Rio Tinto response
There's been a stout-worded response from the Australian government to the handed down against the former Rio Tinto mining executive, Stern Hu.
This would have been one of the most carefully-calibrated statements of foreign policy since the Rudd government took office, because it clearly wanted to register its disapproval at the severity of the punishment but not in a manner that risked a full-blown diplomatic row.
In recent months, Canberra has worked hard at mending fences with Beijing, which underscored the delicacy of the diplomacy.
Within hours of the verdict, the formulation that Foreign Affairs minister Stephen Smith delivered to reporters was that the sentence was "tough - very tough". The soft-spoken minister expressed disappointment on two counts: first, the severity of the sentence and second, the fact that the portion of the trial dealing with the alleged theft of commercial secrets was held behind closed doors with Australian diplomats kept outside.
In a stiff rebuke of the Chinese legal system, Mr Smith said that Beijing had "missed an opportunity" to show more openness and transparency. This was an "incorrect decision" that was "not in China's interests". He said that the process raised questions that the international business community would want answered - strongly implying there would be commercial fall-out from the trial.
On the allegations of accepting bribes, Mr Smith said that there was substantial evidence, aside from Stern Hu's admission of guilt on this count, of criminal wrong-doing. Still, he stressed that he thought the sentence was unduly harsh.
Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Australian Greens, has called for Stern Hu to serve out his sentence in an Australian prison. But although Canberra and Beijing have been working on a prisoner exchange agreement, it has not yet come into effect.
It will be interesting to gauge the public reaction. Up until now, the Stern Hu case has failed arouse any great passion. Certainly, there's been none of the outrage that surrounded the case of David Hicks, an Australian convicted in a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay of "providing material support for terrorism". Perhaps it will come, but I have yet to hear any great outcry on talk-back radio, or from the tabloids. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that Stern Hu was born in China and did not become an Australian citizen until 1994.
For its part, Rio Tinto has put as much distance between itself and its former employees as quickly as possible. Within hours of the verdict, it sacked its former employees for what it called "deplorable behaviour". The Anglo-Australian mining giant also said that an external audit conducted after the men's arrest did not uncover any evidence of illegal activity: "Rio Tinto has concluded that the illegal activities were conducted wholly outside our systems".
Rio Tinto made no comment on the severity of the sentences, and the company's chief executive, Tom Albanese, expressed the hope that the guilty verdicts would not prevent it from continuing to build its relationship with China. Like we said last week, Rio Tinto is hoping it's business as usual.
You can get Rio Tinto's
UPDATE, TUESDAY 0600BST:
I just wanted to give some morning-after reaction to the Stern Hu verdict. Here's from the business journalist, Ian Verrender, published in the Sydney Morning Herald print edition under the headline, 'Hu just roadkill on the economic superhighway".
Both echoing and amplifying one of the central criticisms of the Australian government, the paper editorialises that "what has been lost... is any previous respect for China's efforts to improve the professionalism, transparency and rationality of its judicial system". The Australian says that the verdict sends a "clear signal that China will not countenance corrupt practices from foreigners or nationals alike", and also criticises the lack of transparency.
In a short editorial, the Melbourne Herald Sun says the sentence "appears harsh", and notes that the Chinese government "missed an opportunity to demonstrate openness in its dealings with a major trading partner".
As if to demonstrate the lack of an obvious tabloid angle on this story, Sydney's Daily Telegraph does not editorialise on the sentence and relegates the story to page 5. The front page is dominated by a story about calls for stronger drink laws. At the foot of the front page is the headline: "100th Boat Arrives: PM's Refugee Crisis Deepens >>p2-3".
The tabloid television news shows, meanwhile, are still focusing on the allegations of misconduct on the set of Hey Dad!, a 1980s television sit-com.
Driving to work this morning, the most outrage to emanate from my radio was generated by the news that international Twenty20 cricket will now move from the Sydney Cricket Ground to the Olympic Stadium at ±«Óãtvbush (many Sydneysiders regard this as the outskirts of the city, but it has become its geographical centre because of the creep of the cul-de-sacs into the countryside). "A soulless game played at a soulless venue," in the words of one caller.
One of the most interesting strands of the Stern Hu story will be how Rio Tinto responds to the finding from the judge in Shanghai that Stern Hu passed on what the court regarded as commercial secrets to the company. By sacking the four men, Rio Tinto obviously moved quickly to distance itself from its former employees, and the charges against them - the Anglo-Australian mining giant described their behaviour as "deplorable". But the statement released in the aftermath of the verdict has not addressed the issue of the theft of commercial secrets. The statement notes: "Rio Tinto is unable to comment on the charge regarding obtaining commercial secrets as it has not had the opportunity to consider the evidence. That part of the trial was held in closed court and no details of the case were made public until the verdicts and sentences were announced today."
As I write, Rio Tinto is in the process of going through the ruling and formulating its response. I will keep you posted.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.