The recent arrival of a small Chinese naval task force near Australia is an important event. News services around the globe reported the event, and New Zealand’s Defence Minister, Judith Collins described it as a “wake up call.” Australia’s Foreign Minister, Penny Wong immediately protested directly to China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi. However, this event should not surprise anybody monitoring security competition in the Pacific because for years tension has been increasing, and it is likely that we will see more of this type of activity.
Why is this patrol unusual?
This patrol is noteworthy because of its distance from China, and although it is operating within the parameters of international law it does involve activity designed to be threatening. Specifically, conducting ‘live firing’ activities without informing nearby nations. Countries like Japan, South Korea and Philippines deal with similar issues regularly because China’s use of military, para-military forces to support its diplomatic goals is increasing in the South and East China Seas.
The current situation confirms that China is now willing to project military power further into the Pacific. China is stepping out of the South and East China Seas, and further afield in the Pacific. Warships are expensive to operate so are not deployed halfway around the world without a good reason and this visit is clearly designed to send a message to Australia, and New Zealand.
Interpreting China’s message
China has several reasons for sending Australia and New Zealand a threatening message. Strategically, China is becoming increasingly assertive, and is keen to prevent the potential for isolation by a US-led blockade of its trade routes in a future conflict. American allies surround China; Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and Thailand.
Therefore, China claims large areas of oceans through which its trade moves. The South China Sea is a good example, China claims the sea as its territorial waters, occupying islands and using its ships to drive other nations out of the area. International courts do not accept Chinese claims, but in military terms ‘possession is nine tenths of the law,’ and China has the military power to ignore international law. China is also asserting itself in a similar manner in the East China Sea, and the Taiwan Strait.
In each of these areas US-led collective security coalitions challenge Chinese activities. This involves the US and its partners conducting ‘freedom of navigation’ patrols, groups of warships or aircraft that transit areas claimed by China, but are not internationally recognised.
Australia is a key US ally, and is open about its security concerns regarding China. New Zealand and Australia are allies, and more importantly both are contributors to international collective security arrangements. Sending ships and aircraft to support international, US-led coalitions challenging Chinese claims by conducting ‘freedom of navigation’ patrols.
Australian and New Zealand ships and aircraft support collective security by participating in these patrols. In September last year, Australian and New Zealand warships transited the Taiwan Strait, travelling about 90km off the coast of mainland China. Chinese forces regularly harass ships and aircraft operating in these areas, and only about a week ago a Chinese fighter plane ‘buzzed’ an Australian surveillance aircraft firing flares near it. China clearly resents this activity, and probably the fact that countries from as far away as Australia and New Zealand participate in them.
Additionally, China’s strategy includes pushing further out into the Pacific to develop a network of friendly nations that provide potential bases during conflict, and support Chinese policy initiatives in international forums. Australia and New Zealand both actively challenge this diplomacy, and recently we have seen significant diplomatic feuds over Chinese influence in Solomon Islands and Cook Islands.
The essential point is that considerable tension exists between China and several nations across the Pacific. Australia and New Zealand are relatively small, but contribute to US-led collective security arrangements opposing China’s policies. Further, both nations actively oppose Chinese influence in smaller Pacific nations.
This patrol’s aim is to let Australia and New Zealand know that they are within reach of Chinese naval power. A clear message about participation in collective security arrangements opposing Chinese policies being dangerous. Additionally, it is probably also aimed at the wider Pacific demonstrating to potential Chinese partners, or opposition that China can project military power into the region. A demonstration that Chinese diplomacy can be backed by force if required.
Why now?
In my opinion, the recent projection of Chinese military power into Australian and New Zealand spheres of interest is consistent with the instability and uncertainty created by the new US president. Over the last two weeks, the world has watched negotiations over the Ukraine War. During this process US foreign policy has been confused and contradictory, underpinned by a message that US allies should not expect guaranteed support.
This means it is a good time for China to test US policy, the People’s Liberation Army Navy is the second most powerful in the world. It could easily defeat Australia and New Zealand, both nations relying on collective security arrangements, underpinned by the US to protect their interests. But, what if US support is not guaranteed? How far can China push before the US responds?
Currently, no one knows and this patrol is probably timed to test US policy.
What next?
In the short term, this patrol is probably near the limit of its range, the smallest warship is a Jiang Kai class frigate with a range of approximately 7,000km. This means that to reach the Tasman Sea it has probably already refuelled from its support ship. Further, looking at international press coverage the patrol has probably achieved its goal, it sparked debate, demonstrated a threat, and clearly let the world know that China is now ready, willing and able to project military power far south into the Pacific.
It seems unlikely that the patrol will loiter for a long period around the Australia and New Zealand, or head south into the Southern Ocean. My pick is that it will head north, returning via Polynesia, and perhaps in visiting the Cook Islands, especially since the recently released partnership agreement between China and the Cook Islands includes developing ports and resupply facilities for Chinese ships. This would create a very difficult situation for New Zealand and Australia, confirming that China is keen to for more influence in the Cook Islands.
Strategically, Cook Islands is also a perfect place for China to test the resolve of the US and its allies. It is small and relatively unimportant to Americans but is strategically located. The islands provide an excellent base in central Polynesia, and possibly even a resupply point for vessels heading to Antarctica, another key Chinese area of interest.
Unlike, Solomon Islands it is not close to a significant US ally. Further, it has a friendly government and this patrol demonstrates it would be well-protected against New Zealand or Australian intervention. Establishing a presence there would be useful for China, and if a meaningful response is not forthcoming from them, the US, Australia and New Zealand’s leadership in the Pacific is undermined. It will be interesting to see if these warships do visit Cook Islands, because it would be an aggressive gesture designed to test how the US, Australia and New Zealand respond.
Longer-term, this type of activity is likely to increase so Australia and New Zealand both need to be prepared for it. And, regardless of the calls for increased defence spending realists in both nations understand that China’s military power is so enormous that only viable option is to reinforce collective security arrangements with the US and Europe. Including, increasing defence spending to match the expectations of partners and allies.
In summary, academics and commentators have been discussing China’s rise for many years and this activity should not be a surprise, it is a natural evolution of Sino-American conflict. People in Australia, New Zealand, and across the Pacific need to be thinking and planning for a greater Chinese presence in the region. It is good to study the tactics used in the South China Sea, because they are likely to be used in the Pacific. The lessons from the South China Seas need to be learned and applied in the Pacific, is calm and carefully considered manner.
However, the most important factor is how the US responds. On 12 February, the US Secretary of Defence, Peter Hegseth told NATO leaders that the US was now focussed on China and the Pacific and the US’s response will be closely observed by strategists around the world.
Ben Morgan is a bored Gen Xer, a former Officer in NZDF and TDBs Military Blogger – his work is on substack
JFC lets have a bit of perspective shall we. Stick a pin in a World map and that’s the Chinese threat from their ships.
Interestingly Ben bangs on about the US surrounding other countries but that’s OK, mention the straight of Taiwan which BTW was a land bridge between Taiwan and China and its not hard to understand why China insists it part of the mainland besides they share the same DNA.
It was Obummer that pivoted to the Pacific in a basic land and resource grab.
Looking forward to China “Invading” sleepy ol NZ, at least we will have social housing.
This article lays bare the inability of the US fleet to perform any task in the South China Sea.
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2025/02/americas-national-security-wonderland/
Some Chinese ships cruising around popping off a few rounds could hardly be compared to the militaristic history of the South Pacific by Northern/Western powers. Colonial takeovers of various islands and poor treatment of indigenous people including Australia and New Zealand. Nuclear testing by US, Britain and France ruined various atolls and island territory environments. Waste is still a problem.
The world order is changing and some do not like it. The biggest mistake many make in geo politics is siding with “their” ruling class preferred imperialist power. The working class internationalist position remains…“neither Washington, Moscow or Beijing”.
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theory I am concerned about any implications of any increased military on our own population as any change in government could elect someone with a vastly different view regarding freedom of thought to what we have traditionally had. We believe that the USA is the major threat to religious liberty so while China is powerful they are our major trading partner so I see that being neutral is a much better choice than blindly following the USA. Obviously I have a spiritual view that is supported by current world events so that gives me a different perspective to most people although I don’t think that is enough of a reason for people to reject my concerns.
NZ has a real issue if we are to ever become involved in any way in a future conflict between China and the US / Aussie etc in that NZ is now literally swamped by mainland-born Chinese whose only loyalty is to the CCP and their local Mercedes dealership – and in the event of any conflict the NZ defence force will have their hands full simply trying to deal with Chinese 5th columnists trying to fire bomb the power station down the road.
In effect this is similar to Britain in 1936 deciding that it would a good idea to allow a huge influx of Nazi’s to settle in London.
Thanks money-hungry Nat’s . .
It is highly unlikely that the Chinese naval task force will call into any Cook Island ports. The Chinese government will know that is being far too aggressive to New Zealand. Literally a direct challenge to New Zealand sovereignty.
Much more likely to call into Kiribati.
As for the military capability of Australia (and New Zealand), don’t underestimate it, at least as far as our own region is concerned. Australia has 10 surface combat ships including 3 advanced air warfare destroyers. Going to double in size in the next 1O years. Plus 6 submarines. New Zealand has two recently upgraded ANZAC frigates with anti air capabilities. Austrian has 100 advanced combat aircraft, all of them being more advanced than anything China has.
To defeat Australia and New Zealand China would need to send at least a third of their fleet to our region. And it would have to get past the US Pacific fleet.
In short, it is not going to happen outside of world war 3. And given that both the US and China are major nuclear powers, that is not going to happen. Deterrence does actually work.
Of course our author knows all of this.
So our author must be just shit stirring then Wayne
One commenter on this blog has said “A third world war is inevitable”. You say “that is not going to happen”. You are both claiming foreknowledge that is advanced to no human being, however learned.
But if you are right, and a war is not going to happen, why is the New Zealand government so willing to pay the 2% of GDP defence tax demanded by President Trump? Why is the colonialist media and political establishment whipping up hysteria over three Chinese ships loitering about in the Tasman Sea? Are they just playing mind games with the national psyche?
If nuclear deterrence works, and if it is the only thing that works, as you suggest, then why waste money on frigates and other “interoperable” equipment?
Of course you are wrong about nuclear deterrence. It may have worked for North Korea. But have you already forgotten Vietnam and Afghanistan? No nuclear weapons there, yet they successfully defended themselves against the greatest military power on earth.
So we do not need to pay Trump’s tax of 2% on GDP. We just need to turf out the colonialist regime and do what is necessary for our own defence. Not the defence of the American empire. Our own defence.
I never said nuclear deterrence stops all wars. Manifestly not doesn’t.
However, what it does do is stop war between adversaries who both have nuclear weapons. Particularly the major powers who have overwhelming numbers of weapons and who have well established means of contacting each other in extreme emergencies.
At least this is the case so far. It can be argued that nuclear deterrence is a highly dangerous way to prevent war. A major miscalculation by a major power in their competition with another major power could end in total global disaster.
As for your broader point about why to challenge China. Largely because the balance of power requires exactly that, a balance. If that is not kept, then adventurism will prevail. The best way for Australia and New Zealand to remain secure in our region is to have enough forces to secure it.
I refer to both nations, because I see zero prospect that New Zealand is going to break away from our one ally, Australia. Doing so would mean huge costs, including end of CER and the right of people in both countries to freely travel and live in each other’s country. The links between the two counties are just too deep for New Zealand to become a neutral nation.
You seem to be implying that if New Zealand adopted an independent foreign policy the Australia would retaliate by restricting trade, travel and migration from New Zealand. That might happen, though for a number of reasons I think it unlikely. It is rather like Liam Hehir proclaiming on RNZ that if New Zealand does not follow the foreign policy lead of the US then Donald Trump might start to “play rough”.
The right in New Zealand while pontificating about how brave Ukraine must stand up to the bully Putin will freely sacrifice our own nation’s sovereignty in response to an implied or assumed threat from its “traditional allies”.
Forced to admit that they cannot make a case for Donald Trump’s moral superiority over Xi Jinping, the right falls back on pragmatic arguments, like “We will get thumped by our Five Eyes friends if we don’t agree to go into a war with China on behalf of the US”. That argument is amoral, inconsistent and flawed. When it comes to the point the US will abandon New Zealand to its fate, just as it has abandoned Ukraine.
The moral policy for New Zealand is, as it happens, also the most sensible policy. But the political right, which consists entirely of morally challenged cowards, are prepared to throw in their lot with Trump and so bring the nation to ruin.
What you are suggesting is more than simply having an independent foreign policy. It is leaving in a formal way the ANZAC alliance, whereby Australia and Hew Zealand are allies. For New Zealand leaving our only formal ally. To my mind that is a huge step and would have very significant consequences for the Trans Tasman relationship.
Are Australia and New Zealand “formal allies”? I don’t know of any treaty between the two states that formalizes the “ANZAC” military alliance. It has simply evolved over time, beginning in World War I when both states were directly subordinate to Great Britain. Australian and New Zealand forces worked in tandem just as British regiments worked together, as component parts of a single imperial British military force. The close but informal relationship between the military forces of Australia and New Zealand has persisted through more than a century which has been marked by horrific war crimes, such as the Surafend massacre and the targeted killings of civilians in Afghanistan. The trans-Tasman relationship will thrive when the colonialist regimes in both countries have been overthrown and their military forces disbanded.
Have you listened to former Oz P.M Paul Keatings assessment of the ..China ‘threat?
“the right of people in both countries to freely travel and live in each other’s country” is often regarded as a benefit to the people, particularly the people of New Zealand, but it is really a benefit to the colonial regimes on both sides of the Tasman. For Australia it is a trained workforce on tap. For New Zealand it is a relief valve for discontent and anger at the shambolic economic and social conditions produced by the colonialist regime. Take away that “freedom of movement” and politics in New Zealand would become a lot more heated. As to the other “deep” “links between the two countries” they amount to Australian banks, insurance companies, retail chains and manufacturers taking billions of excess profits out of the country, New Zealand buying over-priced and ineffective military equipment either from Australia or from other sources that provide “interoperability” with the Australian military, and Sydney becoming the shopping centre of choice for New Zealand’s privileged class.
Ben shilling for his murderous American buddies again. Did you rape kids in Afghanistan and Iraq like the yanks did Ben?
What do you know about CCP leadership?
I don’t think Ben worked for Iran’s security forces
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/04/25/iran-security-forces-kill-torture-abuse-children
I wonder how much kiddie porn “research” you keep on your computer
As usual you zionists project.
The call for New Zealand to increase its defence spending, which comes directly from President Trump, has nothing to do with the defence of New Zealand. If it did the decision makers would be asking “How could New Zealand ward off or defeat an invading force? What strategy would be followed? What personnel and equipment would be required?” and only lastly “How much would that cost?”.
Those questions are not being asked. Instead we are being told to spend 2% of GDP on “defence” without any consideration of strategies or actual resource requirements for a national defence effort. It is what it sounds like: a tax on GDP being imposed by the American empire on all tributary states (which are fast shrinking in number) as a financial contribution towards the defence of the empire.
That tax will almost certainly and quickly rise to 3%. New Zealand will be told it has to spend the tax on “interoperable” equipment which would be ineffective for the defence of New Zealand from any external threat. For example the Poseidon aircraft or frigates which could not defend New Zealand from attack, and would not even claim to have that capability. The US is carefully insisting on a kind of defence spending that could not possibly be used to defend New Zealand, and could only be used to defend the US, because for obvious reasons the US does not want any of its allies to have truly independent defence capabilities.
When they are being honest, which is very rarely, New Zealand government ministers admit that defence force spending is not directed towards the defence of New Zealand. It is designed to assist in the defence of the Anglo-American imperial system and as function must follow form, it is good for nothing else.
If New Zealand was to be invaded, either by one of the Five Eyes, or by some other hostile power in the case that New Zealand was to be successfully cut off from the Five Eyes force, then what would happen to us? Exactly what happened to France in 1940. The New Zealand government would quickly determine that “further resistance is futile”. The NZDF as the military force would lay down its arms and there would be successful negotiations aimed at maintaining a New Zealand national government under the occupying force. That is how governments and regular military forces generally behave. Governments make pragmatic decisions and the military follow orders. But as in France, resistance, however “futile”, would continue among a section of the general population. The guys in your rohe who did not surrender their semi-automatic weapons are your only real line of defence against foreign invaders, and they cost you nothing in taxes.
Here is a slightly different view: https://www.kiwipolitico.com/2025/02/about-that-plan-flotilla-in-the-tasman-sea/
Yes, on this occasion kiwipolitico offers a clearer perspective on Chinese flotilla furore.
Comments are closed.