I wanted to put both Rio Tinto and Google behind me. Too many people have said too much, and it’s gotten old fast. But some exceptions have to be made, and one relates to the sentences given to the Rio Tinto employees found guilty of bribery and theft of commercial secrets.

Although this topic has been all over the news (and I therefore should not be picking on one source), this is the one that has me annoyed, from Philip Bowring in the NYT:

The 7-to-14 year sentences for corruption and theft of commercial secrets handed down on Monday by a Shanghai court to four former executives of the mining giant Rio Tinto have sent shock waves through the foreign business community in China. The severity of the sentences came as a surprise, given that Rio appeared to have patched up its relationship with its largest customer.

This is really disappointing. I’ll get to the sentences themselves in a moment, but take a look at the second part of that paragraph. Bowring is suggesting that lighter sentences were expected because Rio and Beijing had put their differences behind them. Bowring notes that Rio chief Tom Albanese was in Beijing at the time of the trial, and that a deal in Guinea with Chinalco was announced.

I am not so naive to think that the PRC government is somehow above using political influence to reduce sentences for employees of a company with which it is doing business. Sure, that could happen. But does Bowring have to be so blase about it, indeed almost suggesting that the resulting sentences (not adjusted) are therefore worthy of outrage?

Let me repeat that. Many foreigners have criticized the Rio trials as illustrative of China’s rule of law problems. I have written at some length about this, saying that the case may have both positive and negative effects on rule of law here. But Bowring is actually suggesting that no one really cares about rule of law, they just want a particular outcome. If Rio can cut a deal such that Beijing uses political influence to reduce the sentences, then screw rule of law, that’s the outcome we all want.

I believe this is a logical conclusion to reach after reading Bowring’s article. If I’m misinterpreting, however, then that’s on me.

On the sentences themselves, other commentators (including Steve Dickinson of Harris & Moure – sorry, don’t have a link) have stated that the prison terms given are fairly average given the charges and the facts of the case. This is also my impression. Is there some reason why these people should be given lesser sentences? The Australian citizen, Mr. Hu, is worthy of special treatment? Or all of the employees of the foreign company Rio? I fail to see the reason why, as Bowring writes, the sentences were so shocking to everyone, particularly since they pled guilty and, as Bowring admits, this industry is rife with corruption. Somehow I doubt that all of these surprised folks are up to speed on China’s sentencing patterns on bribery cases over the past few years. By the way, I have not heard anyone suggest that the guilty pleas were coerced, although that is always a possibility.

A large portion of Bowring’s column builds off of the great shocking surprise of the Rio verdicts, questioning whether this is indicative of a shift in Beijing’s attitudes towards foreign companies. This is a topic for another post (short version: attitudes have indeed changed, but this verdict has nothing to do with that), but I would like to point out that Bowring is basing his entire discussion on these unexpected verdicts that are really not so surprising after all.

A couple of last points with the article. First this interesting statement:

The fact that the trial was closed for the most part suggests that China does not care too much about how its delivery of justice is perceived. This is not new.

Absolutely true. But so what? Are American trials open to the public because we care about how the rest of the world perceives our system of justice? No, we could give a crap. They’re open because of our political and legal history. China’s system is not very transparent, something that many of us would like to see changed. But that specific legal reform would not be motivated by international perception but by domestic concerns.

Second, and last, there’s this:

What is new is that China feels able to turn the tables on major foreign suppliers, in this case both jailing their former executives while at the same time pursuing deals like Guinea.

Again, the automatic assumption that this is all a big game and that the trial was nothing more than a tactic. I understand that it might have been, and that a lot of rumors to that effect are out there, but in a newspaper like the New York Times, a direct statement like this that blithely assumes fact is really inappropriate.