【The Australian】Don't kowtow to Beijing bully

nbnbren

Don't kowtow to Beijing bully
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25821436-7583,00.html

Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor | July 23, 2009

Article from:  The Australian                                                

KEVIN Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull have stood up for an innocent Australian, while the academics cravenly counsel appeasement.

ALTHOUGHthere is a lot of water still to flow, we can now say that China hassucceeded in its essential aim in the arrest of Australian citizenStern Hu. Beijing's aim is to intimidate Australia, our government, ourcorporations and the broader civil society.

Only a fool could imagine that Hu's arrest was anything other than a complete political set-up.  

The idea that, just coincidentally, Hu embarked on a new career asa criminal just after Rio had rejected a $25billion bid by the Chinesegovernment-owned Chinalco for 18 per cent and two board seats, and inthe midst of tense iron ore price negotiations, is ludicrous.

Similarly, that Beijing refused to communicate privately with theRudd government about Hu's case for a week, and treated subsequentcomments by Kevin Rudd with ostentatious contempt, eloquently explainsthe purpose of this arrest.

Given Hu's seniority as the No.2 man in China for one of the world'sbiggest mining companies, it is clear his arrest was approvedpersonally by China's President Hu Jintao. In other words, Beijing hasvery deliberately decided to discipline and instruct Australia. Of allour politicians, former treasurer Peter Costello has recognised thismost clearly, saying: "Since (Stern) Hu is now in detention, someoneelse will have to lead Rio's negotiations with the Chinese steel mills.My guess is that they will not push negotiations as strenuously as Hu."

As so often happens in matters of fundamental importance, ourfederal politicians have responded much better than those who give themadvice, especially the academic experts. Foreign Minister Stephen Smithpublicly criticised the Chinese for not providing information toCanberra, rejected outright the initial Chinese espionage chargeagainst Hu, and commented that it was difficult for Australians tounderstand how normal commercial negotiations could be regarded ascriminal security matters.

Financial Services Minister Chris Bowen and Smith both said Chinawould harm its international reputation through the Hu matter.

Rudd made similar comments and took them further by saying theworld was watching China's treatment of Hu, and reminded "our Chinesefriends" that they too had big economic interests at stake in therelationship with Australia.

Three things about these comments are notable. First, they representthe truth. Second, they make sense only if Hu is innocent. And, third,they are probably as tough asany prime minister could make in thecircumstances.

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has played a constructive role byasking the government to do more. Naturally, he couches this ascriticism of Rudd -- we live in a two-party adversarial democracy,after all -- but the effect of Turnbull's comments is to strengthenRudd's position and solidify Australian society in its objection to theblatant act of aggression involving Hu.

The main argument about China's national interests that Rudd andothers can deploy is that the Hu case harms China's reputation in theinternational business community. US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, ina distinguished act of solidarity with Australia, raised the Hu case inChina and made that very point.

Nonetheless, it seems clear Beijing has decided it is happy to paythat reputational price. The weeks wear on, Hu stays in jail and thepull back to business as usual will get stronger. Its sheerunreasonableness almost guarantees Beijing a victory. But the less fussAustralia makes, the more Beijing will see it as a weak country and apushover, and the more it will be encouraged to repeat acts ofintimidation. When dealing with a much bigger power, pre-emptive,wide-ranging surrender denoting a lack of self-respect is seldom theway to maximise your position.

What has been galling in this episode is the needless and sterilepro-appeasement attitude taken by those quasi-academic commentators whodominate debate about China, both through their own interventions andbecause most press gallery journalists seem to have only three or fournames in their contact book when seeking expertise on China.

Ross Garnaut, a former Australian ambassador to China, has arguedconstantly that we should see the iron ore dispute from China's pointof view, even, with infinite fatuousness, citing Sun Tzu in The Art ofWar. Garnaut seems to think that by charging China the market price forcommodities Australian companies have caused deep cultural offence, andof course he argues the Hu case should not be "high profile".

Hugh White, a professor of sorts at the Australian NationalUniversity, says: "I do not believe there is anything Rudd can achieveapart from insisting that Stern Hu be treated according to Chinese lawand our consular agreement be upheld. Beyond that, we have no standing.The trick for Australia is to avoid seeing that situation as a defeat."

This is bizarre. If you suffer a defeat, the germ of wisdom is to atleast understand the reality of what happened. If Hu, an Australiancitizen and a senior executive, was imprisoned without just cause tointimidate Australia and we cannot secure his freedom, how is thatanything but a defeat? White is counselling national derangement in theinterests of not offending Beijing.

But the prize for the most foolish Australian newspaper columnwritten about China surely goes to another ANU professor, PeterDrysdale. A couple of weeks before Hu's arrest, Drysdale, writing inThe Australian Financial Review, characterised the Chinese policycommunity's attitude to Australia thus: "There is generosity -- to afault -- about what failings we might have in the Chinese scheme ofthings ... Above all there is a genuine warmness towards Australia ...Senior officials puzzle over why it is that Australia is so liked inChina."

Drysdale here sounds like The New York Times' famous Moscowcorrespondent Walter Duranty, who in the 1930s declared that JosephStalin had solved the food problem, while failing to report on afamine. It's at the very least difficult to discern warmth forAustralia in the Hu affair.

The point about these experts is that all their accumulatedknowledge produces absolutely lousy policy advice. Moral courage, it isoften said, consists of speaking truth to power. Any innocentAustralian languishing in a communist prison who relied on the moralcourage of this fearless trio would be well advised to count theirrosary beads instead.

For all their faults, our politicians are infinitely better than ouracademics. That is not to say they will be able to free Hu. But if theydon't keep trying, and publicly, we will know we are a nation withoutself-respect.

nbnbren

[quote]http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25821436-7583,00.html

nbnbren

renl认领

nbnbren

http://bbs.m4.cn/forum.php?mod=v ... d=184076&extra=