So Australia chooses to suffer economic setbacks because of "strategic interests"? Is that really something people should be thinking about at this point?
Australian TV has been playing the anti-Chinalco ad for a few weeks now. And I'd say most people didn't care as they didn't know, but now most Aussies care and don't want more Chinese interests in Australia anymore. The ad quoted an interesting thing "we should sell the milk, not the cow" Rio Tinto is a small but powerful company in Australia, it is of high strategic importance to Australia and if that company is controlled by a Chinese government company, its not really good for that industry, the workers and society as a whole. As the Chinese government has different views on how to manage the company, which may not take into account Aussie views.[/QUOTE
This illustrate the point, that its not going to plain sailing for China, on its way to economic super power status anyway.
As for Rio Tinto said:The Chinese already have a 9% stake in Rio Tinto, its just that other stake holders cried foul, in the manner China was given preference to increase its stake.
I think China does block foreign acquisition of certain industriesin its own country as well.eg banking services?
-not majority ownership, deal would have doubled Chinalco's Rio stake to 18% from 9%.Well yes, Rio Tonto is a major mining company and allowing Chinalco to go ahead with this deal gives them majority ownership. As this company is very important to Australia's economy, in the long term it isn't wise to just sell it for short term gain.
Just saying this is something that all nations should do, and do very often, you always have to expect a certain level of protectionism in international commerce.