For those who have not been following the news about Stern Hu, here are some links:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25784189-5013871,00.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aCVVjnULkWcA

Stern Hu is a Chinese born Australian executive with Rio Tinto. He was based in Shanghai. The Chinese authorities arrested him and charged him with bribery. He is currently in custody in China.

Most Australian pundits have been working on the assumption that Mr Hu is an innocent victim of Chinese bloody-mindedness.

Perhaps. In fact, probably.

But then again, perhaps not. Perhaps the Chinese authorities really do have a case. It's not as if companies never resort to bribery.

Anyone got any thoughts

My main concern in this is that we will never be in a position to find out.

If bribery did take place, it is unlikely that Rio Tinto would leave any kind of paper trail. If they didn't, Hu's toast.

And he will be hung out to dry by the company, leaving Kevin Rudd with a delicate political problem, balancing the clamour to "bring our boy back home" with the need to respect the legal system of a foreign country.

If the Chinese courts find him guilty and give him a death sentence - which is an option open to them for thse charges - that will add another "but we don't hang our people for the same offence" fracas, like the ones we have periodically with places like Indonesia.

If Rio did leave a paper trail, our Mr Rudd will have an extra level of pain to contend with. The negotiations would not only cover the personal story, but have trade implications too. That particular loss of face could cost us billions over the next few years, as prices are struck while we are on the ethical "back foot"

In either of the above scenarios, we may never be privy to any truths that emerge, if the two countries decide to resolve one or the other behind closed doors. Which, given the i) loss of face and ii) trade implications, they may well choose to do.

Given all of that, one outcome that I doubt we will see is that (our) Mr Hu will be handed back to us, cleared of all charges, and with an apology from the Chinese government for the inconvenience caused.

If that happens, I will take my hat off to Kevin Rudd, master diplomat.

Then I'll eat it.

just like nuttall takes bribes..[so too do petty oficials the world over]..miners are renowned for their generosity..of course he is guilty...for gods sake look at who is yelling the loudest..an ex banker..now a politition...who's liberal party has gained hansomly from the same largess...

just like nattall...just like mining does globally...its the same same...even kevin needs/thinks to bribe the pope with wine...every time they go visiting anyone..the bear gifts..be it ugly apec clothing...or cash..its the..[their]..game-plan...man

Who knows? Who cares?

Hu is probably an 'Australian of convenience' anyway. But the fact that they have now arrested three more Chinese nationals working for the same company might just bear out what one China watcher said: the Chinese have spat the dummy because of recent Australian Government knock-backs to their attempts to make further inroads into Australian mining ownership.

China is a very nasty country, with no regard for Australia or any other country they deal with. China only deals with us because it has no choice. It's about time we started called a few shots for a change.

In the meantime, no sympathy should be wasted in Hu, who should no all about China's methods.

I'm very surprised to hear so much from the Opposition in term of "Mr Rudd should get on the phone to the Chinese Premier". My question is "And say what?" I also wonder if there would be so much uproar if it were me -a little old grandma who had broken a law in say,Switzerland?

Steven,
I'm on the fence here. I think that in the wash up of recent arrests, cancellations of trading rights I think it is indeed possible that he is 'guilty' of industrial espionage.
What we have here is a conflict of interests and cultures. Expectation of "greasing the wheels" is common in China (power for selfish reasons.A parallel could be drawn with Gordon Nuttal's abuse of power. I withdrew from a business venture there when we were confronted with the need to do so.
The conflict of interest comes from the PRC's involvement in business and drawing issues like strategic from what is I am led to believe common practice.
Hu to my mind made the error of not seeing the govt's interest in the iron ore negotiations. (one should not the reasons for the license cancellations. I wonder how much the rejection of the failed buy in to our iron ore supplies had to do with the subsequent PRC actions. The CCP is inclined to be extremely self obsessed and inclined to play brinkmanship....e.g. Taiwan.
I'm not surprised and view this as part of dealing with with a regime like exists in China i.e. one that overtly mixes politics with business. Singapore is at one end of the continuum and Nth Korea at the other.