International Australia's Position in Asia-Pacific Geopolitics, as Beijing's Rising Shadow Casts Over Canberra.

Arkain2K

Si vis pacem, para bellum
@Steel
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
33,409
Reaction score
5,662






Thread Index:


China’s soft power turns hard in Australia

Beijing’s influence has expanded rapidly Down Under, a monied influx into politics, economics, and academia that faces growing and increasingly harsh scrutiny
By Helen ClarkPerth, October 17, 2017

Australia-China-Flags-2008.jpg

How pervasive is China’s growing influence in Australia and how willing is Canberra to push back? The short answer: highly and not so much.

Australian real estate agents rolled out the red carpet for wealthy Chinese, including with limousine tours and helicopter rides, seeking to purchase multi-million dollar properties over the recent Golden Week travel period.

Foreign property buying has become an increasingly politicized issue, one that regulators have tackled through tax increases and other changes on foreign property ownership including penalties for leaving properties vacant that have tangentially hit the growing number of Chinese national home owners.

Although largely unspoken, Australia is grappling with how to best manage its Chinese influx. China is currently Australia’s largest trade partner, fifth largest investor and top foreign student market.

Chinese tourists spent over US$31.8 billion Down Under in the first half of this year, accounting for a quarter of all tourist spending. Mandarin is now the second most spoken language in Australia, trailing only English, according to a 2016 census.

But while China is increasingly important to the Australian economy, the terms of exchange are under growing scrutiny, including the largely misunderstood notion of China’s exercise of so-called ‘soft power.’

As China’s influence grows, there is little that resembles traditional concepts of soft power, or overtures that entice others to voluntarily adopt a common viewpoint.

That was witnessed in Foreign Minister Julie Bishop’s warning earlier this week to Chinese students enrolled at Australian universities to respect others’ freedom of speech after a series of incidents pitting students versus professors on touchy territorial issues related to China.

It has been a decade since former Chinese leader Hu Jintao began to implement Chinese soft power as an outward-looking approach, a policy current leader Xi Jinping has extended with harder edges and a wider vision.

Australia-China-Real-Estate-Property-June-21-2017.jpg

A woman walks through Sydney’s Chinatown on June 21, 2017. Australia, Canada and the US are top destinations for wealthy Chinese homebuyers


In Australia, China’s power is exercised through a complex mix of influence-peddling, political donations, infrastructure development, agricultural purchases, media influence (both in Mandarin and English), oversight of Chinese students and plain espionage.

Reports earlier this year revealed that two ethnic Chinese billionaires who had donated millions of dollars across Australia’s political spectrum in recent years may in fact be Chinese state agents.

Unlike the United States and Europe, where direct political donations are banned, Australia still allows foreign donations. And Beijing seems increasingly keen to translate its economic power into political clout, including via big expenditures on pro-China propaganda.

Those efforts have paid off more in some parts of the world than others. Direct efforts in Australia via the bland ‘China Watch’ paid lift-out in Fairfax Media publications may have put a scare into independent-minded journalists, but the product has had negligible effect in advancing China’s state aims.

China’s increasingly assertive foreign policies, poor human rights record and anti-democratic political system still undermine its local image, even as China is generally well-liked.

Australian foreign affairs think thank the Lowy Institute yearly polls have found that most Australians value Chinese food, culture and people, but distrust the country’s political system and general lack of transparency.

Australia-Chinatown-Dixon-Street-Haymarket-July-17-2014.jpg

People stroll on Dixon Street in Sydney’s de facto Chinatown district.


Merriden Varrall, a China expert and director of the Lowy’s East Asia Program, says the idea of Chinese soft power is used “a little indiscriminately” and attempts to categorize the behavior into pre-existing categories shows a “lack of imagination.”

She said in Australia’s case it’s important “to see clearly which are individual desires and state desires and the interactions between these.”

It’s often a blurred image as concerns rise about Chinese state influence at Australian universities. There are currently 33 Australian Studies centers at higher education institutions in China. Beijing is simultaneously bidding to boost its cultural footprint in Australia through the establishment of at least 16 Confucius Institutes.

However, it seems some of China’s strongest inroads have been made not into Australia’s so-called Anglosphere, but rather its existing Chinese diaspora – from students to migrants to new Chinese homeowners in swish urban neighborhoods.

A strong majority of the 59 Chinese language newspapers serving that community are all notably pro-Beijing, in line with Xi Jinping’s soft power call to “better communicate China’s message to the world.” Some of those who have taken a contrarian view have been directly targeted by Beijing.

Feng Chongyi, an associate professor at the University of Sydney, was held for ten days by Chinese officials after a research trip to China earlier this year. The harassment likely stemmed from his open criticism of China’s rising role in Australia, including state control over civil society organizations and higher learning institutes at Australian universities.

“China’s influence has succeeded in shaping public perceptions and opinions about China, and even government policies toward China,” said Feng. “Even my freedom in Australia is increasingly under threat from China’s ‘soft power,’’’ he recently wrote.

China-Australia-Confucius-Center-RMIT-University-2010.jpg

Then Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping opens Australia’s first Chinese Medicine Confucius Institute, at RMIT University in Melbourne, on June 20, 2010


Lowy’s Varrall, meanwhile, wrote a recent op-ed for the New York Times that examined Chinese surveillance of Chinese students in Australia, a rising phenomenon she suggested leads to self-censorship to stay in line with Beijing’s orthodox views for fear of possible reprisal upon returning home.

All China worries are not the same. The real fear of Chinese cyber-hacking – government sponsored or not, it has occurred in other nations like the Philippines or Vietnam – differs from the hubbub caused by revelations that Chinese billionaire Li Ruipeng gifted Rolex watches to Australian politicians and their wives.

But political donations made by wealthy Chinese property developers Chau Chak Wing and Huang Xiangmo. according to an Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) investigation totaling around US$5 million, have drawn parallels to Russia’s influence in America’s electoral politics.

ASIO issued a warning about the donations as early as 2015, but they nonetheless continued.

Chau Chak Wing also funded the University of Western Sydney’s Frank Gehry building in 2014 and owns The Australia New Express Daily, a Chinese language publication that prides itself on glowing coverage of China and its ruling Communist Party.

That persistently positive coverage has been the subject of a Sydney Morning Herald investigation.

Australia-China-Julie-Bishop-Wang-Li-ASEAN-August-6-2017.jpg

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi (R) meets with Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop (L) at an ASEAN security forum in Manila on August 6, 2017.

More direct attempts to influence Australian politics have failed dismally, putting a harsh spotlight on Beijing’s often bald bids at political manipulation. Australian Labor Senator Sam Dastyari was caught up in a cash-for-comment scandal last year after it was revealed Chinese billionaire Huang Xiangmo paid some of the lawmaker’s legal bills.

Dastyari later told a press conference that Australia should stay out of all territorial disputes in the South China Sea, essentially contradicting his own party’s foreign policy and advocating one of Bejing’s most controversial policies.

The case had serious implications for the New South Wales senator, who lost his shadow cabinet position, but he is not the only and likely not the last politician to benefit from China’s largesse.

Despite the controversy, Australian lawmakers have not moved to pass new laws against foreign political donations. There are wider calls, however, among Australia’s allies – namely the US, New Zealand, United Kingdom and Canada – to develop a collective response to Chinese state intrusion on academic freedoms on their campuses.

China’s influence in Australia will inevitably grow as the two nations become more integrated through trade, investment and other exchanges. But as the spotlight grows on how China exerts its rising influence and power in Australia, that integration process will not be as smooth in future as it was previously.

Varrall says Australia and China are still learning from each other. “They want us to feel less tightly aligned with the US,” says Varrall, “[but] they find it difficult to understand that a lot of the alignment is based on shared values, that we see things in the same way.”

https://www.asiatimes.com/2017/10/article/chinas-soft-power-turns-hard-australia/
 
Last edited:
Tensions rise as Chinese government’s influence infiltrates Aussie universities
Chinese students are turning on their Australian teachers using secret videos amid growing fears about their government’s influence.​

AUSTRALIAN educators are increasingly coming under attack from Chinese students, raising concerns their government’s influence is permeating our universities.

The students have been openly complaining about Western teaching methods and ideas, and publicly demanding apologies or changes to how subjects are explored.

The trend has raised concerns that the ideology of China’s Communist Party is weaving its way into Australian academic teaching through overseas students.

Chinese students have even released footage online - filmed secretly in classes - of professors teaching classes that contradict Chinese ruling party ideology.

As a result of the critical videos published on Chinese websites and social media, some students received apologies from the academics.

Last week, a Chinese University of Newcastle student posted a YouTube video of him arguing with a professor who referred to Taiwan and Hong Kong as independent countries. “You are making us feel uncomfortable,” the student is heard saying to business professor Nimay Khaliani. “You have to consider all the students.”

Professor Khaliani replies: “Exactly, all the students, not one set of students.”

The video was published on several Chinese websites and provoked a backlash from readers, with Newcastle University eventually contacting China’s consulate-general to resolve the matter.

Days before the Newcastle University incident, a Chinese website reported that students at the University of Sydney were outraged at IT professor Khimji Vaghjiani displaying a map showing three regions contested by China and India as being part of India.

Mr Vaghjiani said in a statement. “Over 18 months ago, I used an out-of-date map, downloaded from the internet ... I was unaware that the map was inaccurate and out-of-date. This was a genuine mistake and I regret any offence this may have caused.”

The communist party-owned newspaper Global Times later wrote: “The China-India border dispute broke out in Australia, and China won!”

There was also controversy when the Cambridge University Press agreed to the censorship of an academic journal for China, removing 300 articles. On August 21, it said it had reinstated them.

And back June, an academic at the University of Sydney said the Chinese consulate had asked the instiution to reconsider holding a forum on the Tiananmen Square protests.

THE POST-TIANANMEN WORLDVIEW

The Lowy Institute’s East Asian director Merriden Varrall told news.com.au there was “certainly an increase” in the “willingness of Chinese students to stand together and push back against what they perceive as injustice” in Australia.

“I don’t think it’s about the Chinese embassy saying do this, act in this way. I don’t think that’s out of the question, but it reflects students’ beliefs.”

These young people have been brought up indoctrinated into certain beliefs that flatter China’s government, according to Dr Varrall, who said she was regularly told by student to change her methods while teaching in Beijing.

She said Chinese students were not taught to engage with critical thinking and interpretation, and often struggled to question ingrained beliefs. “After Tiananmen Square in 1989, China really ramped up the ideology,” said Dr Varrall. “It creates a view of the world all Chinese young people share.”

She said many of these students had strong sense of territoriality and sovereignty and believed their country had been victimised by the outside world for years. Issues such as whether Taiwan should be an independent country — it currently is not — are very “emotional” for them, and “hard for them to have an objective discussion about.”
‘DEBATE IS NOT NORMAL IN THEIR COUNTRY’

Earlier this month, an Australian National University computer science professor came under fire on Chinese social media after he was photographed lecturing beside a slide that read, in English and Chinese, “I will not tolerate students who cheat.” The professor later wrote a lengthy apology, calling it a “poor decision” and adding that he was “not sensitive to how some people would interpret it.”

In May, an Australian lecturer at Monash University was suspended after Chinese students found a test question that joked that their country’s officials only tell the truth when they are “drunk or careless.”

Dr Varrall believes we “need to do more to understand the complexity of China’s influence” and not let their students — whose fees are now vital to Australian universities — feel isolated or as though the Australian environment is antipathetic to their interests.

“From what I can see, the Australian Government is alert to the situation,” she said. “We need to ensure Chinese students in Australia are really supported.

“A lot of them don’t speak in class because they are afraid their language skills aren’t up to it. Debate is not normal in their country, they don’t have that practice.

“You get students unwilling to participate, befriending others in similar situations and then you don’t get that integration and cross-pollination of ideas.”

http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...s/news-story/e7768b0bb1f5953a7608884527387372
 
Last edited:
Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has warned Beijing against militarising the South China Sea following reports that China has installed missile systems in the Spratley Islands for the first time.

 
Last edited:
CSIS: US nuclear attack submarines and navy warships should be based in Perth in response to China’s growing power projection

US_Navy_040730-N-1234E-002_PCU_Virginia_%28SSN_774%29_returns_to_the_General_Dynamics_Electric_Boat_shipyard.jpg


US nuclear attack submarines and navy warships should be based in Perth in response to China’s growing power projection into the Indo-Pacific, a new US report warns.

The report says Australia and its allies must “spotlight and push back” against China’s stepped-up efforts to project power and build military infrastructure in the region. Otherwise, it warns, Beijing’s behaviour may “upturn longstanding assumptions about the Indo-Pacific region remaining free and open”.

The strongly worded report by Washington’s Centre for Strategic and International Studies was written by Michael Green, the former director of Asian affairs at the National Security Council under George W. Bush, and by Andrew Shearer, former national security adviser to prime minister Tony Abbott.

It comes amid fears in Washington that China is taking a more assertive role in projecting military power across the Indo-Pacific region, including building new infrastructure, and is wielding its economic clout to secure favourable strategic outcomes.

The report also comes a week after it was revealed that three Australian warships were challenged by the Chinese military as they travelled through the disputed South China Sea early this month.

Tensions between Australia and China have risen sharply, with China’s ambassador to Australia warning last week that the relationship between the two countries had been marred by “systematic, irresponsible and negative remarks” about China.

Beijing has not hosted a senior Australian minister for several months and was highly critical of Malcolm Turnbull’s new security laws announced last year to protect Australia from foreign interference.


Former prime minister Kevin Rudd this week further accused the current Prime Minister of undermining Australia’s relationship with China, saying Mr Turnbull’s public remarks about our largest trading partner were tantamount to “punching the Chinese in the face”.

But the CSIS report warns that China’s behaviour in the region needs to be challenged by Australia and its allies. “China’s military penetration into the South Pacific would challenge one of the oldest and most fundamental tenets of Australian strategic doctrine, the exclusion of outside military powers from its island approaches,” the report says.

It says China is building extensive maritime infrastructure in the South Pacific, Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean that supports its large merchant fleet and opens up military options that could destabilise the region.

“Much of it could be used to support increasing power projection operations in the region by the People’s Liberation Army-Navy.

“The United States and its region allies and partners need to pay attention and develop a more coherent and effective response,’’ the report says.


To counter this, the CSIS calls for a range of measures, including a rotational presence of US warships at HMAS Stirling in Perth.

It also calls on the Turnbull government to “consider the possibility of investing in the nuclear support infrastructure necessary for the basing of (US) attack submarines as well”.

These military options have been considered by the Turnbull and Abbott Coalition governments and by the Gillard and Rudd Labor governments but they have never been acted upon.


But Mr Shearer said the time was now right for a bigger US military presence at HMAS Stirling.

“US military aircraft and Marine forces are already operating from facilities in Australia’s north under the US Force Posture Initiatives,” he told The Australian in Washington. “It makes sense to add a naval component, and this has been under discussion for a number of years. It is time to press forward with greater urgency

“The RAN’s Fleet Base West at HMAS Stirling, south of Perth, is ideally situated to support a rotating US naval presence. It already has some relevant infrastructure in place and there is room for expansion. It has a large offshore exercise area and offers direct bluewater access to the Indian Ocean and its critical sea lanes.

“Australian and American naval forces operating from Western Australia would be well placed to build closer co-operation with the Indian navy, to maintain a greater presence in the Indian Ocean and to monitor China’s increasing naval presence.”

The report praised the “firm stand” taken by Mr Turnbull to reports, which have since been denied by Vanuatu, that China was seeking a military base in that country. But it said the informal security dialogue between Australia, the US, Japan and India, known as the Quad, was a useful framework for pushing back on China’s efforts to exert muscle in the Indo-Pacific.

It said Quad members should do more to provide economic investment alternatives and stronger diplomatic and economic support for South Pacific states to counter efforts by China to co-opt those states, including through “debt traps”.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...h/news-story/af5d0e9dd300c8eb96bf74aca790198d


PS: The comments from Australian readers directly below the article are very interesting. I still can't believe a country with a massive coastline like Australia (roughly the size of continental United States) would spend $50 Billion to buy a bunch of old WW2-designed diesel subs from France, to be honest. How efficient can they patrol the vast Australian coasts if they constantly have to go back to port to refuel? Not to mention that Australia only have a few weeks worth of fuel in their strategic reserves at any given time...
 
Last edited:
IN!

Before someone asks: "How they gonna get submarines to Austria?"
 
Article is behind a dedicated paywall; what are those dingo fuckers saying in the comments section?
 
So more military spending and oversea involvement against the backdrop of massive budget deficit? Instead of scaling back, Murica is sending more troops to Syria, increasing its involvement in Yemen and god knows how many other covert front.

Bring on more debt! I'm sure you don't have to pay it back ever.
 
Article is behind a dedicated paywall; what are those dingo fuckers saying in the comments section?

In light of the Australian port of Darwin now in Chinese control for the next 99 years, there is one debate on whether they should apply to join collectively as the 51st State, or separately as seven new states.

I thought there would be some loud objections to the idea of nuclear submarines (since Australia is officially committed to be nuclear-free), but as it turns out, every territory want a piece of the U.S Navy's nuclear fleet instead of letting Perth having it all.
 
In light of the Australian port of Darwin now in Chinese control for the next 99 years, there is one debate on whether they should apply to join collectively as the 51st State, or separately as seven new states.

I thought there would be some loud objections to the idea of nuclear submarines (since Australia is officially committed to be nuclear-free), but as it turns out, every territory want a piece of the U.S Navy's nuclear fleet instead of letting Perth having it all.

US should trade military protectionism for 60% stake in the REE deposits -- otherwise, they can invest in and man their own nuclear tech
 
I can't help but wonder how the US empire can sustain containing China, containing Russia, and fighting wars in 7 different countries throughout the middle East and africa.
 
Australia’s future submarine and our strategic risks
By Michael Keating & Jon Stanford | 28 April 2018​

58f4c2e0d883ab65d4d8c89880995f7e49036746

Almost two years since the government selected the French company Naval Group to design Australia’s future submarine (FSM), it is timely to review that decision in the light of Australia’s evolving strategic challenges.

The acquisition of new military capability should be derived from the government’s defence strategy, which in turn depends on the level and nature of the threat confronting Australia. Herein lies the first problem; other than reliance on the United States under ANZUS, it is not clear that Australia has a well-defined defence strategy. Indeed, the ADF’s force structure is primarily designed for coalition warfare rather than for the independent defence of Australia.

One key question, therefore, is whether the government should develop an independent strategy to address the contingency that Australia might be drawn into a high-level conflict with a major power without being able to rely on the military support of the United States. The second question then is how well the current $50 billion acquisition programme for the FSM would fit within the capability requirement derived from such a strategy, noting that the need for submarines would increase disproportionately if we were defending Australia independently.

In response to the first question, while Australia’s strategic environment may not have changed much over the last two years, perhaps our understanding of the nature of the future threat has developed significantly. After all, the 2009 Defence White Paper canvassed the possibility that in the future Australia could confront a great power adversary without US support. That scenario, regarded by some as rather fanciful at the time, is now almost commonplace among defence analysts.

It is becoming clear, for example, that in contesting regional leadership with the US, one of China’s strategic objectives is to be able to enforce a policy of anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) against the US Navy, specifically its carrier battle groups, in the South China Sea. Emerging technologies in land-based ballistic and hypersonic missiles will make surface battle groups a threatened species in future conflicts. In the medium term, China’s A2/AD strategy could also extend into the Indo-Pacific region more broadly by the establishment of one or more forward bases.

In response to this challenge, particularly under ‘America First’, it is possible that the US would decide that its future national interest would be best served by retiring to Hawaii and, by default, ceding leadership in the Indo-Pacific to China. This would have profound implications for Australia’s foreign and defence policies.

Given the rapid increase in its defence budget, China might be able to present a credible threat in our region by the mid-2020s. This is not to say that China has any intention of attacking Australia and it is overwhelmingly in both countries’ interests to maintain a harmonious relationship. But wars can happen by default; were there to be a conflict over Taiwan, for example, who knows where that would end. Australia should develop, with some urgency, a strategy to defend itself in a conflict with a great power. This cannot be achieved overnight.

Australia is a big, remote country and, as Japan discovered in 1942, it is difficult to invade. Submarines are the classic means by which a weaker power can level the playing field and prosecute asymmetric warfare in its defence. Yet Australia has a very long coastline to defend and currently operates only six submarines of the Collins class, which are on the verge of obsolescence. This allows for a maximum of two ageing submarines to be in their areas of operations (AOs) at any time. Because their base is far distant from these AOs, they also face a major disadvantage with about 30 days of a 55-day patrol spent in transit.

In defending Australia, how would the submarine force operate? Current doctrine is for Australian submarines both to loiter outside naval bases in order to attack warships and submarines, and also to patrol the choke points in the Indonesian archipelago to prevent hostile forces from penetrating Australian waters.

To prosecute these missions effectively, a sizeable submarine force would be necessary. With 18 conventional submarines, for example, it is likely that a maximum of six could be on patrol at any one time. This would be the minimum force required, before allowing for the likelihood of attrition. Were the adversary to develop a forward base, more submarines, perhaps 24, would be needed. If some of the submarines were nuclear powered and therefore much faster and more powerful, perhaps fewer boats would be required. Indeed, it may be that the most efficient submarine force would include more than one class of submarine.

While the government has recognised the need to increase the size of Australia’s submarine force, not only is its ambition inadequate but it is also moving much too slowly. Were Naval Group’s design to be accepted, twelve extraordinarily expensive conventional submarines will enter service between 2034 and 2050. As with all ab initio submarine designs, they will inevitably be delivered late. In addition, and apparently against the advice of the French, they are being designed with an inefficient pump-jet propulsion system only found on nuclear submarines. They also will not incorporate air-independent propulsion, a critical new technology that allows a submerged endurance of up to three weeks rather than three days.

Apart from installing new sensors, the government has decided not to undertake a comprehensive life extension of Collins. This implies that these submarines will be unable responsibly to be sent into harm’s way beyond the late 2020s. This will leave Australia with an unacceptably dangerous capability gap as the new submarines come on stream. Eventually, in the mid-2030s, one submarine, at best, will be available for operations. This would not constitute a credible deterrent.

What then should the government do? First of all, while continuing the contracted design process with Naval Group, as a matter of urgency order six new submarines based on a military off-the-shelf (MOTS) design. These would replace Collins and could be built in Australia subject to acceptable cost and delivery criteria. Secondly, address the issue of long transits by developing either a fixed or floating forward base with fly-in, fly-out facilities for crews.

Next, in the early 2020s, decide between ordering more MOTS boats, building the French design or perhaps taking a different approach. This could involve starting the lengthy process of acquiring nuclear submarines and also procuring underwater drones. An early discussion of these options could usefully occur during the forthcoming visit of President Macron.

Under the Constitution, a key role for the Commonwealth is to protect the nation against attack. In this time of strategic uncertainty, we cannot be confident that the government has a strategy and an acquisitions policy in place that will allow it to discharge this constitutional responsibility. At the least, it needs to focus urgently on accelerating and expanding its submarine procurement programme.

Dr Michael Keating is a former head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Jon Stanford is a Director of Insight Economics and was a senior official in PM&C in the 1990s.


https://www.smh.com.au/national/aus...-and-our-strategic-risks-20180423-p4zb7f.html
 
So more military spending and oversea involvement against the backdrop of massive budget deficit?

Eh, if anything, we'd just be moving our current Pacific assets closer to the hot zone.

Currently, Submarine Squadron 15 is all the way in Guam, which would take hours to arrive if there's a need for them in the Indo-Pacific region.
 
In light of the Australian port of Darwin now in Chinese control for the next 99 years, there is one debate on whether they should apply to join collectively as the 51st State, or separately as seven new states.

I thought there would be some loud objections to the idea of nuclear submarines (since Australia is officially committed to be nuclear-free), but as it turns out, every territory want a piece of the U.S Navy's nuclear fleet instead of letting Perth having it all.
Have you seen the port of Darwin ? It is a jetty at best.
 
US_Navy_040730-N-1234E-002_PCU_Virginia_%28SSN_774%29_returns_to_the_General_Dynamics_Electric_Boat_shipyard.jpg


US nuclear attack submarines and navy warships should be based in Perth in response to China’s growing power projection into the Indo-Pacific, a new US report warns.

The report says Australia and its allies must “spotlight and push back” against China’s stepped-up efforts to project power and build military infrastructure in the region. Otherwise, it warns, Beijing’s behaviour may “upturn longstanding assumptions about the Indo-Pacific region remaining free and open”.

The strongly worded report by Washington’s Centre for Strategic and International Studies was written by Michael Green, the former director of Asian affairs at the National Security Council under George W. Bush, and by Andrew Shearer, former national security adviser to prime minister Tony Abbott.

It comes amid fears in Washington that China is taking a more assertive role in projecting military power across the Indo-Pacific region, including building new infrastructure, and is wielding its economic clout to secure favourable strategic outcomes.

The report also comes a week after it was revealed that three Australian warships were challenged by the Chinese military as they travelled through the disputed South China Sea early this month.

Tensions between Australia and China have risen sharply, with China’s ambassador to Australia warning last week that the relationship between the two countries had been marred by “systematic, irresponsible and negative remarks” about China.

Beijing has not hosted a senior Australian minister for several months and was highly critical of Malcolm Turnbull’s new security laws announced last year to protect Australia from foreign interference.


Former prime minister Kevin Rudd this week further accused the current Prime Minister of undermining Australia’s relationship with China, saying Mr Turnbull’s public remarks about our largest trading partner were tantamount to “punching the Chinese in the face”.

But the CSIS report warns that China’s behaviour in the region needs to be challenged by Australia and its allies. “China’s military penetration into the South Pacific would challenge one of the oldest and most fundamental tenets of Australian strategic doctrine, the exclusion of outside military powers from its island approaches,” the report says.

It says China is building extensive maritime infrastructure in the South Pacific, Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean that supports its large merchant fleet and opens up military options that could destabilise the region.

“Much of it could be used to support increasing power projection operations in the region by the People’s Liberation Army-Navy.

“The United States and its region allies and partners need to pay attention and develop a more coherent and effective response,’’ the report says.

To counter this, the CSIS calls for a range of measures, including a rotational presence of US warships at HMAS Stirling in Perth.

It also calls on the Turnbull government to “consider the possibility of investing in the nuclear support infrastructure necessary for the basing of (US) attack submarines as well”.

These military options have been considered by the Turnbull and Abbott Coalition governments and by the Gillard and Rudd Labor governments but they have never been acted upon.

But Mr Shearer said the time was now right for a bigger US military presence at HMAS Stirling.

“US military aircraft and Marine forces are already operating from facilities in Australia’s north under the US Force Posture Initiatives,” he told The Australian in Washington. “It makes sense to add a naval component, and this has been under discussion for a number of years. It is time to press forward with greater urgency

“The RAN’s Fleet Base West at HMAS Stirling, south of Perth, is ideally situated to support a rotating US naval presence. It already has some relevant infrastructure in place and there is room for expansion. It has a large offshore exercise area and offers direct bluewater access to the Indian Ocean and its critical sea lanes.

“Australian and American naval forces operating from Western Australia would be well placed to build closer co-operation with the Indian navy, to maintain a greater presence in the Indian Ocean and to monitor China’s increasing naval presence.”

The report praised the “firm stand” taken by Mr Turnbull to reports, which have since been denied by Vanuatu, that China was seeking a military base in that country. But it said the informal security dialogue between Australia, the US, Japan and India, known as the Quad, was a useful framework for pushing back on China’s efforts to exert muscle in the Indo-Pacific.

It said Quad members should do more to provide economic investment alternatives and stronger diplomatic and economic support for South Pacific states to counter efforts by China to co-opt those states, including through “debt traps”.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...h/news-story/af5d0e9dd300c8eb96bf74aca790198d


PS: The comments from Australian readers directly below the article are very interesting. I still can't believe a country with a massive coastline like Australia (roughly the size of continental United States) would spend $50 Billion to buy a bunch of old WW2-designed diesel subs from France, to be honest. How efficient can they patrol the vast Australian coasts if they constantly have to go back to port to refuel? Not to mention that Australia only have a few weeks worth of fuel in their strategic reserves at any given time...


Adios Sher brothers

I may be vaporized blown out to see like Mason but my ship post might live on!

Sayonara!

P.S

As a Filipino good Job China well done you just put a big bulls eye in our backyard for the rest of the world powers to strike impresive.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't know how it would look like during the next 99 years.
Like a jetty but bigger but seriously it's not a big deal there are other ports and naval bases close by for the 3000 U.S. marines stationed in Darwin to sail from, It's not like the Chinese gov't have troops here ready to close it to anyone.
 
Eh, if anything, we'd just be moving our current Pacific assets closer to the hot zone.

Currently, Submarine Squadron 15 is all the way in Guam, which would take hours to arrive if there's a need for them in the Indo-Pacific region.
No not good, the West should be closing down bases in third world shitholes and slashing deficit. Europe needs to stop its obsession with immigration from third world shitholes, and Murica needs to stop meddling third world shitholes. Interventionism should be reserved only when directly threatened. The US military budget alone is 700 billion dollars. US funding for education is 68 billion in comparison.
 
No not good, the West should be closing down bases in third world shitholes and slashing deficit. Europe needs to stop its obsession with immigration from third world shitholes, and Murica needs to stop meddling third world shitholes. Interventionism should be reserved only when directly threatened. The US military budget alone is 700 billion dollars. US funding for education is 68 billion in comparison.
Are you calling Australia a 3rd world shithole?
 
So more military spending and oversea involvement against the backdrop of massive budget deficit? Instead of scaling back, Murica is sending more troops to Syria, increasing its involvement in Yemen and god knows how many other covert front.

Bring on more debt! I'm sure you don't have to pay it back ever.
Honestly....I wonder what will happen, if America said no to the debt..........I mean we are the top dawg, we do have the best military....Could we simply say no and fuck everyone else up, including banks up?......I really doubt the banks or anybody else will come asking us for money or anything.....including china...unless we became weaker, and then they could tell us what to do.
 
Back
Top