In August 1942 US Marines (in the Guadalcanal Campaign) fought
and died to
liberate the strategically important island of Tulagi (in the Solomon Islands) from the Japanese. Now Tulagi, with its dual-use capable natural deep water harbour and airfield has been leased, cheaply, for 75 years to China. See the map below.
Australian politicians appear to have been taken by surprise and have been unable to head off the lease. China is now too politically powerful and can target its increasing cash reserves to buy off islands that are close to, and strategically important to, Australia.
The New York Times, not Australian news outlets, broke the story on October 16, 2019 and advised:
“The renewable 75-year lease
was granted to the China Sam Enterprise Group, a conglomerate founded in 1985
as a state-owned enterprise, according to corporate records.
A copy of the “strategic
cooperation agreement,” obtained by The New York Times ... reveals both the
immediate ambitions of China Sam and the potential...for infrastructure that
could share civilian and military uses.
Signed on September 22, 2019
the [lease] agreement includes provisions for a fishery base, an operations center, and
“the building or enhancement of the airport.”
Tulagi island (part of the Solomon Islands) in relation to Australia. (Map courtesy Agency France Press via Yahoo News, October 2019)
---
The military value of Tulagi includes its potential use as a forward Chinese naval
and air base in cutting naval strategic lines of communication between the US
and Australia (map above). China can improve Tulagi’s airfied to accommodate maritime
patrol aircraft to blockade Australia northern approaches (Tulagi to Port Moresby
(New Guinea) and return) and Australia’s eastern approaches (from Tulagi to New
Caledonia and return). From Tulagi Chinese strike aircraft could hit the cities of Cairns and Townsville (both
on the Australian mainland).
Tulagi as a forward operating base for Chinese surface ships and submarines would save many days
of passage to block the major east coast Australian
city-ports of Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne.
Australia’s leaders have been virtually silent about the strategic
possibilities of the Tulagi Lease:
“News of the lease agreement
sent Australian diplomats scrambling to find out more details. [Australian]
Foreign Minister Marise Payne...had not responded to a request for comment...”.
Perhaps Australia knew about Tulagi-China negotiations in advance. But as Australia could not alter the situation, because of China's power and money, Australia was reduced to feigning surprise.
The possibility that China could develop Tulagi at the rate of its rapid South China Sea island seaport-airport building is a major concern, to say the least.
The possibility that China could develop Tulagi at the rate of its rapid South China Sea island seaport-airport building is a major concern, to say the least.
Also see an article in The Strategist.
Pete
6 comments:
'Second Island Chain Defense Line' implementation plan moving ahead remorselessly.
Just like Sri Lanka and Djibouti, 'friendly visits' by PLAN Type-055s, 052Ds, SSNs and soon CBGs (Carrier Battle Groups)should be expected.
with no offense intended, these smaller pacific island nations come under what I call the
'30 silver sestertii' category that also includes pakistan, myanmar,& sri lanka.
PS: of course, ScoMo did not help matters by behaving like a drongo to Samoa, PNG etc.. every opportunity he got.
Hi GhalibKabir
The smaller and poorer the islands the more easily China can buy island leaders in exchange for lease/basing rights.
Island forums have suggested that Australia drastically cut its carbon emissions to prevent global warming > ice melts > sea level rises > swamp the islands.
But it is the biggest carbon emissions culprit China, followed by US and India that should reduce their own economies. Easier said than done when Chinese and Indians want a higher (more carbon emitting) standard of living.
Cheers
Pete
Indians and Chinese (even today) would easily argue and with justification that developed no offense meant, but richer nations must pay fairly for the centuries of emissions from 1750 and not cavalierly ask Indians and other developing nations to suck it up (like they did at Kyoto, and Paris) and accept it as the alternative is a destroyed environ. OECD type nations shouldn't 'socialize' carbon pollution of 1750-1990 on others.
a more fair dinkum thing would be to aim for lower consumption standards in OECD nations while asking developing nations to invest more in renewable energy and help them come up the ladder a bit more while OECD level nations come down the ladder a bit...
else, it won't fly.. this is possibly the only way a softer landing is possible for all. a 0.5 ton per year emitting Kenyan or 1.5 ton per year emitting Indian should not bear the same cost as a 10 ton plus CO2 emitting american.
Really shows the foolishness of allowing the Darwin harbour lease to go ahead. It’s very hard for Australia to pressure others that it’s a bad thing, when they can simply say “but you did”. I know the Darwin situation is not as bad as they do not have free reign, but it’s the precedent that it creates that has come back to bite.
They better get moving on the Manus upgrades & make it a lot bigger to allow the ability to isolate Solomon Islands from mainland China. Either that or launch another “intervention”.
Hi GhalibKabir [at November 7, 2019 at 3:45 PM]
Yes. In highly developed countries (eg. Australia and US) we probably have 1 car per 2 people. It is unfair to say India and China cannot carbon emit so as to eventually have half a billion cars in India and more in China.
More nuclear reactors when renewable wind isn't blowing and sun isn't shining. Daming the Himalayas for hydro-electricity should also present few problems.
Australia's coking and "electricity" coal as well as Uranium should be exported more to India and China.
Regards
Pete
Hi Anonymous [November 8, 2019 at 5:23 AM]
On the Port of Darwin China was offering so much lease money to the Northern Territory (NT) government that the deal went through.
Despite what I said in https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2015/11/us-told-2-days-after-that-port-of.html where the US claimed they weren't told about the deal until it was made public. I now think the US knew - Australia would have told the US at many levels. But as it was a case of Australia and US having different national interests regarding Chinese investment - it was easier for the US to feign surprise.
So, yes, Australia cannot wave a finger at Tulagi, Solomon's 75 year lease to China when we gave China a 100 year lease to Port of Darwin.
If the US military and Australia build a mooted new naval port near Darwing all the better.
It would be difficult for Australia to block Chinese naval and airforce connections with Tulagi, Solomons. We would have to rely on Donald Trump to handle it in his subtle way.
Sadly Australia's power to launch unilateral “interventions” can now be vetoed or blocked by China.
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment