Here are some thoughts about the hysteria surrounding a Chinese Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) flotilla conducting freedom of navigation exercises in the Tasman Sea, including live fire drills.
1) The flotilla has been tracked for over a week by New Zealand and Australian forces. The tracking began when the flotilla was well NE of the Australian northeastern coast.
HMAS Arunta shadowing PLAN vessels in the Tasman Sea. Source: ADF handout/AFP.
2) The flotilla is operating in accordance with international law and maritime regulations regarding military operations in international waters.
3) The flotilla has no air cover deployed with it and therefore no effective means to defend itself against a coordinated air assault. It is basically a sitting duck for Australian air defences and even NZDF air defences (because the NZDF P8s and Seasprite helicopters carry air to surface munitions as well as torpedos).
4) The flotilla may have a submarine deployed with it.
5) The presence of the PLAN ships in the Tasman is a form of military diplomacy, showing the flag in a distant body of water as a demonstration of blue water power projection capabilities.
6) The PLAN freedom of navigation (FON) exercise in the Tasman Sea may well be a response to a joint Australian-New Zealand FON exercise in the Taiwan Strait in September 2024. Those waters are far more disputed than the Tasman Sea (because the PRC claims them as territorial waters), so the PRC objected to the exercise at the time and declared that it would formulate an appropriate response in due course. This could be it. But the PLAN vessels are far from Australian and NZ territorial waters, so the legality of their presence in open seas is indisputable.
7) The presence of the PLAN flotilla conducting live fire drills (5 conventional surface to surface rounds fired from the Type 055 destroyer Zunyi’s main gun at a floating target, as observed by personnel on the HMNZS Te Kaha) and other exercises is an excellent opportunity for Australian and New Zealand to hone their naval counter-force capabilities, including tactical signals and technical intelligence intercepts and collection from the flotilla. If a submarine is involved then the Antipodean allies can refine their anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities as well, which is exactly what their P8 patrol and ASW aircraft are designed to do. As it stands, Australia and NZ are using air and surface platforms to shadow the PLAN boats.
8) Much has been made about the lack of warning given by the PLAN before the live fire drills. Such warnings are a courtesy, not part of any formal protocol. They are usually issued 12+ hours prior to the drill in order for interested parties such as civilian aviation and maritime operators to plan accordingly and clear away from the target area. The PLAN gave 15 minute warnings, forcing a few planes to adjust course away from the no-fly zone. That was perhaps rude as far as courtesy goes, but nothing more.
9) Most of the hysteria about the flotilla is led by Australian opposition figures in politics and media in an election year. Most of the alarm in New Zealand is led by Sinophobic media commentators or people with little knowledge of military affairs or the nuances of military diplomacy, much less naval operations (especially in NZ). All of them want to tie the exercises to broader Chinese moves in the Southwest Pacific such as the recent bilateral strategic agreement between the PRC and the Cook Islands. For their part, Ministry of Defense officials on both sides have been muted in their response and military officials have been largely silent (presumably because they know what is really happening).
10) It is clear that the PRC is “flexing” its military might in more and more distant places, as any Great Power would do. But not every display of power capability constitutes an imminent threat. Should Australia and NZ pay attention to the exercise? Absolutely, especially because it can be used as a learning tool for their respective naval counter-force platforms. Should they feel threatened by the exercises? Absolutely not. Claims of the exercise posing a threat, being a provocation or an act of intimidation by the PRC betray the biases of those who make such claims. The PRC is just doing what Great Powers do, and if anything it is reminding others of its capabilities while testing them in front of foreign eyes.
Sailors aboard the HMAS Arunta observe the PLAN flotilla in the Tasman Sea. Source; AFD handout/AFP
11) In the end, if the US, UK, French or other Western navies conducted the exact same exercise in the Tasman Sea, there would be little controversy about it. Because it is the PLAN, however, anti-PRC elements in Australia and New Zealand want to use the occasion to stir up trouble in pursuit of their own agendas. But the truth is that the PRC is not designated as an adversary or hostile state by either Australia or New Zealand, who in fact enjoy largely cordial and beneficial trade relations with the Asian giant. Although there have been moments of friction between Australia and New Zealand, on one hand, and the PRC on the other over a number of political, diplomatic and military strategic issues, and the PRC remains a major concern for the Australian and NZ security communities for a number of reasons, none of this justifies turning what is a relatively small display of power projection into an international incident.
Everyone needs to clam down and relax.
So you do not see any connection to the timing of this with the Cook Islands agreement – part of our realm. As per their claim to Taiwan?
And the wider issue of South Pacific joint declarations as such agreements with China?
A rare dose of sanity.
SPC:
The certainly a larger strategic picture at play, but the timing of this deployment may be coincidental to the Cooks-PRC partnership announcement as well as other geopolitical machinations. To my mind it is just another cog in a large revolving wheel, and over-reacting to a relative small display of power plays precisely into PRC hands because it allows them to play the hypocrisy and over-reaction cards. If NZ can send military vessels through water that the PRC considers its territory (which changes the nature of the deployment from a FON to a “safe passage” exercise that requires prior permission from the territory owner, which NZ did not seek before the September 2024 excursion because it does not recognise the PRC territorial claim to the Strait), then a PLAN flotilla in well recognised international waters away from adjoining state’s territorial waters is relatively inconsequential unless someone wants to make an issue of it. Again, other than MinDef Collins when pressured for a response (and she clearly was out of her depth when doing so), the NZ security community has remained silent on the matter. So for the most part has the OZ military and intelligence crowd. There is good reason for that.
Australia and New Zealand should focus more on their defence and national resilience shortfalls than worrying about an unremarkable Chinese navy deployment.
For both countries, strategic fuel and essential mineral reserves warrant attention. If wartime fuel supplies run out, supply chains will halt. The resources required for manufacturing PC hardware and solar panels are also considerations.
Elsewhere, one might argue that the ADF and NZDF conducting an anti-shipping exercise in the Tasman Sea would be a decent response to China’s naval deployment in that area. However, only one of the RAN’s Collins class submarines is available, and the RNZAF’s “combat or strike force” is long gone.
“Everyone needs to clam down and relax”
They do indeed.. As I head towards my dotage, I love watching various MSM stripes alongside the alternatives with their own bubbles and tribes. Everyone’s an expert – emboldened by those bubbles they inhabit. And they all gone done their research, peer reviewed by those from within
In the coming era there’ll be plenty many with quite a few regerts in their spaces going forwid.
I’d apply that rule from an old film star called Ronnie who probably should have hooked up with the old handbag instead of sticking phat with Nancy. “Trust but Verify”
A really interesting & informative perspective. Thank you, Pablo.