Chin Jin's article seems a realistic picture of Chin's relations with Australia and of the functioning of Chinese diplomats.

I see Chin's approach to the Australia-US alliance to be a little simplistic though.

"The incoming ambassador will continue the policy of consistent persuasion and seduction to undermine the US-Australia alliance"

Australia has choices on how it can be the (junior) ally of the US:

1 - being obedient and allowing the US to dictate our foreign and defence policies. Howard's abrogation of Australia's freedom of choice in Iraq is the main case in point. Australia's primitive reasoning appears to be "place our flag next to the US because where mates and the US may help us in return". That is, interpreting ANZUS as always saying YES to the US.

2 – Australia - sticking to its guns, not revealing all. Canada is such a country. It has selectively supported the US (eg in Afghanistan) when it thinks the cause is important (in this case counter-terrorism). Yet Canada also has firmer defence treaties (NATO, NORAD) with the US than we do.

3 - making strong national efforts to be self sufficient thereby leading the senior ally by the nose. This is the Israeli way. The US appears to follow Israeli policy in the Middle East knowing that Israel has the military capability to go it alone if need be. Israel's success is also achieved by Israel running concerted media and personal campaigns inside and outside the US.

I suggest Australia have a more independent foreign and defence policies that the US (and China) will take more notice of - somewhere between approaches 2 and 3. This will increase our ability to shape events in our favour.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

I agree that OZ should have an independant foriegn policy and one not governed entility by commercial considerations. The Han chinese cultural and ethnic genocide in Tibet shows their true intentions.