South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Brumby said:

I am sure all the conceivable scenarios that we discussed and more are being considered, played out and contingently prepared. I think the US actions and what they would do as part of the transit is more predictable. I do not know how to read Chinese probable actions and is more of an unknown to me.

A transit passage by nature is benign. A lot is dependent on the Chinese side on whether to treat it as a non event or not.

Click to expand...

How US warships conduct FON-related transit will be a big deal. I say that because senior USN officers recently made several comments about showing FON by sailing anywhere international laws allow. So, the way I see it, it's lose-lose no matter what happens now, because if Obama orders his admirals to stay out of 12-mile limit, then US loses credibility. Alternatively, if Obama orders his admirals to sail to within 500m of artificial islands, and PLAN shadow US ships with a strong force, then the region think US still stronger, but China is serious about challenging US military primacy. US might still lose some credibility, but not as much as talk loudly and carry no stick. Finally, China might use US show of force as cover to militarize some of their new artificial islands, thereby increasing regional tension.

All of the above are lose-lose, unless China backs down and accept continued US primacy. And what are the chances of that? My guess is slim to none, and slim already left town.

Bltizo said:

I feel like this is a bit of a straw man scenario isn't it... why on earth would Chinese fishing boats seek a confrontation with the USN? The very suggestion actually made me laugh out load -- do these hypothetical fishermen of yours have a death wish?

More likely that any USN presence would be closely monitored by Chinese naval ships in the area as well, and we know the USN and Chinese Navy are not going to be stupid enough to physically butt against each other.

Click to expand...

I would not rule out such behaviour because we have seen Chinese fishing boat ramming the Japanese Coast Guard and the Cowpen incident. Presumably they don't have a death wish. I would not think it is inconceivable because there are precedents.

Brumby said:

I am sure all the conceivable scenarios that we discussed and more are being considered, played out and contingently prepared. I think the US actions and what they would do as part of the transit is more predictable. I do not know how to read Chinese probable actions and is more of an unknown to me.

A transit passage by nature is benign. A lot is dependent on the Chinese side on whether to treat it as a non event or not.

Click to expand...

If it's within 12nm, I'm sure there will likely be radio challenges with the number of them dependent on the actual path of the US naval ships themselves, but if worst comes to worst and the USN just parks a couple of Burkes within 12nm of the reclaimed islands, China might match it with its own small naval flotilla and park it alongside, and see who blinks first -- by blink, I don't mean to suggest they will actually fire at each other, rather I mean who may leave first.
China's not going to start WWIII by shooting at USN vessels, but at the very least it will be a show of strength on China's part that it will intend to defend its perception of its territorial waters. The US may choose to permanently continue entering 12nm of the reclaimed islands into the future as part of standard practice... but to be honest, I can't see China being too upset about it, after all, USN assets can't touch the reclaimed islands nor physically interfere with the reclamation process without shooting or boarding Chinese flagged ships or the reclaimed islands themselves and thus starting WWIII.

Blackstone said:

All of the above are lose-lose, unless China backs down and accept continued US primacy. And what are the chances of that? My guess is slim to none, and slim already left town.

Click to expand...

FON is not about US primacy and coupling it is misleading regarding US intentions. FON is a fundamental right associated with law of the sea and is a well established principle even before US ascendency. Global prosperity and trade has been undergirded by countries generally respecting this principle. The US is vocal over it especially since UNCLOS and the introduction of EEZ has made it a point to ensure FON continues to be respected.

Brumby said:

I would not rule out such behaviour because we have seen Chinese fishing boat ramming the Japanese Coast Guard and the Cowpen incident. Presumably they don't have a death wish. I would not think it is inconceivable because there are precedents.

Click to expand...

The problem with precedent in these kind of scenarios is that they're not always reliable. For instance, just because the Philippines Coast Guard shot up and killed the crew of a Taiwanese fishing boat a few years back doesn't necessarily mean they're always going to continue being trigger happy to every fishing boat with Chinese writing on it.

As for the JCG and the Cowpens incident, both are also quite different to fishing boats deliberately ramming USN vessels.
-In the case of the JCG incident, I think it's still unsettled as to whether it was a deliberate ramming or the JCG cutter turning into the path of the fishing vessel... but regardless of culpability in that case, it is definitely quite common for fishing vessels to be willing to risk more with coast guard vessels of other nations compared to actual military naval vessels.
-In the case of Cowpens, that was also a naval vessel coming into close proximity with another naval vessel, not a fishing vessel with a naval vessel.

Though now that I think about it, it is plausible for a naval vessel to come into contact and ram another naval vessel, such as the case of 1988 Black Sea incident... however the likelihood of a fishing vessel trying to do that with a naval vessel is ludicrous suggestion.

Brumby said:

FON is not about US primacy and coupling it is misleading regarding US intentions. FON is a fundamental right associated with law of the sea and is a well established principle even before US ascendency. Global prosperity and trade has been undergirded by countries generally respecting this principle. The US is vocal over it especially since UNCLOS and the introduction of EEZ has made it a point to ensure FON continues to be respected.

Click to expand...

I think we've debated quite extensively as to whether there is a difference between military FON vs civilian FON, compared to "overall" FON...

And I think we do at least both agree that a disagreement exists in its interpretation.

Bltizo said:

If it's within 12nm, I'm sure there will likely be radio challenges with the number of them dependent on the actual path of the US naval ships themselves, but if worst comes to worst and the USN just parks a couple of Burkes within 12nm of the reclaimed islands, China might match it with its own small naval flotilla and park it alongside, and see who blinks first -- by blink, I don't mean to suggest they will actually fire at each other, rather I mean who may leave first.

Click to expand...

The US plan is regarding FON and in my mind it is a transit through the 12 nm to make that point. Implicitly in that is the non recognition of the 12 nm limit. The Chinese position is that the 12 nm is territorial sea and is off limits which the US do not recognise. It is a point of contention and also a point of solution depending on how each side plays it. Even territorial water has the right of innocent passage under international law as per Aleution Islands incident. Both sides can claim victory, the US as FON and the Chinese as innocent passage. It becomes a problem if both sides deviate from this narrow path. The US will probably navigate this path, the uncertainty is with the Chinese.

Brumby said:

The US plan is regarding FON and in my mind it is a transit through the 12 nm to make that point. Implicitly in that is the non recognition of the 12 nm limit. The Chinese position is that the 12 nm is territorial sea and is off limits which the US do not recognise. It is a point of contention and also a point of solution depending on how each side plays it. Even territorial water has the right of innocent passage under international law as per Aleution Islands incident. Both sides can claim victory, the US as FON and the Chinese as innocent passage. It becomes a problem if both sides deviate from this narrow path. The US will probably navigate this path, the uncertainty is with the Chinese.

Click to expand...

If the US claim innocent passage and their ships continue through without lingering, China will likely make radio warnings and that would be it.
The severity of response from China would be a function of the path of the USN vessels through those waters in the first place... to a limit, of course.

The way I see it, China loses very little even if the US continues entering 12nm within the reclaimed islands on a constant basis, so long as China continues maintaining its own show of strength in the area and maintaining its own warnings and using non-lethal responses. The US can claim to be supporting FON, China can say it's both defending its territory while claiming to be exercising restraint and China also still gets to continue to work on its islands unmolested. Win-win.

Bltizo said:

I think we've debated quite extensively as to whether there is a difference between military FON vs civilian FON, compared to "overall" FON...

And I think we do at least both agree that a disagreement exists in its interpretation.

Click to expand...

International law does not differentiate between military and non military FON. I think it is a Chinese concept that has limited acceptance besides maybe Brazil and some minor nations.

Bltizo said:

If the US claim innocent passage and their ships continue through without lingering, China will likely make radio warnings and that would be it.
The severity of response from China would be a function of the path of the USN vessels through those waters in the first place... to a limit, of course.

Click to expand...

The US would not claim innocent passage because it defeats the point of FON. The Chinese might downplay the incident and publicly views the transit as innocent passage (maybe citing the Aleution Islands incident) with both sides sticking to the script. In this way, both can claim their own victory.