‘Extremely capable' weapons on Chinese warships off Australia's east coast, NZ government says
New Zealand's defence minister has warned that Chinese warships located off the east coast of Australia are armed with 'extremely capable' weapons that could reach Australia.
The three vessels, known as Taskgroup 107, undertook two live-fire exercises in the seas between Australia and New Zealand last week, causing commercial flights to be diverted in the skies above.
Judith Collins, the defence minister of New Zealand, said on Monday that the ships were currently 280 nautical miles (518km) east of Tasmania and were being closely monitored by New Zealand navy vessel Te Kaha.
Collins said the presence of the vessels in waters off New Zealand and Australia, and the short warning given by the Chinese government before the live-fire exercise on Friday was 'unusual'.
'We've certainly never seen a task group of this capability undertaking this sort of work, it's certainly a change,' she told RNZ Radio.
'The weapons they have are extremely capable. One has 112 vertical launch cells and has reported anti-ship ballistic missile range of 540 nautical miles,' she said.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
Collins said the information she had was that the vessels were not nuclear-powered and did not have nuclear weapons, or missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, onboard.
'They're not telling us what they're planning,' Collins told RNZ. 'We're taking them at face value that they are undertaking normal transits when it comes to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, that they're not breaking the law.
'But as we've said, it is always better to give a lot more notice when it comes to live firing.'
The Chinese navy notified the Australian defence department shortly before the drill on Friday.
Collins told RNZ that assertions by China's ambassador to New Zealand that appropriate advance notice of the drills had been given were 'wrong'.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
'There was a warning to civil aviation flights, that was basically a very short amount of notice, rather than what we would consider best practice which is 12-24 hours notice, so that aircraft don't have to be diverted when they're on the wing.'
On Friday, the first live-fire exercise was observed by a New Zealand navy vessel. It involved the ships changing formation and placing a target in the water, manoeuvring again, and then recovering the target. No live fire was observed, but the change in formation was consistent with a live-fire drill.
On Saturday, New Zealand navy personnel advised live rounds were fired from a Chinese warship in international waters.
Australia's prime minister, Anthony Albanese, said on the weekend that senior defence officials were continuing to monitor the ships after they were first spotted moving south in international waters about 280km off Sydney on Thursday.
The foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, met with her Chinese counterpart and demanded to know why the vessels only offered limited notice before the firing was carried out.
China's actions are believed to have complied with international law and the Australian Defence Force advised there was no imminent threat to its assets or those of New Zealand.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Could Donald Trump scrap Aukus?
America's policy undersecretary of defence, Elbridge Colby, is one of the brightest brains in Donald Trump's administration. Having served in the first Trump presidency, Colby has an outstanding reputation as a defence and strategic thinker. He is also, however, very much aligned with Trump's America First thinking in respect of foreign policy, and the United States' relationship with her allies. That would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain In tasking Colby on Wednesday with reviewing the Aukus nuclear submarine-centred strategic partnership between the US, the UK and Australia, the president sends a clear message to Britain and Australia: Aukus is part of his inheritance from Joe Biden, and its future therefore is far from assured. In a media statement, the Pentagon said: 'The department is reviewing Aukus as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president's America First agenda. As (Defense) Secretary (Pete) Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs. This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria.' Colby himself has been ambivalent about Aukus ever since it was established by Biden, and then Australian and British prime ministers, Scott Morrison and Rishi Sunak, in 2021. Addressing a Policy Exchange forum last year, Colby said he was 'quite sceptical' about the Aukus pact, and questioned its viability and ultimate benefits. In a more recent interview with the Australian newspaper, Colby said Aukus's Pillar 1 – the nuclear submarine programme under which Australia would purchase several Virginia-class boats, pending the acquisition of new generation UK-Australian Acute-class submarines – is 'very problematic'. He did say, however, that Pillar 2 – the sharing of military intelligence and technical know-how between the partners – 'is great, no problem'. Colby's long-standing concern is the US's ability to take on China if it ever comes to conflict in the Asia-Pacific, especially over Taiwan. 'How are we supposed to give away nuclear attack submarines in the years of the window of potential conflict with China?' he told the Australian. 'A nuclear attack submarine is the most important asset for a western Pacific fight, for Taiwan, conventionally. But we don't have enough, and we're not going to have enough.' If this is the starting position for Colby's review, its scepticism contradicts the steadfast commitment to Aukus from the current Australian and British Labour governments. Indeed, Britain's latest Strategic Defence Review places high priority on the Aukus partnership as an integral element of British strategic and force planning. Given Colby's previous form on Aukus, the review may well recommend scaling back or discontinuing the nuclear submarine Aukus pillar. But that would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain, let alone for Colby's own strategic vision, outlined in his 2021 book, of an 'anti-hegemonic coalition to contain the military ambitions of China', in which he specifically envisioned Australia. Arguably, it doesn't matter which country mans the attack nuclear submarines assigned to the Asia-Pacific theatre, as long as the boats are there. But will Colby see it that way? In Australia, however, the administration's announcement immediately set a cat amongst the pigeons. Currently, Australia spends just over two per cent of GDP on defence, and the Trump administration, including Colby, is pressuring on Australia to do far more. This month, Hegseth, told his Australian counterpart that Australia should be committing at least 3.5 per cent of GDP to ensure not just Aukus, but that her fighting personnel and ageing military hardware are fit for purpose and contributing commensurately to the Western alliance. After his face-to-face meeting with Hegseth, Australian defence minister Richard Marles seemed open to the suggestion. His prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is not. In his first major media appearance since his thumping election win a month ago, Albanese was asked whether the US could renege on supplying nuclear submarines to Australia if spending is deemed inadequate. 'Well, I think Australia should decide on what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that', Albanese replied. It hasn't escaped notice here that the Pentagon announced its Aukus review less than 48 hours after Albanese made his declaration, and just days before the Australian prime minister is expected to have his first personal meeting with Trump at the G7 Leaders' Summit in Canada. That meeting, carrying the risk of a public Trump rebuke, surely will be dreaded by Albanese. Dealing with the Americans' insistence on a near-doubling of Australia's defence investment is politically diabolical for Albanese. He has just won re-election on a manifesto promising huge additional social investments, especially in Australia's version of the NHS and a fiscally ravenous National Disability Insurance Scheme. Albanese must keep his left-wing support base onside by expanding already huge public investments and subsidies in pursuing his government's ideological Net Zero and 100 per cent renewable energy goals. All that on top of a burgeoning national debt. To achieve Nato's GDP defence spending target of 3 per cent, let alone Hegseth's 3.5, something has to give. Albanese cannot deliver both massive social spending and vast defence outlays: to keep the Americans happy, and justify the continuation of both Aukus pillars, he will need to either prove himself a Bismarck-calibre statesman, or risk electoral wrath if he retreats on his domestic spending promises, and cuts existing programmes across his government, to afford adequate defence spending headroom. Australia needs America to be a strong ally in our troubled region, but the United States needs steadfast allies like Australia and Britain. Now the administration's scepticism about Aukus's value to the US is officially on the table, with a review entrusted to its biggest Aukus sceptic in Elbridge Colby, Australia and Britain must justify why all aspects of the partnership are a worthwhile investment with them, as America's partners, committed to playing their part in full. How well they do it will be a measure of their political and diplomatic competence.
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
China's imports plunge as trade talks conclude
Through February and March, overall imports to the U.S. hit record highs as traders anticipated rising tariffs. But under the withering tariff rates President Donald Trump announced on April 2, what he called "Liberation Day," that overall import number plunged from more than $340 billion in March to just $273 billion in April. "People were importing in anticipation of the imposition of tariffs. Then, when he made the Liberation Day announcement, everything collapsed," said Marcus Noland, executive vice president and director of studies at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a think tank based in Washington, D.C. "China is just the best example because when the United States does something, China retaliates. And so that's why we got into the escalatory spiral and ended up with triple-digit tariffs," Noland added. "People couldn't import. Some people literally did not have the money to pay the import tariff." Ocean freight volumes from China to the U.S. fell sharply in April, down 34% from a year earlier, according to Kristy Garcia-Quintela, director of ocean freight at GEODIS, a global logistics company. "34% is pretty big," said Garcia-Quintela, who added the U.S. demand for global ocean shipping saw a 6% decline in April compared to the same month last year. Besides Chinese imports dropping to a post-pandemic low, shipments from the United States' other largest trading partners - the European Union, Mexico, and Canada - also fell in April. Purchases from the European Union, for example, dropped in April to $53 billion after surging to an all-time high just a month earlier at nearly $82 billion. Despite a partial pullback in tariffs and ongoing trade talks, the trade tensions still remain high, and experts expressed concerns about the road ahead. "The truly catastrophic tariffs that were announced on Liberation Day have been avoided, but it's not like everything is looking good right now," said Noland, the economist. (This story has been updated to reflect new events.)
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Porn Britannia, Xi's absence & no more lonely hearts?
OnlyFans is giving the Treasury what it wants – but should we be concerned? 'OnlyFans,' writes Louise Perry, 'is the most profitable content subscription service in the world.' Yet 'the vast majority of its content creators make very little from it'. So why are around 4 per cent of young British women selling their wares on the site? 'Imitating Bonnie Blue and Lily Phillips – currently locked in a competition to have sex with the most men in a day – isn't pleasant.' OnlyFans gives women 'the sexual attention and money of hundreds and even thousands of men'. The result is 'a cascade of depravity' that Perry wouldn't wish on her worst enemy. In business terms, however, OnlyFans is a 'staggering success', according to economics editor Michael Simmons. 'Britain's sex industry brings in far more to the economy than politicians are comfortable admitting'; OnlyFans might just be Britain's most profitable tech start-up. 'If we are going to wage a moral war on porn,' Simmons argues, 'we should at least be honest about what we're sacrificing.' Louise and Michael joined the podcast to discuss further (1:21). Next: could Xi Jinping's time be up? Historian Francis Pike writes about the unusual absence of China's President Xi. China-watchers have detected some subtle differences from the norm in Chinese media, from fewer official references to Xi to changes in routine politburo meetings. So, could Xi Jinping be forced to step down? And if so, who is on manoeuvres and why? Francis joined the podcast alongside former diplomat Kerry Brown, professor of China Studies at King's College London (22:31). And finally: is the era of the lonely hearts ad coming to an end? Tony Whitehead provides his notes on lonely hearts columns this week, writing about how, 330 years after they first appeared in print in Britain, they may soon disappear. Francesca Beauman – who literally wrote the book on the subject, Shapely Ankle Preferr'd – and Mark Mason join the podcast to provide their favourite examples, from the serious to the humorous (35:13). Hosted by William Moore and Lara Prendergast. Produced by Patrick Gibbons.
