Rudd needs a Hugh Grant moment to stand up to China

Anthony says:

03:18pm | 09/04/10

Kevin got his mojo back! Have you read the headlines today? Yet another policy back flip and his health plan getting CPR. If this is our PM firing on all cylinders then China must be saying Hu is Australia(n)?

Mavis says:

03:24pm | 09/04/10

Yoof. Ain’t it grand?

Well sonny, you might be"recently recognised as one of Asia’s most influential young people” and I bet your Mum’s proud. However, Rudd sure ain’t. Why don’t you go over there and sock-it-to-them.

Wirewolf says:

03:29pm | 09/04/10

The relationship between Australia and China is one of convenience and mutual exploitation, not friendship or common interest. Unfortunately, Australia is much more economically dependent on China than they are on us.  Ergo, they know they can do what they like and we can’t do a damned thing about it because we need them more than they need us. As a result, Rudd in on a hiding to nothing because he is trying to negotiate from a position of weakness. We simply need to accept that China doesn’t care in the slightest about us, and we should disabuse ourselves of the idea that we can influence them in anyway. All we can do is keep our heads down and profit from the relationship as best we can while avoiding unnecessary arguments that will achieve nothing.

Morgan says:

03:24pm | 09/04/10

I agree that it definitely needs to happen, though doubtful it will occur.

Shane From Melbourne says:

04:11pm | 09/04/10

No, no, no. wrong approach. You say nothing or better yet smile and nod your head at whatever China says. All the while you’re making small legislative changes that adversely affect China. Nothing obvious and nothing they can directly point a finger at. Something like quality control or consumer safety etc. The way China does. They’ll say any BS that they think westerners want to hear all the while acting against the west and disregarding interrnational law or bilateral agreements. It’s a new cold war son and a different one.

krangsquared says:

04:02pm | 09/04/10

I read “Hugh Grant moment” and immedately thought “Divine Brown”.  Getting caught with a prostitute never does any good to one’s poll ratings.

@Henry so you mean to imply that The Abbott’s sinewy physique shall help us regain our sterling authority in Asia?  Intriguing…

acker says:

04:27pm | 09/04/10

Forget wasting money bulding crappy submarines that break down and we cannot staff…...we have uranium lets mine it put it in some missiles. Why continue with the expensive figleaf of Kim Beasley’s crappy subs ? lets get some nukes 100% made in Australia..

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

06:41pm | 09/04/10

Rudd ??  Become an arse kicking Prime minister ????
Heh heh heh I’d like to see that !  The Chinese would take him out to the nearest parking lot and shoot him .  Probably send Australia a bill for the bullet as well. Safer to invite the Chinese President here and feed him up with dim sums and peking duck , thenadvise him that the price of coal and iron ore is going up.

Serious says:

07:04pm | 09/04/10

I recall that when Rudd spoke in Mandarin to a group of Chinese students some time ago telling them that it was necessary for a country to defend human rights he was roundly condemned by many conservatives in this country for being full of himself.  Now we are told he should be ‘standing up’ to the Chinese.  Get real!  With the exception of the likes of George Bush national leaders don’t normally play macho in public (and that really worked for the world didn’t it? Two wars neither of which the US won or has any hope of winning).  Although, come to think of it , posting the RAN off the coast of China should bring the Chinese to heel pretty quickly.

Doug Kotter says:

07:38pm | 09/04/10

Well, if “the question is what has Australia gained through its policy of appeasement?” then the answer is pretty bloody obvious isn’t it?

You remember that economic downturn/recession/call-it-what-you-will that the rest of the world had, yet conveniently by-passed Australia? Yeah - that’s what we got. And anyone who suggests that Australia is not better off by keeping our economy strong by fostering a strong relationship with a super-power that’s not a fading shadow of it’s former self, is quite frankly, a moron.

Hugo Leith says:

11:58pm | 09/04/10

The key argument of this piece - that the Rudd government has not represented its views to China forcefully enough - does not take account of the representations made privately, in diplomatic channels, to the Chinese. Just because the author doesn’t get to see what Stephen Smith and Kevin Rudd say to Hu Jintao doesn’t mean that it isn’t said at all. 

To illustrate the folly of the megaphone diplomacy (or what the author describes as “straight talking”) advocated here with a hypothetical. Let’s say that the Government were to publicly argue that the trial of Stern Hu was grossly unjust, that he had been set up, and that he should be released forthwith. Or that he should have been released and repatriated before his trial. We can be absolutely certain that the Chinese response would be to defend its internal processes against what it would style foreign interference in its domestic affairs, and that Stern Hu would remain in custody. And, to top it off, we would have an impasse and a crisis in relations, stopping us from discussing other issues on which constructive cooperation is required.

If Australia is to do business with China, it will have to accept that the Chinese government will defend what it perceives to be its interests within its borders. Therefore, the author’s statement that Stern Hu’s trial was an instance of China taking advantage of its relationship with Australia, or that this was ‘appeasement’, is deeply confused. There are definitely occasions for our government to reflect publicly on problems in its relationship with China or any other country, and even to condemn the actions of foreign states with whom we have important trading or strategic links, but foreign relations are fundamentally about interests. It is not some grandiose school debating competition in which the force our argument will somehow persuade them to do things as we’d like.

stephen says:

03:41am | 10/04/10

China is a very proud nation, and she is keen to show us all what she can do. Well, she certainly has done that, at least economically.
But China’s making political mistakes now. Quite apart from Nth Korea, she’s trading with Middle East nations, two of which are on the wrong side of reasonable. (Political, cause she’s a permanent member of the UN Security Council).
I think Kevin Rudd is doing fine here ; he can’t do anything to jeopardize our trade, but he can wait until certain large trading partners with China bring heavy pressure to bear. Such political pressure will, I believe, seriously damage China’s pride, and her behaviour, internationally, will alter.
Chna is not part of our world yet, and we should all look forward to her joining us.

Brett L says:

04:16am | 10/04/10

In my mind I have no doubt Kevin Rudd is spineless and regards his political positioning more important than the aspirations of ordinary Australians. But as a business man dealing with the Chinese for the last 15 years there is a unique way to deal with them. Being forceful or threatening to them just doesn’t work. It is much more effective to negotiate on a respectful win / win basis. The Chinese do actually like to be accommodating and helpful, but you gotta ask in the right way and pay attention to some of the more respectful social graces. Just remember 90% of what you buy today will come from China.

Brett L says:

04:16am | 10/04/10

Oh, if I may, I forgot to mention something: Stern Hu, lets not forget he pleaded guilty to bribery charges and corruption (even to Rio Tinto he admitted it). He knew what the consequences would be. I don’t think it is our place to force our soft justice ideals on the Chinese. In any case Mr Hu is playing the respectful game by not appealing his sentence. This will go a lot further for him for early release than bringing more media attention on the Chinese legal system by appealing their respected judicial decisions. And to the author, as you get older and wiser you learn there are more ways than one to skin a cat.

Mikey says:

08:34am | 10/04/10

I’m not so sure we couldn’t stand up to them. I just think nobody has really tried yet. Probably for the better but I’m not so sure if we would really have no chance. The central Chinese government isn’t the seven-headed, all-controlling hydra people seem to think it is, it’s weaker and less organised than many think. I think the Chinese just know they have a couple of aces up their sleeve and know how to intimidate with thinly-veiled threats at the right time to make everyone back off, and they demand to be shown face and the rest of it and we routinely fall for it. But I’d like to see someone eventually stand up them. I think the US probably eventually will have to, with their faltering economy and the whole ‘free’ trade thing not quite working out so well.

Ray says:

07:06pm | 10/04/10

It is very easy to talk the big talk. It is far less easy when the target is one that you need to sell to, far, far greater than your need to buy from. For the record, I do agree largely with your stance on the China issue, but I hardly think it is as simplistic as your make it out to be.

Robert Smissen of God's Own Country, Rural SA says:

12:27am | 11/04/10

Offering appeasement to China a proven winner, just look what happened in the 1930s when the then British PM Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler it worked then didn’t it? ? ? NOT! !

stephen says:

07:22pm | 11/04/10

Yeah, yer right about God’s Own Country there, but the appeasement is wrong because the problem is ‘wrong’.
China’s no threat, though she has the completely wrong view to Capitalism.
This will need fixing ; perhaps our Prime Minister can help ?