Betrayers unite for personal profit - China's mining investment losses in Australia - switch to food

Nationalistic Australian citizens have voiced concern and opposition to selling more national assets to the Chinese despite the tremendous gains and spinoffs from foreign capital inflow. Aussies are not anti-foreigners as long as foreign ownership is exceeded by US (or a western nation) to offset undesirable influences from another state. 

In reality, Chinese state companies have been reformed since the 1980s and behave like private enterprises though the level of accountability is not well established ... not that all non-Chinese corporations are free from rigidity and unethical conduct. 

http://www.kpmg.com/CN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/demystifying-chinese-investment-O-201207.pdf

In most transactions, the buyer and seller stand to gain or else there is no deal. Cash loaded and enthusiastic, China state owned enterprises have been lured and wooed by the opportunistic firms who are keen to sell.  

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/china-investment-elephant-is-well-and-truly-in-the-room/story-fn59niix-1226452825060

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/chinese-investment-no-threat-20120422-1xf64.html

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Chinese_bids_welcomed_in_42_bn_Australian_asset_sale_999.html


Despite investment restrictions, the Chinese have quite successfully bought up many mine shares to feed its mills back home. From hindsight, this is a blotched plan rather than an achievement. It would not be an overstating Chinese losses in the millions if not billions for purchasing overrated companies, changing market conditions, poor performance and unforeseen results. The true picture is probably less rosy than that painted by the buyers and sellers or what is reported in the media. There are good reasons why officials and business managers want to portray it negatively to cover their folly or mistakes. 

Inevitably, the topic of corruption cannot be evaded. Mistakes cannot be attributed mainly to innocent miscalculation, lack of due diligence and market changes as a result of falling production. Surely the Chinese investors are smarter and the Australian sellers would play harder to get. We may never know how much kickbacks were involved. 

Credit must be given to the Chinese for quick thinking and adjustments. Now, Chinese investors have decided that the mining sector is jinx. It is high time that the government directs investors to diversify into other sectors rather than placing all the bets in fading minerals sector. 


http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/chinese-investors-look-to-diversify-beyond-resources-sector/story-fnbdkrr9-1226443327176

Attention is now turned to the next most important resource - food - to feed its billions of people. More Chinese are investing in Australian farms recently. 

KPMG Australia’s China Practice, said that Chinese companies are showing an increasing appetite for investing in Australia’s food sector “from gate to plate” as they seek to meet rising food demand at home and capture more expertise from Australia’s companies and farmers.  

Banks, both domestic and Chinese, are also increasingly interested in financing the sector at a time when many miners and energy producers are struggling to secure financing for new projects in the face of falling commodity prices and concerns of a falloff in demand ...

http://blogs.wsj.com/dealjournalaustralia/2012/08/22/kpmg-sees-more-chinese-investors-buying-aussie-farms/?mod=google_news_blog

Another indication of change is China investing in mines (and others) elsewhere where the government and people may be less hostile to Chinese money.  

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/374441/20120816/china-gold-rush-africa-supply-barrick.htm

Nevertheless, merely containing the damage will not solve the fundamental problems that has wasted Chinese funds which could be better spent helping its poor and boosting domestic development and consumption. 

Attempts to monitor and penalise corrupt officials venturing overseas have been put in place but with limited success. Reports of arrests have been random and rare, for most have used their positions to amass personal wealth and enrich their cronies at the expense of the nation's benefit with little reprisals. 

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/728010.shtml

Gu Kailai trial - delicate balance of politics, justice and the world stage

Just as closure of the case seemed definite, the file has been reopened on the back of international pressure and leadership succession.  Had it not been for the fall of Gu's husband Bo Xilai, the case may not have been prioritised and managed with great caution. From the little details that have leaked through (deliberately or inadvertently) the apparently tightly controlled court proceedings and media, readers can draw the conclusion that Neil Heywood murdered by poisoning, was not innocent victim but one who is savvy and manipulative. 

While some speculate that Gu is made the scapegoat to take Bo's fall, a number of China watchers (not experts) contradict themselves by saying that Bo was doomed. Why not use this as a convenient excuse to get rid of the clan and their underlings?  Yet, there are others who believe that Bo could make a comeback. This is unlikely unless he has superhuman power and connections in the next leadership. The high level of publicity may end with an anti-climax whimper with all the protagonists receding to the background, as with many before who had been disciplined, purged or punished for various degrees and types of offences against the party or the people. 

China is keen to project a positive image to ensure that the its domestic population and the world perceive that justice prevails in this emerging great power. After all, a judiciary was already well-established in ancient times as far back as the 10th Century, notwithstanding political upheavals and machinations in a huge country. The judges must demonstrate sensitivity, independence and pragmatism in this high profile and divisive case of a generation. 

China says Gu Kailai didn't contest murder charge

Though Gu faces possible execution, legal experts say she is likely to be given a commuted death sentence that translates into 10 to 15 years in prison, with her concern for her son's safety providing a mitigating circumstance.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1680370/China-says-Gu-Kailai-didnt-contest-murder-charge

As a high-flying international lawyer married to one of China's most promising and charismatic politicians and with a son at Harvard, Gu Kailai appeared to have it all. Now she is on trial for murder.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1680438/Gu-Kailai-High-flying-lawyer-turned-murder-accused

America's China Choices - sharing power balance in Asia

How many Americans ponder deeper into longer term strategic questions?  


             The China choice: why America should share power by Hugh White

The Chinese will continue to avoid unnecessary friction and minimise the risk of confrontation. But they will not relinquish their country’s claim to status as a great power – even if that leads to conflict. The implications of this for America are simple and very significant. If America tries to preserve the status quo and avoid fundamental change in the relationship, it will be choosing to accept China as a strategic rival.

Essentially, America has three options. It can resist China’s challenge and try to preserve the status quo in Asia. It can step back from its dominant role in Asia, leaving China to attempt to establish hegemony. Or it can remain in Asia on a new basis, allowing China a larger role but also maintaining a strong presence of its own. Most Americans assume that the first of these options is the only choice. Only a few take the second option seriously, although that could change. Most don’t even consider the third.

The need for a decision seems to have emerged very suddenly. China’s economic growth has been obvious, but not where it has been leading. 

In truth, any attempt by either Beijing or Washington to dominate will lead to sustained and bitter strategic rivalry, imposing huge economic costs and a real risk of catastrophic war. Neither side could win, and both would stand to lose a great deal – but it could easily happen. Strategic competition quickly builds its own momentum, escalating to the point where war can seem inescapable. War between the United States and China is already a clear and significant danger, one that will grow if rivalry increases. This is the most important issue at stake in America’s China choice. Asia’s alternative futures are not American or Chinese supremacy. They are escalating rivalry, or some form of great-power accommodation that constrains that rivalry. America’s real choice is not between dominating or withdrawing from Asia: it is between taking China on as a strategic rival, or working with it as a partner.

The third option carries many obvious risks, which would quickly rule it out of contention were it not for the greater risks that flow from the alternatives. Moreover, this option can only be realised if America and China are willing to compromise with each other. Neither side will find that easy. For China it will mean abandoning hopes to lead Asia and accepting a strong US presence there indefinitely. For America it will mean accepting that its unique leadership role is no longer feasible, and learning to work with China as a partner in a way that America has never done with another country before – and certainly not with one so different from it. But this is the kind of choice America must now consider.

http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/extract-china-choice-why-america-should-share-power