AUKUS News, Views, Analysis.

coolgod said:

A lot of what you said can be applied to most western countries e.g., Canada, US. China bashing is the norm, but elites usually keep the government and media in check, to make sure they don't go overboard.

Click to expand...

Sure. I don't mean to suggest that there's anything particularly unique about Australia's internal dynamics on this subject. The US balloon incident was somewhat similar. As a general rule I think we should try to be aware of the internal dynamics on any subject of interest. After all, those dynamics are the difference between the US approach to Ukraine under Biden and Trump respectively. Speaking of entire nations thinking and behaving in certain ways and having certain characteristics can be a useful and even necessary shorthand, but we should at least be aware of the complexities we erase when doing so.

Blitzo said:

To be fair, I think even if the ADF did know that a PLAN SSN was accompanying those three ships, they would be wise to say they don't know one way or another.

Click to expand...

From a strictly military perspective that would be sensible. But if a PLAN SSN had been tracked in any sustained capacity, there could be a political case for disclosing that, both in relation to domestic audiences (reassuring Australians that the government is in control) and as an element in strategic signalling to Beijing. Of course the latter could always be done "privately" via active sonar or sonobuoys to alert the target that their location has been compromised without splashing it across the newspapers. The Albanese government likes to portray itself as the adult in the room, prioritising substance over symbolism, but there's always that temptation to, as Jacqui Lambie would put it, instead.

Lethe said:

From a strictly military perspective that would be sensible. But if a PLAN SSN had been tracked in any sustained capacity, there could be a political case for disclosing that, both in relation to domestic audiences (reassuring Australians that the government is in control) and as an element in strategic signalling to Beijing. Of course the latter could always be done "privately" via active sonar, sonobuoys, etc. to alert the target that their location has been compromised without splashing it across the newspapers. The Albanese government likes to portray itself as the adult in the room, prioritising substance over symbolism, but there's always that temptation to, as Jacqui Lambie would put it,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

instead.

Click to expand...

In politics, the less the public knows the better. You don't know what kind of problems you'll get if you start to disclose there is a PLAN SSN right outside Australia.

I think many people are not mentioning that an Australian plane flew over the territorial airspace above the Xisha Islands

"South China Sea" and "South China Sea" are not the same. The Xisha Islands are actual islands—not merely reefs—and almost none are man-made. China has an incredibly strong claim on the Xisha Islands, and has designated territorial waters and airspace around and above them. Regardless of whether Western countries agree, from China’s perspective, these areas must be treated like any other territorial airspace. An intrusion into them is not at all equivalent to a mere "freedom of navigation" operation near China.

00CuriousObserver said:

I think many people are not mentioning that an Australian plane flew over the territorial airspace above the Xisha Islands

"South China Sea" and "South China Sea" are not the same. The Xisha Islands are actual islands—not merely reefs—and almost none are man-made. China has an incredibly strong claim on the Xisha Islands, and has designated territorial waters and airspace around and above them. Regardless of whether Western countries agree, from China’s perspective, these areas must be treated like any other territorial airspace. An intrusion into them is not at all equivalent to a mere "freedom of navigation" operation near China.

Click to expand...

You are correct, but this line of thinking is not helpful. PLAN sailing around Australia isn't because Australia first sailed and flew around Chinese territories. PLAN is sailing around Australia because it can, no other justification is needed, notice how the Chinese government never linked these exercises to anything Australia did prior. PLAN will continue to sail around Australia whenever it feels like regardless of what Australia does in the SCS or in the Taiwan strait.

coolgod said:

In politics, the less the public knows the better. You don't know what kind of problems you'll get if you start to disclose there is a PLAN SSN right outside Australia.

Click to expand...

On balance I don't think the current government would choose to go down that path, because it would almost certainly undermine their broader approach to managing the relationship with China, i.e. quiet diplomacy to productive ends. I only wanted to highlight that the national security argument for not revealing anti-submarine capabilities is not the only relevant consideration in matters like this. Had a similar situation occurred under the Morrison government, I think they would've been very tempted to make a public spectacle of it. Indeed, Scott Morrison would probably have Minister for Sonobuoy Operations and claimed personal credit for tracking the dastardly PLAN submarine.

00CuriousObserver said:

I think many people are not mentioning that an Australian plane flew over the territorial airspace above the Xisha Islands. "South China Sea" and "South China Sea" are not the same. The Xisha Islands are actual islands—not merely reefs—and almost none are man-made. China has an incredibly strong claim on the Xisha Islands, and has designated territorial waters and airspace around and above them. Regardless of whether Western countries agree, from China’s perspective, these areas must be treated like any other territorial airspace. An intrusion into them is not at all equivalent to a mere "freedom of navigation" operation near China.

Click to expand...

I have made the same point in recent conversations: that Beijing's actions make sense within Beijing's own conceptual framework, i.e. the claims encompassed by the 9-dash line, and that this framework is not the casual invention of a maniacal Xi Jinping as in the case of Trump's recent musings about Canada, Greenland, etc. but have a considerable history that extends beyond the PRC itself. One isn't required to endorse those claims, but simply ignoring Beijing's perspective to declare that e.g. Australia's innocent P-8s are being harassed by belligerent J-16s leads to a conceptual framework that is at best incomplete, likely misleading and potentially dangerous. Understanding the other tends to be rather important in international affairs. The current war in Ukraine illustrates the dangers of the echo chamber.

Lethe said:

From a strictly military perspective that would be sensible. But if a PLAN SSN had been tracked in any sustained capacity, there could be a political case for disclosing that, both in relation to domestic audiences (reassuring Australians that the government is in control) and as an element in strategic signalling to Beijing. Of course the latter could always be done "privately" via active sonar or sonobuoys to alert the target that their location has been compromised without splashing it across the newspapers. The Albanese government likes to portray itself as the adult in the room, prioritising substance over symbolism, but there's always that temptation to, as Jacqui Lambie would put it,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

instead.

Click to expand...

Really now? Could've fooled me.

Lethe said:

A former Chief of the Australian Defence Force (1998-2002), retired Admiral Chris Barrie, has

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on the idea that China's transit or live fire exercises in the Tasman Sea were unprecedented in their conduct or notification practices.

Notably, PLAN broadcasting on guard frequency is how the first airliner-in-transit was alerted to these exercises, passing on to ATC who established the air corridor diverting other aircraft, thence to Airservices Australia, and thence to the ADF (with an independent, slower route of notification via RNZN).

Click to expand...

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 . 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").

AFR article makes some interesting points regarding the Australian response:

Defence Department officials refused to provide airlines with coordinates of the Chinese flotilla until after live-firing resumed on Saturday despite pleas from the carriers for information that would allow them to pre-emptively avoid flying near the warships.

Industry sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorised to speak publicly, revealed the resistance from Defence chiefs on Saturday frustrated both the airlines and the nation’s air traffic controller, Airservices Australia, as they grappled with the safety implications of military drills in the normally tranquil Tasman Sea.

Airlines such as domestic carriers Virgin and Qantas were only given the exact coordinates when Defence Minister Richard Marles’s office stepped in and ordered the department to share the information, about 20 minutes after the Chinese flotilla had carried its second live-firing exercise on Saturday.

Click to expand...

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.

SanWenYu said:

I wish that 107 Zunyi flotilla had passed through the Baas straight to show China's determination in protecting the China-Australia sea trade routes.

Click to expand...

Funny you mentioned this idea because this has been unearthed:
Mid 2022, not even that long ago.

coolgod said:

You are correct, but this line of thinking is not helpful. PLAN sailing around Australia isn't because Australia first sailed and flew around Chinese territories. PLAN is sailing around Australia because it can, no other justification is needed, notice how the Chinese government never linked these exercises to anything Australia did prior. PLAN will continue to sail around Australia whenever it feels like regardless of what Australia does in the SCS or in the Taiwan strait.

Click to expand...

Geopolitics is about gains and losses. China, like any country, should take action that are beneficial—that is, when the gains outweigh the costs—rather than simply because it "can". Of course, demonstrating that it "can" may itself be a gain.

Not saying that what I mentioned earlier is the sole reason or necessarily a major reason.

00CuriousObserver said:

Geopolitics is about gains and losses. China, like any country, should take action that are beneficial—that is, when the gains outweigh the costs—rather than simply because it "can". Of course, demonstrating that it "can" may itself be a gain.

Not saying that what I mentioned earlier is the sole reason or necessarily a major reason.

Click to expand...

In fact if you notice, all the narrative that the recent PLAN exercises down south is just China's retaliation is actually coming out of the western media. Aussies and New Zealanders have this fantasy that if they don't provoke China again in the future, PLAN won't pay them a visit too. This is just cope to make themselves feel better.

China is now the world's preeminent superpower. With great power comes great responsibility, the US Navy is shrinking day by day, who is going to secure the shipping lanes, who is going to uphold the free trade world order? It is the PLAN's job to protect the trade routes between Australia and China, this is why the PLAN is sailing around Australia and will continue to do so in the future.