Tag Archive for: China

Countering China’s coercive diplomacy

Countering China’s coercive diplomacy: prioritising economic security, sovereignty and the rules-based order

What’s the problem?

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is increasingly using a range of economic and non-economic tools to punish, influence and deter foreign governments in its foreign relations. Coercive actions have become a key part of the PRC’s toolkit as it takes a more assertive position in international disputes and seeks to reshape the global order in its favour.

This research finds that the PRC’s use of coercive tactics is now sitting at levels well above those seen a decade ago, or even five years ago. The year 2020 marked a peak, and the use of trade restrictions and state-issued threats have become favoured methods. The tactics have been used in disputes over governments’ decisions on human rights, national security and diplomatic relations.

The PRC’s tactics have had mixed success in affecting the policies of target governments; most governments have stood firm, but some have acquiesced. Undeniably, the tactics are harming certain businesses, challenging sovereign decision-making and weakening economic security. The tactics also undermine the rules-based international order and probably serve as a deterrent to governments, businesses and civil-society groups that have witnessed the PRC’s coercion of others and don’t want to become future targets. This can mean that decision-makers, fearing that punishment, are failing to protect key interests, to stand up for human rights or to align with other states on important regional and international issues.

What’s the solution?

Governments must pursue a deterrence strategy that seeks to change the PRC’s thinking on coercive tactics by reducing the perceived benefits and increasing the costs. The strategy should be based on policies that build deterrence in three forms: resilience, denial and punishment. This strategy should be pursued through national, minilateral and multilateral channels.

Building resilience is essential to counter coercion, but it isn’t a complete solution, so we must look at interventions that enhance deterrence by denial and punishment. States must engage in national efforts to build deterrence but, alone, it’s unlikely that they’ll prevail against more powerful aggressors, so working collectively with like-minded partners and in multilateral institutions is necessary.

It’s essential that effective strategic communications accompany all of these efforts.

This report makes 24 policy recommendations. It recommends, for example, better cooperation between government and business and efforts to improve the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The report argues that a crucial—and currently missing—component of the response is for a coalition of like-minded states to establish an international taskforce on countering coercion. The taskforce members should agree on the nature of the problem, commit to assisting each other, share information and map out potential countermeasures to deploy in response to coercion.

Solidarity between like-minded partners is critical for states to overcome the power differential and divide-and-conquer tactics that the PRC exploits in disputes. Japan’s presidency of the G7 presents an important opportunity to advance this kind of cooperation in 2023.
 

Introduction

We treat our friends with fine wine, but for our enemies we have shotguns.
—Gui Congyou (桂从友), former PRC Ambassador to Sweden, 20191

The PRC’s use of economic and non-economic coercive statecraft has surged to previously unseen levels,2 as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) more aggressively pursues its ‘core interests’, or bottom-line issues on which it isn’t willing to compromise.3 Those tactics have increasingly been deployed in reaction to other states—especially developed democracies—when they make foreign and security policy decisions that displease the CCP.

Coercive diplomacy encompasses a range of ‘grey zone’ or hybrid activity beyond conventional diplomacy and short of military action. It’s ‘the use of threats or negative actions to force the target state to change behaviour’.4 Much of this is economic coercion—the weaponisation of interdependence in goods and services trade and investment. The use of punitive actions to coerce sits alongside the positive inducements also used to influence as part of a carrot-and-stick approach to foreign relations. The exploitation of economic leverage is often accompanied by other coercive tools as part of a multidomain effort to influence a target. This includes cyberattacks, arbitrary detentions and sanctions on individuals.

The PRC’s use of coercive statecraft presents a particular challenge, as its authoritarian governance allows it to harness a range of malign tactics as part of its broader strategic efforts to reshape the existing global order in its favour. As a hybrid threat, this coercive conduct is often used in a way that exploits plausible deniability and a lack of democratic and market-based restraints. The PRC’s coercive behaviour is rarely formally or clearly declared; nor does it necessarily rely on legitimate legal authority.

While other states, including developed democracies, have and use coercive powers, the nature, scale and intent of the PRC’s conduct pose a distinct threat to the rules-based international order.

The PRC’s use of these tactics is weakening the rules-based, liberal international order. While the methods don’t always cause significant economic harm or succeed in immediately changing a target state’s policy, they have done so and have caused other harms, for example by encouraging an environment of self-censorship and promoting a culture in which policymakers avoid public discussions or advancing policy development in certain areas. Another harm is the disruptive nature of the information environment surrounding the PRC’s coercive actions, which places enormous pressure on politicians and decision-makers (including because some commentators question what ‘concessions’ a government will make to potentially unwind the PRC’s punitive measures).

Some states are nonetheless making difficult decisions in defiance of the PRC’s tactics, which alienate policymakers and populations. However, the PRC’s tactics are probably also functioning as a highly successful signal for many countries, especially developing states, deterring them from making decisions that could provoke PRC aggression. This means that states are compromising important decisions with implications for the international order, human rights and national security.

The main analysis in this report is based on an open-source dataset of examples of coercive diplomacy. The dataset draws on information from news articles, policy papers, academic research, company websites, social media, official government documents and statements made by politicians and business officials. The research team gathered as many examples of coercive diplomacy as could be identified publicly from 2020 to 2022. This carries forward the methodology used for ASPI’s 2020 report, The Chinese Communist Party’s coercive diplomacy.5

In relying on open-source research and mostly English-language sources, this approach does carry limitations. This isn’t intended to be an exhaustive or comprehensive documentation of coercive diplomacy across the world. There will be cases of coercion that have remained private,66 and there may be publicly known cases not captured, especially in countries where English-language reporting is unavailable. This dataset has been compiled to identify trends in the PRC’s use of coercive diplomacy and insights into how and where it operates and how it can be better countered.

In addition to this dataset, the report overviews the PRC’s strategic outlook and analyses a series of in-depth case studies of PRC coercion: Australia, Lithuania and the Republic of Korea. We also conducted modelling of the economic impact of simulated coercive restrictions against those states and analysed the information environment surrounding the actual cases of coercion that they have experienced. The report then concludes with our policy recommendations.

  1. ‘How Sweden copes with Chinese bullying’, The Economist, 20 February 2020, online. This is a reference to ‘My motherland’, the theme song of a Chinese movie about the Korean War. See Fan Anqi, ‘China warns “irretrievable consequences”, “unbearable price” amid US’ Taiwan remarks swings’, Global Times, 24 May 2022, ↩︎
  2. Fergus Hanson, Emilia Currey, Tracy Beattie, The Chinese Communist Party’s coercive diplomacy, ASPI, Canberra, 1 September 2020. ↩︎
  3. For more on China’s core interests, see Appendix 2. ↩︎
  4. See Ketian Zhang, ‘Chinese non-military coercion—tactics and rationale’, Brookings, 22 January 2019. ↩︎
  5. Hanson et al., The Chinese Communist Party’s coercive diplomacy. ↩︎
  6. For example: Primrose Riordan, ‘China’s veiled threat to Bill Shorten on extradition treaty’, The Australian, 5 December 2017, online; Fergus Hunter, ‘Australia abandoned plans for Taiwanese free trade agreement after warning from China’, Sydney Morning Herald, 24 October 2018. ↩︎

The latest flashpoint on the India-China border: Zooming into the Tawang border skirmishes

The latest flashpoint on the India-China border: Zooming into the Tawang border skirmishes

Overview

On 9 December 2022, Indian and Chinese troops clashed at the Yangtse Plateau along the India-China border. The confrontation was the most serious skirmish between Indian and Chinese troops since Galwan in 2020.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s latest visual project provides satellite imagery analysis of the key areas (including 3D models) and geolocates military, infrastructure and transport positions to show new developments over the last 12 months.

Tawang is strategically valuable Indian territory wedged between China and Bhutan. The Yangtse Plateau is an important location in Tawang because it enables visibility over key Indian supply routes to the region.

Our analysis reveals that rapid infrastructure development along the border in this region means the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) can now access key locations on the Yangtse Plateau more easily than it could have just one year ago. While India maintains control of the commanding position on the plateau’s high ground, China has compensated for this disadvantage by building new military and transport infrastructure that allows it to get troops quickly into the area. 

This new ASPI work builds on satellite analysis that ASPI’s International Cyber Policy Centre carried out in September 2021, focused on the Doklam region (‘A 3D deep dive into the India-China border’). 

The latest analysis aims to contextualise India-China border tensions by examining the terrain in which this clash took place, and provides analysis of developments that threaten the status quo along the border – a major flashpoint in the region.

The India-China border continues to become more crowded as infrastructure is built and large numbers of Indian and Chinese outposts compete for strategic, operational and tactical advantage. This increases the risk of escalation and potential military conflict stemming from incidental or deliberate encounters between Indian and Chinese troops. These ongoing tensions, and clashes, deserve more attention from regional governments, global policymakers and international organisations.

Go to website

Explore our new project here

State-sponsored economic cyber-espionage for commercial purposes: tackling an invisible but persistent risk to prosperity

As part of a multi-year capacity building project supporting governments in the Indo-Pacific with defending their economic against the risk of cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, ASPI analysed public records to determine the effects, the actual scale, severity and spread of current incidents of cyberespionage affecting and targeting commercial entities.

In 2015, the leaders agreed that ‘no country should conduct or support ICT-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information, with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial sectors.’

Our analyses suggests that the threat of state-sponsored economic cyberespionage is more significant than ever, with countries industrialising their cyberespionage efforts to target commercial firms and universities at a grander scale; and more of these targeted industries and universities are based in emerging economies.

“Strategic competition has spilled into the economic and technological domains and states have become more comfortable and capable using offensive cyber capabilities. Our analysis shows that the state practice of economic cyber-espionage appears to have resurged to pre-2015 levels and tripled in raw numbers.”

In this light, we issued a Briefing Note on 15 November 2022 recommending that the G20 members recognise that state-sponsored ICT-enabled theft of IP remains a key concern for international cooperation and encouraging them to reaffirm their commitment made in 2015 to refrain from economic cyber-espionage for commercial purposes. 

This latest Policy Brief, State-sponsored economic cyber-espionage for commercial purposes: tackling an invisible but persistent risk to prosperity, further suggests that governments should raise awareness by better assessing and sharing information about the impact of IP theft on their nations’ economies in terms of financial costs, jobs and competitiveness. Cybersecurity and intelligence authorities should invest in better understanding the extent of state sponsored economic cyber-espionage on their territories.

On the international front, the G20 and relevant UN committees should continue addressing the issue and emphasising countries’ responsibilities not to allow the attacks to be launched from their territories. 

The G20 should encourage members to reaffirm their 2015 commitments and consider establishing a cross-sectoral working group to develop concrete guidance for the operationalisation and implementation of the 2015 agreement while assessing the scale and impact of cyber-enabled IP theft.

State sponsored economic cyberespionage Briefing note
Defending against cyber IP theft Project flyer

‘Impactful projection’: long-range strike options for Australia

Executive Summary

The Australian Government has stated that the ADF requires greater long-range strike capability. This was first stated by the previous government in its 2020 Defence Strategic Update (DSU), which emphasised the need for ‘self-reliant deterrent effects’. The present government has endorsed that assessment: Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles has stated that ‘the ADF must augment its self-reliance to deploy and deliver combat power through impactful materiel and enhanced strike capability—including over longer distances.’ He’s coined the term ‘impactful projection’ to describe the intended effect of this capability, which is to place ‘a very large question mark in the adversary’s mind.’

The term may be new, but the concept is not. To us, it’s a restating of the concept of deterrence by denial; that is, having sufficiently robust capabilities to convince an adversary that the cost of acting militarily against us isn’t worth any gains that might be made.

But the need for the ADF to have those kinds of capabilities has become much more urgent. As the 2020 DSU noted, we no longer have 10 years of warning time of conventional conflict involving Australia. Moreover, this is not just the prospect of conflict far from Australia’s shores. People’s Liberation Army (PLA) force-projection capabilities have grown dramatically in the past two decades and include long-range conventional ballistic missiles, bombers and advanced surface combatants that have already transited through Australian waters.

The ‘worst case’ scenario for Australia’s military strategy has always been the prospect of an adversary establishing a presence in our near region from which it can target Australia or isolate us from our partners and allies. PLA strike capabilities in the archipelago to our north or the Southwest Pacific, whether on ships and submarines or land-based missiles and aircraft, would be that worst case. That could occur as China sought to ‘horizontally escalate’ a conflict with the US to stretch its military resources. So, an enhanced ADF long-range strike capability is not primarily about a conflict off Taiwan or in the South China Sea.

Unfortunately, the ADF’s strike cupboard is rather bare. Defence is acquiring more modern maritime strike and land-attack missiles for its existing platforms. But, even if equipped with better weapons, strike systems built around fighter planes or surface combatants are unlikely to have the ‘affordable mass’ or range needed to deter or defeat a major power’s attempts to project force against Australia.

There’s no doubt that the Defence Strategic Review (DSR) commissioned by the Albanese government is considering new strike options. According to the review’s terms of reference, those capabilities need to be delivered by 2032–33. In this report, we consider options to increase the ADF’s strike power in that time frame.

We start with the US Air Force’s B-21 Raider bomber, which was recently rolled out in California. The B-21 has become a topical issue here but so far there’s been little reliable information to inform the public discussion. This report is a first step in investigating the public data that is currently available on the B-21, while also analysing the B-21’s suitability for Australia’s needs.

As an extremely stealthy bomber that can deliver large amounts of ordnance across our near region, the B-21 is the ‘gold standard’ in strike capability. It could potentially be delivered by 2032–33. But that capability comes at great cost. We estimate the total acquisition cost for a squadron of 12 aircraft to be in the order of $25–28 billion and have a sustainment cost that would put it among the ADF’s most expensive current capabilities (but be significantly less than nuclear-powered submarines).

But that cost is potentially offset by a number of factors. A single B-21 can deliver the same effect as many F-35As. Moreover, B-21s would not require the ‘overhead’ of supporting capabilities such as air-to-air refuellers when operating in our region. Moreover, the B-21 can prosecute targets from secure air bases in Australia’s south, where it has access to workforce, fuel and munitions.

Of course, there are other options for long-range strike. These have their own constellations of cost, capability and risk. Long-range missiles, including hypersonics, have also received much recent attention. But they may be deceptively expensive; the further we want a missile to fly, the more expensive it is, and none of its exquisite components are reusable. Moreover, history suggests that very large numbers of missiles will be needed to defeat an adversary—more than we’re ever likely to be able to afford or stockpile.

Any assessment of capability options needs to be informed by robust cost–benefit analysis. The B-21 certainly has a high sticker price, but if, by virtue of its stealth, it can employ cheaper, short-range weapons, then in the long run it may be more affordable and deliver greater effects than long-range missiles alone. It was analysis of this kind that persuaded the USAF to go down the path of a new bomber. Of course, such exercises are assumption-rich activities, and all assumptions need to be rigorously tested; what’s valid for the US might not be for Australia.

Then there are several options that fall under the heading of the ‘Goldilocks’ bomber: a strike system that doesn’t have the eye-watering cost of the B-21 but still delivers a meaningful capability enhancement. One option is provided by ‘palletised munitions’ dropped from military cargo aircraft. There are two attributes of this approach that have appeal in Australia’s circumstances. The first is that many of the components, such as the missiles and aircraft, are already in ADF inventory or are being acquired. The second is that airlifters can operate from the short and unprepared airfields found in our region. More strike aircraft operating from more locations enhances the survivability of our strike system and complicates the adversary’s operating picture.

Another Goldilocks approach is potentially provided by autonomous, uncrewed systems. They will still need to be large to provide the range needed for impactful projection. However, it’s possible to discern what the solution could look like; for example, a larger version of the Ghost Bat that can deliver ordnance across our near region. At some point, the future of strike will involve larger crewed and uncrewed systems supported by large numbers of ‘the small, the smart and the many’—cheap, disposable systems that Australian industry can responsively produce in mass. The key question is: can that be done within the DSR’s 2032–33 target time frame?

There is potentially a way for Australia to have its cake and eat it too: by hosting USAF B-21s. Under the Enhanced Air Cooperation stream of the US Force Posture Initiative, USAF B-1, B-2 and B-52 aircraft visit northern Australia. In future, having our major ally rotate B-21s through northern Australia could obviate the requirement for Australia to have this kind of long-range strike capability in its own order of battle. Ultimately, the issue comes down to how much independent, sovereign strike capability the Australian Government requires. And any sovereign Australian capability adds to the overall alliance pool, which is the core concept underpinning AUKUS.

This report also examines some of the main arguments against the B-21. While all of them need to be considered seriously, we would also note that the world has changed. The September 2021 AUKUS announcement under which Australia will acquire a nuclear-powered submarine capability demonstrates that. Things that were previously inconceivable are now happening, so we shouldn’t dismiss the B-21 out of hand. Our recommendation is that the Australian Government should engage with the US Government to gain access to the information on the B-21 program so they can make an informed decision on its viability for Australia.

This analysis will form part of wider ASPI program of work looking at the strategic and capability questions that Australia is grappling with, including deterrence and long-range strike.

Frontier influencers: the new face of China’s propaganda

Executive summary

This report explores how the Chinese party-state’s globally focused propaganda and disinformation capabilities are evolving and increasing in sophistication. Concerningly, this emerging approach by the Chinese party-state to influence international discourse on China, including obfuscating its record of human rights violations, is largely flying under the radar of US social media platforms and western policymakers.

In the broader context of attempts by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to censor speech, promote disinformation and seed the internet with its preferred narratives, we focus on a small but increasingly popular set of YouTube accounts that feature mainly female China-based ethnic-minority influencers from the troubled frontier regions of Xinjiang, Tibet and Inner Mongolia, hereafter referred to as ‘frontier influencers’ or ‘frontier accounts’.

Despite being blocked in China, YouTube is seen by the CCP as a key battlefield in its ideological contestation with the outside world, and YouTube’s use in foreign-facing propaganda efforts has intensified in recent years. Originally deployed on domestic video-sharing platforms to meet an internal propaganda need, frontier-influencer content has since been redirected towards global audiences on YouTube as part of the CCP’s evolving efforts to counter criticisms of China’s human rights problems and burnish the country’s image.

Alongside party-state media and foreign vloggers, these carefully vetted domestic vloggers are increasingly seen as another key part of Beijing’s external propaganda arsenal. Their use of a more personal style of communication and softer presentation is expected to be more convincing than traditional party-state media content, which is often inclined towards the more rigid and didactic. For the CCP, frontier influencers represent, in the words of one Chinese propaganda expert, ‘guerrillas or militia’ fighting on the flanks in ‘the international arena of public opinion’, while party-state media or the ‘regular army’ ‘charge, kill and advance on the frontlines’.

The frontier accounts we examine in this report were predominantly created in 2020–21 and feature content that closely hews to CCP narratives, but their less polished presentation has a more authentic feel that conveys a false sense of legitimacy and transparency about China’s frontier regions that party-state media struggle to achieve. For viewers, the video content appears to be the creation of the individual influencers, but is in fact what’s referred to in China as ‘professional user generated content’, or content that’s produced with the help of special influencer-management agencies known as multi-channel networks (MCNs).

For the mostly young and female Uyghur, Tibetan and other ethnic-minority influencers we examine in this report, having such an active presence on a Western social media platform is highly unusual, and ordinarily would be fraught with danger. But, as we reveal, frontier influencers are carefully vetted and considered politically reliable. The content they create is tightly circumscribed via self-censorship and oversight from their MCNs and domestic video platforms before being published on YouTube. In one key case study, we show how frontier influencers’ content was directly commissioned by the Chinese party-state.

Because YouTube is blocked in China, individual influencers based in the country aren’t able to receive advertising revenue through the platform’s Partner Program, which isn’t available there. But, through their arrangements with YouTube, MCNs have been able to monetise content for frontier influencers, as well as for hundreds of other China-based influencers on the platform. Given that many of the MCNs have publicly committed to promote CCP propaganda, this arrangement results in a troubling situation in which MCNs are able to monetise their activities, including the promotion of disinformation, via their access to YouTube’s platform.

The use of professionally supported frontier influencers also appears to be aimed at ensuring that state-backed content ranks well in search results because search-engine algorithms tend to prioritise fresh content and channels that post regularly. From the CCP’s perspective, the continuous flooding of content by party-state media, foreign influencers and professionally supported frontier influencers onto YouTube is aimed at outperforming other more critical but stale content.

This new phenomenon reflects a continued willingness, identified in previous ASPI ICPC reports,11 by the Chinese party-state to experiment in its approach to shaping online political discourse, particularly on those topics that have the potential to disrupt its strategic objectives. By targeting online audiences on YouTube through intermediary accounts managed by MCNs, the CCP can hide its affiliation with those influencers and create the appearance of ‘independent’ and ‘authoritative’ voices supporting its narratives, including disinformation that it’s seeking to propagate globally.

This report (on page 42) makes a series of policy recommendations, including that social media platforms shouldn’t allow MCNs who are conducting propaganda and disinformation work on behalf of the Chinese party-state to monetise their activities or be recognised by the platforms as, for example, official partners or award winners. This report also recommends that social media platforms broaden their practice of labelling the accounts of state media, agencies and officials to include state-linked influencers from the People’s Republic of China.

  1. Fergus Ryan, Ariel Bogle, Nathan Ruser, Albert Zhang, Daria Impiombato, Borrowing mouths to speak on Xinjiang, ASPI, Canberra, 7 December 2021. Fergus Ryan, Ariel Bogle, Albert Zhang, Jacob Wallis, #StopXinjiang Rumors: the CCP’s decentralised disinformation campaign, ASPI, Canberra, 2 December 2021,https://www.aspi.org.au/report/stop-xinjiang-rumors. ↩︎

Suppressing the truth and spreading lies

How the CCP is influencing Solomon Islands’ information environment

What’s the problem?

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is attempting to influence public discourse in Solomon Islands through coordinated information operations that seek to spread false narratives and suppress information on a range of topics. Following the November 2021 Honiara riots and the March 2022 leaking of the China – Solomon Islands security agreement, the CCP has used its propaganda and disinformation capabilities to push false narratives in an effort to shape the Solomon Islands public’s perception of security issues and foreign partners. In alignment with the CCP’s regional security objectives, those messages have a strong focus on undermining Solomon Islands’ existing partnerships with Australia and the US.

Although some of the CCP’s messaging occurs through routine diplomatic engagement, there’s a coordinated effort to influence the population across a broad spectrum of information channels. That spectrum includes Chinese party-state media, CCP official-led statements and publications in local and social media, and the amplification of particular individual and pro-CCP content via targeted Facebook groups.

There’s now growing evidence to suggest that CCP officials are also seeking to suppress information that doesn’t align with the party-state’s narratives across the Pacific islands through the coercion of local journalists and media institutions.

What’s the solution?

The Australian Government should coordinate with other foreign partners of Solomon Islands, including the US, New Zealand, Japan and the EU, to further assist local Pacific media outlets in hiring, training and retaining high-quality professional journalists. A stronger, more resilient media industry in Solomon Islands will be less vulnerable to disinformation and the pressures exerted by local CCP officials.

Social media companies need to provide, in national Pacific languages, contextual information on misinformation and label state affiliations on messages from state-controlled entities. Social media companies could encourage civil society to report state affiliations and provide evidence to help companies enforce their policies.

Further government funding should be used to support public research into actors and activities affecting the Pacific islands’ information environment, including foreign influence, the proliferation of disinformation on topics such as climate change, and election misinformation. That research should be used to assist in building media resiliency in Pacific island countries by providing information and targeted training to media professionals to assist in identifying disinformation and aspects of coordinated information operations. Sharing that information with civil-society groups and institutions across the region, such as the Pacific Fusion Centre, can also help to improve regional media literacy and understanding of information operations as a cybersecurity issue.

Pacific island countries will need support as great-power competition intensifies in the region. The US, for example, can do more to demonstrate that the CCP’s narratives are false, such as proving Washington’s genuine interest in supporting the region by answering the call of the local Solomon Islands population to do more to clean up remaining unexploded World War II ordnance on Guadalcanal. ASPI has also previously proposed that an Indo-Pacific hybrid threats centre would help regional governments, business and civil society to understand the threat landscape, develop resilience against online harms and counter malign activity.1 It would contribute to regional stability by promoting confidence-building measures, including information-sharing and capacity-building mechanisms.

Introduction

This report explores how the CCP is using a range of influence channels to shape, promote and suppress messages in the Solomon Islands information environment. Through an examination of CCP online influence in the aftermath of the Honiara riots in late 2021 and in response to the leaked security agreement in March 2022, this report demonstrates a previously undocumented level of coordination across a range of state activities. As part of a wider shift in ASPI’s research on foreign interference and disinformation, this report also seeks to measure the impact of those efforts in shaping public sentiment and opinion, and we welcome feedback on those methods. The data collected in this project doesn’t provide an exhaustive record of all CCP influence tactics and channels in Solomon Islands but provides a snapshot of activity in relation to the two key case studies.

In this paper, we use the term ‘China’ to refer to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as an international actor, ‘Chinese Government’ or ‘Chinese state’ to refer to the bureaucracy of the government of the PRC, and ‘Chinese Communist Party’ or ‘party-state’ to refer to the regime that monopolises state power in the PRC.

Methodology

Data collection for this case study covered two discrete periods. The first collection period was for 12 weeks from the beginning of the riots on 24 November (referred to in tables and charts as the Honiara riots case study), and the second period was for six weeks from the leaking of the China – Solomon Islands security agreement on 24 March (referred to as the security agreement case study).2 The analytical methods used included quantitative analysis of publicly available data from a range of sources, including articles from Solomon Islands media outlets, articles from party-state media and Facebook posts in public groups and local media pages based in Solomon Islands. For the purpose of the analysis, any article with more than 80% of its content derived from local or foreign government official sources (direct quotes or statements from diplomatic officials, ministers or embassies, for example) was categorised as an ‘official-led’ article. Examples of such content included editorials, media releases and articles that prominently relied on direct quotes. This data was collected systematically for quantitative and qualitative analysis and was strengthened by deeper investigation into some public Facebook groups and activity. This approach drew upon a previously published framework, titled ‘information influence and interference’, used to understand strategy-driven, state-sponsored information activities.33

We conducted a simple categorical sentiment analysis of social media posts as a measure of the effectiveness of CCP influence efforts. We analysed comments from Facebook posts published by three leading media outlets in Solomon Islands (The Solomon Star, The Island Sun and the Solomon Times) for the two events investigated for this research report. We also analysed comments from posts by the Chinese Embassy in Solomon Islands’ Facebook page, as well as posts in public Pacific island Facebook pages and groups that shared links to party-state media. Relevant comments were categorised as being positive (pro) or negative (anti) towards a particular country or group, such as ‘the West’, which had to be explicitly stated in the comment. Comments that referred to more than one grouping (China, the West, or the Solomon Islands Government) were categorised for analytical purposes based on the dominant subject of the comment. Our initial data collection also sought to analyse information relating to New Zealand, the UK and Japan, but that was prevented by the lack of reporting and online discussion focused on those countries (in this data-collection period, only one article each from New Zealand and Japan were identified).

  1. Lesley Seebeck, Emily Williams, Jacob Wallis, Countering the Hydra: a proposal for an Indo-Pacific hybrid threat centre, ASPI, Canberra, 7 June 2022. ↩︎
  2. Anna Powles, ‘Photos of draft security agreement between Solomon Islands and China’, Twitter, 24 March 2022. ↩︎
  3. Miah Hammond-Errey, ‘Understanding and assessing information influence and foreign interference’, Journal of
    Information Warfare, Winter 2019, 18:1–22. ↩︎

Assessing the groundwork: Surveying the impacts of climate change in China

The immediate and unprecedented impacts of climate change are becoming increasingly apparent across China, as they are for many parts of the world. Since June 2022, China has been battered by record-breaking heatwaves, torrential downpours, flooding disasters, severe drought and intense forest fires.

In isolation, each of those climate hazards is a reminder of the vulnerability of human systems to environmental changes, but together they are a stark reminder that climate change presents a real and existential threat to prosperity and well-being of billions of people. 

Sea-level rise will undermine access to freshwater for China’s coastal cities and increase the likelihood of flooding in China’s highly urbanised delta regions. Droughts are projected to become more frequent, more extreme and longer lasting, juxtaposed with growingly intense downpours that will inundate non-coastal regions. Wildfires are also projected to increase in frequency and severity, especially in eastern China. China’s rivers, which have historically been critical to the county’s economic and political development, will experience multiple, overlapping climate (and non-climate) impacts.

In addition to these direct climate hazards, there will also be major disruptions to the various human systems that underpin China, such as China’s food and energy systems as are discussed in this report. These impacts deserve greater attention from policy analysts, particularly given that they’ll increasingly shape China’s economic, foreign and security policy choices in coming decades.

This report is an initial attempt to survey the literature on the impact that climate change will have on China. It concludes that relatively little attention has been paid to this important topic. This is a worrying conclusion, given China’s key role in international climate-change debates, immense importance in the global economy and major geostrategic relevance. As the severity of climate change impacts continue to amplify over the coming decades, the significance of this gap will only grow more concerning.

Assessing the impact of CCP information operations related to Xinjiang

What’s the problem?

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is using technology to enforce transnational digital repression and influence unwitting audiences beyond China’s territory. This includes using increasingly sophisticated online tactics to deny, distract from and deter revelations or claims of human rights abuses, including the arbitrary detention, mass sterilisation and cultural degradation of minorities in Xinjiang. Instead of improving its treatment of Uyghurs and other Turkic minorities, the CCP is responding to critiques of its current actions against human rights by coordinating its state propaganda apparatus, security agencies and public relations industry to silence and shape Xinjiang narratives at home and abroad.

Central to the CCP’s efforts is the exploitation of US-based social media and content platforms. CCP online public diplomacy is bolstered by covert and coercive campaigns that impose costs and seek to constrain international entities—be they states, corporations or individuals—from offering evidence-based critiques of the party-state’s record on human rights in Xinjiang and Hong Kong and other sensitive issues. This asymmetric access to US-based social media platforms allows the CCP to continue testing online tactics, measuring responses and improving its influence and interference capabilities, in both overt and covert ways, across a spectrum of topics.

The impact of these operations isn’t widely understood, and the international community has failed to adequately respond to the global challenges posed by the CCP’s rapidly evolving propaganda and disinformation operations. This report seeks to increase awareness about this problem based on publicly available information.

What’s the solution?

The exploitation of information operations and propaganda by Russia and China during Putin’s war on Ukraine demonstrates the importance of taking measures to reduce the power and impact of such activities before a crisis or military conflict is underway.1 This is a viable option, given both the success of the West in countering Russia’s false pretexts for instigating an invasion of Ukraine by revealing Russian plans,2 and the outstanding success of the Ukrainian Government’s communication efforts globally. This has undercut attempts by Putin to establish legitimacy in the conflict and has also pressured Beijing into moderating its international and material support for Moscow during the conflict. However, collective action was largely taken only after Russia’s invasion. The CCP has a different modus operandi and seeks to achieve its objectives without military force. It relies on other countries having high tolerance levels before those countries take action, which often means that the harmful impacts of information operations are occurring before any countermeasures are taken.

CCP information operations targeting Xinjiang narratives and human rights abuses should be countered now to mitigate the party’s global campaign of transnational repression and information warfare. Achieving that requires governments and civil society to work more closely with social media platforms and broadcasters to deter and expose propaganda organisations and operatives.

Governments must lead this policymaking process in coordination with allies and partners with shared interests. Economic sanctions regimes that target the perpetrators of serious human rights violations and abuses should be expanded to include the distributors of disinformation and foreign propaganda who silence, intimidate and continue the abuse of survivors and victims of human rights violations. Sanctions targeting propagandists and state media have already been used as an effective tool of statecraft. For example, the Australian Government,3 in coordination with other governments in the US, UK and Europe,4 has sanctioned Russian propagandists and state media for spreading disinformation and propaganda during Putin’s war. Sanctioning Chinese propagandists and state media for their repression of global free speech will curb the CCP’s disinformation and foreign propaganda prior to a conflict, undermine its capabilities during conflicts and deter future information campaigns.

CCP information operations are also evolving and changing. Governments should disrupt Chinese propaganda assets and identify strategic data sources—such as public opinion mining of US-based social media—that are being exploited to improve the party’s influence and interference capabilities. In addition, governments, civil society actors, think tanks and social media operators should create countermeasures and responses to CCP information operations and propaganda activities focusing on the discourse on human rights to blunt and deter malign CCP activity. This should include funding research exposing the Chinese foreign propaganda system, including public relations firms, cultural corporations and public opinion monitoring companies based inside and outside China.

Full Report

You can download the full report here.

  1. See Samantha Hoffman, Matthew Knight, China’s messaging on the Ukraine conflict, ASPI, Canberra, 23 May 2022. ↩︎
  2. Julian E Barnes, Helene Cooper, ‘US battles Putin by disclosing his next possible moves’, New York Times, 12 February 2022. ↩︎
  3. Marise Payne, ‘Further sanctions on Russia’, media statement, 8 March 2022. ↩︎
  4. ‘Treasury sanctions Russians bankrolling Putin and Russia-backed influence actors’, media release, US department of the Treasury, 3 March 2022. ↩︎

China’s messaging on the Ukraine conflict

In the early days of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, social media posts by Chinese diplomats on US platforms almost exclusively blamed the US, NATO and the West for the conflict. Chinese diplomats amplified Russian disinformation about US biological weapon labs in Ukraine, linking this narrative with conspiracy theories about the origins of COVID-19. Chinese state media mirrored these narratives, as well as replicating the Kremlin’s language describing the invasion as a ‘special military operation’.

ASPI found that China’s diplomatic messaging was distributed in multiple languages, with its framing tailored to different regions. In the early stage of the conflict, tweets about Ukraine by Chinese diplomats performed better than unrelated content, particularly when the content attacked or blamed the West. ASPI’s research suggests that, in terms of its international facing propaganda, the Russia–Ukraine conflict initially offered the party-state’s international-facing propaganda system an opportunity to reassert enduring preoccupations that the Chinese Communist Party perceives as fundamental to its political security.

VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE: The PLA’s anti-ship cruise missile threat to Australian and allied naval operations

This report examines anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM) possessed by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), which is China’s armed forces, and the serious threat posed to Australian and allied naval forces operating in the Indo-Pacific region.

The PLA has spent over 20 years preparing to fight and win wars against technologically advanced adversaries, such as the United States and its allies. PLA preparations have included long-term investments in various capabilities that would be needed to facilitate and sustain ASCM strike operations, even whilst under heavy attack from technologically advanced powers.

This report has recommended a series of upgrades to Australian Navy capability. In the short term, military-off-the-shelf upgrades might significantly enhance the survivability of existing surface ships. In the medium term, a mix of crewed and uncrewed assets could not only deepen fleet magazines but also underpin offensive naval and air defence operations. In the longer-term, a range of options could be acquired to help break the PLA’s kill-chain – this refers to disrupting the PLA’s ability to find, track and engage naval assets with ASCMs.

Tag Archive for: China

Still not confident enough: China isn’t likely to move on Taiwan in 2025

Despite China’s rapid military improvements, it’s unlikely to use large-scale force against Taiwan in 2025. The Chinese leadership’s concerns over the quality of military command, economic weakening, uncertain social stability and effects of the Trump administration will likely forestall any large scale military manoeuvre.

However, China will continue to ramp up pressure against Taiwan across 2025.

On 6 January, the United States’ new defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, told the Senate Armed Services Committee he believed a Chinese Communist Party fait accompli invasion of Taiwan was the pacing risk scenario for the Department of Defense. He reminded the committee that ‘Xi Jinping has openly expressed his intention to annex Taiwan to mainland China’ and ‘has told his military to be prepared to use force to achieve such an outcome by 2027’.

Like its successes in artificial intelligence, improvements in China’s military should not be underestimated. In several areas, China’s military is now reaching standards typical of the US military. China’s navy is transforming rapidly and by the end of 2025 is expected to have 395 ships, including three operational aircraft carriers. China is also improving its amphibious fleet, acquiring assault ships that can carry large numbers of landing craft, troops, fixed wing drones, armored vehicles and helicopters. In early 2025, there were reports of China building special barges that would support Taiwan landings.

China’s military now has the largest aviation force in the region, with new fighters and stealth aircraft that expand its ability to operate farther from its shores. It is also increasing its inventory of nuclear weapons and now has the world’s leading arsenal of hypersonic missiles. The army has increased the number of troops along the Taiwan Strait and improved its firepower, mobility, and rapid strike capabilities.

Throughout 2024, China’s military and coast guard continued to exercise Taiwan invasion and blockade scenarios. In May, following the inauguration of Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te, Beijing launched large-scale military exercises, surrounding Taiwan within two days. In October, it undertook a second series of drills, taking just one day to implement a mock blockade or quarantine of Taiwan. In December, China staged its largest show of force in decades, showing the world how it could repel a foreign force approaching Taiwan.

The military has dramatically improved its ability to conduct a blockade or invasion, but Beijing will still have doubts. During the release of the 2024 China Military Power Report, senior Pentagon officials said, ‘despite its rapid progress, the force has not yet demonstrated the type and scale of sophisticated urban warfare or long-distance logistic capabilities that would likely be required for operations against Taiwan’. A lack of combat experience is a significant imposition for a force wanting to undertake complicated operations across the Taiwan Strait. Exercising will only get you so far.

Serious questions have also been asked about China’s officer corps and their ability to ‘judge situations, understand higher authorities’ intentions, make operational decisions, deploy troops, and deal with unexpected situations’. Corruption also remains an endemic issue, with China’s military experiencing a new wave of corruption-related scandals over the past two years that has led to the removal of two defence ministers and a high-ranking member of China’s Central Military Commission.

Domestic factors will also influence any decision to use military force. China is facing adverse demographic trends, including an aging population and low birth rates. There are other internal struggles, such as a trend of rising violence, following a string of indiscriminate mass attacks throughout 2024.

China is also seeking to manage a faltering economy, worsened by ballooning local government debt, a loss of investor confidence and the gradual collapse of its real estate sector. Beijing has struggled to stimulate domestic consumption, relying on its growing share of global exports to drive the economy. Researchers at Rhodium Group estimated that China’s GDP was only 2.4 to 2.8 percent higher in 2024 than a year earlier, well below official claim of  5.0 percent growth.

China’s trade surplus reached a new high of nearly US$1trillion in 2024. Beijing will be wary of the impact of a potential trade war with the United States. It will want to strengthen its trade relationships with other partners to reinforce its economy. China has already sought to recalibrate ties with Japan, India and Australia, while doubling down on its engagement with the Global South. Within this context, China will want to perform a careful balancing act over Taiwan. It will not want to damage international relationships by taking unnecessarily aggressive military actions.

Amid the problems, the leadership nonetheless probably has growing confidence that, if called upon, the military will be able to ‘resolve the Taiwan issue’. However, Xi probably hasn’t yet decided to use force against Taiwan.

2027 almost certainly remains a short-term goal for military modernisation, not a date for a Taiwan invasion. Concerns over the economy and social stability will remain as key priorities for China’s leadership.

Xi will also want to carefully assess the Trump administration’s resolve on the Taiwan issue. Trump has hinted at a more transactional approach to Taiwan, suggesting it contribute more to its own security while still supporting Taipei’s right to self-defence. Trump is already threatening tariffs on Taiwan’s semiconductors.

In 2025, China’s military will continue to undertake exercises around Taiwan as part of a broader coercion campaign against Taipei. However, the likelihood of large-scale use of force against Taiwan in 2025 remains low.

China is exporting its model of political authoritarianism to Africa

To expand its influence in Africa, China has stepped up its elite capture programs from hosting delegations and training to exporting its authoritarian model of governance. 

Graduates are now emerging from a school for politicians and officials in Tanzania, the first of its kind that China has set up in Africa. More may follow.  

By providing training, China ingratiates itself, creating interpersonal links with future leaders. As the school has started training those leaders in the Chinese Communist Party’s ways of maintaining political and social control, it raises the prospect of greater oppression on the continent. 

In the last decade, China has adopted several novel foreign policy tools and doctrines of influence, such as its signature Belt and Road Initiative, largely known for building mega infrastructure projects. In recent years, it has gradually transitioned into an influence operation, encouraging, for example, people-to-people exchange. 

Chinese influence in Africa has been constantly deepening through both economic diplomacy and security cooperation. This has fostered a favourable image of China among African people. Now, as China is reorienting its Africa policy away from geoeconomics towards geopolitics, it must win the political class. 

China has strongly emphasised on elite capture strategies, upgrading its model of domestically run governance training schools to political party training schools in a target country. The Tanzanian political party training school, set up in 2022, is an example.  

Located only 40 kilometres from Tanzania’s commercial capital, Dar es Salaam, the Mwalimu Julius Nyerere Leadership School was established as a collaboration between the CCP and the Former Liberation Movements of Southern Africa—an informal coalition of liberation parties from six southern African countries. They are Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. 

The campus has more than 10 hectares of land and boasts a modern and technically well-equipped building for classrooms. Additionally, the school has a dormitory, canteen, service building and facility building and can accommodate 200 people. It’s offering year-round short leadership training courses, which include CCP-arranged tours in China. Run by the CCP, the school is designed to teach Chinese ways of maintaining political and social control, thereby promoting authoritarianism. 

In 2023, China refurbished the Herbert Chitepo School of Ideology in Zimbabwe, a similar school meant to train ruling party cadres. A greater CCP involvement in the curriculum of the school can be expected. China may establish more such schools in other African nations including in Burundi, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Morocco and Uganda. 

Over the years, China has trumpeted non-interference as a key tenet of its foreign policy. Political training schools arguably show China moving away from the principle of non-interference. Perhaps China would argue that, since the investment of approximately US$40 million came from the CCP, not the state government directly, so it does not constitute state interference. 

By teaching the virtues of party-state fusion to local political leaders, China aims to activate personal and professional bonds. This should help it to build a more expansive network of ties in the long run. Moreover, for some African countries with political oppositions, the school in Tanzania accepts students from both sides—so China will benefit regardless of who wins future elections.  

China’s engagement in African politics is not a new development. Beijing has historically supported African independence movements, military endeavours and governance structures. 

Over the years, it has invested in several influence operations in Africa through its media and generous scholarships, with the objective of telling China’s story better. China expects to reap significant geoeconomic and political payoffs from these investments, allowing China to entrench its network among African political elites. 

However, as the school trains present and future leaders of Africa, it risks greater oppression on the continent. The Chinese model of governance threatens African societies because it challenges the inherent multiethnic compacts of post-colonial African states. 

Already, conflict across the continent often reflects ethnic tensions, including the Rwandan genocide, 2007 post-election violence in Kenya, and crises in northern Nigeria, in Ethiopia and in Darfur in Sudan.  

Because support for political parties in Africa tend to be based on particular ethnicities, rather than ideologies, entrenching any of them in power with the CCP’s methods would also mean suppression of rival ethnicities. This will be dangerous, creating ethnically based unrest in many of these already fragmented societies. 

However, for China, policies that promoted the interests of local leaders with such destructive tactics would still count as successes. They would consolidate its friends in power.

Trump’s trade war is about more than trade

The opening salvos of US President Donald Trump’s trade war have sent shockwaves around the world. Over the past three weeks, his administration has broken with decades of free-trade orthodoxy, threatening to impose tariffs not only on strategic adversaries such as China but also on longstanding allies such as Canada and Mexico. Even Denmark—a NATO member and steadfast US ally during and after the Cold War—has found itself in Trump’s crosshairs.

Trump’s actions have made many in the United States and around the world wonder: what exactly are tariffs, and how do they affect global trade? Simply put, tariffs are taxes on imported goods. If a Chinese manufacturer wants to sell shoes in the US, the American government can impose a tariff. If a US retailer pays $100 for a pair, then a 10 percent tariff, like the one that Trump recently imposed on goods from China, means that the retailer must pay the US government $10.

Those $100 shoes now cost $110. Who pays the extra $10? When Trump raised tariffs on Chinese imports during his first term, US importers bore most of the cost, particularly when they could not find alternative suppliers. Consequently, retail prices remained relatively stable, at least in the first year.

But the picture becomes more complicated when tariffs remain in place for an extended period. US importers cannot absorb the added costs indefinitely and may go out of business unless they find new suppliers or pass those costs to consumers, who may then need to cut back on spending.

When one country uses tariffs or other sanctions to damage another country’s economy, the result is often retaliation and trade war. China, for example, responded to Trump’s tariffs by imposing its own tariffs on US imports. Yet, although Chinese and US tariffs are based on similar reasoning, their impact will not necessarily be the same.

During the first US-China trade war, most of the burden of China’s retaliatory tariffs was borne by American exporters rather than Chinese importers. This was because China quickly found alternative suppliers for the goods it had previously sourced from the US. Oil and food—two of the top US exports to China—were readily supplied by Russia and other countries. Meanwhile, the US struggled to replace Chinese imports, forcing US businesses and consumers to bear the brunt of Trump’s tariffs.

These consequences have not gone unnoticed. Under both Trump and former President Joe Biden, the US has taken steps to incentivise domestic production and encourage firms to reduce their dependence on Chinese supply chains. But the extent to which such efforts will enable the US to shift more of the tariff burden onto China remains unclear.

To be sure, the vast size of the US market gives it a significant advantage. While Chinese importers can find alternative suppliers, Chinese exporters will have a hard time finding a market that can fully replace the US. The combined GDP of Russia, India, Africa and South America amounts to $13 trillion—just over one-third of US GDP, which is projected to rise to $30 trillion in 2025. And if the US convinces its Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development allies to join the trade war, China could face tariffs from countries representing 46 percent of the global economy.

The Trump administration is betting that because the US is the world’s largest economy, China and other foreign exporters will struggle to find viable alternatives. This, in turn, would give the US decisive leverage in the trade war between the two countries. Early signs suggest that Trump’s strategy may deliver at least symbolic victories, with Mexico and Canada seemingly acquiescing to his demands by promising to do what they were already doing.

That said, tariffs are often a double-edged sword. On one hand, winning the trade war with China would allow the US to negotiate better trade terms. But US households could pay a heavy price. Fewer goods would be produced and sold to US consumers. While reduced imports could boost the competitiveness of domestic manufacturers, higher production costs and the absence of foreign alternatives would likely drive up consumer prices.

The potential geopolitical benefits of Trump’s trade war are less ambiguous, as his administration has decided to use economic pressure to achieve broader strategic objectives. It seeks to pressure Mexico and Central American countries to stem the flow of migrants to the US southern border and accept deported immigrants, and to counter China’s growing influence in the Asia-Pacific region and rein in Chinese expansionism, especially in the South China Sea. Moreover, Trump has vowed to take back the Panama Canal, and he seems serious about buying Greenland for its strategic location and natural resources—a US ambition going back to 1868.

Consumers and manufacturers in the US, China and beyond must brace for price increases and escalating geopolitical tensions. If Democrats regain control of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections, in which one-third of the US Senate and the entire House of Representatives will be on the ballot, they could curb Trump’s ability to impose tariffs. This gives Trump two years to win his trade war with China and the rest of the world—or at least convince Americans it was worth the cost.

New Zealand’s trouble in paradise

New Zealand is taking too hasty and too abrasive an approach to Pacific islands, putting leadership in the region on edge. We see this in a bungled attempt to visit Kiribati that led to a threat to withdraw aid and in a tense public stand-off with Cook Islands over a looming agreement with China.

In January, Kiribati President Taneti Maamau told New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters he would be unavailable to meet during a trip by Peters to Kiribati. On receiving the news, which came only a week before the scheduled visit, Peters and the New Zealand delegation chose not to meet with another Kiribati representative and instead cancelled the trip.

Shortly after, Peters said New Zealand would review its aid to Kiribati.

While Peters regrets the publicity that the issue has generated, he has continued to stress that accountability works both ways in the Pacific. New Zealand had a responsibility to its taxpayers to ensure international aid is meeting its objectives, he said, adding that ‘the lack of political-level contact makes it very difficult for us to agree on joint priorities’ and ‘deliver good value for money.’

Peters isn’t necessarily wrong. It is hard to deliver support without talking things over at the right levels. But the sudden change in approach was abrasive and has only worsened relations. Other statements from Peters, such as labelling the Pacific ‘our backyard’, come with paternalism.

New Zealand is not alone in its frustration with Kiribati. Australian diplomats have struggled to engage optimally there for quite some time, and Maamau, to focus on domestic issues, suspended international diplomatic visits to the country in the lead up to its elections last year. Since his re-election, Maamau appears to have doubled down, delegating bilateral engagements to other ministers.

Australia recently faced a choice similar to New Zealand’s. However, Australian Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles stuck with a plan to travel to Kiribati to deliver a patrol boat, even without an opportunity to meet Maamau. Australia ‘remains committed to its longstanding partnership,’ he said. Commitment through frustration is a healthy way to mend partnerships.

Australia also faces the challenge of justifying spending in the region to its taxpayers, particularly after the announcement of a $600 million deal to set up a Papua New Guinea team in the National Rugby League deal. But in that case, it is justifying additional support, whereas Peters has raised the possibility of taking away existing support that is highly valuable for the 120,000 people of Kiribati.

There is some concern that if the relationship continues to sour, New Zealand will be pushing Kiribati towards China. Beijing has an embassy in the country and police on the ground providing training and other assistance. While New Zealand has provided more than $90 million in aid since 2021, its support remains appreciated but not irreplaceable. Following through on threats to step away will only take New Zealand out of the contest, placing more pressure on Australia and the US to pick up the slack before China does. New Zealand should show patience and commitment to its partnership with Kiribati.

Now, New Zealand’s attention has shifted to a closer member of their Pacific family: the self-governing country of Cook Islands, which is in free association with New Zealand.

Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown says he will visit Beijing this week to sign a comprehensive strategic partnership with China and will not need New Zealand ‘sitting in the room’. Brown said he had assured New Zealand ‘over and over’ that there would be no surprises in relation to security and that Cook Islands would announce the details of the agreement publicly once it was signed.

The country’s free association with New Zealand means that the nation conducts its own affairs, but New Zealand assists in defence, disaster relief and foreign affairs. We don’t yet know whether the strategic partnership agreement with China will relate to these subjects. Brown has reiterated that New Zealand has its own comprehensive partnership with China and didn’t consult the Cook Islands when agreeing to it, nor did he expect it to.

Again, in engaging with Cook Islands, New Zealand’s abrasive public response has caused friction. Last week, a Cook Islands proposal to create its own passports was abandoned after New Zealand, in Brown’s words, ‘bared its teeth in response’.

New Zealand needs to be cautious in its responses to Pacific island actions.

Even if the deal between the Cook Islands and China is revealed as disagreeable, its intentions might not ultimately be achieved. When details are available, New Zealand should encourage community consultation. It can still express concerns fairly and detail why certain objectives might affect its relationship with Cook Islands.

Stubbornness will not aid engagement with the Pacific family. Increasing support, not withdrawing it, will demonstrate what can be gained from greater partnership and trust.

Something old, something new: the very practical rules of Chinese aircraft development

Year-end revelations of two new Chinese combat aircraft designs, the Chengdu J-36 and the Shenyang J-XX, should have put an end to the idea that China’s aerospace and defense industry just copies the West.

Yet sometimes China does produce copies, for good practical reasons. At other times it just does its best with the technology it happens to have available.

Here are some principles that Chinese military aeronautics development follows.

Copy if possible and necessary. The Xi’an KJ-600 configuration copies the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye’s, down to details. As on the E-2, one of the inboard fins of the four-fin tail has a moving rudder and the other doesn’t. That works on the Hawkeye, so why do it any other way? There’s a reason that the Hawkeye is still in production after 66 years.

KJ-600. Original image source unknown.

Good enough. The Xi’an H-6 bomber is the Soviet Tu-16, 12 days younger than the B-52. But at the age of 55, the design got a complete makeover from the Chinese industry: a new forward fuselage housing a three-member crew, all with ejection seats and glass displays, and a multi-mode radar. 1970s Russian engines replaced the 1950s originals.

The H-6K update and later versions provide the Chinese air force and naval aviation force with a heavy weapons platform with some features that even the forthcoming B-52J (a B-52 update with new engines) cannot match: the Chinese bomber has six wing pylons and an ability to carry an outsize store on its centerline.

Innovate to meet urgent needs. Those stores include not only an air-launched boost-glide weapon but the AVIC WZ-8, one of a group of very innovative Chinese military drones that represent a much more creative culture than what we see in Western aerospace.

WZ-8. Image: Wikipedia.

The WZ-8 is an air-launched, runway-recoverable drone with a blended-delta shape and rocket propulsion. It has (by US intelligence estimates) a speed of Mach 3 at 30,000 metres altitude and a range around 500 nautical miles (900km) including a long gliding descent.

In most respects, it could have been designed and built in the 1950s. But a remarkable feature of the WZ-8, visible on the website of a company specialising in additive manufacturing, is that the entire center-section box, the structural heart of the aircraft, is 3D printed in titanium.

The WZ-8 is the definition of a point design—an inflexible one intended for a single purpose. China regards the ability to attack US aircraft carriers as a strategic goal. And it’s well known that the US Navy relies on its carriers’ ability to move fast and far in the time between when they’re detected and when an attack on them arrives. Jamming and decoys help. The WZ-8’s job is a last-minute reconnaissance sortie to locate the carrier.

Borrowing technology that the West has ignored. The Guizhou WZ-7 Soaring Dragon drone, in service in small numbers, resembles a Northrop Grumman Global Hawk in size and body shape. But it has a four-surface joined wing.

Advantages claimed for the joined wing include combining a skinny wing shape (high aspect ratio, to the aerodynamicists), thinness and sweep. The result is an unusual combination of high speed and low drag.

The joined wing was invented in the US and has been studied by NASA several times, but the space-fixated agency never found budget to demonstrate it in flight. The Chinese designers would have found plenty of open-source data to work from.

 

WZ-7. Image: Wikipedia.

But another drone, Shenyang’s WZ-9 Divine Eagle, has no parallel. It is a high-altitude carrier for two large-aperture radar arrays. Its status is uncertain. It was first seen in 2015 and reappeared on video in late December. The two radar antennas occupy separate fuselages, connected at their front and rear extremities by a wing and canard, with a single engine above the wing. With no crew and high-aspect-ratio wings, the drone can fly higher than a big-cabin crewed platform and has a longer radar horizon.

The WZ-9’s unique shape indicates something about China’s electronics technology. The designers must believe that their radars are so efficient that the cost in weight of carrying two separate units, each with its own power supply, is acceptable. The concept also shows that China can rely on using datalinks alone to operate a complex radar system.

The WZ-9 and WZ-8 typify another trend in China’s technology: firing weapons from one platform (a ship, submarine, aircraft or ground vehicle) by using targeting data from another source. Western experts already believe that China’s growing, diverse fleet of airborne radar systems can be used for direct weapon guidance. The WZ-9 allows weapon-quality guidance to be extended farther without endangering a large crew on an aircraft that cannot defend itself.

Viewed as a group, alongside new combat aircraft like the J-36 and J-XX (J-XDS, according to some sources), these programs also illustrate another, hugely important feature of Chinese aerospace development: the sheer number of new and unique projects.

An engineer who started at Chinese fighter specialist Chengdu Aircraft in the late 1990s could have successively joined new development programs for four combat-aircraft types—the JF-17, J-10, J-20 and J-36. That engineer could also have worked on major upgrades and engine changes for the first three of those. All have entered service or are on track to do so. Working at rival Shenyang Aircraft would provide a similar experience level, with Xi’an Aircraft not far behind.

That engineer’s US counterpart might have worked on one new program from inception to service entry—if he or she had chosen the right company to start with.

It is that growing experience gap, rather than individual systems, that should worry us more than it does.

With US funding freeze, China nonprofits are facing extinction. They need emergency assistance

An entire ecosystem of vital China-related work is now in crisis. When the Trump administration froze foreign funding and USAID programs last week, dozens of scrappy nonprofits in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the United States were immediately affected. Staff are losing their jobs; some organisations face imminent closure due to lack of funding; others are paring back their programming.

In many cases, these organisations provide our last window into what is actually happening in China. They do the painstaking and often personally risky work of tracking Chinese media censorship, tallying local protests, uncovering human rights violations, documenting the Uyghur genocide, and supporting what remains of civil society in China. They provide platforms for Chinese people to speak freely; they help keep the dream of democracy in China alive. I’m not listing the names of any specific organisations at this time, because some prefer not to disclose that they receive foreign funding. Beijing believes funding that supports free speech and human rights is interference by ‘hostile foreign forces’.

As China’s President Xi Jinping has squeezed Chinese civil society and expelled journalists, information from inside China has gotten harder and harder to access. The 2017 Chinese foreign NGO law crushed US and other foreign nonprofits based in China. Some moved to Hong Kong or elsewhere. The spending freeze may deal them a death blow.

The research and other work done by these nonprofits is invaluable. It largely isn’t replicated by think tanks, universities, private firms, or journalists. If it disappears, nothing will replace it, and Beijing’s work to crush it will be complete.

As a journalist who covered China for more than 10 years, I took for granted the numerous organisations I could turn to when I needed certain kinds of information. But Donald Trump’s foreign spending freeze has revealed how dependent these organisations are on a single government for their survival—and, by extension, how fragile our sources of information about China really are.

The US must immediately grant emergency waivers to China-focussed nonprofits. If the US is not able to do this, governments around the world that value democracy, human rights and truth must step in and find a way to restore funding to these organisations now. It wouldn’t take much; a few million dollars spread across a handful of donor nations would be enough to preserve the research, expertise and networks these organisations represent.

Regardless of whether the US continues funding this work, this crisis should serve as a wake-up call for democracies everywhere. Funding from a single government should not be the only thing standing between us and an information blackout on Chinese civil society. That is not a model of international democratic resilience.

Providing funding for China nonprofits operating outside of China is directly aligned with the core interests of democratic nations. We base our security on the idea that democratic systems are the best way to guarantee the long-term stability, prosperity and wellbeing of citizens. Government budgets exist to preserve the democratic systems that make these goals possible; we don’t sacrifice these ideals to shave off a few numbers on a budget.

A key part of China’s agenda is to persuade its own citizens and the world, falsely and through deception and coercion, that democratic systems are not better. Beijing claims its system is the best way to guarantee economic prosperity and stability. It claims its one-party system is a meritocracy.

It is difficult and time-consuming—though not particularly expensive—to do the work that proves Beijing is lying, and that what it offers is smoke and mirrors. Tools that allow us to uncover the flaws of China’s own system and the actual struggles Chinese people face, directly support the goals, security and resilience of democratic governments.

Without the work that China nonprofits do, it will be much harder to show that China’s domestic model of economic and political governance is deeply flawed. If we can no longer prove that, it becomes much harder to understand why democracies are worth fighting for in the first place.

Trump is right to worry about China’s Panama Canal influence

Donald Trump’s foreign policy priorities are coming into sharp focus: shoring up economic security, bolstering national security and sending a clear signal to America’s allies and partners. One of those partners is Panama, a small Central American nation that happens to control one of the world’s most vital maritime passages. Of the many Trump proclamations over the past week, this is one that Australia, as a maritime nation, should pay attention too.

Built by the United States from 1904 to 1914 to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the 82km Panama Canal now handles around 6 percent of global maritime trade and 40 percent of US container trade, underscoring its importance to both American interests and the global economy.

Heavily reliant on seaborne trade, Australia is particularly vulnerable to disruptions in global shipping routes. Even though only a small portion of its maritime trade travels through the Panama Canal, disruptions to the Panama Canal would have an impact on the price of goods in Australia, as the global supply chain would have to respond to the constriction of another key waterway.

The Reserve Bank in its August 2024 report on monetary policy noted that maritime trade freight costs had risen sharply in 2024. This was predominantly as a result of conflict in the Red Sea and a reduction in capacity of the Panama Canal due to drought.

The Reserve Bank said increased freight costs hadn’t yet translated into higher goods inflation in Australia but could if they were sustained—demonstrating the impact to disruption of maritime trade on Australia’s economy.

So, what exactly are Trump’s proclamations? He has threatened to seize back the Panama Canal, not ruling out use of force, and has claimed it’s under the control of Chinese soldiers and that Panama is gouging US ships with exorbitant transit fees.

While his claims are demonstrably false, his underlying concern is not misplaced. Maritime infrastructure is crucial to the economic and national security of countries such as Australia and the US. Australia learned this lesson too late in 2015 when it rashly leased the Port of Darwin to Landbridge, a Chinese-owned company, for 99 years. Much as Darwin is vital to Australia’s security, the Panama Canal remains critical to America’s.

The canal has been fully owned by the Republic of Panama since 1999, when the US transferred control under two treaties, one of which was a treaty of neutrality, requiring the canal to remain in neutral hands—and stating that if it did not, the US reserved the right to defend the canal with military force.

Despite the canal being under Panamanian control, companies from mainland China and Hong Kong have acquired key port facilities on both its Pacific and Atlantic entrances. On the Atlantic side, Landbridge has taken control of Margarita Island, Panama’s largest port. Meanwhile, Hong Kong-owned CK Hutchison Holdings—which wholly owns Hutchison Ports Australia, operator of terminals in Sydney and Brisbane—holds concessions to operate the ports of Balboa and Cristobal, the canal’s major Pacific and Atlantic gateways.

While CK Hutchison Holdings is Hong Kong-owned, the national security laws that were introduced in Hong Kong in 2020 could allow China to exercise influence over these ports.

China’s national security laws can require companies, including Hong Kong companies, to assist the Chinese government in in­telligence gathering and military operations.

This means that even though China does not directly control the Panama Canal, it still holds significant sway at both its Pacific and Atlantic entrances. Coupled with a major uptick in Chinese investment in Panama, underscored by Panama’s decision to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative in 2018, this port ownership provides China with a strategic foothold in the region, and specifically at ­either end of the canal.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday demanded that Panama end the influence of the Chinese Communist Party over the canal area.

The canal area is part of a broader trend of Chinese investment in maritime trade routes, including in the Indian Ocean. Think of Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan, to name a few. This foothold grants China significant influence over the Strait of Malacca, the Strait of Hormuz and other vital shipping lanes in the region. China has poured resources into Pacific ports, such as those in the Solomon Islands.

The point is that China is investing heavily in infrastructure that underpins global maritime trade. Under its national security laws, the companies driving these investments, some of which are state owned or have close ties to the Communist Party, could be compelled to use them for intelligence gathering or even military purposes. In the event of heightened strategic competition or conflict, these investments would allow for the targeted constriction of maritime trade to countries such as the US and Australia.

Despite Trump’s threats, it’s unlikely the US would opt to take the canal by force. But Australia should take notice. While Trump’s claims of Chinese soldiers controlling the Panama Canal are false, China’s increased control of port infrastructure globally, including at each end of the canal, should generate concern for a maritime trading nation such as Australia.

DeepSeek may be cheap AI, but Australian companies should beware

Amid the shocked reactions this week to the release of the Chinese artificial intelligence model, DeepSeek, the risk we should be most concerned about is the potential for the model to be misused to disrupt critical infrastructure and services.

I wrote in 2023 about the many forms of Chinese AI-enabled technology we use that pump data back to China, where it is sorted by Chinese algorithms before it is sent back here.

These include things such as digital railway networks, electric vehicles, solar inverters, giant cranes for unloading containers, border screening equipment, and industrial control technology in power stations, water and sewerage works. Like DeepSeek, the vendors of these products are subject to direction from China’s security services.

This clear risk has been buried by the avalanche of commentary about the other implications—not least the panicked stock market reaction in which Nvidia’s share price plunged 17 percent and the Nasdaq fell 3 percent. With so much money chasing AI, investors are as twitchy as meerkats.

Don’t cry for Nvidia—cheaper AI models promise to broaden the market for its chips, and this is reflected in its recovering share price. Besides, Nvidia helped create its temporary setback by selling powerful H800 chips to Chinese companies—including DeepSeek—for a year before the Biden administration tightened up its chip export controls.

There may even be some upside when a company produces comparable results to leading US models—purportedly for a fraction of the price and using dumber chips. US big tech will be spurred to figure out how to do generative AI more cheaply. That’s good for business and good for the planet.

From a national security perspective, how worried should we be about an AI model with a chatbot algorithm that provides such lame answers on issues sensitive to the Chinese government?

Of course it’s undesirable for yet another wildly popular Chinese app to be shaping how we think. It’s also a worry that the company will make all our data available to Chinese security services on request. DeepSeek’s own privacy policy says as much: ‘We may access, preserve, and share the information described in “What Information We Collect” with law enforcement agencies (and) public authorities … if we have good faith belief that it is necessary to comply with applicable law, legal process or government requests.’

The policy also explains that the company stores ‘the information we collect in secure servers located in the People’s Republic of China’.

But the bigger question is what would happen if DeepSeek’s model lowered the costs and increased the competitiveness of Chinese AI-enabled products and services embedded in our critical infrastructure? If these offerings were even cheaper and better, they might become even more pervasive in our digital ecosystem, and therefore even more risky.

Here’s another case. What if DeepSeek became the default choice for Australian and other non-Chinese companies seeking to improve their products and services with customised, low-cost, leading-edge AI? As the Wall Street Journal notes: ‘DeepSeek’s model is open-source, meaning that other developers can inspect and fiddle with its code and build their own applications with it. This could help give more small businesses access to AI tools at a fraction of the cost of closed-source models like OpenAI and Anthropic.’

Useful applications might include customised chatbots and product recommendations, streamlined inventory management or predictive analytics and fraud detection.

Could DeepSeek embedded in tech made by non-Chinese companies be a vector for espionage and sabotage—an arm of China’s DeepState, as it were? Could DeepSeek be directed to alter embedded code or simply turn off access to its open-source model to disable these products and services?

Perhaps we can take some comfort here. One of the advantages of so-called ‘open source’ models is that users can host them in their own controlled environments to better protect their customers’ data. That would mitigate the espionage risk. Using isolated environments would also mitigate the sabotage risk to some degree as well. However, if DeepSeek AI were embedded in products and services that are used in sensitive and critical products—for example, essential components of an electricity station or grid—we might want additional mitigations, given the much higher stakes.

The key point is governments need take a close look at the potential risks of DeepSeek employed in sensitive areas in two contexts: by Chinese companies—given their legal obligations to co-operate with China’s security agencies—and by non-Chinese companies that might use applications derived from the DeepSeek model. In Australia, that sounds like a job for the security review process recently established under our framework to ‘consider foreign ownership, control or influence risks associated with technology vendors’.

It’s early days. US big tech is not going to rest on its oars. DeepSeek may not be as cheap as it claims, nor as original. Indeed, OpenAI is investigating whether DeepSeek leaned on the company’s tools to train its own model. But when it comes to protecting our digital ecosystems from emerging technologies with the game-changing potential of DeepSeek, it’s never too early to start planning.

DeepSeek’s disruption: Australia needs a stronger artificial intelligence strategy

The success of DeepSeek, a Chinese AI startup, has thrown a wrench in the middle of what many observers thought were largely American, or at least democratic, gears.

While the world seems to have been woken up by an AI surprise, DeepSeek’s breakthrough should be a timely reminder for Australia of the need to reduce consumer dependence for technology on China through a proactive and strategic approach to AI.  The Australian government should not want our public to be getting its world view from only the ‘facts’ Beijing permits.

DeepSeek’s development of ‘R1’, a highly efficient and cost-effective AI model, has sent ripples through the global tech community, challenging the perceived dominance of the US in AI and raising questions about the effectiveness of current export controls in preserving technological advantage.

DeepSeek’s R1 model represents a significant departure from conventional AI development paradigms. Reportedly twice the size of Meta’s open-source model and trainable at a fraction of the cost of US-developed models, R1 has fuelled speculation that DeepSeek may have circumvented export controls to access restricted US-made Nvidia chips.

While DeepSeek’s CEO has denied these allegations, attributing the company’s success to innovative development methodologies, he has also openly acknowledged that US export controls have inadvertently spurred his efforts to reduce China’s reliance on American technology. This statement highlights a broader trend of indigenous innovation in China, driven by a desire to achieve technological self-reliance and reduce vulnerability to external pressures. If true, it doesn’t mean the US export controls were so ineffective to be dropped, but rather that the US and its allies have more work to do.

DeepSeek’s emergence as a major player in the AI arena has profound implications for AI in Australia.

First, it challenges the prevailing assumption that US technological leadership, which has long underpinned Australia’s strategic and economic partnerships, can be taken for granted in the medium term.

Second, it shows that while export controls are a tool for maintaining technological advantage, it needs to be part of a full toolbox in an era of rapid technological diffusion and globalised innovation networks.

Third, and most importantly, it underscores the urgent need for Australia to cultivate sovereign AI capabilities. In this regard sovereignty is not going it alone, but not relying on our partners, even our great ally the US, to do all the heavy lifting. Over-reliance on China is a national security threat while overreliance on the US is national negligence. This is why in addition to Australian investment in indigenous AI capabilities, doubling down on the AUKUS partnership is required to safeguard our national interests, maintain our competitive edge, and ensure our strategic autonomy in a technology-driven world. And it is why Australia, the UK and the US made AI one of the six advanced capabilities of AUKUS Pillar 2.

Australia cannot continue the current approach of responding to each new tech development—whether it’s HikVision surveillance, TikTok data manipulation, smart car communications or the risk of AI facts delivered by the Chinese government. As such, we must adopt a comprehensive tech strategy that covers AI.

This strategy should encompass the following key elements:

—Investing in sovereign AI capabilities: Increased investment in AI research and development is essential, along with the development of a national AI strategy that prioritises areas of national interest, such as defence, cybersecurity, and critical infrastructure. This investment should focus on building a robust and resilient AI industry that can support innovation, drive economic growth, and enhance national security.

—Fostering international collaboration: In addition to AUKUS, strengthening partnerships with like-minded nations, such as Canada, Japan, and South Korea, is crucial for collaborative AI development, knowledge-sharing, and the establishment of international standards and norms for responsible AI development and deployment. Ideally groups like the Quad and the G7 plus should take this on.

—Promoting ethical AI development: Australia must play a leading role in promoting ethical AI development and ensuring that AI systems are designed and deployed in a manner that respects human rights, promotes fairness, and safeguards against bias and discrimination but that does not politically censor.

—Engaging the public: A public education campaign is necessary to raise awareness of the potential benefits and risks of AI, foster informed public discussion, and ensure that AI development and deployment align with society’s values and expectations.

As former Google CEO Eric Schmidt wrote yesterday: ‘DeepSeek’s release marks a turning point … We should embrace the possibility that open science might once again fuel American dynamism in the age of AI.’

Australia should work with the US and other partners to ensure it is our ‘open science’ and not Beijing’s closed world that is keeping the world informed. This underscores the importance of international engagement to shape the global AI landscape.

By taking a strategic approach that recognises the enormous impact that AI will have on every field, by investing in sovereign capabilities, by fostering international collaboration, and by promoting ethical AI development, Australia can navigate the AI revolution and secure its place as a leader in this transformative technological era.

DeepSeek is a modern Sputnik moment for West

The release of China’s latest DeepSeek artificial intelligence model is a strategic and geopolitical shock as much as it is a shock to stockmarkets around the world.

This is a field into which US investors have been pumping hundreds of billions of dollars, and which many commentators predicted would be led by Silicon Valley for the foreseeable future.

That a little-known Chinese company appears to have leapfrogged into a neck-and-neck position with the US giants, while spending less money and with less computing power, underscores some sobering truths.

First, the West’s clearest strategic rival is a genuine peer competitor in the technologies that will decide who dominates the century and, second, we need to step up our efforts to become less not more reliant on Chinese technology.

More than any other single field, AI will unleash powerful forces from economic productivity through to military capabilities. As Vladimir Putin said in 2017, whoever leads in AI ‘will become the ruler of the world’.

Marc Andreessen, the influential Silicon Valley entrepreneur and venture capitalist, called the DeepSeek announcement a ‘Sputnik moment’ and ‘one of the most amazing and impressive breakthroughs’ in AI. The United States was shocked into action by the Soviet satellite, Sputnik, investing billions into a public-private sector partnership model that helped win back and sustain tech dominance that would play a major role in winning the Cold War.

Andreessen is right but, in many ways, this breakthrough is even more consequential than Sputnik because the world’s consumers are increasingly reliant on China’s technology and economy in ways we never were with the Soviets.

So what does the West need to do now? Above all we need to stop underestimating our major strategic competitor. If hundreds of billions of dollars isn’t enough investment, we either need to redouble our efforts or work more smartly, bringing governments and the private sector together, and working across trusted nations, as we’re doing with AUKUS security technologies—one of which is of course AI.

We also need to dramatically step up so-called derisking of our economies with China’s in these critical technology fields.

When our leaders say they want us to have consumer choice including Chinese-made tech products, they are ignoring the considerable risks of future Chinese dominance, given we have seen the way Beijing is prepared to use its economic power for strategic purposes, whether through 5G or critical minerals.

As it stands, Beijing will have control over the majority of our smart cars, our batteries, the news our public gets through social media and, if models such as the open-source DeepSeek are adopted cheaply by Western companies, the supercharging power that AI will bring to every other sector.

DeepSeek’s breakthrough should actually come as less of a surprise than the stunned market reaction has shown.

In 2015, China told the world its aim was to supplant the US as the global tech superpower in its Made in China 2025 plan.

At ASPI our research in our Critical Technology Tracker has been showing for almost two years that Chinese published research is nipping at the US’s heels.

It surely isn’t a coincidence that at the end of 2024 and the early weeks of 2025, Beijing has shown the world its advances in both military capability in the form of new combat aircraft, and now dual-use technology in AI. Simultaneously we see Beijing’s obsession with keeping Americans and all Westerners hooked on TikTok, which ensures its users see a Beijing-curated version of the world.

Some observers are arguing that the DeepSeek announcement shows the ineffectiveness of US restrictions on exports of advanced technology such as Nvidia’s advanced chips to China.

Far from backing away from such protective measures, the Trump administration should consider stepping them up, along with further investments in data centres—already under way through the Stargate project.

Restricting chips to China is still an important tool in the US toolkit—it’s just not a panacea.

As Donald Trump’s reportedly incoming tech security director, David Feith, argued last year, the US should also target older chips because ‘failing to do so would signal that US talk of derisking and supply chain resilience still far outpaces policy reality’.

It’s not certain how much direct support DeepSeek and its backers have received from the Chinese government but there are some clues in the way the company is behaving. The DeepSeek model is open-source and costs 30 times less for companies to integrate into than US competitors.

Founder Liang Wenfeng has been blunt that the company is not looking for profits from its AI research, at least in the short term—which would enable it to follow the Chinese playbook of undercutting competitors to create monopolies. And the firm had reportedly been stockpiling the most advanced Nvidia chips before the US restrictions, and has received allocations of chips apparently through the Chinese government.

These facts hint at the lopsided playing field China likes to create. As Edouard Harris, of Gladstone AI, told Time magazine: ‘There’s a good chance that DeepSeek and many of the other big Chinese companies are being supported by the (Chinese) government, in more than just a monetary way.’

While the West continues to debate the balance between fully open economies and national industrial and technology strategies with greater government involvement, China has already fused its industry with its government-led national strategy and is evidently stronger for it.

China sees the West’s open economies as a vulnerability through which it has an easy access to our markets that is not reciprocated.

DeepSeek is yet another reminder that China’s technology is a force to be reckoned with and one that its government will use strategically to make China more self-sufficient while making the rest of the world more dependent on China.

We must start recognising this era and responding decisively.