So much for Rudd's rapport with China

THERE is no denying that the Rudd government has exposed itself as a diplomatic dunce in its dealings with China _ and it has only itself to blame.

Long before Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was elevated to his current status, he was proclaiming his expertise in understanding the most populous nation on Earth. It was not just his mastery of Mandarin that he touted, but also his intellectual grasp of the light and shade that plays through the internal politics of the Communist Party leadership. He committed himself and Australia to an unrealistic and unworkable relationship. In the beginning, it seemed that China's leaders were prepared to play along with Rudd and the ALP. The Chinese Consul-General in Sydney was active in Maxine McKew's campaign in Bennelong and the ALP raised no objections to the involvement of a foreign government in Australia's domestic politics. The Rudd family has built strong ties to China. Rudd's elder brother, Greg, has moved his business consultancy to Beijing, where he lives with his son, Lachlan, who is part of the business. Rudd's daughter Jessica and her Hong Kong-born husband, Albert Tse _ who also assisted on the McKew campaign _ are also working in Beijing. All well and good; but, according to defenders of the Rudd government, to raise any questions at all about China is to play ``dog-whistle'' politics. Indeed, Indira Naidoo, an environmental disciple of former US Vice-President Al Gore, went further recently and claimed that it was ``racist'' to talk about China's broken record of human rights. Interestingly, indications from Beijing are that Rudd's claims and actions have confused the Chinese. They don't know where he stands _ unlike the relationship the Chinese leadership had with former Prime Minister John Howard, in which the Chinese were never in doubt about their role. Part of the problem is Rudd's insistence that he run the Foreign Affairs Department from his office, leaving Foreign Minister Stephen Smith to hover on the fringes, waiting to know what he should be saying. Another part of the problem is that the Rudd government has sent contrary signals to the Chinese about how far they can extend their influence in Australia. Whether it is its diplomats or members of the Chinese diaspora, China is not unwilling to use them as its agents and spies abroad and it is not averse to applying pressure on family members who remain at home, to ensure that overseas Chinese comply with its wishes. Most Western governments would have rejected foreign diplomats playing a part in a domestic election campaign, but as the Chinese were supporting a Labor candidate, nothing was said. Most Western nations might have told the Chinese Government that itsembassy's involvement in ensuring counter-demonstrations to human rights protesters during the running of the Olympic torch relay through the streets of the nation's capital would not be permitted. The Rudd Labor government and the ACT's Labor government under Chief Minister Jon Stanhope let Chinese thugs largely have their way. So, when the Rudd government actually said something about the Chinese handling of Tibet or permitted a Uighur leader to enter the country for a speaking engagement at the National Press Club, the Chinese got confused. China wants to be treated as a modern nation, but it remains a feudal totalitarian fiefdom that is no closer to democracy now than it was when Mao died; and, as much as former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and his adoring acolytes may have worshipped Mao, he remains one of the most brutal figures in modern politics. That China is a customer for our iron ore and uranium is neither here nor there. That the Rudd Labor government prefers to sell China uranium, while withholding it from India, is a concern, though, and indicates discrimination against a democratic nation with which Australia shares a common language, sporting ties and a tradition of common law. Nothing, including the legal system in China, operates without deference to the Communist Party, no matter how much the Rudd government attempts to claim that business and politics are separate. There is no separation of powers in China: those who hold significant influence in government also hold senior positions in business enterprises. China is an authoritarian state, not a democracy, and that simple fact should not be forgotten. Of course, Australia wants to dobusiness with China, as we want to do business with everyone; but the reality is that sometimes we will have to hold our noses while we conduct that business with some regimes. China's repeated violations of its citizens' basic human rights don't go unnoticed and nor should they; but it is up to our government to tiptoe through the pitfalls of diplomacy as it handles the contradictions between sound business relations and principled foreign relations. Rudd, the former junior diplomat, doesn't know the difference. He's just so excited to be invited to meetings of national leaders that hecan't differentiate between China's frightening dragon face and China's cuddly panda image. It's not necessary to confuse China: we have different values, but a shared interest in trade. We should not let the Chinese force us to sell out our principles as a precondition to our business.