No reason for China to apologise to Australia for live-fire drills, ambassador says
He said the notification of the drills had followed normal international practice, despite Australian authorities first becoming aware of them after they began, from a passing Virgin pilot.
'There should be no over-reading into this,' the ambassador said, insisting Australia and China were 'comprehensive strategic partners'.
A readout of the interview, published on the Chinese embassy website, said:
'The term 'partner' indicates that the two countries are friends, not foes or rivals. China has always regarded Australia as an important partner, and there is no need for Australia to feel concerned about the actions of the Chinese fleet.'
Australian defence officials told Senate estimates this week the first that Australia learned of the live-fire exercises, which took place 340 nautical miles off the NSW south coast, was when they were notified via a civilian pilot flying a Virgin commercial passenger jet near to the Chinese naval vessels.
The pilot heard a warning broadcast by the ships themselves that they were undertaking live-fire. That warning was relayed back to Australia, coming some time before a similar notification from a New Zealand navy vessel that was shadowing the flotilla.
Related: A murky picture has emerged over China's live-fire drills. Who knew what when?
The Australian foreign minister, Penny Wong, said, given the potential danger and the disruption to commercial aviation – nearly 50 flights were diverted – the notification given by the Chinese navy was insufficient. Wong said she had told her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, the conduct of the drills 'did not meet our expectations and was of deep concern'.
But Xiao rejected this.
'Different countries have a different practice and, based on the nature of the drill, size of the drill and the scope of the drill, my view is that the Chinese naval certification advice was appropriate.'
He said international law was silent about the precise timing and nature of advance warning on naval exercises.
'I don't see there's any reason why the Chinese side should feel sorry about that, or even to think about to apologise for that,' he said.
Both China and Australia confirmed this week that the Chinese naval drills were conducted in international waters and in accordance with international law.A three-ship flotilla – comprising the Jiangkai-class frigate Hengyang, the Renhai-class cruiser Zunyi and the Fuchi-class replenishment vessel Weishanhu – sailed from Australia's north down the east coast – reportedly sailing as close as 150nm from Sydney – before undertaking live-fire drills in the Tasman Sea on Friday and Saturday.
The ships – which are possibly accompanied by an undetected nuclear submarine, Australia's defence chief has said – have since sailed farther south and west and entered the Great Australian Bight.
Australia's defence minister, Richard Marles, has urged calm, saying 'it's really important that we take a deep breath here'. He emphasised the Chinese ships' adherence to international law, and pointed out the frequency of Australian navy ships sailing close to China's shores – including through the contested South China Sea.
'There is actually a greater frequency of Australian naval vessels closer to China than there are Chinese vessels close to Australia,' he said.
Labor minister Murray Watt said on Friday morning Australia was 'not happy that China did not give advance warning' of the live-fire drills.
'The bottom line is that China should have given us more notice.'
Xiao insisted China did not 'pose a threat to Australia', saying the countries were, and would remain, 'comprehensive strategic partners'.
In the interview readout posted online, the Chinese ambassador rejected any link between the naval flotilla sailing down Australia's east coast and an incident between Australian and Chinese aircraft over the South China Sea earlier this month.
On 11 February, a Chinese PLA-AF J-16 fighter aircraft released flares near an Australian P-8A Poseidon patrol aircraft as it was flying what Australia has said was a 'routine maritime surveillance patrol in the South China Sea'.
Australia described it as 'an unsafe and unprofessional manoeuvre'.
Xiao said the air and sea matters were 'entirely different in nature', and blamed Australia for the air incident.
'The Australian military aircraft intruded into China's airspace, which is a serious violation of international law and undermines China's national security. However, the Chinese naval exercise took place in high seas far from Australia's coastline and aligns with international law.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
38 minutes ago
- Politico
Dems delete the 'Big Beautiful Bill'
Senate Majority Leader John Thune's ability to pass the 'big, beautiful bill' is hinging on Sen. Lisa Murkowski. The Alaska senator has been the subject of an intense whip effort by GOP leaders over the past couple of hours as they try to offer her reassurances on Medicaid and food assistance. Thune, Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso talked to Murkowski on the floor for roughly an hour overnight. Thune and Murkowski huddled briefly in his office, and they were mum on details when they emerged shortly before 4 a.m. Just moments ago, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that proposed SNAP carve-outs for an expanded list of states including Alaska are compliant with the Byrd rule. But the parliamentarian ruled a provision that would have boosted federal payments for Medicaid in Alaska and four other states is noncompliant, according to a person granted anonymity to share the decision. Murkowski is also among the Republicans who have been pushing an amendment to undo the rollback of clean-energy credits under the Biden-era climate law. Thune insisted to reporters moments ago that senators were closing in on the end of their vote-a-rama. 'We're close,' he said, adding that they have a few more amendments from senators and a final so-called wraparound amendment to come. In a potential sign of just how dire Thune's whip count was looking in the wee hours, the majority leader huddled in his office with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who's long said he would be a 'no' on the bill over its debt-ceiling hike. Another big unknown right now is where Sen. Susan Collins will fall. The Maine senator reminded us less than two hours ago that she's 'said all along that I have concerns with the bill' and also reiterated, when prompted by reporters, that she would have preferred breaking out the tax portion of the policy package on a separate track. Certainly not helping win Collins over: Her bid to boost money for rural hospitals went up in flames. And major policy fights remain unresolved, including Sen. Rick Scott's (R-Fla.) divisive amendment to scale back federal payments under the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion. Scott has leadership's support on this one and said he expects it to pass. But several GOP senators have openly raised concerns with it. What else we're watching: — Megabill goes to House Rules: Assuming the Senate passes the bill, the House is expected to bring the bill to the Rules Committee at noon Tuesday, though two people with direct knowledge of the plans say it could get pushed amid delays with the Senate vote-a-rama. — The next funding battle begins: Senate appropriators plan to move forward with marking up fiscal 2026 government funding bills starting next week. House Appropriations is scheduled to vote July 10 on the Commerce, Justice, Science bill and the Energy and Water Development bill. House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) wants to finish marking up all 12 funding bills by the end of July.
CBS News
41 minutes ago
- CBS News
Comparing the Medicaid cuts in House and Senate "big, beautiful bill"
Washington — Republicans plan to slash Medicaid funding to help offset the tax cuts and new spending included in President Trump's massive domestic policy bill. There are some differences between the approaches taken by Senate and House Republicans, making Medicaid among the most divisive issues lawmakers have had to navigate in recent months. Staring down a self-imposed July 4 deadline to get the "big, beautiful bill" to Mr. Trump's desk, Republican lawmakers have yet to settle their differences. The Senate version, which is still under construction in the hours before final passage, is expected to face some resistance in the House, which passed a separate version in May. No Democrats are expected to support the bill. Medicaid cuts About 71 million Americans are enrolled in Medicaid, according to the government's most recent data. According to a Congressional Budget Office report published late Saturday, the changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act in the Senate version would result in an increase of nearly 12 million more uninsured people by 2034. The House-passed version would leave slightly fewer without health insurance — nearly 11 million — by 2034, mostly due to cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, the CBO estimated earlier in June. The Senate version makes $930 billion in cuts over a decade to Medicaid, Medicare and the Affordable Care Act, according to the CBO. The House-passed bill includes nearly $800 billion in cuts. Work requirements Both versions include new work requirements for the popular entitlement program that provides government-sponsored health care for low-income Americans and people with disabilities. They require adults to work, volunteer or study 80 hours a month to qualify for enrollment, unless they have an exception. The House-passed bill includes work requirements that would apply to childless Medicaid recipients without disabilities between the ages of 19 and 64, beginning no later than 2026. There are exemptions for caregivers for dependent children or for pregnant women, among others. The Senate version expands the House bill by requiring parents of children over the age of 14 to work. Reporting requirements Both the Senate and the House would require Medicaid recipients to prove their eligibility twice a year, instead of annually. Home equity and Medicaid Under both chambers, applicants wouldn't qualify for Medicaid if their home equity is valued at more than $1 million, regardless of inflation. Under current law, state-determined maximum limits on home equity are between $730,000 and $1,097,000 and are indexed to inflation. Preventing Medicaid payments to dead people The Senate approved an amendment to move up Medicaid eligibility verification requirements, a measure aimed at preventing payments for people who are deceased. This was originally supposed to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2028, and Republican Sen. John Kennedy's amendment moved it to Jan. 1, 2027. Provider taxes States can boost federal Medicaid contributions to their states through what's known as a provider tax, often levying taxes on health care providers, which raises the overall cost of a service and therefore increases the portion reimbursed by the state. The House measure aims to lower federal costs by freezing states' provider taxes at current rates and prohibiting them from establishing new provider taxes. But their Senate counterparts want to incrementally lower provider taxes from 6% to 3.5% by 2032 in states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Forty states have adopted the Medicaid expansion, and under that provision, the federal government pays 90% of the costs for expansion enrollees while the states are responsible for 10%. The federal government's portion for those covered through traditional Medicaid can range from 50% to 83%. Senate Republicans also added a $25 billion fund to help rural hospitals after some GOP senators expressed concern about how they could be affected by the change to provider taxes. Gender transition care The House bill prohibits federal Medicaid funding from covering gender transition services for children and adults, including surgeries, hormone therapy and puberty blockers. The Senate version included a similar provision, but the parliamentarian determined that it did not comply with the chamber's rules guiding the reconciliation process, meaning it either needed to be removed or modified to be included. Planned Parenthood funding Conservatives have long tried to stop Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds. The Hyde Amendment bans the use of any federal funds for abortion, but Planned Parenthood receives Medicaid money for other services. Both versions seek to strip Planned Parenthood from receiving any Medicaid payments. The Senate version stops the payments for one year, while the House version ends them for 10 years. Limits on retroactive coverage Currently, states must cover Medicaid benefits retroactively for three months before an eligible individual signs up for coverage. The Senate and House bills would reduce that to one month. Co-payments for services For those whose incomes are over 100% of the federal poverty level, which in 2025 is $15,650 for an individual and $32,150 for a family of four, states would be required to impose co-payments of up to $35 for medical services, with some exclusions, including for primary care. Both the Senate and House bills contain this provision, but the Senate version would make exceptions for certain types of health care providers.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk Tears Into Trump Over Budget in Infuriated Posting Spree
Elon Musk threw himself back into the federal fray over the weekend, drawing more attention to the conservative opposition to the president's tax extension bill. Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' would extend his 2017 tax cuts for millionaires and corporations at a cost to critical social programs such as Medicaid. On Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Senate legislation would increase the deficit by more than $3.9 trillion over the next 10 years. After Democrats forced a full read-through of the 1,018-page text on Saturday (which took approximately 16 hours), Senate Republicans initiated a 'vote-a-rama,' in which lawmakers can propose an unlimited number of amendments as they vote back-to-back on the legislation. But by Monday, it wasn't clear that the upper chamber actually had the support of the nation in moving to pass the bill—CNN data chief Harry Enten analyzed five recent polls that cumulatively indicated the bill is historically unpopular, with 49 percent of the country believing it will hurt their families as opposed to the 23 percent who think it will help them. And despite publicly stitching up his feud with the president several weeks ago, Musk was right there with the majority of the American public in resisting the bill. 'Polls show that this bill is political suicide for the Republican Party,' Musk posted Saturday, sharing polling from polling firm the Tarrance Group suggesting that 58 percent of all registered voters in the country agreed with his previous assessment that the bill is 'pork-filled.' Musk also retweeted a statement from North American Building Trades Union President Sean McGarvey, who torched Trump's bill as 'a massive insult' to American construction workers, and underscored that 'critical infrastructure projects essential to that future are being sacrificed at the altar of ideology.' 'We are especially outraged because all of this, all of these job losses for hardworking Americans, is being done for one reason only: to make room for more tax breaks for the wealthiest corporations and individuals in America,' McGarvey wrote. The multibillionaire Musk went head-to-head with Trump earlier this month, when he threatened to change the tune of his Republican contributions and instead use his enormous wealth to influence the country to 'fire all politicians who betrayed the American people.' Republicans plan to offset the expensive tax cut by slashing some $880 billion from Medicaid. But Musk's issue with Trump's plan has little to do with its slashing of programs aimed at supporting and uplifting the most vulnerable Americans—instead, he's condemned the bill on the basis that it would effectively undo his work atop the Department of Government Efficiency, which was tasked with paring down government spending. Musk was Trump's top financial backer in the 2024 election, spending at least $250 million in the final months of the president's campaign after Trump was shot in July. Musk had also promised to funnel funds toward other Republicans, declaring in the wake of the November election that his super PACs would 'play a significant role in primaries.' In the following months, Musk threatened to use his money to fund primary challengers to Trump's agenda and go after Democrats, and that he would be preparing 'for the midterms and any intermediate elections, as well as looking at elections at the district attorney level.' Trump's centerpiece legislation currently faces a self-imposed July 4 deadline.
