Free David Hicks, but fumble on Stern Hu

johnv_au says:

11:27am | 12/08/09

Hicks was cought with the smoking gun I say he got of lucky

Hu has be detained without charge so charge him or let him return to his adopted land

Geoff, Who cares if he is a lib he has a right to free speech and get Rudd To act he always bragging he can speak the lingo go talk to them ??
Everybody’s Entitled to Their Own Opinion

Geoff says:

10:39am | 19/07/09

Scott Scott Scott…......Why don’t you put somewhere that you are a Liberal MP. ( another unknown one ) The only way people can find out is by clicking on your picture. Are you ashamed of which side you are on?

Shaun says:

04:16pm | 18/07/09

Is this going to be the standard pperational practise on this site? That you have to click on the byline to find out that the person writing the article is a Liberal MP?

You guys want to get back in power, but part of the reason you were chucked out is that the electorate perceived you as rather devious. This shows that you haven’t learnt this was one of the reasons for your downfall.  It certainly doesn’t incline me to vote Liberal at the next election.

Perhaps rather than you political game playing, you should recapture the centre of Australian politics, rather than being captive to right wing influences within and outside your party. Then maybe you might become electable again.

Jeremy says:

02:33pm | 18/07/09

The US is an ally that pretends to have respect for the rule of law.

China is neither.

Howard repeatedly supported the US treatment of Hicks.

Rudd has repeatedly criticised the Chinese treatment of Hu.

The comparison between the Hicks and Hu cases is ridiculous.

But of course, that’s what we’d expect from a Liberal MP - although you have to click through to your bio to find out that’s what you are.

casperbrax says:

06:46pm | 17/07/09

China loses out in iron ore negotiations during the boom - someone has to pay. 

So Stern Hu and the others are hung out to dry.

Business is business. No place for government intervention.

Rudd’s inaction is mindblowing.

RobJ says:

02:34pm | 17/07/09

“It is the Opposition’s job to hold a Government to account for their representations to the electorate. “

Absolutely, but in the case of Bishop and Turnbull it exposes their hypocrisy, it’s all of our jobs to point that out.

Steve Stonerson says:

02:02pm | 17/07/09

Hicks joined the Taliban (or forces attached to it) when they were not recognised as a ‘terrorist’ organisation. He was made a terrorist in retrospect, by laws passed by our supposedly ‘liberal-democratic’ government in the form of John Howard following on from the lead of the US.

Stern Hu has not been called a terrorist by the Chinese Government. He has been accussed of illegal business activity. I kind of suspect major corporations are involved in this kind of thing all over the place and not a word is said by officials in government circles as most of the time it greases most of their wheels. Obviously Stern and Rio have done something to make the gravy train come to a bit of a impasse with their friends in China wanting to show they control the leash in this relationship.

But what more can KRudd really do in this situation than ensure the world and Australia that he is aware of the case and in concern while Australian officials are working hard in China trying to smooth things over?

Mark says:

01:27pm | 17/07/09

I thought this article was spot-on. I’m no fan of the Liberal party, but this article got it right.

Gadda da Vida of Aberfoyle Park says:

12:55pm | 17/07/09

AWB bribing Saddam in Iraq, Qantas price fixing in the US, and now this. What has happened to Australian Business ethics?

Scott Morrison says:

12:52pm | 17/07/09

Thanks for the comments, keep them coming. Here’s some feedback so far.

I appreciate that many can find partisan debate tedious at times, and I sympathise, but this should not cloud the point being made.

As Liberals, we are very conscious of our own contribution to our defeat and it is up to us to address those in Opposition as we prepare for the next election.

However Labor must also deal with the consequences of their victory.  Many were happy to cheer the Kevin07 campaign strategy and take all the bouquets that came with it. It was all about raising expectations and fuelling ‘the hope’.  Now, the Labor Government must cash the cheque they wrote to voters at the last election, and accross a range of fronts those cheques are bouncing.

When you make a big political show of something prior to an election,as Labor did with Kevin Rudd’s china skills and their stance on David Hicks,  you set a standard. You can’t then expect not to be assessed on your own standard when in Government. This is the accountablity Labor are now rejecting.

It is the Opposition’s job to hold a Government to account for their representations to the electorate. The community were promised and expecting better. To point this out may be partisan, but it’s also true.

The implications are also important . Next time Labor run a Kevin07 style campaign, there is a simple warning, “don’t believe the hype”. Over to you.

MF says:

12:00pm | 17/07/09

It’s funny how people are jumping up and down about letting Stern Hu go.  We don’t actually know that Hu is innocent of the Chinese claims.  Until China officially charges him (which to my knowledge, they have yet to do), I don’t know what people expect the government to do.

watto says:

11:59am | 17/07/09

Ahhhm… “Free” David Hicks?? He wasn’t found guilty of anything was he? If anyone, and everyone, doesn’t get their day in court then I it isn’t a democracy, its ...well something like the Chinese huh?

watto says:

11:59am | 17/07/09

Ahhhm… “Free” David Hicks?? He wasn’t found guilty of anything was he? If anyone, and everyone, doesn’t get their day in court then I it isn’t a democracy, its ...well something like the Chinese huh?

chandra says:

11:03am | 17/07/09

This is an obvious outcome of dealing with a state rather than doing business with a commercial arm.
As history goes, China has never maintained transparency in what it does.
This is a warning message to all the prospective business people that want to setup business in China.For they are not dealing with a ’ no fair go’  state body and not a ‘fair go’ business partner.
Coming to the way our govt. is handling the situation is much more appalling: If China says it has proof of treason and would prosecute any person that it dislikes, then isn’t that suppression or vengeance being carried out in the name of “their” law? it proven once again that our govt. is full of lip service payers and no actual ground work would ever be done.
We would be proud to get bar-mat mum released, fight for drug peddlers, terrorists etc. but not for that entreprenuers or that cause which is making our country to prosperity…
what an example to set to the future gen?

Charles says:

11:00am | 17/07/09

As many have commented, unfortunately for Mr Hu his situation is being seized upon by our PM & Leader of the Opposition as another excuse to throw barbs at and belittle each other.  I put myself firmly in the camp of those who have grown tired of Kevin ‘07 (707, 747 or any other 7) and Malcolm (silver spoon or not) wasting airtime by explaining why the other is not fit to be PM.

It’s high time each showed what being a leader (PM) is about and erased the personal attacks from their statements of how the Govt (or the opposition) is dealing with (or would deal with) the situation.

Lim says:

10:49am | 17/07/09

What has Rudd done to be considered a good PM? HAs he done anything to ensure economic stablility and viability in the future? What has he done for the middle class who work hard and pay the most taxes? Does he have what it takes to stand up to the Chinese?

I don’t think this PM has the guts or glory to defend Australian values/pride. Watch him fall into line like the good Chinese puppet he is…...

Lim says:

10:49am | 17/07/09

What has Rudd done to be considered a good PM? HAs he done anything to ensure economic stablility and viability in the future? What has he done for the middle class who work hard and pay the most taxes? Does he have what it takes to stand up to the Chinese?

I don’t think this PM has the guts or glory to defend Australian values/pride. Watch him fall into line like the good Chinese puppet he is…...

Rowan says:

10:38am | 17/07/09

RobJ,  Haneef is a good example of when we did a similar thing to another country. I can not remember but it would be interesting to look whether the Indian head of state directly contacted John Howard. It might actually work better as a comparison if there was not.

You are correct about the Alliance, but it was the US who held and eventually tried Hicks. That does not really alter my argument about direct head of state diplomatic petitioning.

I just wanted to show contrast with Morrison with what was a similar line of thought for the sake of discussion, and it is a little weak in that Hicks was charged. The similarities are that espionage and terrorism are both serious international crime, both have been held excessive to reasonable expectations without proper process, and there were no direct petitions in a timely matter. My argument is that maybe there are sound diplomatic reasons for this (not really a shocking revelation) and that the Coalition maybe should not be trying to score political mileage from this, if for no other reason than they should have a memory of a not dissimilar situation in which they chose a course similar to Rudd’s.

RobJ says:

10:08am | 17/07/09

“Australian national David Hicks was captured as an enemy combatant in Afghanistan”

We need to add that Hick’s was actually captured by the Northern Alliance (our allies, why anyone can ally themselves with this criminal scum and claim the high ground is beyond me) and sold to the US. The US didn’t capture him at all.

A better example of Turnbull and Bishop’s hypocrisy is Mohammed Haneef, locked him up without charge they did, typical scare mongering at Haneef’s expense. Now the lunatic fringe on the right will always support this sort of behavior, fortunately the bulk of Australia has rejected the fearmongering and the using of innocent people (Haneef) as political footballs. The longer the likes of Bishop and Turnbull take to realise this the longer the spiteful Right (Children overboard, Pacific Solution) will remain in opposition. This is a good thing!

peter says:

10:04am | 17/07/09

Hicks = Australian terrorist fighting for an evil regime against capitalism held by a capitalist country
Hu = former Chinese national (renounced communism), now Australian working for huge capitalist company accused of anti-communist espionage, held by a communist country.

Maybe that was the point of contrasting Hicks and Hu.
You commentators from the left should ask yourself what is colouring your views.

Eric says:

09:56am | 17/07/09

Hicks is not comparable to Hu. None of his rights were violated.

Hicks was an illegal combatant, fighting in a war _against_ Australian troops and their allies. By doing so, he made himself an enemy of Australia, and had no right to expect support from this country.

Rowan says:

09:45am | 17/07/09

I was thinking something similar the other day , only I framed it a little differently when I typed something up:

The Federal Opposition has been howling over Kevin Rudd not directly contacting his Chinese counterpart to secure the release of Rio Tinto executive Stern Hu as he claimed to have a special interest in China. The argument is that while Hu has been detained accused of espionage, he should not be held without charge by a foreign power that may be violating his human rights, on the basis that he is an Australian national.

There are many valid diplomatic reasons for Rudd to not take this course of action, the Coalition seem not to agree. Within the past decade however the Coalition took a similar stance as that of Rudd over another high profile Australian detainee by a foreign power.

Australian national David Hicks was captured as an enemy combatant in Afghanistan and held without trial in the American Guantanamo Bay Prison located in Cuba. During this time, Hicks was tortured and had his human rights violated. The then Prime Minister John Howard had a demonstrably close relationship with US President George W. Bush. Despite this, Hicks was held in Guantanamo for over five years.

Where were the personal representations by Howard to secure the release of Hicks until brought to trial? I have no doubt the two discussed Hicks. Clearly there were diplomatic reasons why Hicks languished in a foreign prison rather than being brought home. It is obvious that Howard did not petition Bush on behalf of the then unconvicted Australian national.

Rudd does not have a personal friendship with the detaining country’s head of state like Howard did. In fact the entire diplomatic relationship in both cases is fundamentally different. Interpretations that Rudd claimed his election would make a close ally of China are clearly misguided. Rudd made indication that he intended or thought that China would be our new America in diplomatic terms. Rudd’s claim was in the strength of the diplomacy, not the relation itself.

So what makes the case of Hu so different that there is an imperative for the highest level representations on his behalf for the Coalition? What has changed in less than a decade for the human rights of an individual be worth violating sensible diplomacy with a volatile neighbour when the same was not done with little diplomatic risk dealing with a close ally?

Adam Dennis says:

09:32am | 17/07/09

I find myself becoming increasingly impatient with politicians’ blind criticisms of each other. We are presumably supposed to cheer Scott’s mention of Rudd’s August doorstop comments. But it’s all pointscoring and no substance. Rudd was commenting at that time on the fact that our supposed bestest mates in the whole world was holding one of our citizens without charge or trial; clearly a case for PM Howard to pick up the phone. The current situation is dramatically different, however. I can’t see how PM Rudd can come out of it looking like a winner; the Chinese government has chosen a course of action, and you can be sure they will see it through to the end. Rudd can do any sort of monkey dance he likes, be it with a megaphone or telephone, and he won’t change the outcome. He’ll be criticised for that. If he appears to be doing nothing, he’ll be criticised for that too. If he calls sanctions on the Chinese our economy will suffer. The absolute best he can hope for is that the Chinese strategy will resolve itself sooner rather than later, with minimal loss of face for both sides.

Scott knows that the government has likely picked up the phone more than a couple of times but can’t comment on that. He must also know that if our PM tries to talk directly to the Chinese leadership he risks being snubbed, which would raise the stakes dramatically.

I won’t say that the Libs would be managing this situation any worse than the incumbents. But given Scott’s one-dimensional comments, I can’t see them doing any better than Labor, either.

iansand says:

09:05am | 17/07/09

China and the US are different countries, with different ways of doing things and which respond to different approaches. 

Possibly, just possibly, Mr Rudd was making sure that he actually had the support of minnows like the US before indulging in megaphone diplomacy.  Softly, softly but make sure that your mates have a stick big enough to be noticed.

RT says:

08:55am | 17/07/09

This piece just shows how easy it is to reduce everything in politics to: my side is better than yours, yah yah yah. You might as well just write that, Scott, and save your fingers from typing and ours from scrolling past.

Roy says:

08:49am | 17/07/09

Fair suck of the sauce bottle, this problem needs tact and diplomacy not breast beating and boots and all blundering.  Howard had 5 years of having an Australian being held without charge in inhumain conditions.  He could have stopped it with a single call to Bush.  I’d hate to see what TurnBull would do in this case if he was in power.

Joel B1 says:

08:47am | 17/07/09

Rudd’s appalling behaviour is becoming de rigour.

Surely even the most naive politician would understand a private phone call is by far the better option than a very public chastising.

Rudd is simply the lousiest PM we’ve had for a long long time.