The Australian carried some interesting articles this weekend about the concerns being raised by other countries in the region over Kevin Rudd's China focus. Are they scaremongering or hould we be concerned by this?
A neighbour with whom I often have lively discussions pointed out that one important country, India, is a democracy (albeit one with some problems). It is a member of the Commonwealth. It has a vibrant economy, a rapidly growing middle class and English is widely spoken. India has close trade ties with many other countries in the region of the Indian-subcontinent and Asia.
Despite that Kevin Rudd seems determined to ignore India - as noted by his unilateral cancellation of important talks between Australia, India, Japan and the US. There has been a suggestion that pressure is being applied by his Chinese mates.
If there was an economic slow down in China (or, worse still, a collapse) then it would dramatically affect the Australian economy. Why then is Kevin Rudd insisting on an 'all eggs in one basket' approach?
Should we be able to do business with India (and associated countries)or do we have to accept that the price of doing business with China is having to drastically cut back our relationships with other important regional and economic powers?

Communicat,

What an interesting question. I have to admit that, living in China, I had become a tad myopic lately regarding Australia's ties with India.

Out of interest on that subject: when I first came here and would ask who the Prime Minister of Australia was no-one would have any idea. Now, however, it is a question that everyone knows the answer to, and many students who, last year, had considered going to America to study are now changing their minds and heading for Australian universities and schools instead. In fact, among the student population, America is losing all its glamour.

But you are quite right: India even shares common threads to Australia as both countries were at one stage under British rule. The links, as you pointed out are copious and long-standing.

I can see I have been remiss in not keeping abreast of Australian/Indian relations and am interested in remedying that. And also in learning what other people think?

That's a very good question. i'm beginning to see many more flaws in Rudd than the positive points, which are few.

But it must be asked on what status the trade with India which has not signed the NPT. Howard, who like to think he was big on security and international law, signed a deal to sell Australian uranium to India despite the NPT fact. Personally, with Israeli secret development of nuclear technology and it's extremely boistrous threats to use them, and the US' presidential candidates to leave nuclear weapons "on the table" and Hillary Clinton's chilling threats to Olbiterate Iran, I think it's out of the bag and we should sell it to any who will pay good prices, but that's just me.

The thing with China is that it has the "big" army and the aggression (rebellious government).
After decades of pathetic defence preparations Mr. Rudd may feel we have to appease these people.
And...theres always the mystery of whether the managers/founders/grand papas of Labor really ever let go of communism thing and perhaps just might like to reconnect with it again.

The Chinese have always been extremely defence oriented. If you want aggresive, look at the west.

I still think despite Iraq and some of the works of the CIA etc that the USA is the worlds great policeman.
The country is Bible based and the respect for others is well founded.
What would we have done about Saddam?
His secret police were killing their own people.
Americans might appear to be crass at times but I would rather have them in this part of the world than the Chinese or the Indians.
I think America probably already owns the real power in Australia through their secret bases and our ultimate dependency on them.
I still give them the thumbs up...
Better "another" State of the USA than "New South China".

How about neither? We could have avoided the wars in the middle east quite easily.

If ther must be a policeman in the current world, USA is the best; if there must be a challenger, China is the best.

Dynamic balanced world is best for all over the world.

According to The Hon. Wayne Swan, Treasurer of The Commonwealth of Australia, over the past decade, China and India have accounted for around 30% of total global growth. To put that in context, their contribution to world growth in 2007 alone was larger than the size of the entire Australian economy. Australian businesses have vigorously pursued opportunities to trade with China and India.

The treasurer tell us that, "China is now our second largest trading partner and second largest export destination after Japan. And India is one of our fastest growing export markets. Combined, China and India accounted for around 40% of Australia's export value growth in 2006-07."

He confirms that Australia is building strong ties with both China and India through our universities. China and India are also providing increasing numbers of skilled workers to Australia. In
2005-06, China and India were the second and third largest contributors to Australia's skilled migration intake, after the UK.

Skilled migration has been, and will continue to be, an important contributor to Australia's labour force growth in the coming decade.

Setting aside the current global uncertainty, over the medium term it's clear that as China and India continue to grow, they will be key drivers of the global economic, political and strategic landscape.
A key to Australia's economic success will be our integration with world economy - which must include both China and India.

Communicat truly you concern me, you could well be the diagram that is used in making a conservative.
It is a tactic of politicians on both sides who have nothing to say to manufacture an issue this is such.
Both China and India are growing, both are not completely happy with us.
Ignoring the thoughts of Gibo, most do, we should be concerned about both country's.
Both once they make it to the top of the tree may well treat us as badly as we, the British empire treated them, insert the name of whatever country that did bad by them.
Rudd has shown nothing to convince me his has made in China stamped on his bottom, he however has put this country my country on a better path.

Youre right Belly.
When China and India reach their pinnacles they certainly will treat Australia badly.
The reason is simple... here we have a basis of pro-caring/pro-human rights Christianity and there, they have their demon worshipping eastern religions.
The two are totally opposed when it comes to truly loving people.
In the east and in asia human life is cheap (demon powers in control of men and women, governments).
Here at least human rights gets a fair go.
I think one day we will get "the bomb" for protection of the Australian mainland from a united asia that would gobble up eveything we have built.
Actually I think we already have access to nuclear weapons.

Lighten up Belly.
Sure not everyone pays attention to me...its doesnt matter.
Things get read and remembered.

Heres a joke to brighten youre day Belly...

Q: how many ears does Davey Crockett have?

Can't get it?

A. he's got a left ear and a right ear and a wild frontier!

he,he,he...did you get it young chap?

You don't need to worry about me Belly, I worry about myself at times. :-)
But, seriously, I am concerned about Rudd's China-centric focus and so are others far more knowledgeable than myself. I am not too concerned that India has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty because treaties are treaties and, all too often, they get ignored. China does not recognise most international law or conventions and treaties. China, like most other countries, would ignore any treaty if it was in their interest to do so. That's not being cynical, merely realistic.
Indian and Asian culture is such that we cannot afford to be seen to favour China over India or vice versa. We need to acknowledge Japan's place in the world too.
We should be able to do legitimate business with anyone but I suggest that China has already placed, and is continuing to place, terms and conditions on how we do trade and with whom we do it. That's not intended as a conspiracy theory just economic reality. The US does the same - but we are much more likely to hear about that

I say we grow ourselves so that world policy is at least built with Australia playing a major part. Lowering our reliance on these big nations should be at least high on the priority list.

Communicat,
=Despite that Kevin Rudd seems determined to ignore India= What is this?
Where did you find Rudd's determinion to ignore India? I do not think Kevin's government ignore India
Personally, I think we must have good relations with all countries especially with big countries as India and China and of course with countries where we export or could export our products as India and China. Of cause we know that China is in better, stronger position than India.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

I would suggest that unilaterally cancelling the four way talks between Australia, the US, Japan and India (note the last country mentioned) was a very strong indication of Rudd's attitude towards India. It's not important to him. He cannot afford to strengthen ties with India because it would need to be done at the expense of ties with China. It suits Rudd personally because of his very personal relationship with all things Chinese.
But there are other issues. Australia has not perceived India as a major trading partner, or even a major regional power, for many years. Whitlam was the first to move away from India and the ties have gradually been weakend over the years. This has been a major tactical mistake on our part because India is a major regional power with strong ties to other countries we also need to work with if we are to have balanced trading options.
Australia has allowed itself to be bullied into submission first by Japan and then by China. They, naturally, want our resources at the lowest possible prices.
We have to recognise, despite political protestations to the contrary, that we are not "part of the Asian region" and we never will be. We are adjacent to it. We need to be good neighbours but we have to acknowledge that we are not going to be invited to live in the houses of our neighbours.

Communicat
You wrote that "I am not too concerned that India has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty"
Australia signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and must respect it.
"TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Article III
2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this article"

WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT AND IT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE TO EXPORT URANIUM TO INDIA WHICH HAS NOT SIGNED THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY.
Our duty is to promote Peace, security and cooperation between the nations. If every country ignores or violates the international law then we will convert our planet to α jungle and put at high risk the future of our planet.
I Feel happy that the party ALP I voted respect the international law and canceled Howard's agreement for uranium export to India.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

So, because India has not signed the treaty do you think we should not do any business with them in any field at all?
Isn't this sort of approach a bit short sighted? Is it really the proper approach?

I wrote ONLY to block the Uranium to India. I do not know and I do not think that our exports decreased in last year to India. Generally I agree that India is a big country and we must improve our relations with this country, without of cause to violate the international law.
Antoniops Symeonakis
Adelaide

We will not improve relations with India when Rudd takes unilateral action to dismantle important talks. It won't improve relations with Japan or the US either. Of course it might 'improve' relations with China, if they need improving.
Trade with India tends to be fairly static. It does not grow at the rate that it could. Indeed, trade with a great part of the world tends to be fairly static because of our narrow focus on 'the Asian region'. Other countries, quite small countries, manage to do more diverse business than we do.
Not sure what we can do about it but the lost opportunities are surely frustrating for many. (It's all very well saying 'just go out and do it yourself' but the reality is that, in some regions there is a need for government to government contact as well.)

"The Chinese have always been extremely defence oriented. If you want aggresive, look at the west." - Steel

The Chinese for much of their history were occupited by the Mongols or Manchus. Abbeit , she was strong during the Chou and Han dynasties in her own right. More recently [1953], when Stalin died, China did suppress counter-cultures in its non-Han territories [their are 57 ethnicities in China], the Han count for over well over 90%, but over the centuries tended administer China not rule the country.

As states above, when Stalin died, China did try to exercise greater influence but it was srudied and limited; it feared Russia and the US. For example, huffed and puffed, but it didn't invade Taiwan.

With regards India, China and Russia, any unity, if it occurs, would more likely betweem oliarchs' networks. Unlike with Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, China will likely create surpluses
and rather than try innovate, which the West [especially the US] is good]; China will then "buy" Western companies to hasten technology transfer. The Middle-Kingdom's poelples are highly deferrential and this unlikely to change in a generation. Likewise, China would expect deference to from India and Russia, but it would not necessarily try dominate these countries. It's militarism would unlike Japan's attempt at Co-Prosperity Sphere. In the twenty-first century, networks/quanxi between Chinese hang, Indian Brahmins and Russian Mafia would not be a military war, but rather an economic war involving transnationalism under globalisation against the West.

"We have to recognise, despite political protestations to the contrary, that we are not "part of the Asian region" and we never will be. We are adjacent to it. We need to be good neighbours but we have to acknowledge that we are not going to be invited to live in the houses of our neighbours." - Communicat

You are familiar with Huntington? I have a feeling you are correct, to some extent, that Asian values and Western values are sometimes incompatible. Malaysia overt in its critism; Singapore less now, but it is below the surface. And, perhaps, Dr Mahathir Mohamed is correct in referring to Australia as a "transplant" from Europe. But that doesn't mean we can't trade. Yet, I think there is a problem with ethics.

I would like to see integration with Asia, but we have to be careful. We must maintain our own identity. I don't mean ethnically but the Westminister system and modes of Law. Albeit, we lack Bill of Rights to make Governments and Courts accountable to Rights of the People.

While it true that Max Weber said that Capitalism cannot be sustained without some tolerance of corruption [Redding, 1990], it is also true that guanxi [connections] is utilitarian [good, while it is useful for the family/company]. Asian companies -with power- -with different national sovereignties- -with no true democracies- ; will be able to levelage covert deals and exploit workforces in ways that are illegal in the West.

The question is will the rich and powerful want to pressure government for to drop our current ideals to compete under globalisation?