爱的被告

Australia's defense‑funded report hypes risks to subsea cables to 'serve military goals'_我的网站

一 |     

    Illustration: Liu Rui/GTA new report funded by Australia's Department of Defense played up security risks to submarine cables in the Indo-Pacific waters and pointed finger at China and some other countries over alleged undersea‑cable attacks in recent years, while claiming threats against subsea cables are growing. A Chinese expert said that accusing China without conclusive evidence constitutes "over‑securitization" made by Australian side, as well as a calculated pretext for its own military expansion.
Published by the National Security College at the Australian National University (ANU), the paper claimed recent damage to cables in the Baltic Sea and around China's Taiwan region suggests "state actors are now actively probing and testing cable infrastructure in peacetime as part of broader hybrid warfare strategies" to rapidly degrade connectivity at the outset of a conflict, The Australian reported.
The paper claimed 16 privately owned subsea cables that carry 99 percent of Australia's internet traffic are a "high priority target" for Australia's adversaries that could be severed in a conflict, threatening the nation's economy and social fabric, according to The Australian.
The report singled out China and Russia for blame, saying that there have been multiple apparent attacks on submarine cables in recent years in European waters as well as near China's Taiwan region, suspected to be linked to Russia and China, the Straits Times reported.
However, the report cites a 2025 voyage by Chinese research vessel Tan Suo Yi Hao along Australia's western and southern coastlines as evidence to back its claim that "potential adversaries are actively gathering information about Australia's cable infrastructure."
This report, relying on the routine scientific operations of a Chinese research vessel in 2025 to level allegations of offensive actions against China, and employing ambiguous terminology such as "suspected" and "potential," demonstrates Australia's evidentiary leap, Chen Hong, director of the Australian Studies Center of East China Normal University, told the Global Times on Monday.
This erroneous claim was refuted by the Chinese Foreign Ministry at the time. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said on March 31, 2025 that China carries out normal activities at sea in accordance with international law, including UNCLOS. 
"We hope Australia will have a right understanding of this and stop the groundless suspicion and speculations," Guo added.
This is not the first time certain Australian politicians has leveled baseless accusations of China intending to sabotage its undersea cables. Back in May, Defense Minister Richard Marles claimed during the Shangri-La Dialogue that China ought to boost transparency around its maritime operations. He also asserted that a surge in damage to subsea cables had transformed the seabed into a "battlefield," per The Australian.
Chen said Australian side's scaremongering is tied to its predictive threat‑perception framework forged in recent years. This framework designates China and other countries as strategic competitors in advance, subsequently forces routine scientific activities into a confrontational framework, Chen said.
Apart from unfounded allegations against China, the paper claims Australia's defense military "must incorporate the defense of submarine cable infrastructure into its operational planning," according to The Australian.
It added the government should also consider up¬grading an auxiliary ship operated by the navy, ADV Guidance, to enable it to repair damaged cables.
The vast majority of submarine cable damages are caused by accidental factors such as fishing operations and vessel anchoring, rather than deliberate sabotage. For suspected cases of intentional damage, independent technical investigation bodies should be established, and the principle of "investigate first, characterize later" should be strictly applied, so as to prevent ordinary maritime accidents from escalating into diplomatic conflicts, Chen said.
The core problem of Australian side's submarine cable security lies entirely with itself. Instead of addressing its own infrastructure shortcomings and improving its domestic protection and maintenance systems, the Australian side has chosen to continually exaggerate external threats and stoke bloc confrontation, the expert added.
Chen said that by fabricating alleged Chinese threats, Australian side seeks to "rationalize" its military spending increases and underwater force expansion. The submarine digital infrastructure originally meant to serve global development has been labeled along us versus them lines, and this constitutes the biggest hidden danger, he added.
。

二 |     New Delhi, Oct 17 (UNI) Senior lawyer, Dushyant Dave, appearing for the victims in the Lakhimpur Kheri case, told the Supreme Court on Monday there are clear indications that the act was "premeditated", and pleaded that the main accused, Union Minister Ajay Mishra's son Ashish Mishra should not be granted bail in the case.

"There are clear indications that the act was premeditated. The Trial courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh had found it was premeditated. Five people were killed. He be permitted to bring the trial court judgement on record," Dave told the Supreme Court's two-judge bench, headed by Justice B R Gavai.

Mukul Rohatgi, former Attorney General (AG) and senior criminal lawyer appearing for Ashish Mishra, opposed the contentions of Dave and said it was not premeditated. "The killing was not at at all premeditated. It is incorrect," Rohatgi argued before the Supreme Court.

The State of Uttar Pradesh Monday sought more time to file its response in the case, for which, the Supreme Court granted two weeks time and posted the matter for further hearing to November 7.

The prime accused, Ashish Mishra, had moved the Supreme Court in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case and sought bail in it.

The apex court had already issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government and sought its reply after hearing the bail plea filed by Ashish Mishra, accused in Lakhimpur Kheri farmers' mowing down by vehicle incident.

Mishra was denied bail by the Allahabad high court on July 26, after which he knocked the doors of the Supreme Court in August last week, seeking relief and bail.

There is no possibility of hampering and tempering with the prosecution witnesses. 98 witnesses and their family members have been provided gunners including the barricading of police at their residence under the CCTV camera," Mishra, in his appeal filed before the Supreme Court said.

Mishra was arrested on October last year, and the charge sheet filed in the case claimed the killing to be "pre planned".

The prosecution said Mishra came in a SUV along with a convoy of three-four cars on October 3, last year, and allegedly mowed down protesting farmers against the now repealed farm laws, gathered to protest against it.

UNI XC SY。

Current article:http://www.rangnehongranlinren.bond/ccb/cu25yn.pptx

Published on:03:48:59