China set for joint naval exercise Security Belt-2025 with Russia and Iran
China will hold joint naval exercises with
Russia and
Iran in the Indian Ocean this month, the Chinese defence ministry said on Sunday.
Advertisement
The ministry said the 'Security Belt-2025' joint exercise would be held near the Iranian port of Chabahar on the coast of the Gulf of Oman with the aim of deepening 'military trust and pragmatic cooperation'.
The exercise will include simulated attacks on maritime targets, joint search and rescue drills, and spot checks and arrests.
China will send the
Type 052D guided-missile destroyer Baotou and supply ship Gaoyouhu from the 47th naval escort task force to take part in the exercise.
The full task force, which also includes the guided-missile frigate Honghe and two ship-borne helicopters, has been patrolling in the nearby Gulf of Aden since December.
Advertisement
Last year's exercise was held between March 11 to 15 and focused on anti-piracy and search and rescue drills.
Exercises included the armed rescue of hijacked merchant vessels and firing on targets at sea, according to the defence ministry.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
HKFP
2 hours ago
- HKFP
US Consul General Gregory May to leave Hong Kong, begin new position in Beijing next week
US Consul General Gregory May has announced that he will leave Hong Kong and assume a role in Beijing next week, after an almost three-year tenure as the top American diplomat in the financial hub. Speaking on Thursday at an Independence Day event at The Murray, a hotel in Admiralty, May said he will be moving on to the US embassy in Beijing next week. He will take on the title of deputy chief of mission in the Chinese capital, making him second-in-command at the embassy. May will work as an assistant to David Perdue, the US ambassador to China, who began his role in April. '[My wife] Margaret and I, we lived in Beijing for a while. It'll be a bit of a return to familiar ground,' he said. May, an experienced diplomat who has spent much of his career in the US government abroad, arrived in the city in September 2022. During his time in Hong Kong, he saw two of the city's most high-profile national security trials get underway: that of media mogul Jimmy Lai and that of the 47 democrats. He also witnessed the enactment of Article 23, the city's homegrown and second national security law, in March 2024 after it passed in the opposition-free Legislative Council. Last May, the diplomat said Hong Kong authorities needed to 'stop the slide towards ever-greater repression.' He said nothing had done 'greater damage' to the US's relationship with Hong Kong than the city's police issuing bounties on a US citizen and residents, referring to arrest warrants placed on activists overseas. May's departure comes as tensions between Washington and Beijing remain high, after US President Donald Trump slapped tariffs on Chinese exports and ordered his government to 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party.' 'Big fan' of Hong Kong Speaking to reporters after his speech at the Independence Day event, May said he was leaving Hong Kong as a 'big fan' of the city, but what was 'not so great' was what he called the 'erosion of freedom' at the hands of mainland Chinese and Hong Kong authorities. May said he was especially concerned about the treatment of Lai, the former owner of pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, who has been charged under the national security law. Closing arguments for the trial are expected in late July. Lai faces up to life imprisonment if convicted. May said he was concerned not just about Lai, but 'other political prisoners' too. 'There are many other people, unfortunately, in Hong Kong who are in jail for [the] peaceful expression of political views, for putting things on the internet.' In response to a media report that the Education Bureau had warned students and teachers not to take part in American Independence Day activities, May said he had not heard anything directly from the city's government about it. But he said he was 'disappointed… education officials would have that kind of order.' 'I challenge any one of you to find anything about this event… at The Murray hotel this afternoon that would in any way violate the national security of any country,' May said, adding that cross-cultural exchanges with students were beneficial.
RTHK
5 hours ago
- RTHK
Trump exaggerated impact of US strikes: Khamenei
Trump exaggerated impact of US strikes: Khamenei Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has addressed his nation two days after a ceasefire ended a 12-day war between Iran and Israel. Photo: Reuters Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Thursday said US President Donald Trump "exaggerated" the impact of US strikes on his country's nuclear sites, in his first appearance since a ceasefire in the war with Israel took hold. In a statement and a televised speech carried by Iranian state media, he hailed his country's "victory" over Israel and vowed never to surrender to the United States, while claiming that Washington had been dealt a "slap" after striking Iranian nuclear sites. Khamenei's remarks come two days after a ceasefire ended a 12-day war between Iran and Israel, the foes' deadliest and most destructive confrontation in history. It also follows a stinging row in the United States over the actual extent of the damage inflicted by American strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites during the conflict. "The American president exaggerated events in unusual ways, and it turned out that he needed this exaggeration," Khamenei said. The United States "has gained nothing from this war," he said, adding that American strikes "did nothing significant" to Iran's nuclear facilities. "The Islamic republic won, and in retaliation dealt a severe slap to the face of America," he said, a reference to Iran's missile launch targeting the largest US base in the Middle East. "I want to congratulate the great Iranian nation... for its victory over the fallacious Zionist regime," he added, claiming that Israel had "almost collapsed" because of Iran's strikes. Both Iran and Israel had already claimed they won, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailing on Tuesday a "historic victory" for Israel. Meanwhile, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday said he was unaware of any intelligence suggesting Iran had moved any of its highly enriched uranium to shield it from US strikes on Iran's nuclear programme over the weekend. "I'm not aware of any intelligence that I've reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be, moved or otherwise," Hegseth said. (AFP/Reuters)
Asia Times
8 hours ago
- Asia Times
US missing the point on China's industrial cyberespionage
The United States is attempting to decouple its economy from rivals such as China. Efforts toward this include policymakers raising tariffs on Chinese goods, blocking exports of advanced technology and offering subsidies to boost American manufacturing. The goal is to reduce reliance on China for critical products, in the hope that this will also protect US intellectual property from theft. The idea that decoupling will help stem state-sponsored cyber-economic espionage has become a key justification for these measures. For instance, then-US Trade Representative Katherine Tai framed the continuation of China-specific tariffs as serving the 'statutory goal to stop [China's] harmful … cyber intrusions and cyber theft.' Early tariff rounds during the first Trump administration were likewise framed as forcing Beijing to confront 'deeply entrenched' theft of US intellectual property. This push to 'onshore' key industries is driven by very real concerns. By some estimates, theft of US trade secrets, often through hacking – costs the American economy hundreds of billions of dollars per year. In that light, decoupling is a defensive economic shield – a way to keep vital technology out of an adversary's reach. But will decoupling and cutting trade ties truly make America's innovations safer from prying eyes? I'm a political scientist who studies state-sponsored cyberespionage, and my research suggests that the answer is a definitive no. Indeed, it might actually have the opposite effect. To understand why, it helps to look at what really drives state-sponsored hacking. Intuitively, you might think a country is most tempted to steal secrets from a nation it depends on. For example, if Country A must import jet engines or microchips from Country B, Country A might try to hack Country B's companies to copy that technology and become self-sufficient. This is the industrial dependence theory of cyber theft. There is some truth to this motive. If your economy needs what another country produces, stealing that know-how can boost your own industries and reduce reliance. However, in a recent study, I show that a more powerful predictor of cyberespionage is industrial similarity. Countries with overlapping advanced industries, such as aerospace, electronics, or pharmaceuticals, are the ones most likely to target each other with cyberattacks. Why would having similar industries spur more spying? The reason is competition. If two nations both specialize in cutting-edge sectors, each has a lot to gain by stealing the other's innovations. If you're a tech powerhouse, you have valuable secrets worth stealing, and you have the capability and motivation to steal others' secrets. In essence, simply trading with a rival isn't the core issue. Rather, it's the underlying technological rivalry that fuels espionage. For example, a cyberattack in 2012 targeted SolarWorld, a US solar panel manufacturer, and the perpetrators stole the company's trade secrets. Chinese solar companies then developed competing products based on the stolen designs, costing SolarWorld millions in lost revenue. This is a classic example of industrial similarity at work. China was building its own solar industry, so it hacked a US rival to leapfrog in technology. China has made major investments in its cyberespionage capabilities. Crucially, cutting trade ties doesn't remove this rivalry. If anything, decoupling might intensify it. When the US and China exchange tariff blows or cut off tech transfers, it doesn't make China give up – it likely pushes Chinese intelligence agencies to work even harder to steal what they can't buy. This dynamic isn't unique to China. Any country that suddenly loses access to an important technology may turn to espionage as Plan B. History provides examples. When South Africa was isolated by sanctions in the 1980s, it covertly obtained nuclear weapons technology. Similarly, when Israel faced arms embargoes in the 1960s, it engaged in clandestine efforts to get military technology. Isolation can breed desperation, and hacking is a low-cost, high-reward tool for the desperate. There's no easy fix for state-sponsored hacking as long as countries remain locked in high-tech competition. However, there are steps that can mitigate the damage and perhaps dial down the frequency of these attacks. One is investing in cyber defense. Just as a homeowner adds locks and alarms after a burglary, companies and governments should continually strengthen their cyber defenses. Assuming that espionage attempts are likely to happen is key. Advanced network monitoring, employee training against phishing, and robust encryption can make it much harder for hackers to succeed, even if they keep trying. Another is building resilience and redundancy. If you know that some secrets might get stolen, plan for it. Businesses can shorten product development cycles and innovate faster so that even if a rival copies today's tech, you're already moving on to the next generation. Staying ahead of thieves is a form of defense, too. Ultimately, rather than viewing tariffs and export bans as silver bullets against espionage, US leaders and industry might be safer focusing on resilience and stress-testing cybersecurity firms. Make it harder for adversaries to steal secrets, and less rewarding even if they do. William Akoto is assistant professor of global security, American University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
