Beijing is bristling at reports that the Defence white paper due...

Beijing is bristling at reports that the Defence white paper due out tomorrow will call for a build-up of naval and air force power to counter the military threat of rising China.

Senior Chinese diplomats and scholars say they are "confused" at the Prime Minister's apparent hawkish stance and predict that Beijing will raise its concerns formally.
"For us, this is confusing," a Chinese diplomatic source told the Herald.

"Kevin Rudd was supposed to be the Chinese-speaking prime minister who would provide a bridge between the China and the US. But now it looks like he wants to act on behalf of America against China. This is going to be hard to explain to the Chinese people."

http://www.smh.com.au/world/defence-buildup-alarms-beijing-20090430-aoz3.html

Comments…
1) Leaked details of the Defence white paper do make it appear ‘overblown’, especially at a time of great financial stringency, with other areas likely to be severely pruned.
Most of us are aware of the seemingly unlimited political powers of the Dept of Defence;this has resulted in a litany of questionable project decisions, in turn leading to very large cost overruns as well as lengthy project delays.

- Has the DoD won in their recent spate with the Minister; have Rudd & Fitzgibbon capitulated to the DoD? Or are other reasons involved?

2) Could it be ‘Globalitis’? Could Rudd’s extensive overseas visits have ‘opened his eyes’ to the realities of global politics?

Peter Hartcher's comments, in today’s SMH Rocco Bloggo, links Rudd’s changes to his growing relationship with US President Obama.

“How often are we privileged enough to see fully grown men go gaga over each other?
It's even more of a novelty when it's leaders of the calibre of Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama.
Picture this. You are the president of the free world with all the worries in the world and in walks the prime minister of Oceania.
Not only is Rudd a welcome diversion from the North Korea missile crisis, the recession,
Iran's nuclear program etc etc but in Peter Hartcher's own words, he agrees on everything. It's really hard to turn your nose up to a guest like that.”

The latest decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan bears out Hartcher's view.

3) Today, even Malcom Turnbull will agree with the Chinese Govt ‘s view of the defence buildup, in that he will accuse Mr Rudd of being too focused on China, ridicule him for acting as "an intermediary" between the United States and China, and attack him for basing the nation's long-term strategic policy on the assumption China could one day pose a threat.
Turnbull will also call for the rejection of the bid by the state-owned Chinalco to increase its share in the mining giant Rio Tinto.

Of course Mr. Turnbull is making the most of the situation, apart from pointing out the obvious.

4) The Chinese Govt’s confusion is understandable; the initial visit by the Mandarin speaking Prime Minister of Australia indicated the new government placed good relations with their best trading partner as of prime importance.

Recent accusations that Rudd is ‘too focused on China, seem to be partly responsible for some of his sudden change; short term electoral politics grows more important each day.

Contradictory and confusing policies by this government will certainly affect that relationship; when a so called friend suddenly accuses them of posing a potential threat – that to the Chinese involves ‘Loss of Face’, making the change much more serious.

The Chinese obviously have their own long term interests in mind, but in this they surely will have a great interest in the long term security of Australia, where many of the future materials for their prosperity are located.

We can only hope Mr. Rudd will steer the right course, also bearing Australia’s long term best interests in mind. This certainly does not involve a large defence build up at a time of financial crisis.