The world is entering a new dynamic which is merely a repetition of the recasting of the political, social and economic order that has happened for as long as man can write about it.

How much are we prepared to overlook to protect our economic interests?

History is punctuated with the ebbs and flows of kingdoms, empires and political movements and the conflicts that are always apparent at the peripheries of influence that abuts competing interests. In the past, the cycle of influence was over, sometimes thousands and generally hundreds of years.

From the initial cultivation of land between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and the Sumerian civilisation, to the Greeks, to the Romans, to the Qin Dynasty, the first imperial dynasty of the Chinese, to the British Empire, we notice that the rise and fall of empires accelerates as technology, personified by communications, military hardware, economic processes and other associated influences advances.

The Roman Empire existed from Romulus and Remus to the eventual destruction by the Goths and the Vandals in or around 410AD. Similarly, with it’s beginnings in China and eventual dominance of Central Asia, the Han Dynasty 202BC – 220AD was considered the ‘golden age’ in Chinese history bringing with it more than four centuries of economic prosperity. These time frames of imperial influence have now decreased to extent that the rise and fall of the Soviet Empire happened within one century.

What we see is the acceleration of the political timeframe. Right now, we might be correct in seeing the signs of the collapse of Pax Americana. I dearly hope not because of the values prevalent in that society which, although not perfect, have been substantial in advancing and protecting the liberties of the individual across the globe more so than anything that ever preceded it. Whilst acknowledging this advancement we must also take into account the platform of the British parliamentary system.

The one thing we are certain of is nature abhors a vacuum. This emerging vacuum, which would be caused by the demise of America, will mirror nature in that it will be replaced by the most proximate and prominent power, being the Communist Peoples Republic of China.

The reason I say communist is that they are a communist government. The people who are encompassed by their boundaries have never had the benefit of the democratic process of election and the communist government is not a government that represents the wishes of the public mandate and the aspirations of the individual. Communism is circumscribed by the control of the centralist state and its accompanying dictate.

It is a government whose influence revolves around the aspiration of a particular clique and their prescribed ethos that keeps their power unchallenged.

The ethos of the communist government is reflected in the actions and laws that are currently prevalent in China and the way it sanctions the adoption of the same or similar ethos in countries and regions such as the Sudan, North Korea, Burma, or Tibet.

The detention of Australian citizen Stern Hu is exceptional to our expectations in Australia because the ethos, so central to our democracy, has led us to a naïve belief, that our judicial principle, tilted towards the right of the individual to live in a quiet enjoyment in their own expression of thoughts, movements and pursuit of their own personal aspirations, is universal.

We think that the democratic principle is the birth right of every human being. Communist China is one regime, amongst many, which should display to us that the vast majority on this planet do not live in a version of democracy, or any form of rights and liberties, that bears any real resemblance to our expectations here in Australia.

The question we must ask in Australia is, should our belief of the right of the individual be something that is of such calibre that it should be promoted to all, or is it something that should be withheld for enjoyment by a selected few.

Alternatively do we allow the sponsorship of the diminution of the ethos that protects the right of the individual because the price is right?

Do we allow the ownership of our nations resources such as coal, uranium, iron ore, the rare earth in the ground, the actual ground and its agricultural capacity, to be transferred to the sovereign ownership of another nation which displays a totalitarian principle in how it deals with its own and how it deals with others. The transfer of process from their nation if carried out in our nation would be the destruction of all that we hold dear.

Do we develop a convenient commercial blindness because the price is right? If we do, can we sit in judgement of others in history, especially those in the last century, who did precisely the same thing because it was commercially viable to not look too deeply into who you are dealing with?

The human aspiration has battled for sixty or so thousand years in its endeavour to deliver the highest level of freedom to the individual and to grant that freedom as a right to the next generation.  Is it now logical to sponsor this disintegration back to a centralist despotism?

It might be convenient to live in the opulence of the short term pecuniary benefit that can be attained by turning a blind eye, but what is the legacy that you leave to your progenitors?

No philosophy that is associated with a political movement can promulgate its beliefs without a primary resource to underpin it. The primary resource which is the source of its wealth. If you do not hold that primary resource you must secure its source by what ever means are available.

No one listens to you from the pulpit of poverty or in the subjugation of the pews. This is neither an argument about race, colour, nor religion.

It is certainly a challenge as to what our belief structure is and to when we believe it might be convenient to put it aside.

Every day Stern Hu, a man with Australian citizenship, remains detained without charge or fair judicial process, is a day that exemplifies in greater clarity what is precious in Australia and should be promoted, not just for us, but for all.

Every day we make excuses, we belittle our core philosophical belief in the right of the individual.

Every day we use expediency as an excuse for why we cannot more effectively ventilate our belief in the rights of the individual, which are so evidently curtailed for one of our own citizens; we say quite clearly that the values of those protections of the individual appurtenant to the citizenship of our nation, are conditional, not explicit.

The condition is that the individual’s right has a price that is not determined by guilt or innocence, but is determined by commercial expediency.

This corruption of our philosophical belief diminishes us all and takes our nation, which is still at a formative stage, to a lesser article than it could be and a dimmer beacon than it should be. 

Most commented

18 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • iansand says:

      08:21am | 27/07/09

      I think you are confusing the desire to achieve Mr Hu’s freedom, which is universal, with the most effective way of achieving that aim.  Shouting at the Chinese is not the most effective means.  I think a lot of Australians understand that which is why the grandstanding approach of Mr Turnbull is not achieving its aim (and I, for one, do not believe Mr Turnbull’s aim has much to do with achieving freedom for Mr Hu).

    • Karen says:

      08:53am | 27/07/09

      “Grandstanding” Turnbull?
      I think this adjective belongs in the same sentence as “Rudd”

    • Eric says:

      09:16am | 27/07/09

      A wise and disturbing piece.

    • Rob says:

      09:27am | 27/07/09

      China is a world power, they are moving to become a space power as well.

      This has parallels, for instance I intercepted a transmission the other day between an orbiting Chinese space capsule and ground base:

      Hu, Stern we have a problem.

      smile

    • Rob says:

      09:32am | 27/07/09

      I just noticed teh author of this piece.

      Baranaby Joyce talking about grandstanding?

      This should not be called The Punch, this should be called Pot and Kettle!!

      Keep up the good work

    • Clint Walsh says:

      09:38am | 27/07/09

      Hopefully I will be leaving a legacy to my descendants rather than progenitors.

    • MR says:

      11:38am | 27/07/09

      Every day we use expediency as an excuse for why we cannot more effectively ventilate our belief in the rights of the individual, which are so evidently curtailed for one of our own citizens; we say quite clearly that the values of those protections of the individual appurtenant to the citizenship of our nation, are conditional, not explicit.

      I agree with you Barnaby.

      However can you please explain to me why your analysis above, and your admirably stated commitment to the elevation of individual human rights over commercial/political expediency, did not apply to David Hicks?  I’m asking this question in all seriousness - I want to believe that your sentiment above is honest and real but I can’t see how it could be given the actions of your government.

      How can you demand a free and fair trial for Hu when you failed to demand the same for Hicks?

    • James says:

      11:51am | 27/07/09

      Mr Joyce,
      So glad you’re taking a stance on this that is reasoned and has some breadth to it. The comments on the deterioration of an individuals rights due to commercial forces is particularly interesting.. The right to say a flat out NO to big businesses, to remove ourselves from the market altogether, is often overlooked in the push for ‘Negotiations’.

      As always, the answer, particularly in Mr Hu’s circumstances, remains so elusive.

      The paradox of your argument: perhaps it is due to our iron-fisted grasp on the rights of the individual that we believe that we should be “culturally sensitive” in this case because the individuals of China have the right to live a life under their own rules..
      The irony would be that through acting as a collective of people we would stand up for one individual.
      Another commentator mentioned last week, where are groups like GetUp in the cry for human rights in this instance? They were there for David Hicks.

      Hang on this is why we created governments so many years ago; and this reflection is perhaps the most important part of your article.

      Now if we could just hold our governments to their word…..

    • formersnag says:

      02:41pm | 27/07/09

      Absolutely Barnaby, but you are not grabbing the attention of Joe public with this. There are other areas of policy more concerning to those Howard battlers who deserted labour in their droves only to eventually be scared back to labour by work choices. They were driven away from labour in the first place by feminist family law and seeing their children neglected and abused by deadbeat mothers. The aboriginal interventions may have been fumbled but at least somebody attempted to do something about child abuse instead of sweep it under the carpet as labour have done in all jurisdictions for 40 years.

    • David says:

      03:32pm | 27/07/09

      Regarding David Hicks, Senator Joyce actually crossed the floor to support him in protest of supporting the military commission and got himself into quite a deal of trouble by doing so. At the time he said, “I supported this motion because the sentiment I generally agree with. That is, the process that (Hicks) will be judged under is not something that we would condone here, and it’s certainly not a process America would condone for one of their citizens”. Secondly Senator Joyce says the word should have been decendants not progenitors, “Sometimes it’s difficult to get things exactly right when dictating over the phone while bouncing around in the car driving through the countryside in outback Queensland.”

    • MD says:

      04:15pm | 27/07/09

      I don’t recall Mr Joyce being so concerned about doing business with totalitarian regimes when the AWB was paying bribes to Saddam Hussein…  In fact, I believe he said at that time that “you’ll never get anywhere unless the right people are looked after”.  How does that that sentiment fit in with saying above that “Every day we make excuses, we belittle our core philosophical belief in the right of the individual.”?

    • Mondo Rock says:

      04:19pm | 27/07/09

      Regarding David Hicks, Senator Joyce actually crossed the floor to support him in protest of supporting the military commission and got himself into quite a deal of trouble by doing so.

      OK then - scratch my question above.  My Apologies to you Senator Joyce - you have indeed stood by your principles on this issue and I applaud you for it.

      It’s really great to see a politician who not only mouths their commitment to seeing justice done but is also willing to stand behind it.

    • Thomas says:

      04:54pm | 27/07/09

      It is a bit late in the day for Barnaby and the Nationals to discover that the price of economic prosperity might be freedom. At the start of the second world war the Country Party allowed strategic materials to he sold to Japan and these were on sold to Germany. The Country party didn’t have any problem selling wheat to China at the same time as China was supplying the communist insurgents that our troops were fighting against in South Vietnam. Finally we have the AWB scandal.

      Pull the other one, Barnaby.

    • Eric says:

      05:05pm | 27/07/09

      I wish Mr Joyce hadn’t brought the Hu issue into this article.

      It distracts from his deep historical analysis, which is what we should really be thinking about.

      Please, commenters, read it again and set aside, for now, the political furore over the short therm issue of one man’s problems. There is a great deal to be considered in the long term.

    • miantiao says:

      01:16am | 28/07/09

      Mr Joyce, well said.  The rise of the US at the expense of the British has set an historical precedent. A change in the world order where the waxing and waning powers didn’t go about trying to obliterate each other. Perhaps the key factor in this rather peacful changing of the guard was the result of shared institutions and values. The common enemy argument doesn’t wash. There are numerous historical examples that negate it.

      Mr Joyce points out what some are now speculating, the US is waning and China waxing. At some point unless there is some merging of values and institutions conflict will result. He also alludes to the fact that many millions of ordinary chinese covet the freedoms we take for granted. Immigration and education consultants from Canada, Australia, the US, Britain etc are doing very well in china, but its not an option for the poor.

      I think its in Australia’s national interest that we do speak up for and defend our way of life. If we don’t then we’ll be seen as feeble and aquiescent, and treated accordingly. The challenge i feel is to manage a merging of values which at the very least encompasses the rule of law as we know it.

      President HuJinTao has said that China will have to wait 100 years for a democratic political system, one that includes the rule of law. If the speculators are right, it should buy enough time for the CCP to achieve whatever goals they have in mind.

    • Mike says:

      12:35pm | 04/08/09

      “This is neither an argument about race, colour, nor religion.” Try telling that to the (Han) Chinese who are always the first to cry persecution or racism. A very thoughtful article on a subject I have rather mixed feeling about.

    • Derek says:

      06:10pm | 12/08/09

      There is clearly a big incentive for our governments not rock sour the relationship with China. Its all about money and power. But there comes a point when to remain silent and not condemn a countries immoral actions is wrong. Whether that point has been reached remains to be seen in the Rio case remains to be seen. I do believe that the way events are unfolding give cause for concern.

      Recently in Urumqi, 197 people were reportedly left dead and more than 1,600 people injured in a supposedly non violent protest. It was around this time that Colin Barnett, premier of WA was in China trying to encourage Chinese investment in Western Australia and telling them their skilled workers would be engaged to help out on future resource projects. As far as I’m aware there were no discussions regarding the violence in Urumqi or the situation regarding the detained RIO employees. There were no public statements expressing concern over these recent events. Of course this is in addition to the other persecution and torture of people in the country by the Chinese government because of their religious beliefs. I would expect the prudent course of action would be to wait to find out about these situations before encouraging deeper business ties. Instead they assume that everything is fine unless someone dares to prove otherwise.

      My view is that our government leaders are too willing to give China the benefit of the doubt. To retain and deepen our business ties with China will only mean that we grow more dependent on them. As the dependence grows, the fallout from upsetting the country is increased which further discourages our government speaking out against the immoral acts of the Chinese government. It’s a downward spiral that started many years ago.

      The Australian public has cause for concern. The concern is the subtle control that China is already exerting on our political leaders will extend to other areas of our daily lives. That incrementally our hard won freedoms will be sold off by a government that is more preoccupied with short term financial gain and political power.

    • Davido says:

      05:11pm | 27/01/10

      I would suggest that Stern Hu is a warning that may not have been heeded.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter