The Federal Opposition has been howling over Kevin Rudd not directly contacting his Chinese counterpart to secure the release of Rio Tinto executive Stern Hu as he claimed to have a special interest in China. The argument is that while Hu has been detained accused of espionage, he should not be held without charge by a foreign power that may be violating his human rights, on the basis that he is an Australian national.
While many valid diplomatic reasons for Rudd to not take this course of action, the Coalition seem not agree. Within the past decade however the Coalition took a similar stance as that of Rudd over another high profile Australian detainee by a foreign power.
Australian national David Hicks was captured as an enemy combatant in Afghanistan and held without trial in the American Guantanamo Bay Prison located in Cuba. During this time, Hicks was tortured and had his human rights violated. The then Prime Minister John Howard had a demonstrably close relationship with US President George W. Bush. Despite this, Hicks was held in Guantanamo for over five years.
Where were the personal representations by Howard to secure the release of Hicks until brought to trial? I have no doubt the two discussed Hicks. Clearly there were diplomatic reasons why Hicks languished in a foreign prison rather than being brought home. It is obvious that Howard did not petition Bush on behalf of the then unconvicted Australian national.
Rudd does not have a personal friendship with the detaining country’s head of state like Howard did. In fact the entire diplomatic relationship in both cases is fundamentally different. Interpretations that Rudd claimed his election would make a close ally of China are clearly misguided. Rudd made indication that he intended or thought that China would be our new America in diplomatic terms. Rudd’s claim was in the strength of the diplomacy, not the relation itself.
So what makes the case of Hu so different that there is an imperative for the highest level representations on his behalf for the Coalition? What has changed in less than a decade for the human rights of an individual be worth violating sensible diplomacy with a volatile neighbour when the same was not done with little diplomatic risk dealing with a close ally?
Posts
