The Hot Seat: Reflections on Diplomacy from Stalin's Death to the Bali Bombing by R. Woolcott (Book Review) [2004] JSPL 7; (2004) 8(1) Journal of South Pacific Law

BOOK REVIEW

The Hot Seat: Reflections on Diplomacy from Stalin’s Death to the Bali Bombing

By Richard Woolcott

Harper Colluns Publishers 2003, 324 pages, ISBN 0 7322 7125 8

viewed by MyintMyint Z#160;

As a student of inte international law, Richard Woolcott’s book andk and especially the ‘sub-title’ whndica wide range in terms of events, duration and topi topics attract the reviewer’s attenattention and interest. I was aware that as a career diplomat Woolcott witnessed some of the events that he narrated about ‘first-hand’. Though it is expected that Woolcott’s book would primarily be a personal memoir and his reflections would be from the perspective of a diplomat I still hope to learn from the book. The reviewer feels tnly pary part of this expectation has been met and the main reason for this is the writing style of the author. There are at least about three dozen places in the book where this reviewer has changes in terms of expresspressions or style in the margins of the pages. There are quite a few –indeed a fair bit of- paphs and sentences where here the reviewer feels that the author could have written more clearly, concisely and effectively. Jusgive a random example: before typing this particular sentence I randomly opened the book anok and the first sentence that I chance to read was as follows:

rategically situated ated and host to major American naval and air bases at Subic Bay and Clarkfield, with at one time a larger economy than Malaysia and Singapore and with the second largest population in ASEAN –over fifty million when I started my posting as ambassador- the Philippines was in 1978 an important regional neighbour in which I believe that there would be real opportunities for Australia to expand its bilateral relations (page 175).

The sentence ismatimmatically correct but one feels that shorter and clearer sentences could have been employed for more effective communicatiodeed a grammatically dubious expression followed just one pager later in this paragraph: &#h:

I was offered the ambassmbassadorship in Moscow but felt I had done my duty there and declined. I was then offered the position of high commissioner in Ottaware was more policy work there than in Moscow and I have alwe always found our Canadian colleagues friendly and helpful, but I still felt that I’d be being pushed aside if I went to Ottawa. (page 176, emphasis added)

The phrase that appeared in italics above seemed to me grammatically dubious or at least stylistically infelicitous. But aside from that and the ri being accused that I am ‘nitpicking’ about matters of style there are a few faew factual errors or questionable statements in the book. Writing about his second diplomatic stint in the then Soviet Union in the late 1950s (his first diplomatic stint being in the early 1950s) Richard Woolcott writes that the views of the then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev about the ‘ “two camps” theory in history, first put forwarded by Lenin’ was ‘ly shared by Presidresident Richard Nixon at that time’ (pages 42-43). At that time (the period that Richard Woolcott was writing about) was about the yea9 and Richard Nixon was not then President but the Vice-Pree-President of the United States of America.

As stated in th-title WoolcWoolcott begins his memoirs starting with his first diplomatic stint in the Soviet Union in August 1952 (page 4). Wiseven months of his arrival to take up his first posting in Moscow Joseph Stalin died on 5 on 5 March 1953 . Walcott writes: ... the outpouring of puof public grief when Stalin’s deas awas announced was remarkable ... a bearded Russian withegs [who]

had lost them during the war [and whose] body rested on a wheeled trolley lley ... looked up at me with a sadness ineyes and tears streaming dong down his cheeks. Waving his arms he cried ‘What are we going to do? What will happen to us now the great Joseph Vissarionovich has gone?’ The man’s mutilation and grief was such that I was lost for an answer. (page 12).

Libhuman rights advs advocates and at least some international lawyers would most probably have a generally very negative view of Stalin mainly due to the human rights violations he had caused tmit or had &had ‘sponsore17; during hing his 29 years ru the then Soviet Union. ion. Woolcott who witnessed first hand the Soviet public&#8217actiothe death of Stalin provides another glimpse of t of the impact or influence of this man whan whom some (mainly in the West) have ranked the same with Hitler if not worse. They apparently based their views in terms of the deathse twoe two tyrants had perceived to have caused internally within the countries in which they had ruled. One should not accused Walcott of being ‘a leftie7; (though he did acknowledge that ‘at the tender ager age of seventeen he had purchased the Communist Manifesto at the Left Bookshop in Geelong, and had read it’, page 5) when he writes that

It is impos to eval evaluate Stalin adequately in a few words. While he has been demonised in the West and denounced in Russia itself because of the purges in the1930s andcruelty, his achievements are remarkable despite the human uman cost. He is credited with ensuring that the revolution succeeded, driving the Soviet Union out of its backwardness, and with organising the heroic defence of the country against Germany. (page 12)

Notwithstanding the fact that what Woolcott writes is to some extent true many persons especially from those of the political right – though not necessarily only persons with such political inclinations- may still think that Woolcott is, if not a political ‘leftie’, then he praises Stali17;s legacy just a ta a tad than it warrants. But Woolcott’s comments on the status and legacy of Suharto’s rule ofnesia and especiallcially in relation to the occupation andxation of East Timor imor will not gl well not only with leftists but even with many liberals (liberals with a ‘small l&#) and independent observersrvers. (It is realised that from a global political perspective Suharto was much less influential and - though these things are hard to ‘weigh’ or evaluate- some what less brutal than Stalin.) Walcott’s analys ‘The Tragedies of East Timor’ (name of the Chapter in the book) can be fairly irly described as ‘defensive’.s defensive of the SuhartoRgovernment&#ent&#ent’s actions in 1975 when it, in flagrant violation of international law, invaded and annexed East Timor. It is even more defensive of the succession of Australian governments’ acquiescence in t support for this unlawful act. Walcott rightly points out that ‘[t]he analogy betwebetween Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor and Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait is not sustainable’ (page 155). He is even legalistic (in the complimentary sense of the words) when he writes that ‘[i]n the case of Kuwait, a sovereign member of the United Nations recognised by Iraq was invaded by Iraq in one of the most clear cut cases of aggression in recent history’ (pages 155-56). One agrees with Walcott that the analogy if not putting a virtual (legal) equation between Iraq’s inv oion of Kuwait in 1990 and Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor in 1975 is strained. The implicit comparison which Walcotts or infers bers between Ch8217;s intention to ‘absorb Macao’ (page 149) a49) and Indonesia’s actions in East Timor may not be as strained an 6;equation’ or analogy as that between annexations ofns of Kuwait (1990) and East Timor (1975). Still, such a comparison is tantamount to ignoring the contrasts in the historical relatigeographicaphical and cultural ties (or lack of ties) and also perhaps the legal dimensions concerning the relationship vis-à-vis China and Macao and Indonesia and East Timor. And one c but feel that the author ohor of The Hot Seat tries to downplay the atrocities committed during the early years of the Suharto era (post 30 September 1fter tter the failed ‘Communist coup’) which resulted in the deaths of up to half a million ‘Communist’ Indonesians. Those hostile to or critical of Suharto and the then Indonesian government’sons in Eain East Timor, Walcott avers, are ‘angry personshe the political left who have never forgiven Suharto for estruction of the Indonesian Communist Party in 1965 and 1966 after the attempted coup and and removal of Sukarno’ (page 155).

One submits that that it is not merely or even mainly the destruction of the Indonesian Communist Party that needs to be remembered if not recorded as one of Suharto’s and the ‘New Order’s’ regime regretful if not condemnable legacies. It is the atrocities and killings of about half-a million Indonesians (alleged Communists or otherwise) in about eighteen months during and after ‘The Year of Living Dangerously’ that engender the legit cone concern and justifiable outrage by some (and not merely those from the ‘political left’) against Suharto and his regime. These atrocities can ast generically if not legalistically be described as crimecrimes against humanity. The colonisation – one realises that this is an emotive term but one should not forget that colonies can be made not only by European or ‘white’ powers in this day and age of post (or should one say) neo-colonia of East Timor imor by Indonesia and the massacres that took place at least during the initial phase of the Indonesia invasion and annexation seems to be have been ‘papered over’ icott&;s analysis of &#of ‘8216;The Tragedies of East Timor’. It is also noteworthy that Walcott seems to de-emphasise the early condemnation of the East Timor annexation in both the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations. His analysis is based mainly on Australia’s or what is perceived to be Australia’s national interest viewed through the lens of a diplomat and the various political elites from Canberra. It fails to convince this student of international law that Indonesia’s (and subsequently) Australian political and diplomatic elites’ actions in and regarding East Timor esply from the the time of the invasion to the East Timor referendum are legally justifiable or defensible. Taken into accoue realities of international relations and power politics, one has to concede though that &hat it is16;understandable&#821&#821at Australia had acted the way it did.

Talkinalking about realities of power politics and international relations Woolc8217;s recount of the vote in the United Nations General Asal Assembly on 2 November 1983 regarding the resolution ‘condemning S invasion’ of Grenadrenada several days earlier in late October 1983 is of interest. (Here there is yet another factual or typographical error instead of writing 'Grenada resolution’ it was erroneously written as ‘Nicaraguan resolution&; [sic], page 198). After rter recounting the tensions and factions (so to speak) within the Australian delegation in the UN General Assembly as to how to vote Woolcott as head of the delegation ‘voted for the resolution as a whole’. Woolcott recounts though that when a separate vote deploring -in fact Woolcott, in an earlier description of the resolution actually usesword ‘c216;condemn’ though taken diplomatic niceties into account one surmises that in the actual resolution the wor216;deplore’ rather than ‘condemn’ would probably have been used- ‘8216;the invasion of Grenada as violation of international law, I cast an abstension’ (page 199). It is somewhat heartening to read that Woolcott rejected the advice of the political counsellor of his delegation that Australia ‘should not vote against our ally even if its actions were highly questionable’. Woolcott recounts that the same person with the support of another officer who happens to be his eldest son Peter argued that ‘[n]o Soviet ally had voted against the Soviet Union when it had invaded Afghanistan’. The response of Woolcott to this argument for ‘solidarity’ with the United States is instructive:

I said t allies wers were in fact Soviet satellites. Australia was not. We sought to pursue an independent foreign policy within the frrk of the alliance. Moreover, the United States had not consulted us or informed us in adva advance of its proposed military intervention. If it had, I believe, we would have counselled against it. (page 199).

A curiosiriosity arises as to what this veteran diplomat would have said vis-à-vis the Iraq war. (Woolcott’s book was published just before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) In this regard, the author ofhe Hot Seat gives more than a hint albeit a brief one when he writes that ‘[w]hile it was relatively straight forward for Australia to support Amn policies against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, unr, unqualified support for an indefinite war on terrorism and a possible war against Iraq poses new difficulties for us ... Allies will need to be watchful lest they should be drawn into a protracted war on Iraq or terrorism in one form or another related [merely] to American interests and domestic politics’. And again in a perceptive as well as prophetic statement Woolcott reminds us that ‘[a]n all-powerful America may become more self-righteous and unilateralist in the future’ (page 301). It needs to be mentioned that these words were written post-‘September 11’ and before the Iraq war broke out. Coming from a seasoned diplomat who have Australia’s self-interest rather than full adherence to t8216;niceties’ of i of international law as a paramount goal these words should provide food for thought for current and future Australian governmental elites.

Richard Woolcott de modest about his role and contribution in his ‘creation’ to which he was ‘pleased to have been present’ (pages 244, 304) and establis of APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum)– o11; or at least its first meeting ‘which took place in Canberr17; in November 198r 1989 (page 232). Woolcott writes that ‘APEC would have more chance of success if it was promoted by atry like Australia, which was neither a major power nor economically dominant’ (page page 241). This observation is reinf iced in the next Chapter ‘America Pre-eminent’ andighlights the fact that that for Australians ‘it has s been how to maximise our importance to and our influence on our much larger, more pore powerful and self-centred ally’ 247).

Two ofwo of the best sections of the book are the concluding Chapters on ‘Reflections on Diplomacy’ #8216;Advance Australia Whea Where?’. Needles to say the reviewer’s positive note in this regard is attributable to the fact that he generally, indeed ly, agrees wit; with the sentimand vind views expressed in those Chapters as well as those in the ‘Epilogue’. In virtually the last page of the book Richard Woolcott writes apparently with considerablling the ‘four four goalsgoals’ Australia should strive to achieve ‘early in the twenty-first century’. AccordinWalcott they they should de lu8216;reconciliation beon between immigrant Australians and the indigenous peoples theyossessed’. At its third goal (after the second one of successfully consolidating &#82 ‘a fair, tolerant, multiethnic, multicultural Australian democracy’ ) Woolcott speaks rather whimsically about ‘the creation of a proud, distinctly Australian republic, with its own head of state that has severed anachronistic links with the English monarchy’ (page 305). Earlier, he ‘reveals’ that as early as the year 1953, at the time of Queen Elizabeth’s coronation in his ‘firscow days&days’ he was ‘ a republican and [was] uncomfortable with the idea of Elizabeth II becoming Queen of Austra8217; (page 11).

The &#charm’ of the bthe book consists of such personarsonal glimpses and stories (highlighted especially at the end of most Chapters under the title ‘My Diplomatic Notebook’). This ‘charm’ or (generally successful) attempts at humour can also be counted as yet another ‘positive’ of the book. But it bears repeating that at times, the author’s somewhat stilted and convoluted style detracts from its narration, substantive themes and diions.

The reviewer has (aid (admitted, if you will) earlier that he reads thes the book partly through the ‘lens’ of a student of international law. A student of international law should, perchance or peradventure, attempts to read the allied subjects of diplomacy, international relations and political science written by diplomats who though not fully academic international lawyers would invariably have an international law background. Among such books this reviewer has had the chance to read were The New Diplomacy: International Affairs in the Modern Age by the late Abba Eban (first published in 1983) and Unvanquished: A US-UN Saga by Boutros Boutros-Ghali[1] (first published in 1999). I should say that academically and in of rg pleasure too I oo I have have learned and profited more from the above two books which I have had the chance to read in their earlier years of publication. Still, scholars and students of international law, international relations and political science especially those with an interest in Australia’s role in the Asia-Pacific region should find Richard Woolcott’s personal memond refl reflections on diplomacy in The Hot Seat to be generally an enjoyable read. &#/p>

* LecturerUniversity of the South Pacific
Port Vila
Vanuatu&#160

>[1] For this reviewer’s review of Unvanquished see Book Review, (2000) 27 Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law, 313-26.