Thread: Rio Tinto 'Spies' - What the F***??

I didn't expect this poll finding.

Apparently it is the Australian opposition leader that is using this case to attack PM Kevin Rudd for not intervening. The Australian public think otherwise.

Govt should keep out of Hu case: poll

20 July [WAToday] Most Australians believe the federal government should not intervene in the Stern Hu case despite calls from the opposition for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to do more to help.

Mr Hu, the Shanghai-based head of Rio Tinto's iron ore operations in China, was detained by Chinese authorities but is yet to be charged.

The federal government has struggled to get information out of Beijing since first learning Mr Hu had been detained and accused of spying and stealing state secrets. ....

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull on Monday said the prime minister should do more to help Mr Hu. ....

However, calls from the opposition for Mr Rudd to intervene are at odds with how most Australians feel about the matter, a poll released to the media on Monday shows.

The poll, conducted between July 14 and July 19 in the week following Mr Hu's arrest, showed 63 per cent of people believe Australia should accept the laws of other countries, even if they are different to Australian laws.

Only 26 per cent of the 1,070 people surveyed in the Essential Research poll thought the federal government should intervene if Australian companies that did business in other countries were treated unfairly. ....

Originally Posted by Merlin

I didn't expect this poll finding.

Apparently it is the Australian opposition leader that is using this case to attack PM Kevin Rudd for not intervening. The Australian public think otherwise.

Govt should keep out of Hu case: poll

Good for them. Mr Turnbull is showing an aptitude for poor choices.

Originally Posted by ying

I am curious to see what kind of reaction the “international society” would have if there is proved evidence to show Rio Tinto has been getting involved in bribing Chinese officials and top management of Chinese steel enterprises.

Ying,

I think the problem here is that the Chinese legal system is such that it will be difficult to know exactly what has happened. There is very little transparency there.

For instance, I discovered this evening that the government can define what is & is not a 'state secret' retrospectively. In theory someone could be convicted of possessing something that was not actually a secret at the time they had it.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

We have the same red-neck propensity here, measured by the between 4 and 10 percent who vote for New Zealand First each election. I don't think the party of John Howard would have stirred things up in the same way, the only thing this lot have achieved apart from making Rudd look foolish is set back Aus/China relations significantly, god knows why they think that's a good idea.

Howard preferred soft targets like refugees. Having said that, this was while he was in government. Don't forget that in opposition he had warned about us being 'swamped' by Asian immigration. I agree that the Howard who was PM would have been too smart to do what Turnbull is doing, but Howard in oppositon might have done it. Ironically, what probably cost Howard his seat at the last election was the growth in ethnic Chinese in his electorate. Despite the rise in immigration from China over the last decade they had long memories & said so publically.

Yeah good point. I'd discounted the 'yellow peril' aspect early on, so you're saying the reaction is tied in with loss of economic sovereignty issue as regards the original sale?

There has been a bit of a 'yellow peril' undercurrent popping up for a while now. The Libs were running on the economic issue, but there was also the late unlamented Defence minister, whose friendship with a Chinese businesswoman was played up as a 'security breach'. In the end he got the chop for other reasons, but those allegations wounded him. Around that time the usual sensationalist current affiars programs ran some 'is China taking over?" type stories to appeal to the feeble minded.

Turnbull is desperate to land some hits on Rudd. he failed spectacularly on another front recently, so he's gone back to an old favourite. Rudd's relations with China past & present are seen as fair game. One day he's too close, the next he's not close enough. Throw in a bit of old fashioned fear of foreigners (especially ones from a powerful nation) to stir the pot & you might get a few points on the next opinion poll. Hopefully the poll Merlin quoted will make the clowns think twice.

Ironic given how much of the last government's claims to good economic management were nothing more than watching Chinese money roll into the coffers.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

There has been a bit of a 'yellow peril' undercurrent popping up for a while now. The Libs were running on the economic issue, but there was also the late unlamented Defence minister, whose friendship with a Chinese businesswoman was played up as a 'security breach'. In the end he got the chop for other reasons, but those allegations wounded him. Around that time the usual sensationalist current affiars programs ran some 'is China taking over?" type stories to appeal to the feeble minded.
.

I think thats probably unfair to the defence department mate. Put Frankly, the Australian Defence minister has access to some pretty classified stuff. Taking that to his rental owned by a chinese woman is a natural cause for investigation and they would be stupid not to. The mere fact that Fitzgibbon hadn't the slightest notion that heis far from exempt from security conceanrs and clearances and conditions of access to information is mind boggling, and it's just as well the idiot does not hold that portfolio anymore.

The real story of that one in defencee circles, was of how incredibly stupid the guy was, not how evil it was for the department to be asking appropriate questions of it's own minister, who had played dirty politics in defence anyway and probably deserved what, if anything he got anyway!

Aside from that, the Idiocy of the Liberal party knows no bounds, they've had several things landed to them on a platter, failed to capitalise on it, and capitalised on all the wrong things, like this one, which makes them look like amateurs. Which is what they are. Not that the likes of say Penny Wong are any better!

I agree with BF that the smart thing for the Chinese government is the make this legal matter as "transparency" as possible the whole affair will not became what it is today. China still has much to improve.

Ref to "state secret" since PRC is the only government that hold people indefinitely without a speedy charge or give detainees no access habeas corpus, shame of the PRC.

Originally Posted by Chunder

I think thats probably unfair to the defence department mate. Put Frankly, the Australian Defence minister has access to some pretty classified stuff. Taking that to his rental owned by a chinese woman is a natural cause for investigation and they would be stupid not to. The mere fact that Fitzgibbon hadn't the slightest notion that heis far from exempt from security conceanrs and clearances and conditions of access to information is mind boggling, and it's just as well the idiot does not hold that portfolio anymore.

The real story of that one in defencee circles, was of how incredibly stupid the guy was, not how evil it was for the department to be asking appropriate questions of it's own minister, who had played dirty politics in defence anyway and probably deserved what, if anything he got anyway!

Aside from that, the Idiocy of the Liberal party knows no bounds, they've had several things landed to them on a platter, failed to capitalise on it, and capitalised on all the wrong things, like this one, which makes them look like amateurs. Which is what they are. Not that the likes of say Penny Wong are any better!

Chunder,

What the DoD does internally is its own business. Fitzgibbon's friendship with the family in question was a matter of public record before he took the job. he was certainly stupid to allow the appearance of any impropriety, but stupid was something he did under other circumstances too unfortunately.

The issue I was pointing to was the way that the Libs were happy to weave together a number of unrelated issues about China into a little 'yellow peril' narrative. They would deny it until they are blue in the face, but they have form & they are desperate enough. The economy isn't falling apart fast enough for them to paint Rudd as the economic disaster they desperately want him to be, so they need something else. As you have pointed out, the Libs are behaving like idiots. Fortunately for the ALP they don't need to rely on Wong to land their punches, they have a bench full of heavy hitters for that (wait until Shorten & Combet get their chance in parliament).

Originally Posted by xinhui

I agree with BF that the smart thing for the Chinese government is the make this legal matter as "transparency" as possible the whole affair will not became what it is today. China still has much to improve.

Ref to "state secret" since PRC is the only government that hold people indefinitely without a speedy charge or give detainees no access habeas corpus, shame of the PRC.

Xinhui,

I think this case actually provides China with an opportunity to show that it is actually moving toward a more open & transparent legal system. Big business all over the world will be paying attention, and we know that one of the things they want most in any country they deal with is a legal system with a degree of consistency & even tranparency.

If China chooses to run the case in that manner I think it can undo some of the damage done here & even make a favourable impression. Do you think they will see that angle, or is the government too keen to make an entirely different point about how business works in China?