I also don't see US FONOPS as gunboat diplomacy, because I doubt there's real threat of military force against China if it doesn't agree with US views. On the other hand, PanAsian is technically correct in calling it by that noun, because it's the very definition from Webster dictionary.
Frankly, China's own FONOP in the Bearing Straits implies either it agrees with US view, or it wants it both ways. The former is good, and civilized nations can't allowed the latter to stand.
gunboat diplomacy
noun
Definition of gunboat diplomacy
Popularity: Bottom 10% of words
- : diplomacy backed by the use or threat of military force
The US is not threatening anyone, or said they will military force for anything here.
They are simply sailing naval vessels through the ocean.
Should we presume then that anytime the PLAN sails near any other land mass that this is gun boat diplomacy?
Of course not.
People see what they want to see.
An action indeed appears to have different meaning based on context, so depending on what, and how much if any, context is taken into account an action will mean different things.
Only expeditionary powers actually care about military vessel "FON" as it can only serve three practical purposes:
- Expedient transit of military vessels en route to somewhere else.
- As a show of force of military vessels, where this is unwanted then intimidation or harassment is inherent.
- As a cover for forward deployment of military vessels up to point blank range against a target as intent can change on a dime once presence is allowed or established.
This concept and practice trace a direct lineage to colonial era gunboat diplomacy.
The Chinese does have explaining to do regarding their Aleutians transit as to whether the same standard applies to everyone everywhere, and just which standard are they going to abide by.
However there are key differences between the two "innocent passage"s by China through the Aleutians and by the US through the Paracels:
- China's was not an explicit "FONOP" to challenge local authority, though this is a moot point as the US appropriately held up the occasion as an example of Chinese use of military vessel "FON" as universally interpreted and practiced by the US, and the US behaved as it expects others to behave.
- The US "FONOP" was part of a campaign, with specific stated targeting of China. China's was not part of a "FONOP" campaign, though there is always a first and time will tell with this one. Obviously the US was targeted even though there was no stated targeting though this is a moot point per above as the US sees this as acceptable rather than unacceptable behavior.
- The most serious practical difference even if conceptually unrelated as the US is keen to remind everyone, is that the US military vessel "innocent passage" occurred around disputed territory under Chinese control in the larger context of other US actions aiding and abetting rival claimants, effectively taking sides in the territorial dispute (in line with unofficial statements by relevant US officials) despite official US statements to the contrary. The Chinese military vessel "innocent passage" does not have any such effectively hostile context.
