Kevin Rudd has landed back in Australia with a splash to set up a Melbourne outpost of the US-based Asia Society Policy Institute (ASPI).
Rudd, as ASPI’s president, managed to nab the services of former senior Australian diplomats Richard Maude and Patrick Suckling as senior fellows.
The funding of the ASPI has been connected to senior Chinese government-linked figures and apologists, as well as firms with Chinese interests. This has long raised questions with critics over the institute’s ability to be balanced on China.
Rudd’s more recent connections to the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front Work Department — responsible for cultivating Chinese influence overseas — and his published musings on the country’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak only add to those concerns.
Changing his tune
Rudd became persona non-grata in Beijing in May 2008, early in his prime ministership, when he took Beijing to task over its record in Tibet.
He was frozen out by Beijing during the reminder of his term and shunned during his subsequent stint as foreign minister.
In an April 2009 diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks, it was revealed Rudd called himself “a brutal realist on China”, looking towards “integrating China effectively into the international community and allowing it to demonstrate greater responsibility”.
Since taking the reins of ASPI in 2015, a post for which he was allegedly not the first choice, he has sharply changed tack, working overtime to regain access to the top tables in Beijing.
He has attacked scholars who challenge China, such as well-respected US academic David Shambaugh, as well as politicians including Malcolm Turnbull and Liberal backbencher Andrew Hastie.
He has soft-peddled any criticism of China’s authoritarian regime and studiously avoided its appalling human rights record.
Critics of Rudd point to his serial historical inaccuracies — his often lazy repetition of rote China 101 commentary mistakes in line with another CCP narrative of China’s “humiliation” by western powers.
They also accuse Rudd of apparent self-censorship on key issues like Hong Kong and misguided praise of Xi Jinping’s economic management.
The funding
A look at ASPI’s funding and Rudd’s own salary provide many clues as to why he has performed such a complete backflip on China and its leadership.
The policy institute’s website lists 12 personnel and two corporate donors as founding contributors, including Asia Society global chair emeritus Ronnie Chan, Blackstone Group founder Stephen A. Schwarzman, and Chinese-American businessman Chen Guoqing.
The Asia Society — of which ASPI is a policy arm — is extremely well funded, receiving more than US$27 million in 2018 according to its own declarations.
Chan has clear Beijing sympathies, being at the centre of a storm in 2018 when he blocked the appearance of Hong Kong democracy activist Joshua Wong at an Asia Society Hong Kong function.
Schwarzman found himself in Beijing’s bad books when Blackstone was an investment manager for China’s sovereign wealth fund, losing money during the global financial crisis. Following this he poured $100 million of his own money into the China-friendly Schwarzman Scholars program.
The fund was widely seen as recompense for his company’s investment failures.
But the involvement of Chen Guoqing in founding and funding ASPI is perhaps the most problematic.
Chen is the co-founder and North American chairman of the HNA Group, a US$100 billion conglomerate based in Hainan province and chaired by his brother Chen Feng. The company is linked to Chinese Vice President Wang Qishan and spends substantial sums in targeted donations.
The salary
Rudd is one of the highest paid employees of any US think tank, according to charity watchdog Charity Watch. He earned US$922,253 (AU$1,369,105) in 2018.
His pay is higher than his Asia Society president Josette Sheeran, who earned an estimated US$908,552 in 2018.
Rudd’s latest pronouncements on China, delivered at the annual Munich Security Conference in February, fit perfectly with the Communist Party’s narrative about the ongoing coronavirus outbreak — stating that, “the crisis, once resolved, will not change how China is governed in the future”.
This stands in contrast to range of views that the pandemic has exposed systematic flaws in the centralised system promoted by Xi.
Rudd also completely omitted any mention of the unprecedented, widespread public anger at the Chinese government over its handling of the crisis (which some have likened to Soviet Russia’s Chernobyl cover up).
There is irony in Rudd’s outfit sharing an acronym with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute — a Canberra-based defence think tank funded by taxpayers, global arms dealers and Australian corporates. That institute is decidedly hawkish on China.
So maybe, in toto, the combined output of both ASPIs will in fact provide some kind of balanced view on China.
Sainsbury points out that Rudd got into China’s bad books by raising human rights issues about Tibet. Now we are told Rudd wants to get back on side with China. Oh, please. A lot f history has been left out. In the meantime, the US has adopted the stance of treating China as a hostile power and has enlisted support for this around the world, which has included Hastie and sainsbury. I think the US has adopted this position because it is worried that China will achieve technological superiority over the US in coming years and it is trying to disrupt its economy to stop this, just as Britain became worried about Germany’s technological superiority before WWI. I do not want Australia to support this new stance of the US, which the US secretary of State has invited Australia to adopt, despite our trade relations with China. Rudd’s motive in challenging this new stance could well be that, despite a number of issues that Australia might justifiably have with China over human rights and its claims in the South China Sea, he does not agree that Australia should start treating China as a hostile power. After all, the human rights issues we should have with Saudi Arabia do not lead us, or the US to treat it as a hostile power. In fact, the US treats Saudi Arabia as a friend.My preference is for objective reporting on China. where China commits human rights abuse, we should report that, if it is a fact. Where china makes territorial claims in the South China sea that are not supported, we should say we don’t support that a support other countries that have issues with China over this, like Vietnam and Indonesia, among others. Sainsbury’s and not Rudd’s position on China is the one, in my view, that shows bias.
Well put, Ian.
Given you seem an open minded type, might I suggest a couple of references.
Firstly, on the coronavirus, piece by K. J. Noh from 2 days ago, at Counterpunchdotorg, entitled;
“How to Yellow-Cake a Tragedy: the NY Times Spreads the Virus of Hatred, Again”.
One of the finest rebuttals of the sort of Sinophobic drivel put out by the likes of Sainsbury, and thoroughly backed by evidence.
Secondly, on the matter of China’s human rights abuses, I suggest seeking out some of the recent work of Danny Haiphong, a 2nd generation Vietnamese – American, who recently travelled to China – without CCP chaperoning – as part of a larger US based ‘friendship group’. And, yes, they went to Xinjiang Province.
Haiphong is now a Contributing Editor at the excellent Blackagendareportdotcom. You can also find an interview Haiphong did with Anya Parampil, about his travels around China, at the also excellent grayzonedotcom.
Before relying too much on the “excellent grayzonedotcom” it might be worth your while reading the following article
https://twitter.com/jmulich/status/1227576398992285696
That takes you onto the roundabout as to just who Joshua Collins is Oldie and what’s his street cred. Max Blumenthal I can make my own mind up about as I have seen him bylined by X, Y & Z. Joshua Collins I have not come across before but he does intimate that 2019 is his first year out. ‘ I decided I was going to become a journalist in late 2018. I didn’t go to school for journalism, but I have two things a lot of people who did don’t — a broken sense of self-preservation and an inexhaustible curiosity about chaos.’ And here’s his opener for 2019 “ I came into 2019 on the Colombian/Venezuelan border with a head full of LSD in the company of a stunningly beautiful woman in a red dress. Marcela was all dressed up to go dancing, but once we started drinking, we never managed to leave the house.
She was about to break my heart for the dozenth time. It was madness.“
Johnb – thanks for this great context!
We must have different ideas about the meaning of the word “context”, DavidH. Quoting one passage from a writer who appears to be very prolific is not my idea of providing context.
However, writing about someone who was a strong pro-Assad supporter a few years back who lobs into Russia, leaves with a swanky Russian girlfriend and a pile of cash, and then starts waltzing with Putin by reversing his previous position and starts supporting Assad. Now that’s my idea of context.
Yes we’ll said Ian. Perhaps what’s really got that bug stuck up him is the cheeky use of the same acronym. We need some balance and I doubt we’re going to get it by adding the two ASPIs and taking the mean. But I prefer to listen to a player with experience like Rudd than a mouthpiece for the western spook alliance.
What point is Sainsbury trying to make when he discusses Rudd’s Salary? Rudd would most probably do the job for bugger-all – is Sainsbury trying to imply some sort of paid influence by the Chinese government? If so why not have the guts to come right out and say it
Ian no one (in the West at least) ever mentions the Chagos Islands and Islanders
This sort of puts the ‘West’s’ hypocrisy in its right place
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/09/asia/chagos-islands-feature-intl/index.html
“There is irony in Rudd’s outfit sharing an acronym with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute — a Canberra-based defence think tank funded by taxpayers, global arms dealers and Australian corporates. That institute is decidedly hawkish on China.
So maybe, in toto, the combined output of both ASPIs will in fact provide some kind of balanced view on China.” – Hopefully we will see some kind balance on China but I would still like to know the full extent of ‘American’ involvement in the anti-China Australian Strategic Policy Institute
“He has soft-peddled any criticism of China’s authoritarian regime” Has he? Why would he be going from door to door trying to sell criticism, because that’s what “peddle” means. Could it be that Sainsbury thinks he “soft-pedaled” and just couldn’t get that right? Nearly all reader comments on Sainsbury are negative. Why doesn’t Crikey care about that?
Michael Sainsbury is, in my opinion, the required ‘Balance’ for Crikey.
Yo u mean he balances Rundle?
Thinking about it, perhaps he does balance Rundle. On the one hand Rundle is literate, well informed, argues his case well, while on the other side…
Follow the money and you will see where the favourable opinion flows.
China is running a gulag for its muslim citizens, regular intimidates and threatens families of dissidents in classic hostage type diplomacy and has now appointed a new Mao; Xi – the great leader for life.
And China is running a first world economy with high tech equal or better than the West, while claiming ‘developing’ country status for fossil fuel emissions, no restrictions from Paris – making our 1.3% of CO2 emissions look miniscule – yet we are allowing looney tunes to claim that we can change our climate by banning coal, gas and oil.
And who is waxing pro-China BS? – Kevin from Queelsland!! F******archhhh!!
I think Kevin Rudd knows more about China than you will ever know!
SO F…Off yourself!!!
Gentlemen, language!! No need for such unrefined discourse. All youxneed to do is look at the photo at the start of the article to see what we are dealing with, namely, a wanking poser.
MS writes with all the perspective he has gained from an allegiance to a tired discredited paradigm that he seems unable to revise.
I had thought that Crikey had washed its hand off this type of dribble – there are plenty of journalists or academics that can write on China. Maybe MS should restrict himself to factual reporting from Bangkok?