South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

SamuraiBlue · Feb 2, 2016

No going through the chain is through Japan EEZ. There are no open water in that region reaching the Pacific.

PanAsian · Feb 2, 2016

SamuraiBlue said:
No going through the chain is through Japan EEZ. There are no open water in that region reaching the Pacific.

"EEZ" is not "territorial waters" and "open water" is not a defined term in discussing "FON". You will need to be more specific and get into Japan's interpretation of its maritime claims and its interpretation of international maritime norms if you intend a meaningful discussion.

SamuraiBlue · Feb 2, 2016

The US FON operation does not go through territorial waters. Freedom of Navigation rights are through international(open) water and EEZs.

Brumby · Feb 2, 2016

PanAsian said:
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.

Can you please state your point because you are saying a bunch of things without getting to the point. FON is freedom to navigate the global commons. Whether they are military or civilian vessels is irrelevant because that is the basic doctrine behind laws of the sea i.e. freedom of movement. If you are saying FONOPs is gunboat diplomacy, you need to justify your statement by reasoning or else they are simply assertions. There is a basic principle in contest of ideas " assertion made without basis can be dismissed without basis".

PanAsian said:
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.

I don't think anyone is asking for an explanation regarding the basis of the Aleutian passage. There might be questions concerning the intention but that is simply superfluous to this subject.

PanAsian said:
However there are key differences between the two "innocent passage"s by China through the Aleutians and by the US through the Paracels:

Sorry there is only type of "innocent passage" mentioned in UNCLOS and its meaning and application is very clear. I am unclear whether the Aleutian passage is "transit passage" or "innocent passage" but is unimportant for purpose of this discussion.

PanAsian said:
- 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.

There is a difference between FON and FONOP and their usage cannot be interchanged because they actually have different meaning. It is appropriate to describe the Chinese passage as FON because that is precisely what happened through the Aleutians. In other words. the Chinese freely navigated through that straits without hindrance or fuss by the US. How else can you describe it?

PanAsian said:
- The US "FONOP" was part of a campaign, with specific stated targeting of China.

Yes FONOP as a program was introduced when UNCLOS was codified and has been in place for more than 30 years. However your statement that the US specifically targets China is simply not true because every year the US would release a report on FONOPs undertaken throughout the year. I have posted one of this report previously on this forum. The report I mentioned is publicly available if you care to google.

PanAsian said:
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.

In principle, FONOP is designed to target excessive maritime claims and so the program is meant to be visible whenever such claims exist or is known to exist.

PanAsian said:
- 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.

As Jeff repeatedly pointed out, people will see the issue the way they want to see it regardless of the facts or the absence of any basis in their conclusion. For example, in the recent FONOP significant effort was made to explain it was innocent passage. That statement itself projects a lot in terms of information but sadly I see assertions made that this FON violated China's sovereignty. There is simply no truth in such assertions but yet it doesn't stop such mindless statement being made.
Kindly explain how does the recent FON aided or abetted rival claims?

PanAsian said:
The Chinese military vessel "innocent passage" does not have any such effectively hostile context.

For the sake of argument how do you come to the conclusion that the Chinese action is not hostile but the US is? The main thing about the Chinese passage is no one made a deal out of it except the Chinese makes a big deal out of any corresponding event. By the way, "innocent passage" and hostile actions re mutually exclusive by simple reasoning. In other words, to claim that the US conducted "innocent passage" which are hostile is self contradictory.

Brumby · Feb 2, 2016

SamuraiBlue said:
The US FON operation does not go through territorial waters. Freedom of Navigation rights are through international(open) water and EEZs.

Sorry SB that Is not true. The recent FONOP was in territorial waters because the challenge was against the need to provide advance notice of "innocent passage". I agree that FON in its broadest sense are rights found in the high seas, EEZ and then territorial seas with different shades of consideration.

SamuraiBlue · Feb 2, 2016

Brumby said:
Sorry SB that Is not true. The recent FONOP was in territorial waters because the challenge was against the need to provide advance notice of "innocent passage". I agree that FON in its broadest sense are rights found in the high seas, EEZ and then territorial seas with different shades of consideration.

I have not heard of any US FON operation in the SEA seas going nearer then 400m so they have not gone into territorial waters.
FON is not allowed in territorial waters since FON includes launch of aerial vehicles from the vessels as well as non announced passage. You are required to announce passage before hand through territorial waters.

Brumby · Feb 2, 2016

SamuraiBlue said:
I have not heard of any US FON operation in the SEA seas going nearer then 400m so they have not gone into territorial waters.
FON is not allowed in territorial waters since FON includes launch of aerial vehicles from the vessels as well as non announced passage. You are required to announce passage before hand through territorial waters.

Maybe we have a different understanding of the word FON. My understanding of FONOP is broader in scope than what you have described. Recently, the FONOP conducted in the Paracel Island chain was inside the 12 nm and so it was inside territorial waters. As such it was an innocent passage which did not include launch of aerial vehicle. In that particular instance, the US regarded the need to provide advance notice for innocent passage as excessive and hence the FON was made without giving prior notice.

Jura The idiot · Feb 2, 2016

according to NavyTimes
South China Sea standoff: 'Both sides need to step back'

The U.S. Navy's first freedom of navigation patrol of 2016 to counter Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea has refocused attention on the continuing tensions in East Asia.

The destroyer Curtis Wilbur’s patrol of Triton Island, part of the Paracel Islands chain, on Jan. 30 came a little more than three months after the destroyer Lassen conducted its much-publicized patrol of the Spratly Islands, where China is building artificial islands on top of reefs.

China immediately condemned the most recent patrol and called for the U.S. to focus more on building trust between the two nations.

The long-running conflict in the South China Sea has become violent in the past. In 1974, China and South Vietnam fought over the Paracel Islands, with China ultimately gaining the upper hand. Today, Vietnam, Taiwan and China all lay claim to the islands.

To better understand the conflict, Navy Times contacted Zhiqun Zhu, who heads The China Institute at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania, where he is an associate professor of political science and international relations.

We asked him about the Paracel Islands, China’s claims in the South China Sea and about the risk of war in the region over competing claims.

Q. Vietnam and China have shot at each other over the Paracel Islands in the past, why are these islands important?

A. It's not just these particular islands. For China, all of the islands in the South China Sea are important.

The Paracels are interesting because until 1974, the South Vietnamese controlled them and Chinese forces drove them away. From China's perspective, this has been resolved, there should be no dispute here — the issue is settled. But in the late 1970s and 1980s, with the discovery of oil and gas resources, all these areas become controversial again.

Q. What's the basis of China's claim to virtually all of the South China Sea?

A. China's official argument is that since ancient times the Chinese have used these islands. They argue that — and this is very controversial — China was the first country to discover those islands and use them for fishing and other purposes. They even have found old European maps that show those islands belong to China

So from the Chinese perspective, they make their claims from a position of, "We found it first." For the later claimants, such as the Vietnamese, they make their claims on things like the proximity of the islands to their homeland. But the Chinese claim that they owned the islands before international law was developed. So it’s a very messy situation.

Q. Why is the United States so interested in what goes on in the South China Sea?

A. Officially, the United States holds that freedom of navigation is important. But I think fundamentally the United States will not allow a challenger to replace it, either regionally or globally. So I think the objective here is to prevent the rise of a challenger, and China is challenging the region.

Q. Is all of this building to something? Could there be some conference, a la Versailles in 1919, for the South China Sea that can settle these claims short of a regional conflict?

A. It's very difficult for today's China because Xi Jinping is a very tough, strong leader. I don't think he is going to compromise or yield to any external pressure. In the 1980s and 1990s there were some proposals to share resources ... but today, with China becoming more assertive, I don't see China dealing with smaller claimants on an equal footing.

And with the U.S. sailing warships in the area, you can see the shadow of great power competition between the U.S. and China, and it’s getting more complicated now. It's not just a matter of five claimants in the South China Sea, you have external powers — the United States, Japan, Australia — all getting involved.

I don't think it’s possible that these parties will sit down and talk about this in a peaceful way. I think a militarization of the region is a real possibility.

Q. Are the parties too entrenched now for a political solution?

A. I think so. It may even run out of control.

It really has become a competition between the United States and China. So they would have to sit down and figure out how to realistically deal with the new political and economic landscape of East Asia.

Q. Taking this kind of confrontational approach to its logical extreme, is there any advantage to either the U.S. or China in going to war over this?

A. I don't think either China or the United States wants to clash with each other directly. But I think for the United States it’s essential to send a message to China that you can't just push people around. But for China, China feels that, 'All these islands belong to us. I have every right to do what I want on these islands, they are not militarized, so why are you sending warships to challenge us?' They see it as provocative.

I think both sides need to take a step back.

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

SamuraiBlue · Feb 2, 2016

Brumby said:
Maybe we have a different understanding of the word FON. My understanding of FONOP is broader in scope than what you have described. Recently, the FONOP conducted in the Paracel Island chain was inside the 12 nm and so it was inside territorial waters. As such it was an innocent passage which did not include launch of aerial vehicle. In that particular instance, the US regarded the need to provide advance notice for innocent passage as excessive and hence the FON was made without giving prior notice.

That is because the US does not acknowledge territorial water to reclaimed land nor reef that are not above high tide.

1. A low-tide elevation is a naturally formed area of land which is surrounded by and above water at low tide but submerged at high tide. Where a low-tide elevation is situated wholly or partly at a distance not exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea from the mainland or an island, the low-water line on that elevation may be used as the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea.

2. Where a low-tide elevation is wholly situated at a distance exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea from the mainland or an island, it has no territorial sea of its own.

Brumby · Feb 2, 2016

SamuraiBlue said:
That is because the US does not acknowledge territorial water to reclaimed land nor reef that are not above high tide.

There is no suggested evidence from the recent FONOP by USSCurtis Wilbur that is consistent with your view.

An American guided missile destroyer conducted a freedom of navigation operation within 12 nautical miles of a disputed island claimed by China in the South China Sea Paracel island chain, Pentagon officials confirmed to USNI News on Saturday morning.

USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54) came within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island in the Paracels — without prior notification — in an early Saturday morning operation local time (late Friday night EST), according to a statement from the Department of Defense.

“This operation challenged attempts by the three claimants, China, Taiwan and Vietnam, to restrict navigation rights and freedoms around the features they claim by policies that require prior permission or notification of transit within territorial seas,” Pentagon spokesman Mark Wright said in a Saturday morning statement.

South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

SamuraiBlue

Captain

PanAsian

Major

SamuraiBlue

Captain

Brumby

Major

Brumby

Major

SamuraiBlue

Captain

Brumby

Major

Jura The idiot

General

SamuraiBlue

Captain

Brumby

Major