By John Q. Hosedrinker 
New evidence suggests the Chinese cargo ship *Yi Peng 3*, currently under investigation for damaging Baltic Sea undersea cables on November 17th, may have attempted a similar act ten days prior near Læsø. Analysis of AIS data and underwater footage reveals a suspicious maneuver near subsea cables on November 7th, involving a speed reduction and brief stop. While the Chinese Embassy stated its willingness to cooperate in the investigation, Danish authorities have increased surveillance in their waters in response to this concerning activity. The damaged cables, Arelion and C-Lion1, disrupted communications between several European countries.
Read the original article here
A Chinese ship may have attempted to sabotage undersea cables before, a claim fueled by recent events in the Baltic Sea. The incident involves a ship suspected of deliberately dragging its anchor for an extensive distance, resulting in damage to crucial undersea cables. While some suggest this was a blatant act of war, a coordinated effort between China and Russia, others point to the lack of direct Chinese government involvement indicated by Western intelligence officials. This discrepancy highlights the complexities and challenges in attributing responsibility for such acts.
This incident raises questions about the possibility of previous similar actions by Chinese vessels. It’s suggested that China may have perfected sabotage methods in Southeast Asia, where undersea cables reportedly suffer numerous attacks annually, often dismissed as accidents or attributed to natural causes. The frequency of these incidents, coupled with the lack of definitive investigations, raises concerns about the potential for deliberate acts of sabotage masked as accidents.
The involvement of a Chinese-flagged vessel does not automatically equate to Chinese government complicity. It’s possible the ship was operating under the direction of another entity, utilizing the flag as a means of concealment. This highlights the vulnerability of international shipping regulations and the potential for exploitation by those seeking to obscure their involvement in clandestine operations. The ease with which ships can change flags adds another layer of complexity to determining responsibility for incidents like the Baltic Sea cable damage.
The question of motive is crucial in understanding this potential pattern of sabotage. While some argue that China stands to gain strategically by disrupting European infrastructure or escalating tensions between Russia and the EU, Western intelligence reports contradict this theory. The potential benefits for China are far from clear. The lack of clear gain for China and the suggestion of Russian orchestration further complicate the picture. Furthermore, the potential for economic consequences and international condemnation strongly discourages such reckless actions by a major global player.
The potential for such incidents to be overlooked, misinterpreted, or downplayed is a significant concern. The initial reactions to many incidents involving undersea cable damage often lack thorough investigation, potentially leading to a lack of accountability for perpetrators. This lack of transparency creates fertile ground for speculation and conspiracy theories, highlighting the need for greater international cooperation and stricter regulations surrounding the protection of critical underwater infrastructure.
The narrative around this incident has been heavily influenced by the geopolitical context. Accusations of Russian disinformation campaigns, designed to shift blame towards China, further complicate the situation. Separating fact from propaganda, especially in this heavily politicized arena, becomes paramount in order to understand the true nature of these events. The challenge lies in navigating through conflicting information to determine the extent of Chinese involvement, both in this particular incident and in any previous attempts at undersea cable sabotage.
In conclusion, while the involvement of a Chinese ship in the Baltic Sea incident raises serious questions about potential prior similar actions, the lack of conclusive evidence linking the Chinese government to such activities remains a significant obstacle. The ambiguity surrounding these events underscores the need for more rigorous investigation and international cooperation in protecting vulnerable undersea infrastructure. The complex interplay of geopolitical interests, ambiguous vessel registrations, and the challenges of international law enforcement highlight the difficulties in attributing responsibility and preventing future occurrences.