Court India and spurn China's advances

Matt Wade highlighted a serious foreign policy failure by successive Australian governments ("We must not squander Indian links", July 14): why China and not India? Australians have a right to ask why, over the past two decades, our politicians have fostered such close trade dependence on China, a country with a totalitarian government devoid of democratic principles, no respect for the rule of law - as has been borne out by the detention of Stern Hu for more than a week without charge - and no regard for human rights or respect for minorities such as the Tibetans or the Uighurs. China puts the rights of the Communist Party and the Government before anything else. India, on the other hand, a democracy governed by the rule of law, has hardly been on the radar screen with our governments when it comes to trade and political ties. Why have they not pursued a stronger and closer relationship with India? Advertisement: Story continues below India's economy is growing almost as fast as China's, and with a similar population its market would demand similar amounts of our raw materials, not to mention endless possibilities for other Australian goods and services. As Wade points out, we share so many more interests with India than China, such as cricket, the English language and the Commonwealth. For too long the Chinese Government has believed it can dictate to other countries' politicians who they can or cannot meet, including the Dalai Lama and Taiwanese Government officials, while it happily carries on arming the Burmese junta and Robert Mugabe's regime. The Hu case should be a wake-up call to our politicians to stop behaving as though China was the only market for Australian products. We should be pursuing our wealth ethically by tying our future to democratic India and moving away from trade dependence on totalitarian China. Darryl Toohey Darlinghurst Outrageous Origin behaviour by no means in a league of its own Jenny Foldes (Letters, July 17) is correct to point out the double standards in rugby league, but not to say Rosetta Stone Software that "at no level in any other sport would such behaviour be deemed acceptable". One has only to look at the recent rugby series between South Africa and the British and Irish Lions. In the second Test two South African players were suspended - one for eye-gouging, the other for an illegal charge. Some South African officials argued that eye-gouging is the sort of thing that happens in the physical contact rugby involves. In the other case the Lions player was badly injured and had to leave the field. Yet in the third Test what did we see? South African players wearing armbands saying "Justice", in protest against the suspension of the second player. The double standards are everywhere. John Lees Castlecrag Bruce Hulbert (Letters, July 17) suggests children will be influenced by the on-field aggression of Origin III. League is the most physical of the football codes, yet the least physical - soccer - has a record of off-field violence that no other code comes near. Origin III was a brutal encounter, watched by nearly 3 million people. Not surprisingly, the next day they all went back to their daily routine without feeling the need to pummel the first NSW or Queensland supporter they saw. Mike Kenneally Balmain To readers who compare the brutality of Origin III and off-field violence: when was the last time you saw combatants take it to each other, then shake hands as if it never happened? That is the difference between sport and every Friday night in every city. If you can't tell the difference, don't watch. Zig Jamal Waramanga (ACT) The State of Origin game certainly had passion, but teams can play with passion without belting each other. If some of the blows had happened off the field, they would have amounted to assault and the police would be called. Where is the equity? Why aren't players who deliberately kick or bash their opponents on the football field charged?