| Any comments? | |
|---|---|
| Jul 12, 2009 17:56 | #11   |
 | Beijing ramps up the humiliationFont Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor | July 13, 2009 Article from: The Australian IF Rio Tinto executive Stern Hu is not released from a Chinese prison soon, the pressure on Foreign Minister Stephen Smith and Kevin Rudd to intervene directly with their counterparts will become irresistible. If it reaches that stage, their intervention will probably be ineffective, and that would be even more humiliating. Trade Minister Simon Crean has made representations on Hu's behalf, but was given a mid-level official to deal with. The Chinese seem determined to continue to humiliate Canberra. The bottom line is clear - if Hu is not released, our relationship with China is shattered and the Rudd government will be profoundly embarrassed and seen to have no influence in Beijing. So far, there is nothing to criticise in the Rudd government's response. It is doing everything it can and understands the grotesque injustice done to Hu, the intimidation China is trying to exert on Australia and the high stakes involved. Prime ministerial and foreign minister calls are cards Canberra will need to play eventually, but it is reasonable to extend some tactical flexibility to the Rudd government. However, there is also nothing wrong in Malcolm Turnbull's energetic prosecution of the issue. Only if the broad Australian civil society demonstrates its shock and anger at China's crude tactics of intimidation is there a chance that cooler heads in Beijing might see the damage these outrageous actions are doing to China's reputation internationally, as well as its interests in Australia. Indeed, in its own way, and within only the limits of formal diplomatic constraints, the Rudd government was itself making maximum efforts yesterday to put pressure on the Chinese authorities along these lines. Both Smith and Assistant Treasurer Chris Bowen tellingly said that China would harm its reputation among international companies, and discourage foreign businessmen from working there, through its actions in the Hu matter. These comments can only be based on the presumption, which is shared by every reasonable observer, that the charges against Hu are completely ridiculous, and completely political. It is important, analytically, not to get caught up in the proceduralism of the Chinese legal system. There is no rule of law in China. The Chinese have made it clear they can regard any commercial matter as a matter of their national interest, and any negotiation involving it therefore as involving Chinese state secrets. |
| Jul 12, 2009 17:56 | #12 |
| Under this system, they can intervene legally in any business deal they do not like and imprison anyone they choose. The decision to imprison Hu was a political decision and therefore the decision to release him must occur at the political level. Eventually the Prime Minister and Smith must secure this result. It is extremely discouraging that Smith commented that "we may be in for the long haul". There is always a bureaucratic temptation to sacrifice the individual for the sake of stability in any bilateral relationship. To do so in this case would be to accept China's right to arbitrarily punish any Australian involved in a business deal that China Inc does not like. It would permanently and radically tilt the playing field against Australia in any future business negotiation if the Australian side is always to labour under the fear of arbitrary imprisonment in China. If this is the case, then the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade should issue a travel warning pointing out to Australian businessmen that they face the danger of arbitrary arrest and lengthy detention in China if they, their company or even the Australian government displease the Chinese. Certainly that commentary in the press which has equated Hu's case with Schapelle Corby's is utterly inane, an example of the breathtaking naivety and provincialism of which Australians are capable. The airport police in Bali were pursuing no government agenda and consular access was granted to Corby straight away. Apart from the fact there is nothing in Hu's character to suggest criminal espionage as a sideline, it is inconceivable that after Rio had earned China Inc's fury for rejecting the Chinalco partial takeover bid, and in the middle of the tense iron ore price negotiations, the No2 Rio man in China would choose this time to run a criminal operation courting a lengthy jail term at best. One of the most important lessons to come out of this mess is the absolute shattering of the myth that Chinese government-owned commercial entities are not part of China Inc. In their actions against Hu, the Chinese authorities have explicitly said that commercial matters are matters of national security for China and that commercial information can be regarded as a state secret whenever China likes, and foreign executives can be imprisoned at will. The implications for Chinese conduct of investments in Australia is clear. The Foreign Investment Review Board, perhaps at the direction of the Rudd government, needs to factor this information in to all future decisions about proposed Chinese strategic investments in Australia. |
| Jul 12, 2009 19:15 | #13 |
| Thank u Rob. And in overseas, It's said by overseas media that more and more oversease Chinese students or chinese working overseas are commercial spies trained by chinese government. I also heard a chinses intern who works with a german co. uploaded material regarding working precedure, which is seen as espionage. Is that double standards? |
| Jul 12, 2009 23:58 | #14 |
| Today it has been revealed that President Hu, Jing Tao personally authorised the Rio executives arrest. This was not a case of a low level bureaucrat overstepping his authority. Nor is it a problem the Chinese anticipate will go away quickly. China has planned this for many months and has stockpiled 70 million tons of iron ore as protection against a possible foreign backlash. Consular access has been denied for one month and no legal representation is allowed to the Rio exec. Neither is contact with his family. No evidence has been produced or is required under Chinese law. No formal charges have been laid and may not be for a further six months. Many international businessmen will be getting very nervous about doing business with China. The corporate world is watching closely what happens next. |
| Jul 13, 2009 00:18 | #15 |
| I will make any further comment on this incident or reply to posts from others. I will watch how it develops but not comment. Everyone is entitled to draw their own conclusions and think what they like. All I wanted to do was to bring it to everyones attention. I do not want to create disharmony over something that does not personally affect me. I have no interest in changing anyones opinions on anything. There is an old idiom that goes something like this; God give me the strength to change the things I can change. Give me the courage to accept the things I can't change. And give me the wisdom to know which is which. Goodbye all..and good luck. |
| Jul 13, 2009 21:21 | #16 |
| Bobert, how can you know so well about Rio Tinto. Look about what you posted, the information is the byproducts of Australian media's propaganda. Media's propaganda has political tendency. If you can read Chinese news report, it is a totally different picture. A Chinese newsletter reports Rio Tinto's higher officials employed prostitutes to bribe several employees of a Chinese steel corporation. I can't guarantee the information we have browsed is reliable, but you are just so sure about what you have read from the newsletter. How can you access the inside information about Rio Tinto? |
| Jul 14, 2009 00:57 | #17 |
| Bluesky001...I am not relying on western media for information. Rio Tito is a publicly listed company on the Australian and English stock exchanges. As such, it is legally bound to allow access to any information material to it's share price. That's the law! There is a huge difference between western media and Chinese media. Western media is subject to scrutiny but Chinese media is not transparent. Chinese media is controlled by government officials adhering to the governments agenda. Western media is controlled by private enterprise who just want to make money. I agree, neither can be trusted, but one can be investigated. I have no idea if the Rio executive committed a crime or not. Nether do you. Neiter does the western media or the Chinese media. I doubt if even Ro Tinto know for sure. They are all just guessing. The point is he has been held in prison for 8 days without being charged with anything. He is not allowed a lawyer or consular contact. No evidence has been produced whatsoever. He is likely to be charged, not with industrial espionage as he would in the west. He is likeIy to be chared with stealing state secrets which carries the death penalty or life imprisonment. China makes no distinction between corporate crime and state secrets. The rest of the world does. If he has done something wrong then an open court should decide. International law should apply. If China wants to be a part of the modern corporate world then it should play by international business rules. Rio Tintos computers have been seized and examined by the China secret police. This sensitive information will no doubt find it's way to Rio Tintos Chinese customers giving them an unfair advantage when negotioating prices. The Rio executive is being used as a pawn to gain a business advantage. It is simply wrong to keep a suspect incommunicado without charges being laid or evidence being produced. And that's definately my final comment on this subject. Decide for yourselves whats right and what's wrong. |
| Jul 14, 2009 02:37 | #18 |
| I can't help posting one final comment. Rest assured this will defiantley be my last. Let me see if I have this right. The Rio executive was arrested for allegedly stealing business secrets from a Chinese company. So the Chinese secret police seized his companies computers and stole all their business secrets. Isn't that just a little bit hypocritical? Happy trails everyone. |
| Jul 14, 2009 18:39 | #19 |
| Rob, what is by-law? Does by-law include corporate law. The evidence is that the Tinto Chinese employee stole the documents thru bribe that dramatically reduced pricing bargaining power on Chinese side. M. |
| Jul 14, 2009 19:35 | #20 |
| ev⋅i⋅dence Pronunciation [ev-i-duhns] - noun Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. "The evidence is that the Tinto Chinese employee stole the documents thru bribe " Where is the "evidence" you talk about Marrie? Show a court some evidence or some proof and I will happily admit he is guilty. Otherwise I will consider him innocent. That's the way the law should work. Without evidence you can accuse anyone of anything. Maybe you are a serial murderer Marrie. Of course I have no evidence but who needs that? I will just believe it anyway. I am wasting my time here. You have him convicted already without any proof whatsoever. Believe what you want Marrie. It's not my problem. |
Post a Reply to: Any comments?
Copyright © 1998-2024 All rights reserved.