China recently struck a sudden deal with Australia’s northern neighbour, Papua New Guinea, to invest a $200m in an “integrated fisheries industrial park” on a desolate 15-square-kilometre island in the South Pacific near Australia, but the waters around the tiny island have no fishing resources. China’s real intention is likely to be to use the project as a cover to build an overseas forward base for its strategic nuclear submarines on the island. China has already spent heavily to buy off Papua New Guinea, and disguised economic sanctions imposed on Australia this year are designed to force Australia to stand aside from Such actions.
- Why is China’s huge investment in Daru?
On December 13th several Australian news websites carried a story about a $200m Chinese investment in Daru island in Papua New Guinea’s western province. At a time when the U.S. presidential election is being watched closely around the world, the news may not necessarily attract the attention of many countries, but for Australia, it is a matter of national security.
Australian broadcasting corporation (ABC) published a news on December 13, titled “with deterioration of australia-china relations, a $200 million worth of Papua New Guinea” fishing “trading surprising (As the Australia – China Relationship Deteriorates, a $200 m PNG ‘Fishery Deal Raises Eyebrows)”. “Last month, Papua New Guinea signed a $200 million memorandum of understanding for an ‘integrated Multifunctional Fisheries Industrial Park’ project on The island of Daru. There was nothing there, not even fish. A longtime Papua New Guinea (PNG) government adviser Jeff Wall this week in the publications issued by the Australian strategic policy institute, said an article in the journal of strategic analyst ‘da lu town is Australia’s closest community of Papua New Guinea, although it is 200 km from the Australian mainland, but it is very close to fernando (Torres) channel along the northern border of the islands’. Wall, said there is no doubt that the signed a memorandum of understanding with fujian fishery company is paid directly by the Chinese government, as it claims, is a “by the Ministry of Commerce of China and China’s ambassador to the strength of the Papua New Guinea Xue Bing support, Xue Bing, according to the investment project will certainly enhance the ability of Papua New Guinea, comprehensive development and utilization of fishery resources’.”
This article was also published on The Australian news network on 13 December under the headline “China’s Bold New Fishing Plan on Australia’s Doorstep Exacerbating Tensions”. The subject line of the report reads, “This is one of the closest towns to Australia, where China has a strong interest in fishing, but where there is no fish to catch. So what’s the real plan?” The Australian Broadcasting Corporation and News.com.au raised the same question.
What are China’s real intentions in investing so much in small ports that lack fishery resources?
- The weirdness of the Daru Island project
China’s huge investment in the economically backward country appears to be a significant event in the history of relations between China and Papua New Guinea that should have been celebrated by the Chinese embassy. But at the time of writing, there was not a word on the Chinese Embassy’s website, as if the huge investment did not exist. Why is the Chinese Embassy secretive about this project? Apparently, it has been instructed not to make a big splash lest it cause a backlash in Australia.
The agreement with Papua New Guinea was signed by Fujian-based Zhonghong Fisheries, which was set up in 2011 and registered in Fuzhou with a registered capital of 100 million yuan (about A $20 million). How can a company with a registered capital equivalent to A $20 million be able to invest ten times its registered capital in this little desert island of Daru? Dalu island is 5 km long and 3.7 km wide. It covers an area of about 15 square km and has only over 10,000 inhabitants, who suffer from health and social problems. The island has an international airport to which Australian airliners hired by mining companies fly, and it has a nW-SE runway, the southeastern end of which is near the island’s only cove. Does a Chinese fishing company with limited financial resources plan to invest a $200 million in this desolate cove, where there is little commercial value in the nearby waters, fit the normal business model? The suspicion is obvious.
On November 19, China’s fisheries portal (www.bbwfish.com) published a report with the headline: “Fujian Zhonghong Fishery Company to invest in Pakistan-Singapore Project of” Comprehensive multi-functional fishery Industrial Park “. The Ministry of Commerce signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the project on November 12, the report said. But that story has since been deleted. China, it seems, does not want the news to spread widely.
Third, Beijing’s intimidation
On December 14, multidimensional News, the editorial office’s foreign website in Beijing, ran an article with the headline: “Beijing can win territory without a war, New Chinese Project hits Australia”. The content of this article exposes China’s intention to intimidate Australia.
‘At a time of strained relations between China and Australia, the Australian media on Dec. 13 focused on Chinese companies’ investment in a fishing project in Papua New Guinea, and analyzed that Beijing’s move had other motives behind it,’ the article said. An investment of $200 million in the strategically important location of The Island of Daru would have a huge impact, the authors note. So is the huge impact of this Multidimensional news article really fisheries development? Don’t forget, there are no fish to catch in the waters around that island.
The Article in Multidimensional News quotes Jeff Wall as saying that there are no commercial fishing grounds near Daru, that the purpose of Chinese investment projects is questionable, and that China may want to use its fishing boats to “occupy Australian territory”. With military training and essentially militia groups, and logistical support from the military, the Chinese fishermen “can win without a fight in terms of occupying territory.” However, the author carefully read the Jeff Wall in the journal strategist on December 8, article “China to Build 200 Million yuan in Australia at the gate of the Fishery projects (China to Build the $200 Fishery Project on Australia ‘s Doorstep), Jeff in the Wall of the original and no words can be translated as” occupy the Australian territory “or” in the occupied territories can be won. In other words, these two Jeff Wall statements, which are “quoted” in double quotes by Multidimensional News, were fabricated by Multidimensional News. Jeff Wall himself may not have known that China’s official media would fabricate his story in this way.
Why is Multidimensional News doing this? Does China really want to “occupy Australian territory” at this moment? In my opinion, this is not necessarily the case. The Multidimensional News seems to be trying to express some thoughts of the Chinese authorities through the words of Jeff Wall, which contains explicit intimidation against Australia.
- China wants Australia to stand aside?
Another article in Multidimensional News on December 4 presents an open threat to Australia. The article, titled “When China knocks Australia, it is better to” stand aside “than to” choose side “, mentioned that if Australia changes its high-profile diplomatic path of following the US and containing China in time, it is believed that the economic and trade relations between the two countries will soon return to normal. This sentence clearly shows the real purpose of China’s disguised economic sanctions against Australia, that is, the economic sanctions are aimed at forcing Australia to bow to China. My article “China’s Economic Threat to Australia”, published on the SBS website on December 1, has already pointed out China’s above purpose.
An article in Multidimensional News on Dec. 4 said that China and the United States had engaged in a “head-to-head” battle, and That China had abandoned its diplomatic policy of “hiding its strength and biding its time”, earning it the nickname “Wolf Warrior diplomacy”. In the face of Pressure from the United States, China is still tough, while Australia lacks the strength and cards of the United States. However, it adopts a high-profile foreign policy to follow the United States in pressuring China, which is especially inappropriate under the background of the United States holding high the banner of “America First”. Due to the cartoon incident, there has been a serious public opinion confrontation between China and Australia, and the diplomatic contradictions between the two countries have obviously intensified, which may be exactly what China wants to see. When China punches Australia with several cards reminding it of its own heft, there is little that Australia can do to respond effectively.
The Multidimensional News article made no secret of its threatening intent, saying that by hitting Australia, China was sending a warning to other countries that might cooperate with the U.S. to contain and pressure China. It can also be seen as a coup in China’s rise as a world power. Taken as a whole, the spat between China and Australia, or China’s “push-back” or “bashing” of the Australian side, is only the spillover of the recent rivalry between the two powers. In the inevitable “collision of the century” between China and the United States, for a country as small as Australia, “choosing sides” is actually not as good as “standing aside”.
From what this article says, it is clear that China wants to use economic sanctions to achieve diplomatically unspeakable goals.
Who is biting the hand that feeds you?
On December 7th Hong Kong’s Asia Times published an article on Australia’s China policy, “What caused Australia’s China Policy u-turn?” What’s driving Australia’s China Policy U-turn. The Asia Times was founded in 1999 by Sondhi Limthongkul, head of Thailand’s Populist Party. It is based in Hong Kong and is available in Both Chinese and English. Ken Moak taught in Canada before he retired. The article is based on a speech made by Australian Prime Minister Morrison to reporters in Canberra on December 3, arguing that Australia’s China policy should be reversed 180 degrees.
In his speech that day, Mr Morrison said Australia wanted China and Australia to “co-exist happily” and that “it is my position and my government’s position to seek constructive engagement between us”. Ken Moak makes a very inappropriate metaphor for Prime Minister Morrison’s diplomatic statements. Ken Moak says Australia needs China to support its economic growth because no one can bite your hand that feeds you. This statement completely excludes international norms and universal values in the bilateral relations, and at the same time interprets the Australia-China economic relationship as a vulgarization of China’s charity to Australia. Ken Moak’s comment is close to Beijing’s taste.
The economic and trade exchanges between China and Australia were originally fair trade for mutual benefit between the two countries. Australia exports agricultural and mineral products to China and imports many manufactured products from China. Ken Moak’s “economic handouts” violate the common sense of international trade. Foreign trade is not foreign aid, but the equivalent exchange of goods bought with cash. Since international trade is not charity, there can be no one to lose or take advantage. Secondly, Ken Moak ignores the basic facts of Australia-China economic and trade relationship. Doesn’t China who buys Australian exports also export to Australia? If Australia can export to China, is China’s “charity”, then China’s export to Australia, is not Australia’s “charity”? It is indeed absurd to interpret the economic and trade relationship between modern countries as a master-servant relationship.
But when it comes to biting the hand that feeds you, the world does have some examples, and the red nation is the most typical example. By far the two biggest “counter-bites” in modern human history were the cold War instigated by the Soviet Union and China. In 1973, Antony c. Sutton in his book “Suicide: quietly to the Soviet Union’s Military Aid (National Suicide: he was Aid to the Soviet Union), points out that in the United States after the founding of the Soviet Union until the end of world war ii years, for the Soviet Union provides a number of Military and technical assistance,” we use our own technology one enemy, it is today with its powerful armed against us “. Then, from the 1970s until recently, the United States provided China with a great deal of military and technological knowledge in various ways. Now, president Trump may be able to say that we armed two of our greatest enemies with our craft and then endured two cold wars waged by them.
The history and reality of these two “feeding the big red tigers” shows that the big red powers have never changed their totalitarian and hegemonic nature, and at the same time they are masters at breaking international rules. China’s seizure of international waters in the South China Sea for military purposes that threaten the United States is the latest example. China’s recent plans to build a so-called fishing facility on Daru island are likely to be a cover arrangement for its naval supply base.
The Southbound submarine channel and Daru Island of China’s nuclear submarine
In my article “China Poses Economic Threat to Australia” published on the SBS website on December 1, I pointed out that in the first half of this year, China announced that it had built “abyssard” and “launch site” for strategic nuclear submarines to launch nuclear missiles against the US through the construction of a large number of artificial islands in international waters of the South China Sea.
How many underwater routes are there for China’s nuclear submarines to sail from this “deep-sea fortress” into the vast Central Pacific to pose a nuclear threat to the United States? The Strait of Malacca, at the southwest end of the South China Sea, is shallow and inaccessible to nuclear submarines. China’s nuclear submarines with three can be from the south China sea coupled into the Pacific Ocean underwater channel, I only on December 1, this paper analyzes the two of them, namely the east bashi strait between Taiwan and Luzon in the Philippines, and along the southeast across the Philippine islands, east sulawesi sea between Indonesia and the Philippines, then heading north of the island of Papua New Guinea. The US military has begun to secure the area around the two submarine waterways.
In fact, there is a south exit from China’s abyssard, an underwater route that first circumvents the island of Kalimantan, which belongs too much to Malaysia and Indonesia, to the southwest. It then descends south into the Java Sea off Indonesia and from there eastward into the waters between Australia and Papua; Then there are the waters to the south of Daru Island, which lies in the point of impact in the Torres Strait that chokes Australia’s north-eastern territorial waters.
Viewed this way, it is not surprising that China has taken a keen interest in Daru. Its planned fishing port facility on The island of Daru, which would cost a $200m, is likely to be a cover for an overseas forward base to supply and repair its nuclear submarines. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported on December 13 that China was prepared to provide a $3 billion in aid to Papua New Guinea. As we can imagine, this huge aid package is too tempting for impoverished Papua New Guinea. But China has never wasted money. What it wants in exchange for billions of dollars in aid is probably not Papua New Guinea’s vote in the United Nations to support China, but the space for China to do whatever it wants in Papua New Guinea.
According to the journal of the American association for the study of Marine News (USNI News) and Daily Press reports, on December 2, the United States secretary of the navy Braithwaite, Kenneth Braithwaite) announced that to curb China’s increasingly expansion and the threat of force in Asia, will be established in the western Pacific and the eastern Indian Ocean regional U.S. navy Fleet (U.S. 1 st Fleet), 1 by the U.S. commands for printing too command under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fleet, with Pacific Fleet has enrolled seventh Fleet to form the core capabilities of India – the Pacific regions; As a more agile and mobile sealift command than fleet 7, the first Fleet’s defensive perimeter in the Pacific and Indian Oceans “will reassure our Allies and partners of our commitment to the region and ensure that any potential adversary knows our commitment to the rule of law and freedom of the seas.”
The United States Navy’s first fleet, which has been empty since 1973, will defend the south submarine route of the Chinese nuclear submarine abyssak, including the waters around Daru Island. ‘China’s aggressive intentions are becoming more apparent, and the United States must work with countries in the Pacific and around the world to assist each other militarily and economically,’ Mr. Braithwaite said at the Naval Submarine Alliance’s annual symposium in mid-November. The reason for the deployment of the new naval fleet in the Indo-Pacific region is that it cannot rely solely on the 7th Fleet, which is based in Japan, but must seek Allies and cooperate.