PLA Navy news, pics and videos

by78 said:

A very nice photo. China has upped the size of the national flags flown on her naval ships.

(2248x1402)

Click to expand...

PanAsian said:

Any information on the date and/or occasion of this photo?

Click to expand...

joshuatree said:

Actually been wanting but was busy all day yesterday. Glad you are able to post it. My comment would be how is this a problem since Japan does not disagree with the US's argument of FON? It's not the territorial waters 12 NM and less. UNCLOS doesn't explicitly list any conditions regarding the contiguous zone so it would fall under the guidelines of an EEZ. And the US routinely sends their ABs into others' EEZ to patrol and conduct surveillance. Infact, what Japan is alarmed about would be along the lines of what China has been jostling with the US on.

Click to expand...

NEW YORK – In the early hours of June 9, a Chinese Jiangkai I frigate entered waters near Japan’s disputed Senkaku Islands, called the Diaoyu by China. The move sparked an immediate response from the Japanese government, which summoned the Chinese ambassador at 2 a.m. to lodge a protest.

When the islands were nationalized by Japan in 2012, incursions by Chinese ships and aircraft increased dramatically, from practically zero to sometimes several per day. This most recent incursion was unique because it was the first time China has used a naval vessel instead of a coast guard or other state ship to venture near the islands.

One senior Japanese defense official said the warship’s presence meant “the level of crisis has gone up one notch.” However, both the frigate’s route and Japan’s response may actually have confirmed that Japan really has the upper hand in the Senkaku dispute.

The Chinese frigate did not enter Japan’s claimed territorial waters around the islands, which extend 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) from shore, but instead sailed into what is called the Contiguous Zone, which extends for 24 nautical miles. Under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), states have limited enforcement rights within the contiguous zone, mostly related to ensuring foreign vessels comply with customs and environmental laws prior to entering their sovereign territorial waters. For Japan, there was thus no basis under UNCLOS to protest the Chinese ship, as there are no restrictions on passage through the contiguous zone.

But because China does not recognize Japan’s claim over the Senkakus, the presence of a warship for the first time is uniquely sensitive. In a statement, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said, “the fact that (China) sent a naval ship to the contiguous waters of our Senkaku Islands for the first time is an act that unilaterally increases tension.” China responded to the Japanese complaint saying, “The Diaoyu Islands … are Chinese territory. For China’s military vessels to pass through waters under the country’s own jurisdiction is reasonable and legitimate. …”

Japan is rightly concerned by any new activity in the East China Sea. Chinese ships and aircraft enter both the contiguous zone and the territorial waters around the Senkakus hundreds of times each year. China has also sent massive new Coast Guard cutters bigger than U.S. Navy destroyers to the region. In response, Japan created a new dedicated Coast Guard unit of 12 cutters tasked exclusively with patrolling the waters around the Senkakus, and established a new long-range radar facility on the island of Yonaguni that can track Chinese ships and aircraft approaching the disputed islands.

Japan has also substantially increased its involvement in Southeast Asian affairs, and the South China Sea disputes especially. Both Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Defense Minister Gen Nakatani have repeatedly voiced concern over China’s island reclamation and construction activities in the South China Sea. Last year, Japan was reportedly considering patrolling the sea jointly with the United States, though this has not yet materialized.

Through the end of this week, Japan will participate in an advanced combined naval exercise called Malabar in the Philippine Sea. Malabar was previously just a bilateral exercise between the U.S. and India; Japan became a permanent participant in 2015, then stayed on to conduct two weeks of exercises with the U.S. in the South China Sea. Japan has also made significant security overtures to the Philippines, including numerous port visits to Subic Bay by Japanese warships and a new security cooperation agreement that includes the transfer of Japanese planes and other military equipment.

China’s only response has been verbal condemnations and statements in the vein that Japan had “maliciously created tensions” and was “not a party concerned to the South China Sea issue.” At the recent Shangri La Dialogues, the Chinese delegate reportedly warned Japan’s vice defense minister “to respect China’s interests and concerns, and not to intervene in or hype up regional tensions.”

The PLAN frigate’s incursion may have been a signal to Japan not to take the status quo in the East China Sea for granted if it persists in involving itself in the South China Sea. However, this single Chinese warship in the Senkakus, though certainly unwelcome, appears an anemic response in contrast to Japan’s activity in the South China Sea.

Further, if the Jiangkai I-class vessel was meant to probe Japan’s resolve and test the U.S. defense commitment to the islands, it was probably counterproductive. So far Japan’s response has been swift, proportional and appropriate, including an announcement that it was considering supplementing its Coast Guard patrols of the Senkakus with warships from the Maritime Self-Defense Force under a new provision to allow the Self-Defense Forces to perform policing duties in extreme situations. For its part, the U.S. State Department reiterated pledges by both President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Ash Carter that the Senkakus fall under the U.S.-Japan security treaty, obligating the United States to defend Japanese territory.

Finally, the Japanese response aside, the Chinese warship’s route may have inadvertently weakened China’s political claim to the islands. It’s tempting to think of China’s move as a type of freedom of navigation operation (FONOP), much like the operations the U.S. has executed in the South China Sea since last fall by sailing warships within 12 nautical miles of China’s reclaimed features.

Those operations were intended to challenge Chinese claims to territorial waters based off of those artificial islands. However, prominent UNCLOS experts have criticized those FONOPS for sending mixed signals. Because they were conducted consistent with what UNCLOS calls “innocent passage,” a right extended to foreign ships to transit within another country’s territorial waters, the operations may have implied U.S. recognition of the legitimacy of Chinese claims to those waters.

In fact, FONOPs are not intended to contest sovereign territorial claims at all, only excessive maritime claims based off of that territory, which assumes the question of sovereignty is settled.

If China believed its warships were “passing through waters under the country’s own jurisdiction,” they would not have so scrupulously avoided Japan’s claimed territorial waters around the Senkakus. By remaining in the contiguous zone, China showed either a de facto recognition of Japan’s claims or that it was unwilling to risk a militarized response from Japan and its ally the U.S. In return, the Chinese have earned increased vigilance by Japan and confirmation of the U.S. security guarantee.

While it may look like China was probing the Senkakus to escalate its dispute with Japan in the East China Sea, it actually revealed how weak its position in the dispute really is.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

A recent article on this issue is provided below :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Whilst I agree that the primary purpose of FONOP is to challenge excessive maritime claims, it need not necessarily be dependent on territorial determination as a condition precedent. In other words, FONOP's and territorial determination are not necessarily mutually dependent events.

Click to expand...

LesAdieux said:

the author knows little to write that piece.

to avoid escalating situation in the Diaoyu area, China and jpn have reached an agreement that neither side should send navy ships into the territorial and the contiguous water. again it's japn breached it first.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

Do you have a source concerning such an agreement and that Japan breached such an agreement?

Click to expand...

LesAdieux said:

again it's due to rear adm Yin, who said: "we have an agreement with them that neither side should send navy ships into the water" it's probably an understanding, it may apply to the air force as well which means no overfly.

the jp ship breached by following the Russian ship into the water.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

Do you have a link that actually reported on what rear adm Yin said? Typically such agreement would be widely reported and not simply some understanding. I am sceptical that Japan somehow agreed to such an arrangement.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

The contiguous zone is an area seaward of the territorial sea in which the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to prevent or punish infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitary laws and regulations that occur within its territory or territorial sea (Article 33). It is differentiated to that of EEZ within UNCLOS. How in practice it is different is not entirely clear to me.
In my view, the recent incident is one of politics rather than legal.

Click to expand...

joshuatree said:

However, Japan protesting clearly undermines the US FON argument because again, it's not the territorial sea. Loitering around is not strictly prohibited.

Click to expand...

joshuatree said:

Infact, the US argues and uses might to demonstrate that it is a right to be able to sail expediently with no offensive activity through a territorial sea, and it is a right to loiter and conduct military surveillance in EEZ waters. This has been a critical point of contention between the US and China with China protesting and the US arguing China doesn't have a point to protest on. This would be exactly what Japan is doing now and considering Japan is the US's closest ally in this region, it's a serious contradiction. Do what we say, not what we do. I know you mentioned the contiguous zone is different from an EEZ and a coastal State has rights in the contiguous zone but again, UNCLOS does not provide enough clarity. The same in Article 56 for EEZs with ambiguous wording such as "(c) other rights and duties provided for in this Convention."

Click to expand...

joshuatree said:

The article is a desperate attempt to spin the situation pro-Japanese. I concur with you, FON is not dependent on sovereign territorial determination. Critics of the US FON on Chinese occupied features in the Spratlys on implicitly acknowledging a territorial sea around the features are ignorant of the fact that adjacent to certain features are bonafide rocks above high tide so there is a legit territorial sea in the area. And certain Chinese occupied features in the Spratlys were naturally rocks above high tide. So the US is aware of legitimate territorial seas, not necessarily who it belongs to.

Click to expand...

joshuatree said:

This article is trying to imply that since the PLAN vessel did not enter the territorial sea, therefore it acknowledges Japanese sovereignty by being mindful of the territorial sea is contradictory again to the US position. Furthermore, it forgets that the CCG already on numerous occasions have entered the territorial sea and loitered there as well in full defiance.

Click to expand...