country’s head of mission – or any other member of its diplomatic staff – persona non grata, requiring that person’s withdrawal and with no explanation required. The home country is then expected to either recall its diplomat or terminate their official responsibilities at the mission.
In the US, the expulsion precedent dates back far further, to 1793, when France’s first ambassador, Edmond-Charles Genêt, attracted the ire of President George Washington for encouraging American privateers to join the French Revolution in violation of Washington’s neutrality position.
How big a deal would it be if he did?
It would be a huge diplomatic incident if Trump was to declare Rudd persona non grata under the Vienna convention. Expulsions of lower-level diplomatic staff from countries with which the US has tensions occur more regularly, for example where they may be accused of being undeclared intelligence operatives.
But formally invoking article 9 against the head of mission of a friendly country would be an extraordinary move.
The Australian National University international law professor Donald Rothwell says he doubts Trump would take that step.
“I just cannot perceive that the Vienna convention would be relied upon in the case of an Australian ambassador,” Rothwell says. “As things stand at the moment, it would cause a very significant rift in diplomatic relations.”
But he says the Australian government “may be put in a position of saying we really need to replace this ambassador to ensure there is a good relationship” and ensure the Aukus nuclear submarine deal succeeds.
Rothwell suggests any formal persona non grata declaration would be fatal for the submarine pact.
“If the Vienna convention trigger was pulled and the Australian ambassador was declared persona non grata in the midst of Aukus treaty still winding its way through the parliamentary processes [in this country], it’s doubtful whether Aukus would survive.”
Are there other ways the president could force a change of ambassador?
The convention isn’t the only option for Trump, if he decided he wanted a different Australian ambassador. Instead of using the formal expulsion process, with all that it would imply for the two countries’ ties, he could make it known across the administration and on Capitol Hill that his government’s agencies were not to deal with Rudd. Even less formally than that, if he simply reiterated his displeasure with Rudd’s perceived attitude to him – as he’s already done once, ahead of the election – his supporters may take that as a cue to make access more difficult, making Rudd’s position extremely difficult.
Trump has already forced one other Five Eyes ally’s ambassador to withdraw over personal criticisms, albeit made as contemporary assessments at the time, and not historical reflections as Rudd’s were.
In late 2019, during the first Trump administration, Britain’s ambassador Kim Darroch was forced to resign after cables he wrote back to London were leaked. The cables included frank assessments of Trump as “insecure” and “incompetent” and described his administration as “diplomatically clumsy”, “inept” and “dysfunctional”, predicting that it would “crash and burn”.
“I do not know the ambassador, but he is not liked or well … thought of within the US. We will no longer deal with him,” Trump wrote on the social media site X, formerly Twitter, in July 2019.
Darroch resigned a month later, saying it had become “impossible” for him to carry out his role. The then British prime minister, Theresa May, awarded him a life peerage to the House of Lords on his return.
