Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
"China’s Live-Fire Exercises Between Australia and New Zealand Spark Soul-Searching
China didn’t violate any rules with its live-fire naval exercises. So, why are Australia and New Zealand so worried?
In recent days, the Chinese Navy conducted two live-fire military exercises in waters near Australia and New Zealand, sparking concern in both countries.
The Albanese government lodged a diplomatic protest with Beijing. China responded by saying it was “deeply surprised and strongly dissatisfied” by Australia’s response.
The presence of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) ships was well known. Australia’s Department of Defense put out a media release on February 13 indicating it was “aware” of the three ships operating to the northeast of Australia.
Over the next week, the ships gradually made their way along Australia’s east coast through its Exclusive Economic Zone in the Tasman Sea, which extends 200 nautical miles (370km) from a country’s coastline.
On February 21, the PLAN gave short notice of its intent to conduct a possible live-fire exercise in the high seas between Australia and New Zealand. The next day, the ships conducted a second live-fire exercise. A live fire exercise can take many forms, such as using live rounds against stationary sea targets or the testing of new weapons systems.
Once Australia and New Zealand received China’s notification of its exercises, a maritime and air exclusion zone was created in the vicinity of the Chinese ships, and trans-Tasman commercial flights were diverted.
Both exercises took place in “international waters,” which means no country has sovereignty over them. Neither Canberra nor Wellington contested China’s right to conduct these exercises, as the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea places no constraints on high-seas military operations.
The United States, for example, has conducted such high-seas weapons tests in the past, causing Qantas flights across the Pacific to be occasionally diverted.
Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles was critical of the short notice China gave both countries of its intention to use live rounds of ammunition.Typically, Marles said, standard protocol is to provide between 12 to 24 hours notice of such exercises. This allows enough time to warn other ships in the area and for airlines to divert their flights.
However, because the exercises took place in the high seas, the protocol is more ambiguous. This became the key point of differentiation with China. Beijing could argue its warships are under no legal obligation to tell anyone what they are doing on the high seas. As Defence Ministry spokesman Wu Qian said, “China’s actions are in full compliance with international law and international practices, and will not affect aviation flight safety.
This is also the first instance of China conducting Tasman Sea military exercises. As such, it poses a challenge for how Australia and New Zealand should respond to future Chinese conduct.
The PLAN has been sailing more frequently around the Australian coast and has observed Australian military exercises conducted with defence partners, such as Exercise Talisman Sabre in 2023.
Why did the PLAN conduct the exercises in the Tasman Sea? This is an important question since China could have just as easily conducted these exercises closer to its own shores.
Part of the answer lies in China having the capacity and capability to project its military force far beyond its own shores.
These types of activities are also important intelligence gathering exercises. Each PLAN visit will give it more experience in waters where it does not frequently sail, while also gauging how Australia and New Zealand respond.
Given the increasing cooperation between China and some Pacific Island nations, such as the Cook Islands and Solomon Islands, we should expect the PLAN will become a more frequent visitor to the region.
As Australia and New Zealand are strong supporters of the rules-based international order on which the law of the sea is based, there is very little they can legally do to obstruct China. Nevertheless, three options are available.
First, enhanced air and naval surveillance of China’s activities in these waters is legally permissible. Constantly shadowing the PLAN in the South Pacific, though, would be a drain on stretched defence resources.
Both countries would also need to ensure their navies are not in the line of fire to avoid an accident that could spiral into a major conflict.
Second, Australia and New Zealand could work though bodies such as the International Maritime Organization and International Civil Aviation Organization to settle on agreed practices on how much advance notification is required for high seas live-fire tests.
Finally, both countries could push for negotiations on a regional “naval code of conduct.” Similar codes have been agreed upon by both China and the United States in the past. Incidents like this could prove to be a catalyst for more.
The South Pacific will increasingly be a strategically contested maritime space. Australia and New Zealand frequently deploy their navies for humanitarian operations in neighboring Pacific states and engage in exercises with their military partners. The U.S. Navy is also becoming more active in the Pacific Ocean and South China Sea to counter China, as are the navies of other nations, such as the United Kingdom, France and Japan.
With the potential for these various navies to be operating at the same time in the region, negotiating some basic “rules of the sea” would be a prudent and a helpful confidence-building measure to avoid a potential conflagration."
China didn’t violate any rules with its live-fire naval exercises. So, why are Australia and New Zealand so worried?
In recent days, the Chinese Navy conducted two live-fire military exercises in waters near Australia and New Zealand, sparking concern in both countries.
The Albanese government lodged a diplomatic protest with Beijing. China responded by saying it was “deeply surprised and strongly dissatisfied” by Australia’s response.
The presence of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) ships was well known. Australia’s Department of Defense put out a media release on February 13 indicating it was “aware” of the three ships operating to the northeast of Australia.
Over the next week, the ships gradually made their way along Australia’s east coast through its Exclusive Economic Zone in the Tasman Sea, which extends 200 nautical miles (370km) from a country’s coastline.
On February 21, the PLAN gave short notice of its intent to conduct a possible live-fire exercise in the high seas between Australia and New Zealand. The next day, the ships conducted a second live-fire exercise. A live fire exercise can take many forms, such as using live rounds against stationary sea targets or the testing of new weapons systems.
Once Australia and New Zealand received China’s notification of its exercises, a maritime and air exclusion zone was created in the vicinity of the Chinese ships, and trans-Tasman commercial flights were diverted.
Both exercises took place in “international waters,” which means no country has sovereignty over them. Neither Canberra nor Wellington contested China’s right to conduct these exercises, as the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea places no constraints on high-seas military operations.
The United States, for example, has conducted such high-seas weapons tests in the past, causing Qantas flights across the Pacific to be occasionally diverted.
Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles was critical of the short notice China gave both countries of its intention to use live rounds of ammunition.Typically, Marles said, standard protocol is to provide between 12 to 24 hours notice of such exercises. This allows enough time to warn other ships in the area and for airlines to divert their flights.
However, because the exercises took place in the high seas, the protocol is more ambiguous. This became the key point of differentiation with China. Beijing could argue its warships are under no legal obligation to tell anyone what they are doing on the high seas. As Defence Ministry spokesman Wu Qian said, “China’s actions are in full compliance with international law and international practices, and will not affect aviation flight safety.
This is also the first instance of China conducting Tasman Sea military exercises. As such, it poses a challenge for how Australia and New Zealand should respond to future Chinese conduct.
The PLAN has been sailing more frequently around the Australian coast and has observed Australian military exercises conducted with defence partners, such as Exercise Talisman Sabre in 2023.
Why did the PLAN conduct the exercises in the Tasman Sea? This is an important question since China could have just as easily conducted these exercises closer to its own shores.
Part of the answer lies in China having the capacity and capability to project its military force far beyond its own shores.
These types of activities are also important intelligence gathering exercises. Each PLAN visit will give it more experience in waters where it does not frequently sail, while also gauging how Australia and New Zealand respond.
Given the increasing cooperation between China and some Pacific Island nations, such as the Cook Islands and Solomon Islands, we should expect the PLAN will become a more frequent visitor to the region.
As Australia and New Zealand are strong supporters of the rules-based international order on which the law of the sea is based, there is very little they can legally do to obstruct China. Nevertheless, three options are available.
First, enhanced air and naval surveillance of China’s activities in these waters is legally permissible. Constantly shadowing the PLAN in the South Pacific, though, would be a drain on stretched defence resources.
Both countries would also need to ensure their navies are not in the line of fire to avoid an accident that could spiral into a major conflict.
Second, Australia and New Zealand could work though bodies such as the International Maritime Organization and International Civil Aviation Organization to settle on agreed practices on how much advance notification is required for high seas live-fire tests.
Finally, both countries could push for negotiations on a regional “naval code of conduct.” Similar codes have been agreed upon by both China and the United States in the past. Incidents like this could prove to be a catalyst for more.
The South Pacific will increasingly be a strategically contested maritime space. Australia and New Zealand frequently deploy their navies for humanitarian operations in neighboring Pacific states and engage in exercises with their military partners. The U.S. Navy is also becoming more active in the Pacific Ocean and South China Sea to counter China, as are the navies of other nations, such as the United Kingdom, France and Japan.
With the potential for these various navies to be operating at the same time in the region, negotiating some basic “rules of the sea” would be a prudent and a helpful confidence-building measure to avoid a potential conflagration."
Last edited:
I don't know who they are, I assumed the lady on the right is his wife though I haven't found other proof of that.
Maybe member of trump election campaign?
....
Peter zeihan still at it...
.....
...
Last edited:
White people, particularly Anglo Australians need to get it into their genetic memory that they have nothing to feel superior about when it comes to Chinese. Australia is and should become, a new Chinese autonomous region. We only need like 50 million Chinese and PLA settlers and justiciars to outnumber the non Chinese inhabitants 2:1.
Why should Australia feel this way about China when Chinese navy has just 50 destroyers, less than 3 carriers and laughably small 1.3% of GDP military budget?
If China is serious about dominating the pacific, then it should start spending money on defense appropriately, atleast 6-7% of GDP.
If you watch the video, they even said usaid "helped china"?
...
..
....
""[...]Katz earlier this month had said troops would stay at five locations in Lebanon's south even after the expiry of an extended deadline for Israel to withdraw under a ceasefire with Lebanon's Iran-backed Hezbollah group.
"There is a buffer zone. It wasn't easy but I stood my ground, and we received a green light from the United States. We gave them a map, and we are staying indefinitely — this is situation-dependent, not time-dependent," Katz said at a conference, according to a statement issued by his office.
Israeli forces were to withdraw from southern Lebanon on February 18 under a November 27 truce agreement which ended more than a year of hostilities, including two months of all-out war during which Israel sent in ground troops. [...]"
...
..
....
""[...]Katz earlier this month had said troops would stay at five locations in Lebanon's south even after the expiry of an extended deadline for Israel to withdraw under a ceasefire with Lebanon's Iran-backed Hezbollah group.
"There is a buffer zone. It wasn't easy but I stood my ground, and we received a green light from the United States. We gave them a map, and we are staying indefinitely — this is situation-dependent, not time-dependent," Katz said at a conference, according to a statement issued by his office.
Israeli forces were to withdraw from southern Lebanon on February 18 under a November 27 truce agreement which ended more than a year of hostilities, including two months of all-out war during which Israel sent in ground troops. [...]"
Last edited:
That is a truly disturbing and disgusting image there. The longer Macron is in power, the more insane and corrupt he becomes. Some people truly do not deserve power
Ive notice this too. These funded NGO often will occasionally have an investor on board, whose whole purpose is to bringing another grant for another agency.
Grant money spent to get additional grant money.
.....
....
Was his translation accurate?
......
"Transgender US service members to be removed from military, Pentagon memo shows"
.....
"Ocalan orders the PKK to dissolve in a historic statement
Armed group's leader says it should lay down its weapons as armed struggle is no longer needed for Kurdish rights"
.. .
....
Was his translation accurate?
......
"Transgender US service members to be removed from military, Pentagon memo shows"
.....
"Ocalan orders the PKK to dissolve in a historic statement
Armed group's leader says it should lay down its weapons as armed struggle is no longer needed for Kurdish rights"
.. .
Last edited: