PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)

antiterror13 said:

wondering whether the US would allow any warship (i.e Chinese, Russian) passing their EEZ, and just outside 12nm territorial waters?

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

Yes, the US would. In fact China has occasionally sent surveillance vessels on similar missions I think to Guam?
But that's kind of a red herring given China's discomfort with US surveillance and military ships passing within its EEZ is also dependent on the overall deployment pattern of US forces in westpac, rather than only the presence of the ships sailing through China's EEZ.

I'm sure China would be far less opposed to US surveillance ships passing through its EEZ if there were no USN bases west of hawaii and no USN presence within the first island chain.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Although there are minor differences in the whole, and a few major points of issue, T=the fact is, Blackstone is right. The vast majority of nations in the maritime environment agree with the US stance on freedom of navigation...and understandably so.

Click to expand...

Under Article 310, States retain the right to make declarations, though such statements are illegitimate if they ‘purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of the provisions of this Convention in their application to that State.’ [50] Some states have exercised their Article 310 right by making declarations on the issue of military activities in the EEZ.[51] For instance, Brazil, Bangladesh, Cape Verde, Malaysia, India, and Pakistan have all expressed concern over the ability of foreign military vessels to engage in certain activities within the EEZ. [52] In their declarations, these states require consent before a foreign ship may conduct military activities.[53]
To illustrate, Brazil declared in 1988: The Brazilian Government understands that the provisions of the Convention do not authorize other States to carry out military exercises or manoeuvres, in particular those involving the use of weapons or explosives, in the exclusive economic zone without the consent of the coastal State.[54]

Click to expand...

States such as Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have protested these interpretations as unduly restrictive on navigational freedoms and as inconsistent with Article 310 and UNCLOS.[55]
For example, the Netherlands declared in 1996: The Convention does not authorize the coastal State to prohibit military exercises in its exclusive economic zone. The rights of the coastal State in its exclusive economic zone are listed in article 56 of the Convention, and no such authority is given to the coastal State. In the exclusive economic zone all States enjoy the freedoms of navigation and overflight, subject to the relevant provisions of the Convention.[56]

These declarations demonstrate the sharp disagreement and variance in interpretation regarding the legality of conducting military activities in the EEZ of another country.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

I would agree that saying the US is isolated in its position is not correct, but I'm not sure if the vast majority of nations agree with the US on military freedom of navigation within their EEZs either.

If there is a more updated and comprehensive list of where all nations currently stand on the issue I'd be interested in seeing it.

I quote the relevant bits:

Note, it seems like it is the developing nations with less capable navies which are claiming that EEZs do now allow foreign military vessels to engage in certain activities.

Then there's the other side, developed nations with traditionally more capable navies

Click to expand...

antiterror13 said:

how about to the mainland ?

Click to expand...

Pentagon Spokesman said:

“We are aware that the Russian ships Viktor Leonov and Nikolay Chiker are currently operating in waters that are beyond U.S. territorial seas. We respect the freedom of all nations, as reflected in international law, to operate military vessels beyond the territorial seas of other nations.”

Click to expand...

shen said:

This is another one of those lies that have been repeated enough to be taken for granted by many well intentioned but uninformed people. China is far from alone or even in the minority when it comes to objecting to foreign warships operating in territorial and EEZ water. The list of countries in Chinese camp is actually getting bigger every year. US is becoming globally isolated in this regard. Refer to article posted by Panasian in the SCS Strategy thread about 19 countries challenged by American warships in 2014 alone under the US "Freedom of Navigation Program".

Click to expand...

Here is a short sample of countries that disagree with American interpretation of "freedom of navigation".

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

delft said:

There is a major difference between passing merchant ships through your EEZ and even through your territorial waters, which should always be allowed, and agreeing intimidating foreign naval ships to close to twelve miles of your coast.

Click to expand...

antiterror13 said:

wondering whether the US would allow any warship (i.e Chinese, Russian) passing their EEZ, and just outside 12nm territorial waters?

Click to expand...

Blackstone said:

Of course the US would! The Soviets regularly patrolled up and down US coasts. Also, PLAN had a spy ship off Hawaii during RIMPAC2014. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and turnabout is fair play.

Click to expand...