Rudd and the art of war
Herald-Sun, Melbourne
Rudd and the art of war
By Gerard McManus
28 April 2007
In an age when the new superpower will be China, much has been written about Kevin Rudd becoming Australia’s first Sinophile prime minister.
The power of the US appears to have reached its zenith and a leader with lifelong interest in the Middle Kingdom may be no bad thing.
Rudd is reportedly proficient in Mandarin.
He has worked in Beijing as a diplomat and maintains an interest in all things Chinese.
Rudd has also announced he intends visiting China before the end of the year.
Along with the US, which he visited last week, this is an indication of where Rudd’s international interests lie.
More interestingly, Rudd appears to be well-versed in the ancient Chinese art of war and is clearly a student of the masters of their strategies.
The most famous of these was Sun Tzu, born in 544BC, whose text on military stratagems is said to be the oldest military treatise in the world.
The Art of War, along with a text often attributed to Sun Tzu and known as the 36 Strategies, are used by modern military and business schools.
Perhaps Sun Tzu’s most famous quote is: "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you have no need to fear the result of a hundred battles."
He also coined the phrase: "All warfare is based on deception."
Another Sun Tzu gem that John Howard and George W. Bush might consider after four years of little success in Baghdad: "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."
Certainly, on the "knowing the enemy" dictum, Rudd has made a careful and deliberate study of his successful opponent, John Howard.
He has imitated his style, work ethic and approach to politics, while cunningly avoiding his traps.
He has also cleverly dodged the efforts of Howard’s generals, Tony Abbott and Peter Costello, who have been forced to retreat after botching personal attacks on Mr Rudd earlier in the year.
Rudd also appears to have borrowed from several of the ancient Chinese military strategies, not least of which is his "hit and run" policy and media strategy.
Since being elected Labor leader, Rudd has announced policies one after the other, giving the media little time to digest or the Coalition time to dissect and criticise before moving on to a new one.
Other plans from Chairman Rudd may be less obvious or successful:
Deceive the sky to cross the ocean can be roughly translated as trying to move the Anzac Day dawn service in Vietnam in order to gain peak morning TV ratings.
Kill with a borrowed knife can be interpreted as lifting all of Kim Beazley’s old policies and running them out as new ones to infuriate Howard.
Tossing out a brick to get a jade might mean making enemies of hardline unionists like Doug Cameron to win the confidences of business groups.
And to hide a knife behind a smile is the way Rudd portrays a soothing public persona on television and radio while disguising a ruthlessness that takes away the breath of some old Labor types.
Yesterday Simon Crean negotiated a motion at Labor’s conference on a free trade agreement with China despite misgivings of many delegates.
Under the policy Rudd will endorse an FTA, but can also oppose it if nine conditions set by the party are not met.
Rudd should have no problem with any China agreement given his economic rationalist credentials and affections for that country.
Yesterday, in the most passionate part of his speech, Rudd repeated his commitment to Australia’s manufacturing industry: "I don’t want to be a prime minister of a country that doesn’t make things any more."
On the day he was elected leader Rudd also nominated manufacturing a priority.
Many unions oppose an FTA and there are other elements in the party who say Australia needs to take a strong line against China’s poor human rights record, environmental record and abuse of child and adult labour.
Unfortunately, neither labour standards nor China’s environmental standards are among the conditions Rudd can use to oppose any FTA.
Many voters are suspicious of FTAs because they believe they benefit other countries more than Australia.
For example, the recent agreement with the US ended up selling out Australia’s sugar farmers.
The size and scale of China makes it difficult to see how the two countries can compete on a level playing field.
The votes are in opposing an agreement.
So, could Rudd make a sound in the east, then strike in the west?
In other words, if Rudd wanted to throw Howard’s army into chaos and win tens of thousands of votes in the process, he could yet reject the FTA with China.
