AUKUS News, Views, Analysis.

Lethe said:

The current Labor government is trying to project an image of competence: we are aware of the situation and are managing it responsibly, including with representations to the PRC regarding notification practices for live fire exercises. The ADF is mostly aligned with these objectives. As such, the great majority of official comment in this regard has been directed to "turning down the temperature" on the subject, chiefly by emphasizing that the PLAN task force is operating within international law and that it is being robustly surveilled by Australian and New Zealand assets.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the ruling Labor government in Australia would like to de-escalate, at least to some degree, with Beijing, if for nothing else so they wouldn't look weak to domestic audiences.

So is Beijing unaware of Labor's considerations, or has domestic or otherwise internal constraints forced Beijing's hand, even though it was almost certainly understood in advance that the Coalition and their partners in media would sensationalize the matter?

Lethe said:

Conversely, the political opposition, led by Peter Dutton as head of the Liberal Party in coalition with the National Party ("the Coalition"), is seeking to portray the Labor government as both

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in its dealings with China: why were there conflicting accounts given regarding the timing and nature of the notification of live-fire exercises? Why weren't we in a position to clearly verify those exercises ourselves? Why hasn't the Prime Minister threatened to punch Xi Jinping in the face over this outrage to Australia's national honour?, etc. Australia is in the lead-up to an election to be held a few months from now, and the Coalition is seeking to portray the incumbent Labor government as weak on matters of national security, a narrative that right-wing parties push in relation to left-wing parties the world over.

Click to expand...

Perhaps if Mr. Dutton in particular or the Coalition in general are anything like Mr. Trump or his MAGA base, respectively, then it may indeed be sensible for Beijing to provide a premise or two that will conveniently frame their opponents at Labor in a bad light ahead of Australian federal elections.

zyklon said:

Sounds like the ruling Labor government in Australia would like to de-escalate, at least to some degree, with Beijing, if for nothing else so they wouldn't look weak to domestic audiences.

So is Beijing unaware of Labor's considerations, or has domestic or otherwise internal constraints forced Beijing's hand, even though it was almost certainly understood in advance that the Coalition and their partners in media would sensationalize the matter?



Perhaps if Mr. Dutton in particular or the Coalition in general are anything like Mr. Trump or his MAGA base, respectively, then it may indeed be sensible for Beijing to provide a premise or two that will conveniently frame their opponents at Labor in a bad light ahead of Australian federal elections.

Click to expand...

You are overthinking this, China doesn't get involved with other country's domestic politics. China doesn't really care if Labor or the Coalition comes to power, their difference with respect to the relationship with China is minimal.

zyklon said:

Sounds like the ruling Labor government in Australia would like to de-escalate, at least to some degree, with Beijing, if for nothing else so they wouldn't look weak to domestic audiences.

So is Beijing unaware of Labor's considerations, or has domestic or otherwise internal constraints forced Beijing's hand, even though it was almost certainly understood in advance that the Coalition and their partners in media would sensationalize the matter?



Perhaps if Mr. Dutton in particular or the Coalition in general are anything like Mr. Trump or his MAGA base, respectively, then it may indeed be sensible for Beijing to provide a premise or two that will conveniently frame their opponents at Labor in a bad light ahead of Australian federal elections.

Click to expand...

Has Labor exited AUKUS? No? They are all the same then

Xi has figured out Western puppets. Watch their actions, not their mouth

zyklon said:

Sounds like the ruling Labor government in Australia would like to de-escalate, at least to some degree, with Beijing, if for nothing else so they wouldn't look weak to domestic audiences.

Click to expand...

If federal government labor wants to do this they could you know, reign in ADF activates in the SCS, does the ADF not answer to the federal government?
Of course I know the answer is "it's complicated" since ADF has by its nature close integration with US and so is obliged to do things on US behalf. But that was based on the assumption that in times of war US will provide military support to Australia. Given what just happened in the White House with the Ukrainian president that assumption looks to be increasingly questionable. Or another way to look at it - what has the US done in this case to reassure the panicking political elites in Canberra over the PLAN group currently circling Australia?

coolgod said:

You are overthinking this, China doesn't get involved with other country's domestic politics. China doesn't really care if Labor or the Coalition comes to power, their difference with respect to the relationship with China is minimal.

Click to expand...

Overbom said:

Has Labor exited AUKUS? No? They are all the same then

Xi has figured out Western puppets. Watch their actions, not their mouth

Click to expand...

If Beijing sees no difference between the Labor party, which currently governs Australia, and the "loyal opposition" standing to the center right and right, then it sounds like Beijing expects a drastic change in attitude from Australia's ruling elite, whoever they end up being, for it to alter course in terms of military signaling and measures, short of a shooting war.

Frankly, such an indifference may not be unreasonable: sans Trump and his MAGA base, the Republicans and Democrats are often jokingly referred to as "the uniparty" in the US.

Temstar said:

If federal government labor wants to do this they could you know, reign in ADF activates in the SCS, does the ADF not answer to the federal government?
Of course I know the answer is "it's complicated" since ADF has by its nature close integration with US and so is obliged to do things on US behalf. But that was based on the assumption that in times of war US will provide military support to Australia. Given what just happened in the White House with the Ukrainian president that assumption looks to be increasingly questionable. Or another way to look at it - what has the US done in this case to reassure the panicking political elites in Canberra over the PLAN group currently circling Australia?

Click to expand...

Sounds like Beijing feels Canberra does not reasonably grasp just how dangerous it can be to walk lockstep with Uncle Sam, and that it is time for Australia to reprioritize her relationships.

Though perhaps it will "be best" to ultimately defer to legendary American boxer Mike Tyson, who is known for his immense eloquence, in summing up Beijing's approach here.

The last eight seconds of this 40 seconds long clip is perhaps especially descriptive and salient.


This video might be a bit too profane for "Christian ears," but it's relevant and tasteful enough to have remained publicly available on YouTube for years. Regardless, play at your own risk.

zyklon said:

Sounds like the ruling Labor government in Australia would like to de-escalate, at least to some degree, with Beijing, if for nothing else so they wouldn't look weak to domestic audiences.

So is Beijing unaware of Labor's considerations, or has domestic or otherwise internal constraints forced Beijing's hand, even though it was almost certainly understood in advance that the Coalition and their partners in media would sensationalize the matter?

Perhaps if Mr. Dutton in particular or the Coalition in general are anything like Mr. Trump or his MAGA base, respectively, then it may indeed be sensible for Beijing to provide a premise or two that will conveniently frame their opponents at Labor in a bad light ahead of Australian federal elections.

Click to expand...

I think @coolgod is right that Beijing pays little mind to the distinction between Coalition and Labor governments in Australia, and there's no real reason why they should, as the differences between them are not large, more of tone than substance. The two parties are more or less aligned in most areas of foreign policy, including with respect to the alliance with the United States as the foundation of our strategic posture, and a corresponding commitment to the US project of containing China. Where they differ on China is that Labor sees little to be gained, and much to be lost, from the megaphone belligerence that characterised the most recent Coalition government. Foreign Minister Penny Wong (incidentally, the most senior politician of Chinese descent in Australia's history) basically reiterated that view of the distinction between the two parties this week:

In her opening address to Senate estimates hearings on Thursday, Wong said Australia faced an increasingly uncertain and dangerous geopolitical climate, and that the Coalition was not helping.

“What Australians don’t want in the face of these circumstances is reckless political games from people who claim to be leaders. We’ve been reminded of that just this week,” Wong said.

“The same people who left a massive gap in the Pacific, the same people who had no regard for the consequences for Australian exporters or Chinese-Australian communities, are at it again, trying to turn China into an election issue.”

Beijing imposed sanctions on $20 billion worth of Australian goods and cut off diplomatic relations when bilateral relations plummeted under the Morrison government. Chinese-Australian voters subsequently swung strongly against the Liberal Party at the 2022 election.

“We have been very clear China is going to keep being China, just as Mr Dutton isn’t going to stop being Mr Dutton, the man who once said it was inconceivable we wouldn’t go to war is going to keep beating the drums of war,” Wong said.

Click to expand...

The modest thawing of Australia-China relations that has occurred under the Albanese government was enabled by a shift in Beijing some months before the most recent election, namely the appointment of a new Chinese ambassador to Australia who signalled a willingness to resume the intergovernmental dialogues that had been frozen by Beijing for a couple of years at that point. The Coalition government, having made anti-China chest-beating a core part of its identity, was unwilling to pick up that olive branch, but it was at least theoretically open for them to do so either before or after the election, had they won it. It wasn't about treating Labor differently.

Labor and the Coalition are more or less tied in the polls at the moment, so it is entirely possible that the Coalition will be back in government a few months from now under Peter Dutton as Prime Minister. Dutton served as Defence Minister in the former Coalition government and was instrumental in pushing to dump the French SSK project in favour of the AUKUS nuclear submarine pathway. He is undoubtedly the loudest and most important anti-China voice in Australia today and, if he becomes Prime Minister, I think we can safely predict a further downturn in relations with China before long. In consolation, I again present this clip of Albanese's succinct verbal smackdown of Dutton in parliament a few years back:


(At the time, Dutton was Defence Minister and Albanese was leader of the Labor party in opposition.)

Lethe said:

The two parties are more or less aligned in most areas of foreign policy, including with respect to the alliance with the United States as the foundation of our strategic posture, and a corresponding commitment to the US project of containing China.

Click to expand...

Australian politics doesn't sound too different from American politics when it comes to China.

Elected officials at the national level all want to look "tough" on Beijing, even though virtually all of them have constituents dependent on Chinese supply chains in terms of maintaining their quality of life.

Lethe said:

In consolation, I again present this clip of Albanese's succinct verbal smackdown of Dutton in parliament a few years back:

(At the time, Dutton was Defence Minister and Albanese was leader of the Labor party in opposition.)

Click to expand...

I see why Australians are still known for their felonious ancestors! Their ferocity has yet to be reasonably diluted and/or adequately moderated.

Not necessarily a bad thing. It's genuinely a beautiful country! Almost more Italian than English with the intensity . . .

Your now PM reminds me of an ex-girlfriend, who is or was a bit of a ferocious litigator and before that prosecutor; except in this case, more like how she was with her German Shepherds and Belgian Malinoises than with anyone being deposed

zyklon said:

Australian politics doesn't sound too different from American politics when it comes to China.

Elected officials at the national level all want to look "tough" on Beijing, even though virtually all of them have constituents dependent on Chinese supply chains in terms of maintaining their quality of life.

Click to expand...

It's similar in that in both Australia and the United States there is a high level of anxiety about China that is shared across the spectrum of mainstream politics. The difference between the most recent Republican and Democrat administrations on China was more style than substance, with Republicans attracted to pugnacious symbolic gestures and the public exercise of "hard power" for its own sake and Democrats preferring procedure, decorum, and at least the pretense of international collaboration, showing some awareness of the concept of second-order consequences of withdrawing from international institutions, threatening allies with tariffs and stripping funds from aid programs. Similarly, one can characterise the difference between recent Coalition and Labor governments on China as more in style than substance, with a similar division of basic impulses and the consequences that flow from them.

Yet I think Australia's attitude towards China does not precisely align with that of the United States, at least when it comes to Labor and also the more moderate wing of the Coalition that is now in abeyance (last represented under former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in office 2015-2018). Labor and the Liberal moderates aren't quite as enamoured of the Anglosphere as a cultural lodestone and basic organizing principle of international affairs as the more reactionary wing of the Liberal party (Abbott, Morrison, Dutton) is. Labor and the Liberal moderates are at least theoretically acquainted with the notion that America's interests and Australia's interests may not necessarily align, and also put more effort into our relations with other nations in South-East Asia and the Pacific. Australia is anxious about the rise of Chinese power and what it could mean for us, the disruption of old certainties about the world order and our place in it, but there isn't the broad-spectrum reflexive hostility to China that we see in the United States. Frankly, we don't have the commanding economic, technological, strategic heights to lose that the USA does, and you can see that difference play out in, for example, the differing approach to Chinese vehicle imports. Australia no longer has a domestic automotive industry to protect, and it wasn't China that killed it (rather a combination of neoliberal economics, the mining resources boom driving up the value of the currency, and the increasing costs of modern automotive development in a fixed and increasingly competitive market), so we've been fairly open to Chinese vehicles.

The Labor party in opposition signed up to AUKUS within 48 hours of its unveiling by the Coalition government. Reportedly there were considerable internal misgivings about doing so, but ultimately Labor was more afraid of being painted as weak on China in the lead-up to the most recent election than they were concerned to undertake careful analysis of such a radical development with long-term ramifications for the country. Whether Labor acts out of conviction or political calculation and cowardice, the effect is the same. There are differences between the two major parties that will tend toward slightly different outcomes over time: it's not at all clear that a prospective Morrison government would've engaged in the quieter dialogue with Beijing that ultimately led to the latter dropping the various import restrictions it had imposed on Australian products. Yet those differences are fairly minor, and ultimately the system is what it does, and as such I don't blame folks for perceiving an Australian uniparty in relation to China.

zyklon said:

I see why Australians are still known for their felonious ancestors! Their ferocity has yet to be reasonably diluted and/or adequately moderated.

Not necessarily a bad thing. It's genuinely a beautiful country! Almost more Italian than English with the intensity . . .

Your now PM reminds me of an ex-girlfriend, who is or was a bit of a ferocious litigator and before that prosecutor; except in this case, more like how she was with her German Shepherds and Belgian Malinoises than with anyone being deposed

Click to expand...

The king of political shit-talking in Australia is undoubtedly Paul Keating, who was Prime Minister from 1992-1996 and before that a senior figure in the Labor governments of the 1980s. He also happens to be the most vocal public critic of Australia's ever-closer embrace of the United States and increasing antagonism toward China. Some of his greatest hits:

Lethe said:

The material basis of Australia's complaint regarding PLAN's lack of prior notification of a live fire exercise in the Tasman Sea is that it occasioned the diversion of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Notably, this count includes aircraft that were rerouted prior to departure to avoid the area, so it isn't clear how many aircraft were actually required to reroute while in the air ("several").

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

AFR article makes some interesting points regarding the Australian response:



So with the exception of two aircraft that were warned off via PLAN broadcasts on guard frequency, the other 47 aircraft were rerouted according to an exclusion corridor established by ATC in coordination with Airservices Australia, based off verbal relay from the pilots of the first two aircraft of notification/direction broadcast by PLAN via guard frequency. Notably, Airservices Australia did not have access to the location of the PLAN ships, and I assume that PLAN would not have broadcast their exact location either.

This raises the possibility that the exclusion corridor created by ATC and Airservices Australia may have been significantly larger than was actually necessary, operating on incomplete information and out of an abundance of caution, thereby potentially affecting more flights and/or to a greater extent than was actually necessary. That Airservices Australia, Virgin and Qantas were attempting to obtain coordinates for the PLAN task force from the Defence Department suggests that they believed that information to be materially relevant to informing the routing of flights. All of which leads to the following question: if Airservices Australia had not intervened to create an exclusion corridor, such that each aircraft was rerouted on an ad-hoc basis as they came into range of PLAN broadcasts on guard frequency, how many flights would actually have been affected, and to what material extent? That is to say, to what extent were flight diversions exacerbated by the Defence Department initially declining to provide coordinates of the PLAN task force to Airservices Australia?

Needless to say, we are not going to get answers to these questions. Though Virgin, Emirates or PLAN could always release the radio logs of their interactions which would shed some additional light on the subject.

Click to expand...

The whole flight diversion is totally unnecessary because PLAN ships are shooting at floating targets within visual range. That’s why the PLA spokesperson said the Aussies overreacted.

Map update