The obvious point to be made in the case of Stern Hu, the Rio Tinto executive detained in China for alleged bribery and espionage, is that it’s unacceptable for Australian citizens (or anyone else, for that matter) to be locked up indefinitely without a proper legal process. That said, as An Onymous Lefty points out, at least the Australian government has finally raised formal objections, unlike a certain former government when an Australian citizen spent five years in detention without any semblance of due legal process…
Beyond that, it’s hard to figure out what the hell kind of game is being played here. However much Australia, and the developed nations, may “need” China, they “need” us too. And throwing citizens of Western countries into what is going to be perceived as arbitrary detention, which could theoretically go on for years is going to have rather a chilling effect on business ties. That’s in no-one’s interest, least of all the Communist Party leadership’s. So what’s really going on here?
It is hard to work out what is going on. Clearly, he might either be guilty of stuff that he ought to have known would get him thrown into stir for a considerable time, or he might simply be a casualty of China’s desire to get a stronger bargaining position over basic resources — or some combination of the two.
China doesn’t need Australia as much as Australia needs China, but then if they deal too arbitrarily with Australia, othgers they have to pay more attention to may take umbrage and that might cool deals they want to go forward. I hear that Gary Lock (US trade secretary) is making noises about Hu, and that may cut a bit of ice with the Chinese.
It’s hard to work out who is doing the calculus in China on these matters and how they are doing it. I suspect that Hu will be released “in due season” to borrow from Kevin unless they really have him bang to rights on something very serious.
“So what’s really going on here?”
Ummmm, I dunno.
(It would be easier to speculate on the Fritzl incest-daughter-in-the-cellar case, and what a spooky and evil social miasma exists in Austria, wouldn’t it????)
If Hu’s as guilty as Hicks most certainly was then he’ll be lucky to only do five years.
In any case good luck discussing the finer points of jurisprudence with the 300pd gorilla that is the Chinese government. The rule of law is whatever they want it to be – guilt or innocence doesn’t have much to do with anything.
All we see at the moment is an Aussie grabbing his briefcase and going to work. Negotiating to sell Aussie producets overseas… and for his trouble being thrown in the calaboose by a bunch of shat off little charlie chans, sour at the fact that when they play fair the other feller may get the better of them.
Reality, we’ll wait and see. “Espionage” and “Stealing state secrets” seems to most to be on another page altogether.
No matter what the evidence against him, it is not immediately apparent how he could have been acting against Australia’s interests. Indeed, if the allegations are true, then he was possibly acting very much FOR Australia’s interests.
… this is in diametric contrast to Hicks. No matter how it is stretched, Hicks was still acting against Australia’s interests.
Unlike many people, I don’t have any idea what would get Stern Hu’s case dealt with more promptly, whether megaphone or telephone or good old fashioned grovelling. Therefore I have no gratuitous advice for either Rudd or Turnbull.
However, I do harbour strong suspicions about the overall shape of the case. It doesn’t smell right, as the saying goes.
Firstly, the Chinese government has been (a) failing to notify the Australian government, and (b) refusing to sit down and discuss the case, despite repeated entreaties to do so. If the case was on solid grounds and China really was Australia’s new best friend, &/or Jintao was Rudd’s new best friend, then we should have seen a different response to that which has occurred.
Secondly, the timing and choice of detainees is very suspicious. It is too close to the deadline for the iron ore price negotiations, which I believe were supposed to be finalised end-June. They weren’t finalised, the state-controlled China Iron and Steel Association refused to reach agreement, and then the state-controlled policing system locked up the negotiators. They then took a long time to declare why these guys were locked up. It is hard to believe this is all a coincidence.
Thirdly, obtaining what the western world would term commercial information is regarded as stealing state secrets, apparently punishable by death or life inprisonment. That makes commercial negotiations with a state-owned entity very risky. Added to this is the problem that contracts appear to be viewed as a convenience, only if it suits the Chinese. If the contract price is low, they will expect to use that, and if the spot price is low then they dump the contract. There are two big problems here, in terms of future demand estimates (state secrets) and in terms of honouring contracts. Australian resource companies can scarcely make plans for major capacity expansion based on this untenable situation.
One would think that the Chinese mandarins are smart enough to realise that there could be repercussions from all this. However, one would have thought that the US had enough smart people advising Bush Jr and his administration, such that they would have realised the international repercussions of their actions. Arrogance does amazing things to individuals and groups of people, it seems.
Anyway, there are a couple of things we all see clearly now. They are not our new best friends. They are simply a large trading partner. The supposedly independent state-owned companies, including Chinalco and Baosteel and others, are nothing of the sort. They are arms of the state, which can use all sorts of powers to influence the outcome of negotiations.
Stepping back from it all, Stern Hu is probably the first pawn to be taken in a much larger game. This century has a serious future challenge for Australia, since a large percentage of our export trade is with a country that doesn’t want to play by international rules. Furthermore, they are a growing economic power seeking control of natural resources for their growth.
Australians really need to wake up and rethink the old mantra about the virtues of foreign investment.
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is no doubt great for developing nations that don’t have the money to develop things themselves. I reckon it is a pile of balony when the FDI involves taking control of resources which have already been largely developed – the advantage is all towards the predator not the prey. FDI is also a bad idea if the predator is taking control of strategic resources, &/or the source of competitive advantage for the nation.
Colin Barnett (WA Premier) thought that a ditch from the Kimberleys would solve Perth’s water problem. Now he thinks that giving control of our strategic resources to the Chinese makes economic sense. Can we please have some politicians with a few brain cells in operation?
Judging by his rambling at 4, Steve at the Pub has been there too long.
Malcolm Turnbull said he did not need a briefing from the Government on the Hu affair because he had already been briefed by Rio Tinto. It’s another example of what a political dunce he is – admitting that he takes his cues from big business.
JohnL, time to put the whisky decanter down mate, it interferes with your ability to read for comprehension.
What I said is merely the same as Elise at # 5, only in vernacular.
Turnbull has almost no political judgement. It is hardly news, but entertaining nonetheless, that he says such things.
Why are the Chinese doing this? Because they can. They are sending a message: “You mess with us, we’ll mess with you”. They were really angered by what they saw as Rio double crossing them on Chinalco. Mr Hu is likely to spend a long time in a Chinese prison, an unpleasant prospect to say the least. When he is released, Rio Tinto should compensate him with a lot of money – at least $10 mill per year inside would be appropriate.
Steve at the Pub at 7: What I was referring to was your offensive comment at 4, namely: “and for his trouble being thrown in the calaboose by a bunch of shat off little charlie chans, sour at the fact that when they play fair the other feller may get the better of them.”
All you have done in reply is confirm my point that you have been there too long.
I’m the last person to defend Steve, but John I believe he was paraphrasing what he sees as the media/public perception/message of the Hu case, not stating those things as his own opinions, or indeed admirable opinions.
Closer to home, the very versatile Chinese Govt is also a film critic
SATP, the reference in your comment at #4 was indeed offensive. I haven’t deleted the comment, but only because a number of other people have since made reference to it.
Any further discussion along these lines will not be tolerated.
Robert, You should get in touch with Miss Chen from the chinese consulate (mentioned in the link at # 11) You can swap tales about deleting “offensive” material. (or in her case, attempting to)
Offensive to whom? The mainland china committee for state security? They are made of stern enough stuff to take it.
Patrick G at # 10 has read it correctly.
Sam @8, agree with you that they are probably angry about the pricing negotiations. Rio refused to drop the price further than they had already agreed with the other nations. Rio probably realised full-well that the demand would be such that spot prices would rise, so they weren’t prepared to accept less. Apparently the spot price is already 50% higher than the contract price they agreed with Japan, so the Japanese are happy to have the contract.
The Chinese were angling for an even bigger discount, but after locking up the negotiating team, it seems they now have the choice of the spot market or last year’s high prices. Both worse options than the contract price on offer.
The Chinese negotiating position is a bit like a bank telling you could have a Term Deposit for 3% when you know you can get 6% in a normal everyday account. Rio wouldn’t take the 3%, and offered to accept 4%.
Sam, a lot of people are saying “They were really angered by what they saw as Rio double crossing them on Chinalco.” Actually, they negotiated a VERY LARGE break fee, in the event of the deal falling through. They have got their break fee, so they didn’t do all that badly. Chinalco and parts of the Rio board were the only ones that were really in favour and sure it was a done deal, and neither of these parties owned the company. The shareholders are actually the real owners of the company, and they weren’t agreed at all. Nor was the government.
Chinalco and the Chinese government got their indecent break fee. They didn’t get what they wanted, but they didn’t get diddled. They should quit whinging.
Oh, for heavens sake, if we going to have a discussion on this can we for starters just can the ludicrous Hicks analogy? Who thinks Stern Hu is suspected – on solid evidence – of terrorist activities? No-one? OK then it isn’t an analogy, and we can get on and discuss the actual issue.
Robert, your post below on the illogic of argument by anecdote which ignores all real data in the case of Chernobyl is spot on, but you are rather falling into the same trap by dragging your view of the Hicks case into quite a different one.
As for what is going on, there is a respectable argument to be made that the answer is nothing very much at all. The Chinese are merely playing to form; the only difference from tens if not hundreds of other cases of tossing foreigners into jail on questionable charges if they rub someone powerful enough up the wrong way is that this time an Australian is involved, and the Australian media have therefore noticed. Newsweek has an article in its current edition making exactly this point, and claiming that 50 American citizens alone have suffered similar treatment over the years.
Anyone who expects the rules of law and evidence as we know them to operate in China has never lived there. The rule of arbitrariness, perhaps.
Hey, this kind of thing has been going on for a long time in China, since the brief Legalist Period, BCE, when the Chinese legal (as opposed to bureaucratic/imperial/communist/neo-capitalist etc.,) was established.
The quest is did Stern Hu know he was breaking the law (if he did) or not, I suppose.
Vaguely on thread, it ain’t exactly reassuring to know the Libs get their rising instructions from big business, still.
Quite true.
Rio Tinto is a major corporation that buys the best legal and corporate advice available. These advisers are well acquainted with the realities of corporate life in China, with all of its benefits and drawbacks.
Rio Tinto has made a rational corporate choice to place its human assets in harm’s way with a view to deriving the highest possible rate of return on invested capital.
China’s rudimentary legal system and the Chinese government’s empirical attitude to bribery are acceptable risks in the view of Rio Tinto.
My guess is that they will continue to be acceptable risks and that nothing will change in the medium term.
But profits will continue to be made regardless.
Some questions:
How long has Stern Hu been an Aussie citizen?
Does he hold dual citizenship?
How long did he reside in Aust?
How long has he been an executive for Rio in China?
Wikipedia not much help.
Wozza: Hicks was incarcerated according to a system that allowed essentially arbitrary detention, and then put through a kangaroo court.
Stern Hu is being subject to what looks awfully like arbitrary detention, and faces the strong possibility of a kangaroo court.
See the connection?
Hu: dual citizenship.
Consequence? China may not regard him as having same consular access rights [Vienna convention??] as a solely-Aussie person.
Authority? some international law bloke i heard oin the radio yesterday
Katz @17: “Rio Tinto has made a rational corporate choice to place its human assets in harm’s way with a view to deriving the highest possible rate of return on invested capital.”
And the corollary is: Stern Hu made a rational individual choice to live and work in harm’s way, with a view to deriving the highest possible rate of return (read salary) on his skills.
I doubt that either party really thought they were “in harm’s way”, or they might have taken different action.
Stern Hu would be a very valuable employee, an asset to the company. I seriously doubt they would sacrifice him as easily as you indicate. The reports on Stern Hu himself suggest that he is a quiet, thoughtful and measured individual, not the sort that would carelessly risk death or life imprisonment.
It tends to suggest the Chinese government unexpectedly lost the plot, and caught both parties by surprise. Losing the plot seems especially likely since they would now be paying EVEN MORE for their iron ore than if they had taken the same deal as Japan and the others. Second time they have pushed too hard, and got the opposite result to that desired. Fast learners…
Wozza, there are plenty in this country prepared to side with those acting against our national interest. Get used to it. Plenty of them comment on this site. They don’t “get” why some people loathe Hicks, yet have sympathy for Stern Hu.
A more apt analogy is James Peng. The types who used to distribute petitions & protest wildly about Hicks would give a puzzled look when questioned thus: “Nice that you are showing concern for Hicks, what have you been doing about James Peng?”.
Those of them with a conscience (rare) would guiltily look away, knowing they had just been found wanting. The bulk of them were sheep, led by a political agent, and weren’t bright enough to realise what hypocrites they being.
Wozza@16 should have been watching SkyNews Agenda interview with Julie Bishop this afternoon where she raised the matter of David Hicks in an attempt to discredit the Government’s progress of the Consular Agreement process initiated by the Howard Government,which apparently the current Government still regards itself as bound by. By Julie Bishop’s convulated reasoning process the fact that pressure was exerted on the Howard Government to raise the Hicks matter with President Bush means that the Prime Minister must immediately raise the matter with the President of China. In my reading of the Hick’s affair, and the speed at which the Howard Government moved – it looks like Kevin Rudd still has about 4-1/2 years to resolve anything and then do a deal with the Chinese Vice-President just prior to an election and get Hu to plead guilty.
Whatever it is that is being played out at a murky level in Australian politics with regard to China has been bubbling along since even before the Joel Fitzgibbon matter was first raised and the attempts to politicise all links by Government to China as somehow dangerous to Australia’s wellbeing are coming thick and fast.
The many spurious links being raised in relation to Stern Hu are just that. Whether Rio Tinto has a hand in it is yet to be seen. We might just as well advance the theory (spurious or not) that because these matters are being predominantly pushed by the Murdoch press, that it is payback by Murdoch for not being able to realise his ambition of conquering Chinese t.v. and other media. Who knows, and since all reputable opinion seems to be on the side of the Government – who cares?
By the way, can anybody produce any evidence where Kevin Rudd has actually claimed a “special relationship” with China? (citing credible sources please).
SATP, the point about Hicks campaign was not what he was alleged to have done but that he was imprisoned for 5 years without trial, and that the Australian government didn’t give a stuff. Of course, you know this perfectly well.
This said, I hope that Get Up gets up a campaign to Bring Stern Home. If they don’t, they stand diminished in my view.
It’s interesting to note that the MSM seems to have more or less shut the door on the possibility that Stern Hu has done anything seriously wrong. I’ve seen the charge of bribery dismissed as ridiculous in both the Fairfax and News Ltd press, but these same publications otherwise take palm-greasing and guanxi as the given starting point for any understanding of commerce “with Asia”.The coverage of Hu as a person has been little short of hagiographic. Words like “integrity”, “quiet-spoken”, “effective”, etc. abound in every description of the man who was evidently midwife to some pretty massive resource deals.Even though the timing of Hu’s surprise incarceration is very suspicious with respect to both the ore price negotiation with Rio and the collapse of the Chinalco deal, I’d say it’s not out of the question that Chinese authorities have been keeping tabs on Hu for some sort of ongoing skullduggery for a long time, perhaps just keeping their powder dry.None of that stands against my hope that he’ll see a proper, transparent legal process, but I don’t see that as likely. That’s very sad for him and for his family.I also think that from a Chinese perspective, there would without doubt be a whiff of economic imperialism about the way Australian resource companies have done business in recent years. Let’s not pretend that our largest businesses profiteering on rapidly inflated commodity prices while our governments and citizenry cashed in on the consequent royalties and employment boom, would have made Australia look like a nation of saints.The “civilization-based culture” vs. “nation-based culture” distinction drawn by various analysts – who claim that Stern Hu, an Australian citizen, is still viewed as a subject of China by the Chinese government – will probably continue to have interesting consequences to commerce with China.
Robert – An Onymous Lefty points out, at least the Australian government has finally raised formal objections, unlike a certain former government when an Australian citizen spent five years in detention without any semblance of due legal process…
.
Disgraceful. You anti-American twinkle toe’d communist. That was completely different. America believes in freedom.
Like David Hicks, Stern Hu may well cop a plea in order to escape a grisly situation.
Does that mean that Hu will necessarily be guilty of whatever he pleads to? Of course not.
Remember that, unreconstructed RWDBs. And remember your disgraceful acceptance of Hicks’ pleas as proof of actual guilt.
Tom @ 25, let us suppose that you are right, and the Chinese government had been keeping tabs on Stern Hu for a while, and they were sure he was guilty. Just suppose….
Sooo, why wouldn’t they tell the Australian government? Why keep fending off polite entreaties for information?
Why make Rudd and the Australian government lose so much face? It smells all wrong to me. There is more to this than one individual apparently breaking their law.
Katz
And others.
I haven’t seen letters from this chap claiming to have fired “hundreds of rounds” into India either. It is a little silly to compare the 2, Im sure there are much more apt comparisons around.
Lets keep it in perspective, the opposition is going to carp regardless of what tack the government take, the government will make public pronouncements for political advantage. Regardless of this most of the real work will be done quietly (I hope), and Mr Hu will receive a 10 year sentence, commuted to 1 or 2 (in a years time) for “poor health” without much fanfare.
China will embarrass the “barbarians” for its own public (and a shot across the bows of multinationals), the opposition will grumble about it not being done sooner, and the government will use it for publicity.
The sausage machine of politics at its best…
It is highly likely a bribe was paid, just to the wrong person, I haven’t followed this closely, has a co-conspirator been charged as well?
“By the way, can anybody produce any evidence where Kevin Rudd has actually claimed a “special relationship” with China? (citing credible sources please).”
Thanks for raising this mediatracker@23. I am fed up with reading Limited News constantly making this cheap assertion, when I don’t recall any such thing.
What I do recall is the RW commentariat barely able to contain their shittiness at Rudd’s facility with the language, and the good press he got elsewhere for this, including in China.
Julie Bishop and her crappy media enablers seem determined to make our own PM “lose face” in this affair. Just Hu’s side are they on?
1. Have you seen any letters at all written by Mr Hu?
2. Do you believe everything you read in others’ letters?
But he’s only been held for 10 days without charge. I think the Chinese need to take some lessons from the United States of America if they want to prolong this much further.
Wozza, SATP, if I were going to draw analogies, I’d draw one with Haneef — where the Murdoch media then played a role roughly equivalent to that of the Chinese state media now (ie. presumed guilt), and the Indian media then played a role roughly equivalent to that of the Australian media now (ie. indignation and outrage and presumed innocence).
Funny how rough the pineapple feels from this end, isn’t it Mr Murdoch?
Katz.
You might want to enter a google for some really easy to access letters apparently written by Mr Hicks.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22957532-5001561,00.html
Even a film sypathetic to Hicks situation didnt whitewash his letters.
http://www.filmstransit.com/hicks.html
I repeat, Im sure there are much better analogies to Mr Hu’s situation than an Aussie Jihadist.
Mole, I’m intrigued. You sound as if you have studied what happens to people who upset the Chinese establishment. You have explained the future prospects for the unfortunate Mr Hu.
Please do continue. Once China has also embarrassed the barbarians and sent a shot across the bows of the multinationals…the reaction is…???
In physics 101 they teach you that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Too simplistic to apply directly to human behaviour of course.
However, presumably our newly faceless PM, the rest of us Aussie barbarians, and not to mention the multinationals here and elsewhere, are likely to react to these events in some form. Your intuition for the next phase would be?
We do actually have the wherewithall to cause them considerable pain, if we put an embargo on coal, gas or iron ore exports. Not that we are likely to do it, due to economic rationalism, but the power is there.
There is an extra point, which is that highly corrupt countries like China don’t have the same economic trajectory as countries with good rule of law and low levels of corruption. Maybe China will suffer growing pains in the near future, and not become the Superpower that their leaders are probably expecting?
The barbarians may have to look for further export opportunities elsewhere? Could be a good risk mitigation strategy, regardless?
Well we can only assume that Mr Hu’s employers were not “virgins” to the wily ways of the Middle Kingdom. Knowledge of Confucianism assists:
http://www.let.uu.nl/~Ora.Matushansky/personal/confucius.html
Confucius says
Just kidding
, those are fake sayings and apologies to any people from the middle kingdom on this thread–no offence intended. But a real saying of the learned gentleman could be appropriate to some degree:
Paul Burns @ 16: Ah yes the Legalists, Huangdi I think was his name, the first Emperor of a unified Ch’in dynasty–lasted 15 years, all because an order for an army to cross a river could not be disobeyed. The river was in flood, so death for disobeying or death for rebelling. They chose the latter. And succeeded.
(The modern day saviour of China, Deng Shaoping “It doesn’t matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches the mouse.” I wonder what he what he would have thought of this incident? )
We’re all speculating here. Nobody knows anything. For a start, corruption is rife in China, as it is everywhere else in the world like Russia, Kazakhstan and Queensland from time to time (see rcent court case relating to Beattie minister).
Let us not be naive, the reason multinationals employ ethnic Chinese is not simply because they speak the lingo but also because they have “good contacts” and know the lie of the land. Wink, wink. In other words they know how to sweeten the deal and whom to sweeten.
The Chinese politburo is pissed off because the dealing is going on among the iron ore producers to perhaps the detriment of the 5-year plan, or something. Anyhow, they feel left out. This New Economic Policy has gone far enough, they say.
Finally, the “charge or release” demand by people who are allegedly lawyers like Turnbull is ludicrous given the circumstances and we can also totally disregard the honest-broker impersonations by La Bishop as it’s all feeble-minded dross for domestic consumption aimed at the less worldly electors among us.
I say such calls are ludicrous because: the PRC does not have an adversarial legal system like British system which we operate, but a commie one, i.e. a Leninist codex which basically says that anything that is NOT in the interests of the state is illegal although the interests of the state may change from week to week; hence the uncertainty.
Finally, the charge or release only applies in the British and US systems because the Roman/Napoleonic system does not recognise a presumption of innocence either – authorities may take you into custody while they investigate a possible offence. This is done by an investigating judge who, like a grand jury, may decide if a trial is called for, at which point an individual is charged. An investigating judge can do his/her investigating for as long as they need to. In Italy you can be kept in custody for up to 6 years (9 months for minor crimes) in the pretrial period for example. See http://www.lectlaw.com/files/int03.htm for more. Countries that have a similar arrangement are the vast bulk of the Europeans plus Russia and its ex satellites, plus half the countries in Asia and South America.
Elise
My way of putting it was a bit cruder than i should have, what I meant was their domestic politics will play the game their way.
To back down would be unusual for a system that invests a lot in the appearance of cracking down on corruption, to turn around and say theyve made a mistake.
I have seen how a “political” outranks a fishing fleet captain at sea, and have seen some of the pointy end of Chinese state control (limited exposure, but frightening).
A lot of people have a lot to lose if Hu was released without charge.
Mercurius
Im much more comfortable with a Habib than Hicks, possibly because Hicks was much more candid?
Mole, I don’t doubt that Hicks wrote those letters. The question is whether he did those things.
He wouldn’t be the first claimed veteran to lie about his war service.
Katz
Good point, not one Id really thought about, that would change him from dangerous idiot, ot just big mouthed idiot wouldnt it?
I met a chap like that McBeth in your link once, ex SAS, wore the ring/tie/tattoo. Found out later he was a serial con man, bigamist, and thief, the SAS facade was part of what made him good at it. The minesite I was on estimated they lost about 7000.00 worth of goods while he was in charge for a month. Yet they kept him on, naked pictures of the senior management in a compromising position with a chicken or something?
“But profits will continue to be made regardless.”
.
Katz, you seem to think this is a bad thing?
This drama is taking place in China after all – if someone’s not making money somewhere something is up.
In regards to the question about whether Rudd had ever claimed to have a ’special relationship with China’, I think the speech he gave at the University in Beijing may offer the source material for this particular meme:
“There is a venerable Chinese expression for this position: “A true friend,” Rudd went on, “is one who can be a zhengyou, that is a partner who sees beyond immediate benefit to the broader and firm basis for continuing, profound and sincere friendship.”
“A strong relationship, and a true friendship,” he told the students, “are built on the ability to engage in a direct, frank and ongoing dialogue about our fundamental interests and future vision.”
source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/rudd-rewrites-the-rules-of-engagement/2008/04/11/1207856825767.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2
The article, by Geremie Barme – professor of Chinese history at the Australian National University, goes on to explore the meaning of zhengyou in greater detail, it’s an interesting read.
Unintentional comedy gold.
Mr Hu might be thinking himself lucky thehis children haven’t rounded up his children for re-education at a labor camp without trial, like ‘they’ have to the poor sod ex-miner from Number 792 uranium mine in Diebu county in the south of Gansu who has been banged up after being accused, but not tried, of documenting hazardous working conditions, increased rates of cancer among people living near the mines, and improper disposal of radioactive waste and equipment…passing on information about his former mine to organisations abroad. As the ABC report tells us, in case we forgot:
He’ll also understand, or should, that he is just a distraction from what’s happening, and has for
Mr Hu might be thinking himself lucky thehis children haven’t rounded up his children for re-education at a labor camp without trial, like ‘they’ have to the poor sod ex-miner from Number 792 uranium mine in Diebu county in the south of Gansu who has been banged up after being accused, but not tried, of documenting hazardous working conditions, increased rates of cancer among people living near the mines, and improper disposal of radioactive waste and equipment…passing on information about his former mine to organisations abroad. As the ABC report tells us, in case we forgot:
He’ll also understand, or should, that he is just a distraction from what’s happening, and has for
(45 cont.)… has for a long time, in Xinjiang. Note how that other Mr Hu, the Jintao one, left the G8 fest early to get back home when there was trouble in The New Frontier.
Look at the characters for China, usually translated Middle Kingdom. Think of middle as central, main, or only. That is, no-one else matters, Zhōngguó is an exclusionist idea, like that of a Chosen People. In case you forget it, you’ll be reminded: if you’re not Han, eventually you’ll hear someone contemptuously say ‘laowai’ behind your back after you pass by. It’s usually translated softly as ‘old outsider’, but what you’re really being reminded of is that you’ll always be on the outside.
This is the Chinese state declaring its global hegemony and dog-whistling Han everywhere what’s what and Mr Hu was on first. Thinks: what was that Great Wall of China thing all about again? Us and Them. Tibet is Us. Xinjiang is Us.
Increasingly, little bits of Australia are becoming Us too, the bits with mineral ores, (not that little either, couple of hundred sq miles near Gunnedah for instance), after being bought or licensed off.
I’m curious to know why the STAPs and Wozzas of the world still keep coming around LP to seek engagement with those whose views they obviously find uncongenial and who are “acting against our national interest” – instead of just dobbing in the whole coven here to the authorities in the interests of “national security”.
Actually no, I’m not that curious. I already know the answer. They come here because it’s more interesting than spending time in the company of people that already think like they do.
Also what Sir Henry said at #37. Plus, while the Middle Kingdom may have several thousand years of history to draw upon, it’s still a super rich but gawky teenager in the current 21st century global melee.
“Hey if the US can do it, why can’t we?”
“cos yer a bunch of heathen chinee.”
“Well fuck you too. Cheap mobile phones anyone?”
And picking up on Danny’s comment above, and paraphrasing that well known epigram about the US, China (and Russia sorta) is the only major country in the world that’s moved from feudalism to totalitarianism to capitalism without passing through democracy. Theoretically it’s a libertarian nightmare, practically it’s a libertarian’s dream. And Jack Strocchi’s wet dream.
Stern Hu was arrested under the Chinese equivalent to our National Security Laws. If he had been arrested under the Australian version we would be arrested for even talking about it. He would be renditioned to some-where and held without any “due process” at all.
Make Malcolm Turdbull an Admiral and send a couple of gunships under his command up the Yangse to bust Stern Hu out I say.
It’s about time for the Chinese got with the program and get their prison population per capita up to the level of the Land of the Free (US); 8 times any-where else.
Huggy
Robert, Sam and others: the difference between the Hicks and Hu cases lies in the word “terrorism”. If you can’t understand why Governments in the real world react – and should react – differently when terrorism is involved, then I can’t help you any further. And that does not mean that I support in any way Julie Bishop’s opportunistic and rather silly remarks.
A lot of comments on LP lose some degree of credibility because of the apparent irresistible urge to take an off topic swipe at John Howard at random intervals. He’s not around any more. Get over it. The issue here is how the Rudd government will react – not least of course given how Rudd himself has played up his understanding of and influence in China – to an incident in China in mid 2009.
And on the actual issue, what Sir Henry said re speculation and corruption. Bribery is endemic in China, and to get anything done you have to do it. When I was there getting a simple shipment of meat or wine across the wharf meant leaving one in every 7-8 cases behind, along with copious quantities of cigarettes. There is little doubt that the Chinese could get Hu on some sort of bribery charge if they wish. But they could get any practically any foreign businessman the same way. Why single out Hu? A general shot across the bows of the foreign community to remind them not to step over the line? And what line? Aimed specifically at Rio Tinto for ore negotiations or loss of face over Chinalco? I doubt that we’ll ever know.
Nabakov – spot on. I browse LP most days because I am curious to find out how people who, on the whole, don’t think much like me actually do think. There is not a lot of interest or intellectual effort involved in inhabiting blogs which involve merely furiously agreeing with everyone else around, and, yes, believe it or not I do find some thought-provoking and valid viewpoints here. Some other people round here might try the same. Even Tim Blair won’t actually kill you.
Great power exceptionalism and revisionism.
A case of China flexing it’s muscle to see how far it can go with weak UN & USA.
Wozza@50
No, Tim Blair won’t kill you, but unless you go there with a disinformation light flashing in your head, you will leave his blog less well informed than when you arrived, unless you count being up with the latest fashion in rightwing misanthropic spin as “information”.
I do find his blog amusing, and equally amusing is the speed with which it finds its way to Andrew Bolt’s blog.
RIO won’t talk to China anymore, neither would I after what they did to them. China wanted to buy RIO knowing whatever it now knows, whatever that might be – what does that say about them? China now have to go and beg Vale to save face as BHP and RIO have told China to p/o. Vale are laughing and saying they will only give 28% cut whereas Japan, Taiwan, Korea, India and the rest of the world are getting a 33% cut. Mills in China are bewildered trying to get the ore they want. Personally, I’m now organising with Commsec to buy NYSE shares so I can purchase Vale SA add them to my BHP and RIO shares and really p China off. China has no idea how the free market works, they’ve stuffed up completely and they look bad for their troubles as they can call this guy Hu an Australian all they like but he was born in China and according to them was bribing Chinese has the same last name as China’s president and works in China for a company China desperately wanted to own and was severely influencing for years – do we see a pattern emerging?
Sir Henry @37 mentions en passant what surely would be Rudd’s dream as Bureaucrat-in-Chief: running the country via 5 year plans. Sir Henry alludes to the fact that anything or anyone that messes with the plan is in for it from head office.
Last night’s Lateline Business had a Westpac dude picking up on the 5` year plan thing
Don’t underestimate the power of different factions (actually, personalities) within the Chinese government – China Inc. is far from a single entity.
Apparently the state security people have been keen to get involved much more in commercial matters in the last few years (probably more on grounds of private profit than sincere belief in national security), and has formed an alliance with the China Iron and Steel Association – the body that mishandled the iron ore negotiations so badly it needs scapegoats. Remember “state secrets” are whatever someone sufficiently powerful wants them to be.
Putting public pressure on Hu Jintao to intervene may be very counterproductive – there’s a lot of people with personal face involved here, as well as pecuniary interest.
Messing with the logistics of that 2 year catch-up plan , such as gaming steel will, with the potential for spoiling the government’s report card next people’s congress, and that’s bad PR in the PRC, it won’t down well with the peoples.
One point, which is covered a little in in a piece on this on my blog, is that Australians bribing foreign officials is a crime in Australia under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. In light of the Chinese allegations about bribery, I wonder how Mick Keelty’s investigations into BHP and Rio Tinto are going?
I also think that the Left needs to be careful about rushing in here. We don’t want to end up align ourselves with the dictators in Beijing. But we also don’t want to end up aligning ourselves with the racists and xenophobes here.
It seems to me the treatment of Stern Hu highlights the similarities between Australia and China. Haneef, Habib, Hicks, anti-terrorist laws, anti-gang laws, all strike me as examples of our own dictatorial approaches or support for them. Our military support for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan mean we are similar to the dictatorship in Tibet and in dealing with the Uighurs.
Indeed an anti-corruption campaign in China might be an attempt to divert attention away from economic and political problems. It might be their children over-board or Tampa moment.
I think this is just a personalised example of the on-going and growing conflict between Chinese and US imperialism (with Australia as part of the US bloc.)
Tony D @51
Yes, that would be high on my list of speculative motivations too. I would go further and suggest that they believe that the timing for a bit of geo-political muscle flexing is opportune because, having observed Obama in action for 6 months, they have concluded that he is a clown who will have no idea how to handle it. Perhaps that is the sort of opportunistic off topic swipe I have criticised others for, but if it is anything like correct, stand by for more, and more directly aimed at the US. of the same soon.
No source I’m afraid but I read somewhere that there are about 40 Australians who have run foul of Chinese law recently.
Some incarcerated and some in danger of that or similar.
Assuming that is correct why is there so much media and COALition fuss about this bloke and not the others?
I propose a federation of the Southern Cross be formed taking in all nations below or on or near the equator. Something like the EU – but with some very strong armed forces that stand ready willing and able to manage large humanitarian intervention operations in such well known Chinese satelite states as Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burma and North Korea. We simply have to stand up to bullies and finally treat Marxism as we treated Nazism. It’s a great risk – but I don’t see any alternative. Appeasement is not an option.
Having listened to just a bit of Botox Barbie’s drivel on the radio this morning, I think that what’s really upsetting the Opposition, the Opposition Organ, and all the RWDBs who’ve stepped over here for a stoush about how different this is to Hicks’ case, is that we can’t just send in a gunboat or two and put the wogs back in their place.
To me, this is internal Chinese politics being played.
The China Iron & Steel Association want to be like the single desk (ie, like AWB but for iron ore).
It may be that its the “non-aligned” mills that are being “scrutinised”
http://business.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/future-deals-with-china-may-be-a-long-time-coming-20090607-bzs5.html?page=-1
http://business.theage.com.au/business/recession-fear-as-iron-coal-prices-set-to-dive-20090218-8biz.html
http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=827624
http://www.asiaminer.com/magazine/june-2006/the-revenge-of-the-chinese-steel-mills.html
because he wasn’t a back-packer or smuggler, is my guess. A trade negotiator……
John Passant: it’s pefectly possible to stand up for a person’s human or legal rights without taking “political” sides. Examples: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, international lawyers’ associations, etc etc
In fact those groups have very strong records of opposing the whims of totalitarian states, regardless of political stripe.
They publicise (inter alia): use of the death penalty, violence against women, arbitrary detention, political oppression, etc.
They gain support from folk of many different political hues. Just saying.
Derrida derida @55, I reckon you might be onto something there, with the different factions and the China Iron & Steel Association.
How about this theory for a stab in the dark? The incarceration of Stern Hu and various steel mill execs is a shot across the bows of both Rio, for not cooperating with their view of pricing, and the restive steel mills, who would like more independence. A “don’t you mess with the 300 kg gorilla” type of message.
It also provided a wonderful opportunity for a poke in the eye to the Australian government – who they seem to think should have strong-armed Rio on Chinalco &/or pricing negotiations, in a proper dictatorial fashion as they do in China. It has the further benefit, as Mole suggested, that it would play well to domestic audiences, by being seen as strong on corruption and giving those foreign barbarians something to think about.
China Iron & Steel Association is effectively an arm of the Chinese government, and they want to control iron ore prices. Most probably the individual steel mills have some kind of quasi-independence, such that they can make profits as long as they fulfill some kind of state obligations first.
The individual mills have, according to some skuttlebutt, been chafing at the restrictions of having to work within the constraints of the China Iron & Steel Association. They may have been talking directly to Stern Hu about how to get around the constraints, and get on with being seriously prosperous, like many entrepreneurial chinese businessmen the world over.
This stirring of independence might have been threatening the Chinese state’s sense of control. Maybe the 300 kg gorilla has just reasserted it’s position on these matters… And Rudd wants a Free Trade Agreement with this “free market system”???
I’m only going by what the original architects of the system would have done. And did, comrade.
I’m a bit with DD@55. We are looking at the whole affair through Australia/iron ore glasses. As DD says, it may have more to do with Chinese internal conflicts, perhaps someone attacking high ranking officials in the steel industry.
Perhaps too, a conflict between those who favour improving relationships with outsiders and those who want to take a harder line and possibly rein back the power of the new capitalists. The reluctance of the Chinese foreign ministry to talk to Australia about the Stern Hu case may be more about their ucertainity re what is going on than growing hostility to Australia. It was interesting to note that the Chinese foreign ministry said the other day the President Hu was not involved in the decision to move against Stern Hu. Could be a way of weakening an attempt to undermine President Hu’s foreign policy and/or, hopefully, a move to give President Hu room to resolve the conflict without losing face.
Another possibilty is that China is concerned about the ease with which outsiders appear to be extracting information from Chinese business people. We seem to be forgetting that the Chinese are investigating a number of senior steel industry executives in relation to the Stern Hu incident. If nothing else, the incident will make outsiders and Chinese business people think more carefully about the seeking and giving of information for a number of years to come.
Perhaps too the affair should make us free market purists have another think about the growing importance of our trading relationship with China. Perhaps it would be wiser to reduce this dependence by exporting less commodities and importing less manufactured goods.
John D@63
[syntax note] commodities and manufactured goods are countables. Hence: fewer not less
Mole @29 asks who else has been arrested. The answer is, 3 other employees at Rio’s Shanghai office, all Chinese nationals, and Tan Yixin, executive at a Chinese steel mill, who was in frequent communication with Stern Hu.
David Barboza at the New York Times has some good articles on the inner workings of the Chinese steel industry. And for Chinese coverage, try Sina and run it through Babelfish. (Note for the would-be reader: In the machine translation, “the strength develops” is Rio Tinto back-translated from Chinese.)
Fran Barlow @ 65. I am glad that I’m not the only one who picks up this little grammatical irritation, the other one being the errant apostrophe in its.
It’s not difficult to get it right.
Yes … Pedants-r-us, it’s a curse though. Years of being a schoolteacher and picking up some extra money proofing and doing academic editing does leave its scars.
Sometimes on the web, horror of horrors, I press “submit” and notice a typo. Very annoying!
mitchell porter
Thanks for that little detail, does anyone know if the company or Aus government is doing anything to assist with the 3 Rio employees? The company at least should be doing their best.
Its not a point scoring question, just wondering?
I would still like to know what the Chinese state has done with the computers the took into custody.
You know, the one’s with all Rio’s confidential commercial information about their operations. The kind of stuff that the China Iron & Steel Association would give their eye teeth to lay hands on. The kind of information they had planned on getting via the Chinalco deal?
And did they tamper with the computers to access Rio’s database? Don’t tell me it wouldn’t have occurred to them?
furious balancing@42 –
Thanks for the reference to Geremie Barme for whom I have respect. I see the various references made in your contribution regarding being “a true friend” “a sincere friendship” “a strong relationship” and “a true friendship” given as quotes by Mr. Rudd, but they still do not amount to an equivalent claim of a “special” relationship. It is the unsaid inferences relating to a special friendship that the Opposition is attempting to use to discredit Mr. Rudd in the present circumstances.
I have yet to find any credible source where Mr. Rudd (to accord him the respectful title given to previous Prime Ministers) has himself stated that he had a “special relationship” with China. Just words maybe, but words have specific meanings and should not be treated as Alice in Wonderland language where words mean what only the speaker decrees.
Mediatracker @73: “…“a true friend” “a sincere friendship” “a strong relationship” and “a true friendship” given as quotes by Mr. Rudd…”
Anyway, it is still a load of baloney, even with the words that he did use.
If he believed it, then he is more naive that we gave him credit for.
And if he didn’t, then it is pure spin. Political fairy floss.
Anyone who has done business in/with China knows it’s all too common for provincial governments to step in and use detention/trial on spurious charges on behalf of local business interests when they are in dispute with foreigners. I was involved with a very similar case of a Chinese-Australian couple who spent 18 months in detention and lost all their investment in a hotel development in a city called Yiwu, after they refused to play along with the corrupt schemes of local developers linked to the local government.
My only surprise with the Stern Hu case is that we are now seeing these same tactics being applied at the national/international level.
I’m also surprised by the naivety of many in Australia who automatically assume that Stern Hu must have done something wrong because he has been detained by the government.
mediatracker, I called Howard – “Howard”, and I call Rudd – “Rudd”. If I met him in person, I’d probably call him “Kevin”, how terribly uncouth of me, eh?
Good grief.
Do the things he said amount to a ’special’ friendship, I don’t know..it probably all comes down to whether you think using a chinese word “zhengyou”, that describes a particularly chinese concept of friendship, which is not easily translatable into english, amounts to something ’special’. Barme describes it as a “powerful and meaning-laden term”.
Special means ‘different from what is usual’, and Rudd does seem to have made a conscious decision not to use the more conventional Mandarin word for friendship.
“… what the Chinese state has done with the computers the took into custody …did they tamper with the computers to access Rio’s database?”..
I reckon you’ve scruted something there Elise.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has signed a three year contract with Pacnet for global network services under a whole of government telecommunications agreement. The contract is an extension of an original deal signed in 2002 with Pacnet, formerly Asia Netcom. Under the terms of the agreement, Pacnet will continue supporting DFAT’s voice and data applications on a network solution connecting more than 103 sites worldwide. DFAT sites include embassy, consulate and high commission locations in Asia, Africa, Middle East, Europe, the Americas, and the Pacific and Indian Ocean Islands. Asia Netcom was established in 2002 by China Netcom, a state-owned telecommunications company.
So, China’s state owned telecom, or it’s agent, has been pwning the DFAT and AUSTRADE network, from way back in Dolly days, with the contract getting extended yet again under Rudd last year. Security, what’s that?
pedants ‘r’ us@ 69
Danny@77
‘I’m also surprised by the naivety of many in Australia who automatically assume that Stern Hu must have done something wrong because he has been detained by the government.’
Don’t think I have seen any of them.
I have seen a number of people who have been willing to accept that it is possible that Hu may have been up to something and willing to suspend a decision until more became known. People have treated it like this because they accept that there is the possibility the Chinese government is playing games. If it were most other countries people would readily accept that Hu had been up to no good.
Rudd’s comment the other day seem to indicate some game playing by the Chinese.
In the end all the Chinese will achieve by this is increase skepticism and distrust among foreign business and turn the public of other nations against them. And if the public’s mind turns against the Chinese it makes it easier for their government to take a harder line against the Chinese.
For instance how comfortable will the average Australian now feel in letting Chinese state owned companies buying into our resources sector?
Danny, while most of the government is pretty clueless when it comes to IT security, I’m pretty sure DFAT gets advice from the Defence Signals Directorate when it comes to securing their communications networks.
If it’s been done right, you could run the comms cable straight through Hu Jintao’s office and the Chinese still wouldn’t be able to tell anything useful from it.
FB@76 there is no need to complicate this. Botox Barbie and Limited News are saying that Rudd has claimed a “personal” friendship with the Chinese people (because he speaks the language), and he now has egg on his face. In Chinese terms, Bishop is saying that Rudd has lost face. In reality, what Rudd said in his speech was that Australia and China can have a special “diplomatic” friendship, nothing personal. And its not just “spin”. Talk like this at the highest level can mean something postive and engaging for all of us. And then things go wrong…
I’d just like to expand on the point several have made up-thread. Many, in fact most countries, have the power to arbitrarily arrest and detain pretty much anybody they like on grounds of ‘national security’ (trans: ‘anywhere, anytime, any reason we like’). That to me is of greater concern than the circumstances of one particular individual’s arrest.
Australia could do to a Chinese national pretty much exactly what China has done to Stern Hu, and legally nobody would even know about it for at least a fortnight.
Why do so many of us accept the state’s power to act in this way? Do we feel protected that secret police can act like this? I sure don’t.
On another note, can I be the first to succumb to the urge to make Abbott and Costello-style jokes:
‘Hu’s been arrested!’
‘I don’t know, you tell me.’
Too soon? Yeah, thought so…
“On another note, can I be the first to succumb to the urge to make Abbott and Costello-style jokes”
Nope.
First Dog on the Moon went there already.
“In due season”…what,is he self appointed Poet bloody Laureate as well now?
” … Abbott and Costello-style jokes … ”
As did Clarke and Dawe on Thursday evening.
Ah well, as I have been secluded away in a classroom between bouts of exhausted sleep, I can claim innocence from comedic plagiarism on the grounds of profound social isolation.
I must’ve just picked up the gag out of the zeitgeist.
And I do think it’s too soon, in any case!
It will not be long before China mentions AWB.
It is the silly opposition with it’s usual knee-jerk and pompous declarations that may well be in trouble again, on this front, methinks. Oh, the memories.
And Thomas Paine is correct@79. For the most part, nobody has been silly enough to strongly make a claim of innocence in this case. Just because we know from experience it is easy to be burned.
All that except the Liberals who have no eyes for any good ol’ aussie dirty business dealings and never learn from one hand in the fire event to another.
GregM@78 and Pedants-r-us
Another I hear quite a bit is “reticent” pressed into service to give the word “reluctant” the day off. (ugh)
Stern Hu was following standard and accepted business practice. If you want to do business in China you MUST have guan xi wang (relationship network). To set this up from scratch takes considerable time. Stern and his colleagues already have guanxiwang and just needed to extend it the right areas.
Foreigners will always have great difficulty in getting a decent (workable) network because of the reasons noted @Danny – further to which, laowai also means ‘ghost’ in the sense of ‘boogie-man’, and it is used to your face as though you are not there.
ALL business people and public servants in China are in guanxiwang. Different networks have overlap, and through these you can access any other.
Red envelopes, gifts and favours done, handed over or organised during regular business lunches, maintain the network.
Is this illegal in China? Most definitely. Persons charged with this particular crime have, in some way, let their network run down or been euchred by another’s network.
Rio’s actions were a strong slap in the face and led to many highly placed officials (strong networks) losing face. The exact result may not have been predicted by Stern but he certainly would have expected retaliation.
Clearly, Mr Rudd’s inferences about his level of guanxiwang are overstated. Gosh.
Rio’s position in China is seriously undermined and they will have to eat some very public humble pie before this moves on. Money will not be enough now.
“It is the silly opposition with it’s usual knee-jerk and pompous declarations that may well be in trouble again, on this front, methinks. Oh, the memories.”
You’re right Fran, it’s the years of correcting this sort of stuff that means you cannot just read it and ignore it, even though you would dearly love to.
Good point though joe2.
“Good point though joe2.”
Thanks, pedants ‘r’ us. I will try and focus on that rather than the pain of public humiliation. Its the paw education cistern what made me do it, you’re honor.
Omar Khayyam @89: “Rio’s position in China is seriously undermined and they will have to eat some very public humble pie before this moves on. Money will not be enough now.”
I don’t dispute most of your assertions about HOW the Chinese do business. However, I would question your assertion that Rio will not be able to do business in China without humble pie.
A couple of things – one is that the Chinese appetite for iron ore is greater than can be supplied from their other sources, domestically or globally. That is why they are still buying from Rio, even at higher prices than the contracts struck with the other Asian nations. It probably urks them more than a bit, but they didn’t reach agreement, so they are stuck with the spot market or the old prices that they were arguing about.
The other reason, is that humble pie only applies if Rio did something wrong, and the Chinese are squeaky clean. I’ll wager they are not. The accusations against Stern Hu and people at some other chinese mills are a convenient smoke screen, to gain access to key Rio staff and confidential Rio information. Just wait and see.
I don’t care about Stern Hu. I care about Corby doing 20 yrs for bugger all. I care about Hicks imprisoned for 5 yrs for having some Muslim mates and big-noting himself in letters. I care for all the little people that fall into the remorseless judicial meatgrinders of the world. But as for Stern Hu, I’m sure he’s a big boy with powerful friends. He’ll be OK.
Jenny @93: “…having some Muslim mates and big-noting himself in letters”
And also, umm, training with Al Qaida? And also, umm, running around with a big gun in a war zone? Poor little person, huh?
Surely you can find more worthy people, like the victims of terrorism, who had no part in their misfortunes?
You call that a big gun.
And I bet that guy wasn’t held in solitary confinement for five years without charge. In fact I know he wasn’t. Where’s your outrage when it’s needed Elise?
Elise @ 94
It was actually a mob called Lashkar-e-Toiba, which at the time was not classified as a terrorist organisation. A US army chaplain noted that any American soldier who has been through basic training has had 50 times more training than Hicks.
The big gun photo comes from his days with the Kosovo army when he was fighting on the side that we sympathised with. His bad luck was to make some Muslim buddies at the time that eventually landed him on the wrong side after the US declared war on the Taliban. I’ll start to lose sympathy when presented with persuasive evidence that he was involved in terrorist activities. For now, I have him pegged as a fool and a braggart, but that’s all.
Adrian @95, now that’s thar gun’s what ah call “big”!
Jenny @96, yep I have him pegged as a dim-witted fool also, but more than that. Easily led, and thus dangerous in the right hands.
We could probably excuse a lot of terrorists as easily-led fools, etc. Let them out with a slap on the wrist, perhaps, or just a stern warning to behave themselves?
Agree that Gitmo was a travesty; people should be charged and tried in a reasonable time frame. However letting lunatics loose, because the western legal system could not adequately cope with people picked up in a war zone, is equally a travesty for society.
We are not safe if we allow would-be terrorists loose, to gad about the world using terrorist funds, toting guns, with brainless ideological notions stuffed in there by followers of some despotic monster.
The fact that he, and many other terrorists, are poorly trained is the weakest excuse I ever heard.
Grace @ 81, truth be told I have no idea what Limited News and “botox barbie” [who is that??] are saying about Rudd being buddies with the Chinese. I don’t get my news from a paper, or the TV.
The question was asked here about a ’special friendship’ and that speech is where I think some justification can be made for Rudd claiming such a friendship. I personally don’t think there is anything in the least bit problematic about him saying it, I do think if something got lost in translation in his use of a chinese expression, then the fault lies with the PM rather than the media. I think anyone that has a problem with it is being overly sensitive on the PM’s behalf…kinda like taking a swipe about whether we call him ‘Mister’ or not.
By way of example, a friend who spent a decade in China’s backblocks told me that the crackdown against Falun Gong had serious consequences for people of any religion — permissions to do anything (eg, use a building for a meeting) suddenly dried up, and so on. Local officials interpret the laws as they see fit (so all religions became suspect along with FG), and that’s leaving out the question of brown paper bags. It’s possible that a local official was being, um, overzealous and that Hu’s dual citizenship was an unanticipated problem — or that it’s not perceived as a problem because he’s ethnically theirs.
It’s certainly difficult not to see this behaviour as being part of a tanty about Rio Tinto, but do we expect the Chinese Government to be so unsubtle?
Elise @ 97
My view is that since the risk of being killed by terrorists is similar to the risk of being hit by a meteor, there is no justification for abandoning our standards of justice.
My point was not that he was poorly trained, but that his training was barely adequate for his role as a soldier with the Taliban (Afghanistan’s legitimate army at the time) and doesn’t represent persuasive evidence of terrorist intentions.
The way I see it, Hicks’s actions in fighting with the Taliban were not unreasonable. It’s far from uncommon for people of one nation to serve with the armed forces of another; e.g. Brits in the Israeli army. Hicks’s problem was that he suddenly found himself on the wrong side when the US attacked Afghanistan and Lashkar-e-Toiba was subsequently declared to be a terrorist organisation. Given his natural loyalty to his comrades I find it understandable that it took him a little while to extract himself from the mess. I accept that, prima facie, his letters to his father suggest possible terrorist tendencies, but its equally possible that he was just trying to portray himself as a ‘big man’.
Botox Barbie == Julie Bishop, furious. Check out her lack of expression and youi’ll see what we mean.
In my opinion, the comment of Derrida Derider @55 is the closest to the truth. As Gordon Chang puts it, “China’s top organ of political power has a track record of using charges of high-level corruption to sideline adversaries.”
It is interesting how China Daily has chosen to break ranks in the last 2 days when commenting about CISA’s role in the contract negotiation. According to China Daily, CISA’s tough position is responsible for most of the complications in the current round of price negotiation. It is quite unusual for China Daily to go against what seems to be the official version of events. It may well indicate that there is a split within Chinese leadership on how this scandal should be handled.
As much as I enjoy reading your discussions here about Hicks, I do think that many of you have missed the point. Comparing Hicks to Hu or Corby to Hu is not only inappropriate but counter-productive. The best the Australian government can do at this stage is to ensure that Stern Hu’s case will be dealt with expediently. The longer it drags on, the least likely it would be for Hu to have a fair trial. Decoupling Hu’s case from the on-going ore price negotiation while keep reminding China of possible damages to it international reputation are the ways to go. It’s amazing how China will respond to this kind of carrots and sticks tactic.
Many Australians have gotten it wrong about Kevin Rudd’s relations with China. I was told by a little bird that the Chinese leadership prefers to have the Liberal Party in government. China’s foreign affairs ministry is particularly unhappy about having a Mandarin speaking PM for Australia. I was told that China was not too keen on dealing with a foreigner who knows too much about China. So there is also a possibility that the Stern Hu case will somehow be used by China to discredit Kevin Rudd, just to show us that our PM really doesn’t know much about China. It’s called killing two birds with one stone. Kevin Rudd knows about it and therefore he has been cautious.