By Matt Underwood Flights between Australia and New Zealand were recently diverted due to Chinese live fire military drills in the Tasman Sea. This incident, occurring in international waters, highlights the escalating tensions in the region and raises questions about international protocols and the lack of prior notification. While China is technically within its rights to conduct exercises in these waters, the absence of proper notification, including the use of commercial aircraft channels rather than official diplomatic channels, is a significant concern. This lack of standard operating procedure is viewed as decidedly unprofessional and potentially dangerous.
The timing of these exercises, occurring near Australia and New Zealand, following a defense agreement between Papua New Guinea and Australia, suggests a deliberate attempt to test regional alliances and assert Chinese influence in the South Pacific. The lack of advance notice, forcing civilian aircraft to be diverted, further underscores the provocative nature of these drills. Why conduct military exercises so far from Chinese waters? One might wonder if this proximity was strategically selected or if there was a navigational error.
The incident is not an isolated event. China has been actively attempting to increase its presence in the Pacific, including reported overtures to the Cook Islands that have met with local resistance due to a lack of transparency and public consultation. This situation highlights New Zealand’s significant involvement in the Cook Islands, given the extensive aid provided and the use of Kiwi passports by Cook Islanders.
The response to the event has been varied. Some suggest this is a typical demonstration of power and a test of boundaries. Others have called for a strong response, advocating for similar exercises by Australia and New Zealand in the Taiwan Strait as a form of tit-for-tat retaliation. There are even calls for a greater reliance on CANZUK (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom) as a more unified and powerful force to counterbalance China’s influence. However, there are concerns that relying on the UK, geographically distant and facing its own internal challenges, could leave Australia more vulnerable. A more viable solution may lie in strengthening alliances with Asian nations sharing similar strategic interests and threats in the region such as Japan, South Korea, and others.
The incident also exposes the current geopolitical uncertainty. The perceived lack of reliable support from the United States, exacerbated by internal political instability, allows China to flex its military might without immediate consequences. The comments on the US’s current state of affairs and lack of clear support for its allies only fuels the debate about regional security and the need for stronger alliances.
The issue also touches on the complexities of international law. While China insists that the South China Sea is its internal waters, this claim is not widely recognized internationally. The Tasman Sea, however, does provide room for military drills in international waters. The key point is the lack of adherence to standard procedure for such exercises. The fact that this live fire drill is far from home, the lack of formal notification through the proper channels and the fact that it disrupted civil aviation makes this a significant breach of international norms. A ‘man overboard’ drill is very different from firing live rounds near civilian airliners with insufficient notice.
There are different views on how best to respond. Some suggest voting with your wallet, suggesting consumers should avoid Chinese products, although this may prove difficult considering the wide-ranging presence of Chinese-made goods globally. Others emphasize the diplomatic and economic aspects of regional relationships, arguing that strong diplomatic efforts are just as important as military exercises. The overall consensus is that the incident highlights a concerning trend toward unilateral action and increased tensions in a strategically sensitive region. The future will depend on the ongoing diplomatic efforts and the responses from the countries directly involved. It’s clear, however, that this incident has highlighted the need for clearer communication, improved protocols, and stronger regional alliances to maintain stability and peace in the South Pacific. The question remains whether these events are simple acts of flexing military might or part of a larger strategy.