Nothing Found
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria
Established in 2012, the 17+1 initiative was Beijing’s flagship effort to promote China’s economic relations with the nations of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). It’s largely perceived as an extension of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Some in Europe are worried about the subversive effects the 17+1 might have on the European project, while others think that it’s already unravelling. After a decade of cooperation between the CEE countries and China under the 17+1 mechanism, many of the CEE countries now have strong misgivings about partnering closely with China due to three key trends that are taking shape.
First, despite its major promises at numerous 17+1 summits, China has invested little in CEE countries. In 2012, Beijing pledged to provide the CEE with an A$17 billion credit line to drive new development in infrastructure, technology and renewable energy. Its failure to deliver any significant investment has turned the tide for most CEE countries. To date, only four of the 40 or so projects conceived under the 17+1 proposal have been successfully executed: the Port of Piraeus in Greece, the Pupin Bridge and expansion of the Kostolac power plant in Serbia, and a major highway in Montenegro.
After several years of 17+1 summits, few tangible outcomes have materialised for most CEE nations, and many have expressed disenchantment at the prospect of future economic engagement with Beijing. In January 2020, the Czech Republic decided to snub the ninth summit scheduled for April, citing lack of actual investments by China—a major blow for Beijing as Czech President Milos Zeman once hailed the initiative as ‘the flagship of Chinese investment’ for Prague. The summit was later postponed indefinitely due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The 17+1’s leading project, the Budapest–Belgrade high-speed railway line, is still slated to proceed. The clear absence of major projects actually coming to fruition has elevated distrust between China and the CEE countries. The economic downturn resulting from the pandemic will make it more challenging for Beijing to commit to CEE projects as it prioritises its own domestic recovery. BRI projects are likely to reduce in size as the focus moves towards targeted strategic acquisitions. China may also recompense CEE countries that have remained supportive.
Second, most of the CEE countries are re-evaluating the political consequences of their interdependence with China. At the 17+1 initiative’s inception, the EU expressed concerns that enlisting CEE countries could potentially split Europe. At one point, China alarmed several members of the EU by hosting the Visegrad Group of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia and praising these nations as a ‘dynamic force’ despite their clashes with Brussels over immigration and fundamental rights. With its growing economic power, China had accumulated enough clout to exercise considerable influence over the CEE countries’ policies towards Beijing. For example, the EU’s statement to the UN denouncing China’s human rights abuses was blocked by Hungary and Greece, with Athens characterising it as ‘unconstructive criticism of China’.
But CEE countries are now increasingly shifting the focus of their engagement with China from economic opportunities to potential political and security risks. In May, Romania terminated its joint venture with a Chinese firm to construct a nuclear power plant. Latvia declared China a national security threat after its intelligence agency announced its concerns over cyber spying. These and other developments led most of the CEE countries, with the exceptions of Greece, Hungary and Serbia, to opt out of a BRI videoconference in June. In August, Beijing was infuriated by Czech Senate speaker Milos Vystrcil’s trip to Taiwan to promote business links, suggesting that Prague will pay a ‘heavy price’.
Third, the tension between the US and China has prompted many of the CEE countries to re-evaluate the risks of alienating their other allies. The technology war between Washington and Beijing has concentrated minds on China’s 5G strategy in the CEE region. So far, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Romania, Serbia and Slovenia have put in place measures to restrict Huawei from building their 5G networks. The US has encouraged allies to join its ‘Clean Network’ program, which is intended to protect the US from cyber intrusions by the Chinese Communist Party. In September, the Polish government put forward a draft bill to exclude telecommunications suppliers regarded as a potential threat to its cybersecurity. If passed, the legislation would effectively ban Huawei from constructing Poland’s 5G infrastructure.
The CEE countries’ loss of confidence in their future engagement with China could spell the end of the 17+1 framework. If that happens, Beijing will certainly have difficulty reconciling the costs incurred in its failure to capitalise on the opportunities and benefits the initiative might have delivered.
After declaring a resounding victory against the Covid-19 pandemic, a newly confident China so far this year has tested new ballistic missiles, threatened Taiwan by ignoring the median line in the Taiwan Strait, expanded its erasure of Muslim Uyghur culture in Xinjiang, and extended its evisceration of Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedoms.
At the same time, China has shown a new aggressiveness in trying to curtail the activities of the foreign reporters in the country, and to quash any unfavourable coverage of the Chinese Communist Party or its leader, General Secretary Xi Jinping.
Where China once tolerated, even courted, the international media as a sign of the country’s re-emergence in the world, its leaders today see foreign correspondents as a meddlesome presence they can easily do without.
China has long been one of the world’s most restrictive countries for journalists, local and foreign. Reporters Without Borders lists China at number 177 out of 180 countries for its repression of the press, down just a few notches from 171st place a decade ago.
Foreign journalists in China have for decades faced restrictive visa procedures and expulsions, control of their movements, constant surveillance and physical threats. News assistants, the Chinese nationals who work as researchers and translators in foreign news bureaus, have routinely faced threats to themselves and their family members, invitations—or instructions—to spy on their employers, and warnings to ‘remember you are Chinese’. The situation for the overseas press corps in Beijing worsened dramatically after Xi came to power at the end of 2012, according to annual surveys by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China.
But even by China’s dismal standards, this year has seen a marked deterioration.
At least 17 foreign reporters have been forced to leave China since the start of the year, an unprecedented mass expulsion and roughly double the number expelled in the first seven years of Xi’s rule. Even after the tumultuous events of 1989 with the Tiananmen Square massacre, only two American journalists, for the Associated Press and Voice of America, were immediately expelled.
Several other Western journalists now remaining in China have not had their press credentials renewed and are allowed to continue working only with short-term letters issued by the foreign ministry, meaning they can be expelled at any time. They are from CNN, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News and Getty Images.
For the first time since the 1970s, Australian media outlets have no correspondents based in China. The Washington Post has had no correspondent in China since the last bureau chief left to take a new job in New Zealand and no visa has been granted for a replacement. The New York Times, which once had one of the largest and most prolific bureaus in China, now has a single foreign correspondent covering the vast country of 1.4 billion people.
Chinese officials have defended their actions as mere tit-for-tat retaliation for the treatment of its journalists overseas.
An earlier wave of expulsions of American journalists from China in May came after the Trump administration restricted the number of non-American journalists allowed to work for five Chinese state-run media outlets in the US to 100. Earlier this year, three Wall Street Journal reporters were forced out of China due to Beijing’s ire over an opinion piece that ran in the paper at the height of the coronavirus pandemic with a headline, ‘China is the real sick man of Asia’, that some Chinese considered offensive. The latest freeze on press credentials came after Trump signed an order restricting all Chinese journalists in the US to 90-day work visas, instead of the normal open-ended, single-entry visas they were accustomed to.
The last Australian journalists left China in dramatic fashion. After being visited by Chinese public security agents, Bill Birtles of the ABC in Beijing and Michael Smith of the Australian Financial Review in Shanghai first sought refuge in Australian diplomatic compounds and then flew out on 7 September. The visits seemed in retaliation for the June raids by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation on the homes of four Chinese journalists based in Australia. Those four Chinese reporters later fled back to mainland China. Later, Australia was told that Cheng Lei, a Chinese-born Australian citizen working for the state-run China Global Television Network (CGTN) had been detained in a national security case.
But beyond China’s expressed need for a retaliatory show of force in the world, its treatment of foreign reporters underscores an essential shift in the ruling communist party’s attitude over the past three decades; China feels it simply doesn’t need foreign journalists any more.
That is a marked change from the 1990s and the early 2000s.
Following the 1989 massacre at Tiananmen Square, China was anxious to end its global isolation, move on from the stain and demonstrate to the world its return to normalcy. Foreign journalists—while still subject to surveillance and heavy restrictions—were seen as conferring a kind of legitimacy on the regime. I travelled frequently to China from Hong Kong between 1995 and 1997, and many longtime reporters remember that as a ‘golden age’ of reporting, because of the relative openness. Foreign ministry officials regularly implored me to convince my bosses at the Washington Post to please add more correspondents to cover China.
Another period of relative openness for foreign reporters came in the years leading up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, when China’s leaders were anxious to showcase their country to the world. Many of the restrictions on foreign journalists’ ability to travel were lifted. Foreign correspondents could hire whomever they wanted as news assistants and researchers, instead of being assigned approved assistants from the foreign ministry. Foreign journalists were told they could interview anyone they wanted without seeking permission in advance. And internet censorship was relaxed, with many previously banned websites unblocked.
The explosion of the internet and popular Twitter-like Weibo blogs, beginning in around 2009, heralded another brief flourishing of media openness, and was a boon to foreign media coverage. Monitoring China’s unfettered online conversation became a key way for foreign correspondents to track public sentiment across the country, and served as an early warning system to reporters about pockets of unrest—farmers protesting against land seizures, villagers angry about polluting factories, and citizen journalists exposing local corruption.
Foreign reporters were not only tolerated—we also became part of the show. During the largely ceremonial annual ‘two meetings’ of China’s National People’s Congress, the rubber-stamp legislature and the advisory body, the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the local television cameras invariably swung to take images of foreign correspondents in attendance. Reporters on China Central Television always made note of how ‘even foreign correspondents’ covered the sessions.
China’s leaders always bristled at unfavourable or critical coverage. But in those days they looked to the presence of foreign correspondents for affirmation that China was getting the attention and respect it was due as a rising power.
China’s self-assured rulers now believe they no longer need the international media to promote China as a financial and investment powerhouse and to tell China’s story to the world. Its own global media reach has expanded, with the state-run news agency Xinhua now joined by China Daily, CGTN and others with bureaus and correspondents around the world producing Chinese propaganda in English. Chinese media outlets and institutions are active on Twitter (which is blocked in China) to disseminate the official line, directly bypassing foreign media gatekeepers.
In some ways, foreign media coverage of China appears to be reverting back to the days of the Cultural Revolution and before, when many Western journalists, collectively known as ‘China watchers’, were barred from the country and forced to monitor events from afar, from Hong Kong or Taiwan, by parsing Xinhua dispatches and interviewing fleeing refugees.
But China-watching today is different, and much more thorough. Even journalists banned from China can monitor Chinese media and the online space. Much of the reporting on the Uyghur concentration camps in Xinjiang was done from outside China, using satellite imagery and other computer-generated sources. Sources in Wuhan at the height of the pandemic posted videos of overcrowded hospitals and bodies unburied in the street. Outlets like Radio Free Asia and others do a commendable job of covering China by conducting telephone interviews with sources inside.
China may now want to expel foreign correspondents to control its own narrative and stem negative coverage. But its connectedness to the world means the country can no longer be isolated and escape critical coverage, no matter how much it tries.
Globally, there’s increasing interest in the development of central bank digital currencies, driven by a wide range of policy motivations. A survey published by the Bank for International Settlements in January 2020 found that, out of 66 central banks, 80% were engaged in researching, experimenting with or developing a digital currency. The People’s Republic of China is a significant actor in this arena, not least because it is years ahead of the world in research into the development of its central bank digital currency, known as ‘digital currency/electronic payment’ or simply ‘DC/EP’.
DC/EP is progressing rapidly and, if successful, would have major international implications that haven’t yet been widely considered by policymakers. DC/EP would have ramifications for governments, investors and companies, including China’s own technology champions. It has the potential to create the world’s largest centralised repository of financial transactions data, and while it may solve some financial governance challenges, such as money laundering, it would also create unprecedented opportunities for surveillance.
The initial impact of a successful DC/EP project will be primarily domestic, but little thought has been given to the longer term and global implications. DC/EP could be exported overseas via the digital wallets of Chinese tourists, students and businesspeople.
A new report from ASPI’s International Cyber Policy Centre, The flipside of China’s Central Bank digital currency, seeks to improve baseline understanding of DC/EP’s mechanics and place the project in its political and bureaucratic context. The aim is to catalyse and contribute to an informed conversation about what the rollout of DC/EP may mean for China and for the world.
Over time, it’s not far-fetched to speculate that the Chinese party-state will incentivise or even mandate that foreigners also use DC/EP for certain categories of cross-border RMB transactions as a condition of accessing the Chinese marketplace. DC/EP intersects with China’s ambitions to shape global technological and financial standards, for example, through the promotion of RMB internationalisation of the renminbi and fintech standards-setting along sites of the Belt and Road Initiative. In the long term, therefore, a successful DC/EP could greatly expand the party-state’s ability to monitor and shape economic behaviour well beyond the borders of the PRC.
At the technocratic level, DC/EP is designed to ensure that the central bank can monitor all financial flows and exercise greater control over China’s financial system and capital accounts while displacing anonymising cryptocurrency alternatives that can’t be readily controlled. Recent reporting has also indicated that the People’s Bank of China aims for DC/EP to erode the dominance of Alipay and WeChat Pay in the digital payments sector, levelling the playing field between the technology duopoly and commercial banks.
At the leadership level, DC/EP is being driven by the financial ‘risk management’ and ‘supervision’ imperatives of Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping. DC/EP will offer no true anonymity, as the central bank will have both complete visibility over the use of the currency and the ability to confirm or deny any transaction. There are also no express limits on the information-access powers of the party-state’s political security or law enforcement agencies, such as the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, which has a keen interest in the technology.
While DC/EP could enable more effective financial supervision and risk management that any government might seek to embed in a central bank digital currency, the PRC’s authoritarian system embeds political objectives within economic governance and otherwise reasonable objectives. Terms such as ‘anti-terrorist financing’, for instance, take on a different definition in the PRC that is directed at the CCP’s political opponents.
DC/EP is being developed and implemented domestically first, but could allow China to shape global standards for emerging financial technologies. It also creates opportunities for the PRC to bypass the US-led financial system, which it perceives as a threat to its security interests, potentially disrupting existing systems of global financial governance. Through DC/EP, Beijing could over time move away from the SWIFT system and bypass international sanctions.
To date, policymakers in the democratic world have taken a whack-a-mole approach to the security challenges presented by Chinese technologies, if they have taken action at all. Those actions—such as those pertaining to Huawei and 5G over several years and TikTok and WeChat more recently—have been taken long after the relevant brands and technologies have entered the global marketplace and established dominant positions, and they don’t solve root problems.
Early efforts to establish and coordinate norms, rules and standards will reduce any subsequent need to resort to blunt and arbitrary measures that are economically, socially and diplomatically disruptive. By acting now to build a baseline analysis of the DC/EP project, decision-makers have an opportunity to anticipate challenges and build a consistent and coherent policy framework for managing them.
For the first time since 1973, the Australian media has no foreign correspondents in China—a consequence of the Chinese government’s decision to drown out all critical voices, foreign or domestic. Allowing the deterioration of media freedom in China to translate into a poorer understanding of Chinese politics is a goal of the Chinese Communist Party under Xi Jinping. But, for journalists and media organisations, this remains an entirely avoidable outcome.
You don’t need to be in China to understand Chinese politics. Chinese government and military websites offer a treasure trove of information for anyone armed with Mandarin and a willingness to dig. Mike Forsyth, whose reporting on the wealth of Xi’s family meant that he could no longer get a visa for China, has continued publishing hard-hitting pieces in the New York Times on the nexus between Chinese politics and money. ASPI, for its part, employs a cadre of Mandarin-speaking analysts who have produced numerous reports and databases looking at institutions engaged in defence research, forced labour and gulags in Xinjiang, and censorship on Chinese social media.
On-the-ground reporting has certainly improved our understanding of China. For young correspondents or scholars, time in China offers an opportunity to improve their Mandarin and provides unique insights into how the CCP operates. That said, Bill Birtles, Mike Smith, Phillip Wen and Chris Buckley haven’t lost their Mandarin skills or their knowledge of Chinese domestic politics. Nor have the scores of other foreign reporters who have been forced to leave China. The task for media organisations will be to find new ways of redeploying the expertise of these journalists to ensure that the world’s understanding of China won’t suffer.
There are numerous ways to achieve this goal. Media outlets like the ABC or the Australian Financial Review could move journalists who worked in China to desks reporting on Beijing’s diplomacy or on the CCP’s overseas influence activities.
With its strengthened united front apparatus and taste for ‘wolf warrior’ diplomacy under Xi, the Chinese government’s presence overseas is just as important to report on as developments within China. Birtles and Smith, with years of experience within China, are well qualified to explain Beijing’s diplomacy or the activities of its united front in a culturally knowledgeable and analytically incisive way.
Media organisations could consider moving their China bureaus elsewhere. The obvious candidate would have been Hong Kong, but the new national security law makes the risk of arbitrary detention there nearly as high as it is on the mainland.
With Hong Kong’s press freedom in tatters, the New York Times has temporarily moved part of its Hong Kong bureau to Seoul, and the Washington Post has shifted one of its China correspondents to Seoul and the other elsewhere in Asia. Though South Korea might have an interesting relationship with China, the two countries are profoundly different—linguistically, culturally, politically and historically. Aside from South Korea’s tradition of press freedom and its one-hour time difference from Beijing, it’s hard to see what value there is in housing a China bureau in Seoul.
The most obvious location for any new China bureau would be Taipei. Like Korea, Taiwan boasts a free press, an independent judiciary and a vibrant democracy. Taiwan, more importantly, is a Mandarin-speaking nation with close cultural links to mainland China. The linguistic and cultural skills needed to report on China successfully are also needed to report on Taiwan effectively. Financial Times reporter Kathrin Hille, for instance, files insightful stories from Taipei on the CCP, the People’s Liberation Army and Taiwanese domestic politics.
As Hille’s example demonstrates, stationing correspondents in Taipei would have the dual benefit of allowing reporters to continue filing stories on China while improving the world’s understanding of Taiwan—a country on the front lines of Beijing’s push for global influence. It would also play a small but useful role in combating Beijing’s attempts to squeeze Taiwan’s international space.
Media executives might argue that moving a China bureau to Taiwan would make it impossible for their journalists to re-enter China, due to Chinese government policy. There’s some truth in that, but it’s worth questioning the notion that foreign media will be able to return to China in a way that makes valuable reporting realistic while Xi remains president.
Since taking office in 2012, Xi has strengthened the CCP’s grip on just about every part of Chinese life and suffocated all forms of civil society. That trend is unlikely to change. And, with presidential term limits no longer in place, Xi is free to continue purging Chinese society of ‘hostile foreign forces’ such as the foreign media until he either dies or is purged himself. Betting on either event taking place in the near to medium term seems like a long shot for foreign media organisations planning their future China operations.
Given that worthwhile reporting on China from within China doesn’t seem tenable for the foreseeable future, journalists, scholars and analysts might do well to relearn some of the old skills of China watching.
As former CIA analyst Alice Miller noted in her final piece for China Leadership Monitor, the intercultural exchanges that came with Washington’s diplomatic recognition of Beijing provided new avenues of research on current trends in Chinese politics and foreign policy. This on-the-ground style of reporting and scholarship has offered the world much insight into how the CCP interacts with the society it governs.
But, as Miller notes later in the same piece, this relatively new style of reporting has ‘come at the opportunity cost of declining interest in elite politics and an unwillingness to expend the tedious labors required to study it’. With Xi tightening the screws on Beijing’s political and propaganda apparatus, now is a perfect time for journalists and scholars to relearn the skills of reading the tea leaves in People’s Daily editorials or assessing personnel movements in the CCP and PLA.
The world’s understanding of China doesn’t have to suffer just because Xi has decided to force foreign journalists out. The proliferation of Chinese government information online, along with satellite imagery and a host of other datasets, has allowed journalists, scholars and analysts to explain aspects of Chinese politics that were once exclusively available to government intelligence analysts. Xi’s crackdown on dissent has also increased the analytic value of Beijing’s traditional propaganda outlets.
Students of Chinese politics have long shown a willingness to adapt their analytic skills as events in China demand. The media can do that too.
Welcome to the third edition of ‘China military watch’. This month, we take a look at China’s burgeoning missile and space capabilities.
Ballistic missiles on Chinese merchant vessels?
On 15 September, China successfully launched the Long March-11 solid propellant launch vehicle off a merchant vessel in the Yellow Sea. This was the second such sea-based launch of a rocket conducted by China, with the first taking place on 5 June last year.
The launch, overseen by the Taiyuan Satellite Launch Centre (太原卫星发射中心) in conjunction with leading ballistic missile producer the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT, 中国航天科技), was significant as the solid propellant technology used in the in the Dongfeng-21 and Dongfeng-26 is reportedly similar to that used in the Long March-11. The launching of the Long March-11 from a civilian vessel raises the prospect that China’s merchant fleet could be used to fire ballistic missiles in wartime.
While the Long March-11 is not a missile platform, reporting from the People’s Liberation Army Daily on the flight test noted that launching rockets off surface vessels has several strategic advantages. The report argued that a sea-based launch ‘increas[es] launch efficiency and rocket carrying capacity’ because it can occur closer to the equator, and allows for ‘the freedom to choose launch sites, [which can] effectively offset unwanted risks’ such as debris falling on populated areas. The report added that sea-based launch provides tactical flexibility, as land-based ballistic missile and rocket systems are fixed, easily targetable and require significant logistical support.
That said, problems linger in China’s capability to conduct sea-based rocket launches. Another report from the PLA Daily made clear that ‘the communications support [needed] for sea-based launch missions are extremely heavy-duty and face many challenges, including long transmission distances, highly complex equipment and tight schedules’. Overcoming these difficulties is likely to be a priority for China’s defence industrial base, as companies like CALT continue developing China’s capability to conduct sea-based launches of carrier rockets and ballistic missiles.
Towards Chinese spaceplanes
China has successfully launched its own reusable military spaceplane. On 4 September, from the Jiuquan space centre in the Gobi Desert, the Chinese spaceplane was launched on a Long March-2F rocket. The Chinese spaceplane apparently follows the US X-37B in its design and operation, and successfully returned to earth two days after its mission began, landing at a runway next to the Jiuquan launch site, but not before it deployed an unidentified object into low-earth orbit.
The spaceplane marks an important step forward for China’s space capability and particularly Beijing’s military space capability, in the same way the X-37B has enhanced the US’s ability to undertake prolonged missions in orbit for secretive purposes. There are very few details of the Chinese spaceplane available, and it seems clear that China could simply emulate the US system if it chose to do so.
Perhaps more interestingly, there’s informed speculation that, unlike the US vehicle, the Chinese spaceplane may actually be the second stage of a ‘two stage to orbit’ system, with a winged, reusable and potentially crewed first stage under the ‘Tengyun Project’. This vehicle would transport the spaceplane as the upper stage to a place high in the atmosphere, where it would then be launched into orbit. Such a system would be more effective in terms of rapid and responsive space launch than a rocket-based one like that employed for the X-37B, and there would be no reason why China couldn’t develop a number of such vehicles.
A CALT official suggested in 2017 suggest that the system would be capable of carrying both crew and material, and in 2018, China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation said that, ‘unlike rocket recycling adopted by SpaceX, the spaceplane can take off from an ordinary airport to transport spacecraft into orbit. It will bring about a revolution for the future aerospace transportation.’
A series of spaceplane projects are underway in China. A fully reusable space capability based around a ‘two stage to orbit’ spaceplane, with perhaps a larger and more capable upper stage than that tested in September, could be a game-changer. The US considered such a capability back in the 1970s when it was first conceptualising its space shuttle and ultimately settled on a vertical launch system using an expendable fuel tank and two external boosters, along with the shuttle’s main engine, to reach orbit. It was a less elegant, more expensive and, ultimately, more dangerous approach than two stage to orbit, with the crews of the space shuttles Challenger and Columbia paying the ultimate price for that design choice.
Might China be about to exploit second-mover advantage—leapfrogging over a flawed design that characterised the US shuttle and embracing a more sophisticated, two-stage-to-orbit vehicle? Such a vehicle could transform military space competition, prompt a response from the US Space Force and intensify debate over that organisation’s rationale and future role, including the contentious issue of crewed military space missions.
Autonomous Kurdistan is a federal administrative unit of Iraq in the northern part of the country and is controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government. It hosts foreign investors from many countries and entities, including the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia and Turkey.
The region is also an attraction point for the People’s Republic of China and Chinese state-owned and -controlled companies. Chinese companies that operate in the oil and petroleum, infrastructure, construction, engineering, telecommunications and cement-production industries have been investing heavily in the region, undertaking multimillion-dollar projects and signing lucrative contracts with the government in Erbil (the de facto capital) and local Kurdish enterprises since the KRG’s re-establishment in 2005.
Chinese investment and economic cooperation are strengthening political relations between Beijing and Erbil, but it’s not yet possible to speak of a diplomatic alliance between them.
One of the basic elements of the PRC’s foreign policy is opposing acts of separatism or secession all over the world and supporting countries’ integrity. For that reason, Beijing gave no support to Erbil’s push for Kurdish independence, even though they have stable political relations.
However, changing power balances in the region make it more likely that the PRC will change its traditional approach to separatist and secessionist movements in the case of Kurdistan and support the KRG in its struggle for independence. Mordechai Chaziza lists the factors that might change Beijing’s Kurdistan policy. An independent Kurdish state—particularly one that the PRC helped to create—could give Beijing a new and friendly ally in the Middle East and a great security advantage in protecting its regional interests against groups such as Islamic State and al-Qaeda. It would also help China to diversify its oil supplies, satisfy its need for oil for many decades, and be a political card that it could use against Turkey and other countries that support Muslim Uyghur Turks, who are being systematically persecuted by the Beijing government.
Chinese support for Kurdish independence and strengthened Chinese–Kurdish relations are likely to create enormous risks and endanger regional stability.
Under its Belt and Road Initiative, the PRC government is breaking new diplomatic ground by using a debt-based foreign policy and bilateral agreements to realise its economic and political objectives in underdeveloped and developing countries.
When we take into account recent examples of unorthodox Chinese actions in East Africa and Southeast Asia, the future of Kurdish–Chinese relations becomes much more significant. In the past three years, as reported by Andre Wheeler and Hellenic Shipping News, the governments of Zambia and Sri Lanka have lost control of their major airports and marine ports to the PRC over debt repayments worth billions of dollars.
Those who would like to see the KRG waive its idea of independence for the sake of regional peace and stability might fear the same result in Kurdistan if China is able to help bring about that independence.
The US, the UK, the EU, Australia and Turkey—prominent international and regional actors that have practical experience and deep roots in the Middle East and North Africa, and that respect international legal regulations and diplomatic customs—should take a more proactive and courageous approach to Chinese expansion.
In this context, to shape the political and economic environment of the region according to international values and to limit Chinese expansion in the region, the American, British, European, Australian and Turkish governments should collectively promote commercial and economic relations with both Erbil and Baghdad and offer transparent and fair business contracts to both governments. To prevent Chinese debt diplomacy, they should help to build strong, fully functioning and democratic institutions in the KRG and advocate for democracy, the rule of law and transparency throughout the region.
For its part, the KRG needs to deeply cooperate with states that respect the rule of law and pursue its relationship with Beijing in a transparent way with extreme caution.
If international and regional actors take these steps, the northern part of Iraq and the rest of the country will be more secure, settled, ordered and prosperous.
Australian specialist in Russian polar strategy Elizabeth Buchanan has urged lawmakers in the United States to reconsider key assumptions about the impact of the China–Russia relationship on strategic issues in the Arctic.
The following is an edited summary of Dr Buchanan’s evidence to the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Congressional Energy and National Security Caucus in which she argued that three widely held assumptions about Russia, China and the Arctic were wrong.
Strengthened commercial engagement between Russia and China on Arctic energy ventures is driving a notion that there’s a Sino-Russian alliance in the region.
The reality is that mutual mistrust, centuries-old territorial tensions over the Russian Far East and hangovers from the Sino-Soviet split in the Cold War are all permanent features of the China–Russia relationship. They’ll continue to shape the strategic outlook, to an extent curtailing the two states’ ‘axis’ potential.
Moscow and Beijing have both learned that nations don’t have allies, or partners. Secure, successful states seek merely mutually beneficial relationships. That sentiment frames Sino-Russian engagement in the Russian Arctic.
Of the eight members of the Arctic Council, Russia took the most convincing to grant China its observer status in 2013. Moscow approved membership, and with it legitimacy, on the basis that Beijing explicitly acknowledged the sovereignty of Arctic-rim states and reaffirmed its commitment to the legal architecture of the Arctic region—the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Since 2014, with Western sanctions over Russia’s annexation of Crimea and sustained aggression in Ukraine, Moscow has had a cashflow problem. When sanctions targeted energy projects in the Russian Arctic, China wasted no time in offering capital injections and technology for offshore exploration.
This doesn’t mean that Beijing is tying all energy security plans to the Russian Arctic zone. Chinese Arctic engagement is driven by energy insecurity. Beijing diversifies its energy imports across the globe, and the Russian Arctic energy ‘pot’ is but one more source.
China is also engaging in a mutually beneficial arrangement with Russia to access the Northern Sea Route, which slashes transit between Asia and Europe by roughly half and presents attractive savings for Chinese shipping. Russia hasn’t given China privileged use of the route. Chinese vessels have been refused entry, and those that pass abide by Russian transit laws—vessels must be piloted by Russian pilots, tolls are charged, and Russia must be pre-warned about trips. China is actively engaging with other Arctic-rim powers and has commercial ventures, investment plans and entrenched soft-power strategies in Norway, Canada, Iceland and Greenland.
China is also driven by the prestige a polar footprint brings, supported by its icebreaker-building capabilities. Russia is aware of the rationale behind China’s Arctic strategy. Any efforts by Beijng to move beyond the agreed terms of its arrangement with Moscow or failure to uphold its observer status commitments will no doubt encourage deeper cooperation among the Arctic-rim states. How closely China adheres to the legal and sovereign Arctic arrangements will signal the limits to its relationship with Russia.
Another assumption, that Russia has an expansionist agenda in the Arctic, is generational but strategically incapacitating. It follows the notion that Moscow’s military modernisation and securitisation of Arctic policy and planning are indicators of neo-imperialist ambitions there. This concern is sharpened by the Kremlin’s public affairs stunts like planting the Russian flag on the seabed of the North Pole.
Russia’s northwest Arctic zone has historically housed its nuclear-armed Northern Fleet. This military capability, as well as the strategic location and Soviet-era bastion policy of area denial, never really went away with the fall of the Soviet Union. It fell into disrepair and, under President Vladimir Putin, the military has undergone a vast modernisation program. Moscow has reopened military bases along its Arctic frontier. Geographically, Russia is the largest Arctic player, and more than 50% of the Arctic Ocean is Russian coastline.
A 2008 US geological survey indicated that most of the region’s oil and natural gas lies in the Russian Arctic. Russia under Putin has renationalised energy as its future economic base. Resource deposits in the Russian Arctic zone (onshore and offshore) have immense economic potential and thus national security primacy. Russia’s Arctic strategy is built on both economic security and frontier border security objectives.
Securitising economic interests and increasing activity on the Arctic border fall short of an expansionist agenda. Peel back the posturing and the Arctic ‘arms race’, and Russia’s Arctic priority remains stability. Continued regional cooperation with its NATO-member and Western Arctic neighbours remains a central strategic objective. Keeping the arena free of conflict is crucial to ensuring the Northern Sea Route remains open and commercially viable. Russia needs to be able to deliver secure, trusted and unimpeded energy supplies from its northern frontier to Asian energy clients.
Of course, opportunities to ‘grab’ territory beyond the Russian Arctic zone have yet to be seized by Moscow. This expansionist expectation refers to the broader continental shelf debate—who ‘owns’ the North Pole. Arctic-rim powers Russia, Denmark (by way of Greenland) and Canada have submitted claims to formally extend their exclusive economic zones, which overlap in the high Arctic Ocean.
Russia’s territorial and maritime disputes—notably with Norway in the Barents Sea and the US in the Bering Strait—have long been resolved. So, where in the Arctic is Moscow looking to expand? It’s well within Russia’s interests to uphold the international legal architecture of the Arctic, particularly UNCLOS, as agreed by stakeholders. This is a simple case of revenge of geography.
A final assumption is that Russia has fallen into Beijing’s debt-trap diplomacy and that it is overreliant on Chinese capital and ownership in joint ventures for energy projects in the Arctic. In reality, Russia has worked to offset Chinese investment and the risk of overreliance in energy ventures. That’s a delicate balance. On one side of the energy security ‘coin’, Russia relies on Chinese demand for Arctic LNG, but Moscow has worked to diversify its capital pools. Saudi Arabia, Japan, India and South Korea are all linked to Russian Arctic energy ventures.
Russian law stipulates that while private Russian energy firms can develop in the Arctic zone, they may not cede controlling stakes to foreign firms. Neither of the two key LNG projects on the Russian Arctic’s Yamal Peninsula is ‘owned’ by China. Beijing’s share in the Yamal LNG venture is 29.9%, Russia’s Novatek holds 50.1% and France’s Total holds 20%. In the Arctic-2 LNG project, China holds 20%, Novatek holds 60%, Total holds 10% and the remaining 10% is held by a Japanese consortium. We can expect Russia’s upcoming Arctic energy projects located near the Yamal Peninsula ventures to attract diverse capital pools.
Sino-Russian Arctic ties will continue to be predictable. The relationship built upon an energy security foundation will remain mutually beneficial—until it is not. Russia’s foreign energy strategy and broader Arctic security agenda rely on predictability. The Russian Federation’s economic base is predicated on the Arctic remaining a zone of low tension to ensure the Northern Sea Route—an economic artery—remains conflict-free.
Moscow is unlikely to plunge into conflict the region it holds the largest stake in, and which it has tied its future economic and social security to. Any Arctic tensions will come from a misreading of Russian interests or a misunderstanding of basic geography or of how international law applies in the region.
After the outbreak of Covid-19 earlier this year, some predicted that the pandemic’s economic reverberations in Sri Lanka would lead China to increase its already considerable funding to the island state. Indeed, as early as mid-March 2020, the China Development Bank agreed to lend Sri Lanka US$500 million when it upsized an existing facility signed in 2018. More recently, the CDB agreed to lend a further US$140 million to the state-owned Bank of Ceylon.
Predictions of Sri Lanka’s closer ties with China have redoubled since the sweeping electoral victory of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna—the party of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa—in the country’s legislative elections on 5 August.
Several factors could propel Sri Lanka and China to forge closer relations, but there are also some countervailing pull factors that may limit the extent of China’s funding and influence. An underappreciated pull factor is the contribution of multilateral development banks (MDBs) to alleviating the country’s economic burdens. During the Covid-19 pandemic, MDBs like the Asian Development Bank have contributed far less to Sri Lanka than they have to other South Asian countries. This in turn has amplified China’s bilateral role in the country. Increased funding from MDBs could reduce the depth of China’s future footprint in Sri Lanka.
A recent paper by Chatham House, which I co-authored with other Sri Lankan colleagues, challenged the narrative that Sri Lanka is mired in a Chinese debt trap—noting that debt to China amounted to less than 6% of GDP in 2018. Nevertheless, it also recognised the risk of a debt trap in the future, and critics have pointed out that loans from China come with fewer procedural safeguards than those from MDBs.
The predicted negative economic growth in Sri Lanka this year as a result of the global pandemic will add pressure to the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio, which stood at 87% last year, and to its ability to service that debt with limited dollar reserves. These concerns are despite Sri Lanka’s success in containing the pandemic due to early and decisive steps like closing its borders in March and an active contact tracing system. At the end of July 2020, there were fewer than 2,900 cases and 11 deaths.
Sri Lanka’s challenging economic reality is among the strongest push factors towards its greater dependence on Chinese bilateral aid. This is particularly because of China’s reliably swift responses—a speed that was also evident after the devastating terrorist attacks on Easter Sunday last year, when China was the first country to relax its travel advisory about Sri Lanka.
Further push factors include the new government’s need to garner global support to defend Sri Lanka’s human rights record in international forums, increase foreign investment, modernise its technological capabilities and meet its significant infrastructure gap (at an estimated cost of US$24 billion based on a 2014 World Bank study) through existing projects under the Belt and Road Initiative and new development projects. An additional push factor is the growth of China’s public diplomacy, including with Sri Lanka’s majority Buddhist community.
On the other hand, the logistical difficulties faced during the pandemic by many construction and other companies in Sri Lanka point to the country’s need to diversify its supply chains from China. Other pull factors that sustain Sri Lanka’s non-China relationships, and can thereby limit China’s influence, include Sri Lanka’s need for economic assistance from diverse sources and its multifaceted security relationships with India and other partners. More generally, pull factors encompass Sri Lanka’s need to give visible contours to a non-aligned foreign policy that it has pledged to continue, particularly in view of spiralling US–China tensions.
One pull factor that warrants special mention is the extent to which international financial institutions are aiding, or could aid, Sri Lanka. After the outbreak of Covid-19, Sri Lanka sought US$300 million from the Asian Development Bank and an additional amount from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and renewed its discussions with the International Monetary Fund. Sri Lanka is yet to receive substantial funding from MDBs, relative to its neighbours. As of the end of July, MDBs had committed US$386 million to Sri Lanka, compared to, for example, the over US$1 billion allocated to Nepal.
Although media reports have highlighted Chinese assistance to Sri Lanka, these reports neglect a comparative perspective. In effect, Chinese loans in this pandemic year are helping Sri Lanka to close its funding gap from MDBs. The role of multilateral aid in shaping China’s post-Covid footprint in Sri Lanka is particularly significant because of opposition in some quarters to bilateral assistance, particularly from the US—which has offered a compelling US$500 million grant for transport and land administration projects—and India, from which Sri Lanka has nevertheless accepted a US$400 million swap facility that contributed markedly to Sri Lanka’s foreign reserves.
In this context, middle powers like Australia—which partnered with the World Health Organization to commit A$600,000 to Sri Lanka’s Covid-19 response—would do well to continue to support MDBs and other multilateral initiatives. Australia should likewise continue to back multilateral institutions like the Indian Ocean Rim Association that help to maintain a rules-based, peaceful Indian Ocean—an objective that Sri Lankan policymakers know is indispensable to the country’s future and will require the cooperation of many nations beyond China.
China has established itself as an enduring partner of Sri Lanka. During the Cold War, Sri Lanka turned alternately to the West and the Soviet Union, depending on its leaders in power. There is little such local vacillation in the ‘new cold war’ between the US and China; even the presumed pro-Western government between 2015 and 2019 relied heavily on Chinese assistance.
That China will solidify its partnership with Sri Lanka appears a given, but the extent to which it does so will depend on multiple factors that link Sri Lanka to its non-Chinese partners. International financial institutions have a key role to play in diversifying Sri Lanka’s international partnerships and engagement, a role that that middle powers can also support in different ways.
This post is part of an ASPI research project on the vulnerability of Indo-Pacific island states in the age of Covid-19 being undertaken with the support of the Embassy of Japan in Australia.
So what if a small Chinese tech company called Zhenhua Data holds personal information on at least 2.4 million people—including government, corporate and media leaders and influencers—from countries across the globe? Isn’t this just open-source data available on the internet? And anyway, what can we do? This is just China doing its thing, isn’t it?
This response to these nasty revelations has a whiff of the passive and cynical. And it is wrong.
We shouldn’t—and don’t have to—let China off the hook or just shrug and say ‘that’s the internet’. Particularly as Zhenhua is just one of a number of Chinese entities collecting and analysing masses of global data, with the intention of assisting the Chinese government in its political warfare and united front work.
Compiling profiles of powerful individuals from data found on the internet, added to confidential data that’s been procured—like bank account details, spending and browsing behaviour, and psychological health—helps a foreign intelligence agency exploit and manipulate people.
So, large datasets like this can boost conventional espionage operations significantly. They give levers to obtain cooperation willingly or unwillingly. When those levers include not just personal foibles and vulnerabilities, but information about a target’s children, relatives or friends, it starts to look uglier, even malign.
The data Zhenhua collected—or, rather, the partial dataset that was leaked to the media—is mostly ‘open source’, meaning it is not classified or otherwise protected but is floating about somewhere on the internet.
So, what’s the problem?
The problem is that the Chinese government and its corporate assistants will be using the insights from this giant data pool to obtain political, commercial, strategic and military advantage for the Chinese government and Chinese companies right now, including in ways that break other countries’ laws and rules. They will not be storing up the data like a squirrel storing nuts for the winter; they’ll be getting value from it daily—and adding to it as they do so.
The leaked Zhenhua dataset is just one of the large-scale datasets that the Chinese state is building and accessing—and it’s probably not the most impressive. ASPI analyst Samantha Hoffman’s Engineering global consent report sets out the data collection and aggregation work of another Chinese technology firm, GTCOM. The company focuses on global big data, facial recognition and artificial intelligence, which it supplies for Chinese government use.
The insights from these datasets are valuable for powering foreign interference by Chinese actors in other states and societies. They are the fuel for Chinese state entities’ covert and corrupting activities, and give these entities an advantage over others. Companies armed with these insights from government can use them to take advantage of competitors and business partners.
But the data is open source, so doesn’t that mean it’s okay?
No. The data may be ‘on the internet’ but it’s likely that laws on data access and sharing—such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and privacy principles like those here in Australia, as well as commercial policies and terms—have been wilfully broken to assemble the datasets. Data obtained from the dark web is the most likely to have breached such laws and rules. It’s even more likely laws will be broken by Chinese state entities using the datasets.
And, even if the data is all out there on the internet, aggregating it is a whole different thing. Aggregating lets you see meaning and patterns that are invisible when the information is fragmented and scattered around the globe.
Cambridge Analytica did something similar, but for a narrower if still powerful purpose and with mainly US data. Once its practices were exposed, the company was shut down and several of its leaders and key employees have suffered career reversals. We shouldn’t give China a free pass for something we find essential to act on in our own countries and jurisdictions.
The consequences of Google or Facebook having masses of data about you are serious and rightly a topic of public debate and potential further regulation. But they are quite different to the consequences of the Chinese Communist Party and its technology companies having huge amounts of personal information about you and your family—because the intent about using the insights from these mass data holdings is different. It’s a case of values and interests—and the CCP has a lot of interest in using the data in ways many of us wouldn’t like or enjoy.
Coercive economics and pressure on governments and companies to say and do what Beijing wants is one clear use. Another is being able to influence political debates and even national decision-making.
Think about telling a key participant in a high-level government decision that if they don’t do what you want, you’ll reveal a distressing and compromising thing about one of their children to the world. Think about supplying, even selling, some of this data to political operators in a country you want to influence or divide and letting them do your dirty work. Think about enticing influential people to do what you want by paying off the large legal or medical bills you know they have because of the data you hold about them.
The fact that the Chinese government and its military and security services have access to this type of data matters, and so does what can be done to make it harder for them to get it.
The only good news here is that there are things that Australia and others can do to help reduce the risk of this behaviour and raise the costs to Beijing for operating in this way.
The biggest is to see this as a call to action as the world looks at redesigning the internet. This work is happening in obscure global bodies like the International Telecommunications Union, whose Chinese corporate participants are pushing hard to set the direction of the future internet, no doubt with the full backing and clear direction of the Chinese government.
Australia and other open democracies need to pile in on the new internet standards and governance if we aren’t to get a redesigned internet that’s even easier to use covertly and corruptly for authoritarian purposes than the one we have now.
We also need to work with like-minded governments and international human rights organisations to call out this Chinese government-connected activity for what it is: covert—and immoral—particularly when it comes to personal health data and data on children, and when many of its uses are likely to be covert and corrupting.
And we might also turn some of the open-source power of the internet back on Chinese government leaders—revealing, for example, details about the billion-dollar family fortunes of figures like Xi Jinping, despite their being paid annual salaries of around US$22,000—and get this data into the hands and minds of as many of China’s 1.4 billion citizens as possible—consistently and repeatedly.
That’ll give these ultra-wealthy leadership elites the chance to explain how their wealth fits with socialism with Chinese characteristics and with Xi’s anti-corruption campaign, which the party tells the world sets a model globally for dealing with corruption.
Right now, luxury consumption in China is hitting new heights, while some 600 million low-paid workers are either struggling to get paid or being forced back to their home provinces to get by. The nasty truth about the huge disparities in Chinese wealth distribution is high on Beijing’s radar of concern—to hide, as much as to address.
With the Zhenhua revelations, we have another chance to take some more steps in getting Beijing to do what it professes to be its current policy—and reduce its egregious interference in other societies as part of shoring up the position of the CCP.
Lastly, we might recognise that our own governments continue to undervalue the power of open-source collection and data in their own agencies and budget plans, particularly when combined with unique classified data sets.
It’s time that changed. Our own governments should be investing at scale in open-source data, wrapped up in the practices and norms of open societies that are governed, as the ABC’s Bill Birtles said on landing back in Australia, ‘with genuine rule of law’.
The rapidly deteriorating state of Papua New Guinea’s economy is presenting serious challenges for the PNG government, which is already struggling to finance its 2020 budget.
But another factor looms as an equal, if not more serious, challenge. At a time of fiscal vulnerability, PNG is getting entangled with Chinese debt—which will inevitably involve some difficult decisions for the Australian government down the line.
A series of assessments of the state of the economy by banks and ratings agencies in recent weeks presents a very bleak picture. The PNG budget deficit is now projected to be over K7 billion (A$2.7 billion) in a total expenditure budget of K18 billion (A$7 billion). The PNG government hasn’t yet managed to fully finance the deficit, so it might even be higher than recent projections.
At the same time, there are signs that PNG may be at risk of increasing indebtedness to China.
The state enterprises minister, Sasindran Muthuvel, recently revealed that PNG owes China, principally through the Exim Bank of China, more than K1.6 billion (A$621 million) for communications projects alone—most of which have been carried out by Huawei. The government-owned communications company, Telikom PNG, is running up heavy operating losses which are linked to the projects Huawei has carried out. Its debts are reported to be more than K2 billion (A$777 million).
The loans include almost K1 billion (A$388 million) for the Kumul submarine communications cable linking PNG’s major centres. The project has been widely criticised for neglecting to account for the impact of earthquakes and the cable suffered multiple breaks during a tremor in May last year.
And despite all the promises about lower consumer charges and faster internet delivery, neither seems to have been delivered.
In addition, the K200 million (A$75 million) Exim Bank loan for the PNG national data centre for work carried out by Huawei must also be added to the debt total. The centre is not only a potential security risk, but is virtually non-operational, causing the relevant minister to suggest PNG shouldn’t have to repay the loan.
Then there’s the China-funded PNG national identity document project. It has stalled, with probably just one million of PNG’s eight million citizens having an identity card. Using the excuse of the Covid-19 pandemic, the PNG government has put the project on hold.
So, in the communications area alone, the amount owed to the PRC, principally through Exim Bank, is around K3 billion (A$1.2 billion), much more than official figures suggest.
But communications is just one area in which the China ‘debt-trap diplomacy’ is impacting PNG. The picture looks much worse when road construction, ports and airports are included.
Work is underway on the development of the Kavieng International Airport in New Ireland at a cost of almost K200 million (A$78 million). And work is continuing on the redevelopment of the vital Highlands Highway at a cost of close to K500 million (A$194 million). Both projects are being carried out by Chinese state-owned companies.
And construction of the signature national court complex is running well behind schedule. It’s another project being built by a Chinese company and will cost at least K480 million (A$186 million).
Reports on the quality of the roadwork and other infrastructure projects undertaken by Chinese companies across PNG indicate that the quality of construction is variable.
But it doesn’t stop there.
Some years ago, the Shenzhen Energy Group and Sinohydro were selected by PNG Power—another government-owned entity in poor financial shape—to construct the massive Ramu 2 hydro power project.
The project, which will cost at least K8 billion (A$3.1 billion), has had to be guaranteed by the PNG government under a loan from China.
Such a loan would almost certainly be beyond the capacity of PNG Power to repay and the project has been stalled for at least the last year, resulting in threats from the selected tenderers to cancel it.
The Australian government has been lobbying heavily against the project, and has put forward as an alternative a series of smaller power projects funded by a group of countries led by Australia.
But the Ramu 2 project is not dead. It has powerful backing within the PNG cabinet—and the Chinese ambassador continues to lobby strongly for it.
Late last year, Australia gave the PNG government a loan of around K1 billion (A$388 million), basically to finance the budget shortfall. It has already agreed to delay repayment. And more recently it allowed around K50 million (A$19 million) to be drawn down in cash from the aid budget to help the PNG government out.
If China applies pressure on PNG to make significant repayment on loans running into billions of dollars, the fiscal position will be even worse than it already is.
Australia has rightly been working with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other donor countries and agencies on a package that would essentially provide ‘structural adjustment support’ for PNG. But any such package would have tough conditions that might be unpalatable to PNG Prime Minister James Marape and his government ahead of an election in less than two years.
The Australian government is likely to be watching the deteriorating economic and fiscal outlook in PNG with growing alarm.
It also has to watch closely when Beijing starts calling in its extensive loans to the government and government-owned corporations, and pre-empt the kinds of concessions China may try to extract from PNG in return for further extensions or loan forgiveness.
Australia’s own budget deficit and national debt in light of the response to Covid-19 are eye-watering, making any decision to help PNG further very difficult politically, at least for the foreseeable future.