Do we need to be concerned? is the news we read daily any different than other governments?
It has always been true that sponsored travel when highlighted leaves a bad taste in the publics mouth.
Not in my view unlike Doctors getting favors for pushing items.
However is it wrong? would we want to pay for that travel?
The links with China are important to us, we have to face facts, that country is bound for world financial leadership, maybe far more.
Given Rudd's polling it seems clear fear tactics is not selling to voters.
And given the sub servant relationship Howard had with America the opposition may yet again be fishing in a dry pond.
A poll in the Australian said 56% of readers did not think defense minister should be sacked.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

The way I see it, the very real danger is common to ALL politicians here in Oz, their utter naivety in relationship to China's political sophistication and deviousness. How that plays out in the long run remains to be seen, but off-hand I'd say not well, for us.
Rudd and his posse SEEM to be babes in the woods, but we can't know for sure. Their cap in hand approach to the Corporates doesn't bode well though. I'm not overly concerned about anything beyond the commercial field, no "Reds under the bed" or "Yellow Peril", but their commercial and political arms are so thoroughly enmeshed, and corrupt, that we will need to issue our Glorious Leaders chastity belts if we want to make any money out of the connections.

Dear Belly, I think the real issue is the failure to disclose the funded trip on the ficuniary interests statement and the subsequent denial. The minister certainly knew the trip had taken place and that it was certainly paid for by a third party, it was a deliberate omission.

In the private sector, such "gifts" to employees have been banned, those that are approved as part of business activities are taxed under the fringe benefits tax rules, and declared as employee emoluments in the annual finacial report.

The issues of who, what, where, when and why are totally irrelevent, the Minister lied by omission, then lied again when asked disrectly.

The minister lied, yep no defense from me.
But he is a very small part of the issue, he seems to have fallen foul of his department, any effort to stir them from slumber has always done that.
C J Morgan sees fire, another says Rudd's mob are unaware of Chinas sneakiness.
Just maybe, in fact surely? we are just as sneaky.
This is not a Labor problem, if it is a problem, ministers in the Howard government took many sponsored trips, one at least paid for by AWB.
China is emerging as a real force in the world, generations of world leaders have looked for closer ties with such through out history.
I have to be open here, I support Fizgibon in his fight with the defense department.
Not however in his lie, and remember he was very strongly on Lathams team, and said anti union things without much respect for workers.
I think China like it or not is better now than 20 years ago and it may get better.

Dear Belly,

The China trip - is another media blow up - instigated
by the Opposition in an attempt to discredit the Government
at a time when the Government appears to be making great
headway in the popularity stakes both domestically and
internationally. But I guess that's the job of the Opposition
in Australia, as they see it.

As far as China is concerned - it is a
world power - which can't be ignored - to ignore it today would be a great economic disaster. China will open up even more through her
dealings with the West.

Foxy, Fitzgibbon failed twice to fill in the register, once in 2002 and again in 2005. When this came to light recently he attempted to obfuscate, and only only then had to come clean. This man has no-one to blame but himself.

Along with Rudd keeping secret his meeting with the Chinese Propaganda Minister from Oz media while allowing the Chinese 'free' press to cover the visit, it's the govt. who have made a rod for their own backs here. Just clumsy.

Rather than the 60 days grace given MP's to report their junkets, I'd like to see mandatory disclosure of paid-for visits before they flew out. Might make a few of them think twice about going.

Belly, never mind any China trips, they simply don't matter.

What really matters is how the Govt will decide on the Chinalco-
Rio deal.

Robert Gottliebson read and analysed the 600 pages of the contract:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Tue-$pd20090313-Q3QXH?OpenDocument

What it comes down to is that the Chinese are great chess players
and want cheaper resources. Chinalco is owned by the Chinese
Govt. If that deal goes through as agreed so far, the Chinese
will largely control the price of Australian iron ore and
Australians will have been done like a dinner on the spit!

We'll see if Wayne Swan is gullible and stupid enough to accept it,
or to see the clear Chinese grab here, much to Australia's loss.

Well yabby I too feel very much like you on the sale issue.
But we may both be wrong.
Did we stand in the way of Japan owning so much?
Or the Arab states?
America? even England and Holland own much of our country, why are we supper sensitive about China?
The opposition Foxy is sliding back wards into a huge hole of their own making.
Palimpsest grabs this story with both hands, it however is not about two trips, it is about both a beat up story from an opposition without direction.
And an expression of real concern held by many on all sides of politics about Chinas long term plans.
If travel for the last 20 years was tabled we all would be concerned, fact is this government and the last get such gifts very often.
Foxy while this is fishing in a very dry pond, there are things that need looking into.
It is common business practice to get free travel in the hope of favors being returned.
Any over protection of the party you follow can lead to stagnation and a loss of direction, just look at the humbling of the opposition, if 74% think Rudd is better 30% are Liberal voters.

Dear Belly, you asked the question, "Did we stand in the way of Japan owning so much? Or the Arab states? America? even England and Holland own much of our country, why are we supper sensitive about China?"

The difference between China and the other nations you mention is that China is both the company in question and the State. The other countries you mention might have companies based there but not owned by the State.

You said to Foxy, "It is common business practice to get free travel in the hope of favors being returned." This simply not true, any such activity ceased in the private sector with the introduction of the "Fringe Benefits Tax". So why are politicians exempt?

This is not a matter of Liberal or labor, it applies to all politicians.

The rhetoric of the Labour parties concern for human rights is unmasked in this hypocrisy. They have shown to be a party to put popularity even above their own warped principles. Unfortunately I doubt Mr Turnbull is any different. The sooner the Liberal party wake up to this the better.

*Did we stand in the way of Japan owning so much?*

Well this is quite different, as its the Chinese Govt
investing, not some company.

The Chinese Govt wants cheap resources and lots of them.
At the moment, due to the banking crisis, they can pick
up prime assets dirt cheap.

Australia got done like a dinner, when then Japanese
were able to buy iron ore for a song, for years, as
the market was kind of rigged. Finally we get some
competition in the market, ie China, now it looks like
we will get done like a dinner once again, by smarter
negotiators.

The losers will be all Australians, as less royalties
will be paid on resources, less company taxes, etc.
Less money for roads, less money for pensioners etc.

Kind of sad really, but we'll see if Swan is awake
or not, as Gottliebson's findings have been widely
published.

Belly, Chinalco= Chinese govt. As controller of Rio Tinto and Rio's major customer there is a problem. See yabby and spindoc above.

My fear is that Rudd is using the Ozmetals case as a smokescreen and they will ok the Rio bid. "see look how tough we were.."

Bell, you started this thread by saying you agreed that for Fitzgibbon there was no defense but in your last post offered a defense for him to hide behind ie it's all about the opposition. There is no defense.

I'm with Yabby on this (yes, really). Robert Gottleibson is an extremely astute business analyst, and we need to be vigilant about exactly what we let the Chinese (or anyone else, for that matter, but especially China) take over. Australia will be bled dry for its resources, and a few years down the track we will all step back, look at how much in debt Australia is to China, and be asking "what the hell happened?".

As for Fitzgibbon's junkets - public servants of all levels in all jurisdictions are specifically precluded from accepting "freebies" (bribes), and we should be able to hold politicians to a higher standard. It's a pity we can't - on both sides.

Nicky

Yabby is right on this one.China is presently buying up a lot of rural land.With the need for food and bio-fuels land will be like oil.

You don't sell up income earning assets.We Aussies are living in a fool's paradise.It is time to bite the bullet,work harder,reduce debt and stop the inflationary stimulus packages.Eventually will we have hyper-inflation,shortages,high interest rates,high unemployment and an economy in ruin.We all will then be in absolute economic slavery with no hope of escape.

I think Joel Fitzgibbon's multiple failures to disclose and his brazen lying when caught out do indeed constitute a sackable offence.

Rudd is following in Howard's footsteps on this one. They both made a song and dance about accountability when pitching for government, and talked loudly of the high standards they would expect of their ministers. Yet, when breaches have occurred, both have failed to follow through with incisive action and to demand resignations.

In my view, this incident has weakened Rudd's integrity. Howard had none to begin with, so we didn't expect any better, but with Rudd I think we did.

I haven't any evidence, but my gut reaction to Rudd's failure to act is that he's possibly not squeaky clean in this area himself. It looked to me as though he went soft on Fitzgibbon to avoid the risk of his minister in turn spilling the beans on some of his own trips, paid lunches or whatever.

I agree with CJ. There's no such thing as a free lunch. All these corporate freebies are attempts to buy influence and politicians should reject them.

I am sorry .but I am now getting a big grin out of the thread.
Bronwyn even says Rudd is ,well , what she says is not supported by polling.
Yesterdays Australian asked the question, is the government too close to China?
The wording may not be right but its close,56% said no, hardly an ALP paper, hardly biased, but Representative of voters.
18% thats the amount they want to buy, not a controlling interest, fact is we do not own Rio tinto!
Her Majesty the queen of England is a major share holder, maybe owns more than any Australian.
Some of our biggest mining interests can never be sold to China, other foreign owners will not sell to them.

Belly

"I am sorry but I am now getting a big grin out of the thread. Bronwyn even says Rudd is ,well , what she says is not supported by polling. Yesterdays Australian asked the question, is the government too close to China? The wording may not be right but its close,56% said no, hardly an ALP paper, hardly biased, but Representative of voters."

Belly, if you're going to sling off at other posters comments, you need to present some sort of coherent reasoning.

My post referred solely to government accountability. I didn't mention China, so I'm not sure why you're linking my comments with a poll on our relationship with that particular country.

You seem to be implying that government transparency isn't important when the likely economic gain is a large one, as it is with China. That's a slippery slope position that inevitably leads to corruption. It makes no difference to me what country we're dealing with. Government representatives should at all costs avoid bribes, freebies and corporate largess.

And if you find that so amusing, Belly, please try and explain why.

*18% thats the amount they want to buy, not a controlling interest,*

Ah Belly, but the devil is in the 600 pages of details, this is
not just about buying an 18% minority stake. That is the problem.
Its about power within managment, to select management in the first
place, etc.

It is not one clause in that 600 pages, but cumulatively what will
happen with all those clauses. That is exactly what Gottliebson
has raised.

Still amused at the thought Labor is doing any thing wrong with being close to China.
That we all understand trade is good for us, but not with some?
That so much of our country is owned by over seas firms, that we even look for foreign investments , but not this one.
I just can not except this is a threat, and wonder constantly how conservative Australia can not see they gain nothing by looking for yellow peril in this.

Belly, I'm afraid that Yabby and Bronwyn are both right here, if from different perspectives. 56% of the people saying that Australia is not too close to China suggests (assuming there is no "don't know, don't care" percentage) that 44% of the people believe that we are. And this is where Yabby is right. How many people will read the detail as proposed by Gottleibson? He is someone we should be listening to before it's too late. 18% may not seem to be anything to worry about now, but who knows what backroom deals take place over time?

Bronwyn is right too; it appears that far too many politicians of all persuasions have "skeletons in their closets", and Rudd made a lot of noise about standards of conduct which he now seems reluctant to enforce. That suggests to me that he may well be hiding certain "skeletons" of his own. As Bronwyn said, we didn't expect any better of Howard and Co., that's why he, and they, got voted out.

I believe that all political donations, in money or in kind, should be subject to full public disclosure so that we can make properly informed decisions about whether these are fit and proper people to be holding office in this country.

Nicky

Belly, this has nothing to do with the peril. Fortesque have
just taken on a 15% investment from the Chinese, on very
different terms. ie. just like normal shareholders.

That is not the case with the Chinalco- Rio deal. Lawyers
write 600 pages for good reasons lol, they don't want anyone
to bother reading the details. Its in those details that
the problems lie, which would cost you and other Australians,
billions. With 18%, the Chinese Govt would control the destiny
of Rio and of the price of many raw materials that they source
from Australia. Their interest is not the same as that of
normal shareholders, who want companies to make profits
and thus pay royalties and taxes. The Chinese Govt wants
el cheapo raw materials on masse for the future. The money
invested in Rio hardly matters. See the big picture here.

In my humble opinion you should not open your own business
Belly, the sharks would sink you in a jiffy :) I mean
that nicely.

yabby you may be right, I once ran a business, did not make a lot of money, but did not leave owing anyone, including my workers.
We, Australia, do not own Rio tinto, we do not any longer own the products it mines, did we ever?
Foreign investment has driven mining here for a very long time.
Without it we stop developing, go back wards.
yes true, I too am concerned about this, any country owning our future, but why China alone?
We are a a very small part in world trade, China is bound for the top of that tree, do we stand on our fear seemingly based on just China?
Quote away but for every expert who says no another supports the sale.
Lets watch the G20 closely, it may well bring news that will make a difference.
But be prepared to be even more concerned about Chinas rise, if it concerns you, much more fear is on the way.
American greed has tipped us all out of the boat.

Ms. Liu has close ties with the Chinese Government and with the Peoples' Liberation Army. Her father was a General, and she hails from Shandong, the province producing most of the high ranking military officers. She would naturally 'socialise' and chat with them about her Australian connections.

The ladies might think that Joel Fitzgibbon is an attractive man. But I don't think that Ms. Liu favoured him because of that. The free trips must be regarded as sinister, given the Defence Minister's postion and Ms. Liu's standing with the Chinese Government and with the PLA.

I note PM Krudd's recent comments whilst in n.america that something like:

" Whilst they (the red chinese leadership) have done bad things in the past ... yada yada yada? "

What about the present? Only days ago they wheel out their bogus tibetan lama boy, to spout red chinese propaganda. The political Tai Chi practitioners, the "dissidents" in asylums, verily anyone who has a differing view to the 9, those used for spare body parts ..

Does this mean nothing to those of you who have some kind of religious or spiritual concept, or even just a healthy secular Human Rights viewpoint?

Alas that you will not sup with "us" and accept the likes of Green Browny? How different things could be.

Tis not a question of not trading with them, but rather insisting on basic internationally accepted norms.

But you know, Human Rights for all is not as profitable. True. A more equitable distribution for the chinese workers would mean less profits for business, as higher prices given the majority have already been milked is not really an option.

But like the slavers of old, some members of the business community will oppose purely and simply because of this and because they simply care not for the plight of others.

Belly, I think you will find that Rio is listed on both the ASX
and London, as it has shareholders, mainly super funds, in both
places. Lots of mum and dad invstors too, just not as many
as some other companies.

The money from Chinalco is not for Australian development, but
to pay off a bad management decision, when they overpaid for
Alcan in Canada.

Rio pays tax in Australia, royalties on what is mined, so the
full value of those products matters to all Australians.

I and others are not saying that China should not invest, just
that this particular deal seems to be a rort. If the Chinese
want 18% of Rio, they are free to buy it like anyone else, without
600 pages of conditions, with which they would effectively be able
to sway the price of Australian resources.

This is a Chinese strategic Govt deal, not a Chinese investment
deal.
Big difference!

yabby as always I respect your opinion, and understand it too.
this however is not unlike the fears expressed when Japan bought into our country, or for that matter America.
Some claims seem to say Labor has sold us out, others that they have been hood winked by Chinese intrigue.
I think America England ,us every country in the world acts in its own best interests.
I do not think China is any worse than America at this self interest game.
Not for a second do I like selling any of my country, but thats what international trade is about.
That is why we, like too many country's no longer have a manufacturing industry.
This crisis, this could be total destruction of our financial system, needs Chinas dollars.
America needs them, stunning as it sounds without them it will fail.
The people who miss managed Rio , who refused BHPs offer in better times asked to sell, need to sell, what other answer is there?

*Not for a second do I like selling any of my country, but thats what international trade is about.*

Not really, this in my opinion is more about Australian stupidity.
Much has changed in the last 20 years. Just think of the total wages
paid every day in Australia. 9% of that accumulates in super funds.
It is a huge amount of money. Money that could be used to own
and develop Australian resources. But as super fund manager are
paid on next quarters figures, that is how they think, bugger the
long term.

*That is why we, like too many country's no longer have a manufacturing industry.*

We have little manufacturing as we are not very good at it, yet
we are very good at mining efficiently. But if the price that we
receive for those products is distorted by a corrupt market,
then we can only conclude that Aussies were too stupid to
market their own primary products with any kind of intelligence.
I'm very sad to say that, but we have to face reality sometimes.

*America needs them, stunning as it sounds without them it will fail.*

Some will argue with you on that one. Dick Chaney made it plain that
the US Dollar was not America's problem, but everybody elses.
All US borrowings are in US $. If China and Japan pulled out of
supporting the US$ tomorrow, their savings would vanish and so would
their market. Both countries tried to manipulate the market by keeping
their currencies low. Do no forget, the US $ is the default currency.

If needbe, the US could simply print any amount of $ to pay any debts.
Not so Australia, as ours is not the default currency.

That is why China is nervous and now thinks that investing in
resources might be better then holding US $.

Yabby "We are not good at manufacturing."You have very limited vision.The Chinese manufacturer next to me employed 3 workers here 2yrs ago, but descided to go china and employed 20 people for the same cost without all the regulation ,legal disease etc.He pays his skilled workers $1.00 per hour Aust and they work really hard for the priviledge of existing.

Yabby,we are not good at manufacturing because we believe in fairness and not putting our people in economic slavery.

*Yabby,we are not good at manufacturing because we believe in fairness*

Arjay, if that was the case, Australians would be rushing
to buy Australian made products, even if they cost more.

Clearly that is not the case, so the more honest truth is
perhaps that everyone wants to earn a high salary, but
pay as little as possible for the goods that they buy.
Sadly, people act out of self interest, so perhaps your
"fairness" slogan is more a bit of rhetoric then the reality
that we see around us.

As a side issue, well part of this debate the Australian yesterday had a story on Joel .
It defended him.
The comments made for a good read, Worth a look.
I am not as sure as you yabby about America, more than pleased with it new leader, happy he will do far better than most.
But not sure he can bring that country's greed down, in fact I am unsure if America is any better than China as an owner of our country's resources.
Manufacturing, it is a victim of world trade, free trade we do not support it as other country's can sell us items cheaper than we can make them.
We export your sheep because your market wants to buy them that way.
Arjay has a point, so do you, we can not reduce wages and living conditions so we can compete, sadly we do not in numbers big enough, buy Australian.
I do, when ever possible, but thats not always easy.
Bulk sliced potato chips had [before my diet] made in Australia on the box, and made in Germany on the food.
China will invest we will be a little concerned but the last 50 years have taken us in different directions.
The next 50 will too, maybe one day we will consider ourselves one world one people.

Leigh

"The free trips must be regarded as sinister, given the Defence Minister's postion and Ms. Liu's standing with the Chinese Government and with the PLA."

When's the invasion Leigh? I keep looking out the window for signs of yellow men, but I haven't caught sight of any yet.

Truly Spikey you and I should be pleased with the remarks made here.
It is very clear some want to have a go at Labor so badly they ignore history.
Tony Abbots remarks are nearly as funny as the Abbot we expect to be funny.
Sadly however he degrades his party with those comments.
This debate has great importance to Australia, just what do we want from our relationship with China?
Free trips? surely we understand, the Medea understands, indeed knows, hundreds of free or sponsored trips have taken place?
If we could only be made aware of those trips from both sides that have been notified in the last two governments would we have reason to be concerned?
You betcha.

*as other country's can sell us items cheaper than we can make them.*

Belly, just this morning I read an article where Dr Markus Miele
gave a speech in Perth. Miele make German appliances in Germany
(high wages) to sell in world markets. They don't compete on price
but on quality, with the aim that their appliances last for 20 years.

Given that Germany is the world's largest exporter, the theory that
price because of low wages is everything, is not correct.

I still have a cartoon hanging up somewhere, which kind of says it
all. At a trade show were 3 stands. The German one read "buy German
if you want the best" The Japanese one read "buy Japanese if you
want the latest" The Australian one read "buy Australian, we need
the money" .

I regret not being able to follow this thread earlier.

Belly, your hunch was closer than you suggested yourself: Queenie HRH Liz IS the largest non-institutional shareholder in Rio. A belated salute too for your fair-minded, patriotic and rather isolated stand here...

Funny too that some people hold this notion that Chinalco is an intrinsically and/or potentially threatening interest because it is state-owned. What if entities like Rio Tinto, HSBC, Goldman, etc., amount to transnational firms with imperialist, octopus-like reach? Should we not regard that as far more threatening and inimical to national security and sovereignty? What would Turnbull say there? (chortle, spew).

At least with Chinalco, that firm's potential conduct with Australian resources would compel direct responsibilities and accountabilities due to the attached diplomatic concerns and overt, overriding context of "national interests". Forget about any such safeguards - or concerns - with voracious monsters like Rio, etc.!

Thanks mil-observer we both did not mention the Dutch royal family's ownership of so much.
I am without shame ALP to the boot straps.
Not the fawning ones in suits at the front of the bus, seeking a bigger role.
In fact I may be found out the back pushing it.
But without bias, without doubt, or fear, Turnbull and his team in my view are indeed fishing in a dry pond on this issue.
And just maybe being dishonest, I firmly hold the view Turnbull in government would agree with a great deal of things he opposes in opposition.
Strange to recommend such a conservative news paper but some truly informative story's have appeared in the Australian on this issue.

Well, the Murdoch organs have an interest in garnering some republican readers too, at least so that oligarchs like Rupert himself (and "minimalist" republican Turnbull too) can ensure the more effective imperial-liberalist tenure on Australia's riches via less official and overt means i.e., the English/Dutch-based finance sector and its supra-national bodies like the recently pumped-up IMF slush-cum-clearing house of toxic hedge fund waste.

As for me: I fear that I was kicked off the ALP bus long ago, along with the (more discreetly jettisoned) coffins of Lang, Curtin, and Chif.

The rot really began to set in when Malcolm Fraser liberalised the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act after the Whitlam Government was booted out.

Had the Whitlam Government not been drive out of office by our wealthy elite and Minister for Minerals and Energy Rex Connor instead been allowed to proceed with his plans to buy back the farm and make Australia Energy self-sufficient we would not be in the mess we are in today.

However, instead, Australia is being turned a colony as we speak.

Whilst the fact the foreign mining company Rio-Tinto owns so much of the mineral wealth that was once ours is already very bad, having that company changed into one largely controlled by a Chinese would make a bad situation worse.

Another alarming development not mentioned much these days are the plans to build a massive, polluting, climate-changing government aluminium smelter on wetlands just to the north of Bowen in northern Queensland. This will practically guarantee the destruction of those wetlands. It is to be owned and operated by Chalco, owned by the Chinese Government.

The story, "Bowen a sure thing for Chalco", of 26 Jun 08 reported:

"... schools discussed the possibility of introducing the Chinese language into their curricula to expand job opportunities for students."

If the necessity of learning a foreign language in order to be able to secure employment in your own town is not a symptom of colonisation, then what is?

For more information, see "Stop the sell-off of Australia's mineral wealth!" at http://candobetter.org/node/1171 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/03/31/more-on-the-yellow-peril/#comment-679127

While this board is being kept busy with sheeple's opinions, this country is being sold out from under us by collectivists.As this forum requires opinions, this is my opinion: "Water is sold off, Food production is being tampered with,(GMO's and Radiation) Phone and power is not owned by the people....Jobs are going overseas, next our TOTAL freedom is gone! Scaremongering is their game (GW), now the masses are openly told the NWO is here! They are right and we the sheeple let it happen. Who will stand up and become a real leader? Any on this forum? Maybe the FFI will straighten you all out." http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/videos/video.cfm?&player=An_Idea_Whose_Time_Has_Come

I just must challenge eftfnc,s view we are sheeple.
That the great unwashed who think differently do so because we blindly follow our party/leaders/the wrong people.
Rarely are people with such views right.
The idea others who we disagree with must be wrong is amusing.
Let us however look at the differing impacts of China, if we lived in one of those African country's China is involved with.
Fighting illness, bringing water and food, yes self interest for sure.
But how would it be different to England in India?
Holland in Asia?
America in south America?

Baaa...baaa...yellow (peril) sheep.

Sudan has just recently opened its hydrolectric dam built with Chinese aid in a deal promising a return of oil for China. Meanwhile, a phoney insurgency keeps going via Darfur, with the extra-judicial and (largely) Soros-initiated and -funded ICC trying to claim the scalp of Sudan's leader. Very sickening, given that his is the government that brought Sudan three universities and over 90 schools, whereas before there was hardly any education system (and certainly no uni).

Then the rest of Africa sees another foreign-backed destabilization: this time Rwanda-based against the Congo. Why? Because that country too has persisted with Chinese development projects.

It makes me feel uneasy describing this because the prevailing outlandish anti-Chinese hate propaganda in the west compels me to reply with the very positive facts - facts which would seem, by contrast, to be bombastic propaganda themselves! Problem nowadays is that China's pursuit of just, civilized development and common welfare is such a positive force, in stark opposition to nasty debt regimes that have kept regions like Africa in particular (and East Timor for a closer example) down in the dark ages, and so obviously as a matter of callous, deliberate policy of ruthless exploitation and "We win You lose" barbarism.

If Australia continues to saddle itself with the harebrained, nasty schemes of western financiers, while avoiding such positive force for the common good as in China's example, there can be little doubt that such myopic and monetarist approaches will need many decades, if not centuries, of diplomatic repair work in our region.

Thank you, mill-observer for your learned pronouncements about the rights and wrongs of the various international conflicts that confront us.

It appears that the Chinese are knights in shining armour and whichever governments they choose to back are forces for incomparable good in the world and whichever governments or insurgencies stand opposed to those governments are forces for incomparable evil. (Let's not get too fixated on minor concerns such as Chinese textile exports wiping much of the Africa's textile manufacturing as well as Australia's, shan't we?).

So, now that mil-observer has set the record straight, let's all join in and cheer on the Chinese buyouts of our mining companies which are only being contemplated by the Chinese for no reason other than to free us from the clutches of western financiers and let's demand that many more Chalco controlled aluminium smelters on our shores to be powered by yet more privatised, Chinese-owned electricity generators.

(Sorry, the last sentence in the above post was incomplete. The end of it should have read:)

... and let's demand that many more Chalco controlled aluminium smelters on our shores, to be powered by yet more privatised, Chinese-owned electricity generators, be built.

Hooray for daggett. Yes, it'd be good to see more aluminium smelters and electricity plants built in Australia (preferably of the pebble-bed nuclear variety as already operating in China itself).

But it seems strange reading the "Chinese are knights in shining armour" comment: I'm sure some small minority of Chinese are just that at some time - when doing fancy dress, for example.

I dispute the "incomparable good" and "incomparable evil" stuff too; I think there are actually very useful historical comparisons to be drawn between current strategic circumstances and past international struggles and diplomacy along the Good-Evil spectrum. That moral issue is not just unique to anti-imperialism of today.

I also doubt whether "Chinese textile exports wiping much of the [sic] Africa's textile manufacturing" would be a "minor concern". But then, if that did happen it would first be a fault of free trade ideology and its near-compulsory abolition of tariffs. And the effects of such unbalanced production and market trends leave China itself very vulnerable too, as seen first with the drastic reduction of China's toy manufacturing last year.

Oh, but one big correction: daggett comments about "OUR mining companies". As Belly and I have well established over Rio, the ownership is not "ours" unless "we" is meant to cover the near-exclusive identities of British, Dutch and allied western monarchs and oligarchs.

In that sense now daggett, do tell: did they award you some kind of peerage yet for your sterling promotional work on "Malthusian depopulation"? If not, hang in there. All it may need is a suitably poisonous tirade against China's population size.

Mil-ob wrote, "... do tell: did they award you some kind of peerage yet for your sterling promotional work on 'Malthusian depopulation'?"

I think others may need to be briefed on the hidden meanings in this rather cute and "succinct(ly) complex" piece of polemical writing. Clues can be found if one follows the tangents at the end of the (now discontinued) discussion "What's wrong with 'Islamophobia'":

"... feudal snobs princes Charles and Philip ... advocate 'depopulation' (daggett's euphemism 'population stability')? Well, the issue is about people, and the the toxic resentment - indeed spite - felt by the privileged mediocre and in-bred towards most of the planet's generally more capable and dynamic persons." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8326&page=33#136226)

Of course, it necessarily follows that everyone else who shares the views of princes Phillip and Charles on population must necessarily be elitist snobs like them.

Of course, mil-ob has not substantiated his charge that they advocate 'de-population' and (elsewhere) 'genocide' with a single direct quote.

Mil-ob continued, "If not, hang in there. All it may need is a suitably poisonous tirade against China's population size."

Any suggestion that China's population size of 1.4 billion may pose unacceptable demands upon the world's eco-system cannot be countenanced, nor any suggestion that anything be done to restrain further growth in its population.

Evidently, mil-ob means to pre-empt any hint of a suggestion that China's current population of 1.4billion poses any kind of a problem to the world's environment or that anything should be done to restrain it from growing further.

Mil-ob just just happens to know that there are easy technological fixes to all the looming resource shortages crises, an example being the use of nuclear power to desalinate sea water in sufficient volumes to replace the subterranean water supplies upon which India's agriculture now depends, when they inevitably run dry (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8326&page=31#136387).

Thus preventing the birth of a single baby into a world which can easily cater to all its needs is deemed 'anti-human' and 'elitist'.

---

I think it's safe to conclude that such views are every bit as deluded and dangerous as any religious fanaticism.

daggett: "...everyone else who shares the views of princes Phillip and Charles on population...mil-ob has not substantiated his charge that they advocate 'de-population' and (elsewhere) 'genocide' with a single direct quote."

As if I must have been somehow lying!

Here you go then dag - first Google hit out of 39,000 searching on "prince philip" and "population":
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3908588.ece

Then there's the second hit covering many quotes from His Royal Dull-Brained Scumbag's fantasies about becoming a "deadly virus", and denouncing humanity in places like Sri Lanka where population tripled after eradication of malaria!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/100604_prince_philip.html

You're in very swampy, smelly company there dag.

But to return to topic: here's hoping on this issue and China that the federal govt can avoid their usual hat-doffing and butt-kissing servility to the constitutionally monarchical parasites like that pampered, parasitic cretin, racist (including anti-Chinese) and WWF chief Prince Philip.

I note that mil has avoided confronting the more substantive points in my last point and, instead, focused on making personal attacks on those he perceives to be easy targets.

Even at that, it is interesting how mil only provided two words directly out of Prince Phillip's own mouth.

Funny how when we allow these people to speak for themselves, instead of putting works into their mouths, they no longer seem to be quite monsters that the likes of mil would have us think they are.

The quote about Prince Phillip being reincarnated as a "deadly virus" was only a fantasy and not an actual practical proposal as far as I could tell.

However, to be brutally frank, if that fantasy became a reality, then it would vastly improve the prospects of the rest of the natural world and those of us who do not end up dying horribly from such a virus, just as the Black Deaths of the first half of this Millennium vastly improved circumstances in Europe.

When people contemplate the alternative of billions of people dying horribly after our life support system has broken down under the weight of human numbers, then it should not be a surprise that some indulge in fantasies such as Prince Phillip did.

However, if mil was the least bit honest, he would have acknowledged that the leaders of the population control movement never wanted it come to that.

To avoid the possibility of a terrible culling by nature of the surplus human population was precisely the reason why they fought so hard to stabilise human population at 4billion, instead of the 6.5billion it has since become.

However, instead, the likes of mil succeeded in deluding people into thinking that overpopulation was not the deadly serious threat it was.

I hope we can pull through the dire predicament we now face without a terrible culling of human numbers by nature.

However, if mil and his ilk succeed today as they did in the 1960's and 1970's, then our prospects of pulling through our current predicament will be even more remote.

Anti-human drivel, pretentiously and verbosely worded as usual. The misrepresentations of myself and the references are par for the course - leveled at every commentator who exposes dag's barbaric excuses for "logic" and "argument". Revealing too (though NOT interesting) that dag avoids entirely Prince Philip's long record of repeat racist insults, preferring instead to stick up for the "poor, oppressed" doddering git. That's what it's come to now: sucking up to feudal overlords. It also suggests some explanation for just why dag shoots off about "Chinese-owned" and anything else "Chinese".

Here's a dag quote for anyone potentially enticed by the sick eugenicist and feudalist cult based around the wholly discredited Malthus:

"...the Black Deaths of the first half of this Millennium vastly improved circumstances in Europe".

Thanks to the heavens that this guy was "the least successful candidate for election to the seat of Mt Coot-tha at the recent Qld election (at) 163 (0.65%)" votes. Still, that's quite a concentration of Malthusian troglodytes regardless!

Mil-ob is clearly clutching at straws:

* More personal abuse,
* A quote deliberately taken out of context,
* Unfounded accusations of anti-Chinese racism,
* A belated 'discovery' that my vote in the recent state elections was not high.

Of course, just as Christopher, Bugsy and Agronomist have failed to respond to my challenge to show why my reasons for standing as a candidate were unsound, I won't be holding my breath waiting for mil-ob to do so either.

---

Mil-ob ranted, "dag avoids entirely Prince Philip's long record of repeat racist insults, preferring instead to stick up for the 'poor, oppressed' doddering git."

Funny that I can't find my own words in here. I certainly don't remember describing Prince Philip as 'poor' and 'oppressed'.

And if Prince Philip is guilty of having made racist insults, let's see the evidence and let's discuss what bearing any of that has on the validity of his views on population.

---

Do tell, mil-ob: where have I misrepresented you?

And please try to show me this time with my own words and not the contents of your own lurid imagination.

I'd normally advise some kind of therapy to someone so afflicted, but it's clear that James Sinnamon is beyond help. It's a syndrome of uber-sophistry apparent in most of his despatches to many others in this forum too; he's pretending to be magistrate in some kind of pedant's courtroom.

You can hardly be unaware that this ploy has already been tried on me many times before, can you, mil-ob?

Just at the point, where it seems to me that I have won the argument I find myself diagnosed as mentally unbalanced.

To be fair, there seems a slightly original variation on that ploy on this occasion.

Instead of being told to 'get help', I learn that I am 'beyond help'.

Now, how about proving to others, that this is not just an attempt to extricate yourself from the seemingly impossible logical bind that you have got yourself into by responding substantively to the points I have made in my previous posts?

Yes, just ignore them James - they've got nothing on you. Yes, you've won an obvious, resounding victory James. Congratulations!

Say hi to the goldfish for me too while you're celebrating that rare, lofty superiority of your logical clarity and mastery of evidence from public discourse and scientific investigation.

[...shivers...]

I didn't think mil-ob would respond to my arguments.

Is anyone surprised?

---

In the second sentence of the third paragraph in my previous post, the words 'to be' are missing. My apologies. It should have read:

"To be fair, there seems to be a slightly original variation on that ploy on this occasion."

I'm no fan of those in england and look forward to a new flag in Oz devoid of that thing in the corner.

However, I do respect the fact that young Harry Winza, son of Charlie Winza, did come out and say, see here this my mate in the chair with no legs. He lost em to red chinese munitions.

And the red chinese say, human rights is not to be connected to trade.
And some ugly australians say, human rights are not to be connected to trade and australia doesn't need to have a bill of rights, or a new constitution with same enshrined within.

Those who are supportive of the rights of the beijing war criminals and human rights abusers should attend a human rights conference and see first hand and hear first hand of what goes on in red china. Then, imagine themselves in a role reversed position. Just absolutely clueless some people in australia. They care for nothing other than themselves and their own if they can profit at the expense of others then all the merrier.