In short, yes he was, but we may never know if his reasons were sound or not. Like so many other aspects of his political life, he may have done the right thing by accident.
Much has been written about this, of course, some of it eerily discombobulated in the sense that people were using it to take a shot at Turnbull while at the same time holding that Rudd was not suitable for the job. Weird.
Now, if Rudd’s claims about Turnbull’s “backflip” regarding his application for UN Sec Gen are true – if they’re true – it doesn’t reflect well on Turnbull’s character. It’s pretty piss-weak, really. Add to that the recent revelations about the Cabinet vote and quite legitimate questions arise, and have been voiced by many, regarding Turnbull’s leadership and the influence upon him by the neo-cons. As something of an aside, isn’t it interesting that “neocon” has gone out of favour and neoliberal is now the label of choice? Funny how language fads work.
Anyhoo, regardless of what you think of Rudd and his supposed fabulous intellect, for me, forgetting about him personally, the salient reason he ought not be considered is that no Australian Prime Minister of the last decade has any goddamn business wanting to be the United Nations Secretary General. Over that period this country has shown near contempt for any number of humanitarian international conventions. What sort of gall does it take to imagine that any person freely engaging in such contempt has the moral right to seek such a position?
I don’t know about you, but for me this is the real reason that Rudd ought not be a candidate. Mind you, I think it might also be said that having an ex-Prime Minister in the job might politicise it a touch too much, but that’s probably not so much of a big deal.
Your thoughts are welcome.