South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Unfortunately some of the difficulty in conducting a 'FON Patrol' within 12nm of a Chinese island is of the US' own making. The talking heads spoke too strong, too early, about specific Chinese reclamation projects without mentioning other regional players same activities. That made it easy for any and all to interpret as a direct challenge to China rather than a global principle. Helpful for those countries having rival territorial claims with China but not the best approach, as I see it, to managing US-China relations or US interests.

Further complication in the form of a 'FON Patrol' through Chinese waters will highlight China as the target and damage US claims to impartiality when it comes to territorial disputes in the region. As an example I will quote from the posted a couple pages back, comments by Filipino Government Officials:

Officials in the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

said they had been told of the planned patrols in the last several days, and Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV, the chairman of the national defense and security committee, said Monday that he welcomed the decision.

In Manila, Mr. Trillanes said the patrols should move ahead. “It’s quite risky, but we need to know right now to what extent China is willing to go in order to defend these newly created islands,” he said in a telephone interview.

Click to expand...

Albert F. del Rosario, the Philippine secretary of foreign affairs, said the American patrols would help maintain stability in the region.

“Failure to challenge false claims of sovereignty would undermine this order and lead China to the false conclusion that its claims are accepted as a fait accompli,” Mr. del Rosario said in a statement.

Click to expand...

The danger of China perceiving closer US Patrols as a provocation and step back from the stated position of US impartiality is a real one. Even more so when other territorial rivals use these events to weaken Chinese claims and strengthen their own. The Chinese response could be measured in this regard and not simply through the prism of right to FON as most assume. The real question in light of US interests: What is gained?

If the USN conducts a patrol that sails within 12 nm of not just the Chinese features, but the other claimants as well, then it could still demonstrate its FON stance but mute the opportunity for the other claimants to capitalize on this cruise.

If it only sails within the Chinese features, then the Chinese could potentially sail within 12 nm of the other claimant features to counter rivals piggybacking of the USN's FON patrol.

joshuatree said:

If the USN conducts a patrol that sails within 12 nm of not just the Chinese features, but the other claimants as well, then it could still demonstrate its FON stance but mute the opportunity for the other claimants to capitalize on this cruise.

If it only sails within the Chinese features, then the Chinese could potentially sail within 12 nm of the other claimant features to counter rivals piggybacking of the USN's FON patrol.

Click to expand...

The USN could sail through a different claimants 12nm limit each month, including China's, and issue FON press releases as it does. If the need to protect the principles of FON is so urgent then that would be the best approach. But I no longer ascribe FON as the sole objective for these activities so don't see that happening.

Zool said:

Unfortunately some of the difficulty in conducting a 'FON Patrol' within 12nm of a Chinese island is of the US' own making. The talking heads spoke too strong, too early, about specific Chinese reclamation projects without mentioning other regional players same activities. That made it easy for any and all to interpret as a direct challenge to China rather than a global principle. Helpful for those countries having rival territorial claims with China but not the best approach, as I see it, to managing US-China relations or US interests.

Click to expand...

The US FON program is well documented since it was introduced after the passage of UNCLOS. Every year (from memory) a list of FON challenges that are conducted by the USN around the world are published. The yearly list is lengthy and include challenges to many countries and including traditional allies (like Australia). The FON program is not picking on China regardless of what the talking heads are saying. The nature of the program is well understood and China should know that - even I do.

Jeff Head said:

If the Philippines does so without threatening the Chinese positions on those islands in any way...the US will not have to hold their hands.

Click to expand...

But what happens if China reciprocates and sails within 12nm of Philippines held islands? What if the Vietnamese joins in as well? I can easily see a massive and needless upwards spiralling of tensions over nothing. And it would have all been kicked off by the US.

Just because you have a right to do something is not the same as it being a good idea for you for do something. That seems like a distinction the US is unwilling or unable to recognise.

For example, you can play rock music as loud as the law permits as long as it is legally allowed. But don't expect your neighbours to like you for doing it.

But, IMHO, it would be doubtful that others would do so after the US determines that the FON issue is resolved.

Click to expand...

That's exceptionally optimistic, almost bordering on the naïve. Only the US thinks (or at least says they think so) this is an issue about Freedom of Navigation. For everyone else, this is a question about sovereignty and control.

For the likes of the Philippines and Vietnam, the USN sailing within 12nm of Chinese islands weakens China's territorial claims there, in the same vein that Chinese patrols coming within 12nm of the Diaoyu islands weakens Japanese claims and control of those islands (amusingly enough, the US does not seem to think FON so important whenever the Japanese get upset about Chinese ships sailing there).

As such, once the USN has set the precedent, it would be extremely likely that the Philippines and Vietnam will use the same pretext to send patrols close to Chinese controlled islands, and they will very likely also further push the boundaries by trying to sail within 12nm of features which would have generated a 12nm territorial sea even before China's reclamation efforts.

As far as I am aware, the USN is taking care to only conduct FON patrols near features which would not have generated a 12nm territorial sea before the Chinese reclamation works.

That is a nuanced, but important distinction. So what would the US do if China confronts a Philippines patrol trying to come within 12nm of such an island and the Chinese actively trying to stop them?

I can guarantee you now if that happens, the Philippines will try to paint what they are doing as exactly what the USN has done and make some BS connections of "bullying".

Would the US have the integrity and honesty to side with China and tell an ally they are in the wrong?

If they do, I think that will be a first. If they don't, you will have the Philippines tail waging the US dog again.

OTOH, if the Philippines belligerently acted as an aggressor against China and got their hand spanked...oh you would see all sides again issue rhetoric about it...but the US would not go to war or seek a military confrontation over an obvious aggression by the,

Click to expand...

TBH, the US hardly has a stainless track record when it comes to jumping in the line of fire when an ally or close friend gets on the receiving end of some hand spanking, deserved or not if the one doing the spanking is powerful enough. Georgia and Ukraine comes to mind immediately.

If China was the belligerent sort and did slap the Philippines around a bit over some SCS islands, would the US really risk nuclear war with China over it?

That's not a slight or dig at the US, countries look after their own interests first and foremost. And some specs on the other side of the world that the US doesn't even have any claims to or interests in, are not worth the lives of thousands or millions of American lives, and everyone knows that.

What the US is doing is bluffing with a hand full of nothing and expecting China to fold every time. That is not a viable long term strategy.

Uh recently they did just that in the Alaskan area. The US issued a statement that said they had every right since it was through the Bearing Straight where the acknowledged sea lanes pass within 12 nm of US natural islands and territorial waters.

Click to expand...

Come on Jeff, that is not remotely like the same thing and you know it.

The Bearing Straight is an exception, not the rule, because of the geography of the straight.

What the PLAN ships did was the very definition of "innocent passage", there is absolutely nothing tit-for-tat about it.

If USN operations near Chinese waters were also as above board, Beijing wouldn't have a problem either.

If anything, that reinforces my position about these FON missions being a pointless exercise at best, and looks like an excuse to weaken Chinese claims to Chinese eyes.

If the US was only worried about FON, negotiating with China to apply the same FON exceptions to China's SCS islands would be a far more effective and less confrontational way to ensure FON.

Hehehe...and it is no secret that there are also hard liners within the CCCP who would accommodate them. In nations as large and as strong as the US and China, there are always going to be those within those establishments who think that way.

Click to expand...

Indeed, but the US seems to be going out of their way to validate the opinion and position of the hardliners. That is not something it wants to do.

Keep treating China as the enemy, and it may just turn into a self fulfilling prophecy, and none of us want that!

Brumby said:

The US FON program is well documented since it was introduced after the passage of UNCLOS. Every year (from memory) a list of FON challenges that are conducted by the USN around the world are published. The yearly list is lengthy and include challenges to many countries and including traditional allies (like Australia). The FON program is not picking on China regardless of what the talking heads are saying. The nature of the program is well understood and China should know that - even I do.

Click to expand...

In the most altruistic interpretation of USN passage within 12nm of Chinese waters, third party territorial rivals can use the occasion to challenge the validity of Chinese claims to further their own. And they have is entirely my point. Further, while China is likely to respond to a face value FON challenge through a series of relatively benign options, a perceived challenge to it's territorial claims and security could receive an alternative series of responses. This has been seen with China a few times now in recent history and should be part of US calculus. And again in light of US interests (the interests of rival claimants is obvious) I ask, what is to be gained?

Zool said:

In the most altruistic interpretation of USN passage within 12nm of Chinese waters, third party territorial rivals can use the occasion to challenge the validity of Chinese claims to further their own. And they have is entirely my point.

Click to expand...

I thought Jeff made this point quite clear in his comments. The USN is interested in upholding FON and does not take sides over territorial dispute. The FON itself doesn't change the nature of the dispute over sovereignty. Should other nations try to take advantage of the situation then they are very much on their own.

Zool said:

Further, while China is likely to respond to a face value FON challenge through a series of relatively benign options, a perceived challenge to it's territorial claims and security could receive an alternative series of responses. This has been seen with China a few times now in recent history and should be part of US calculus.

Click to expand...

There are always risk of miscalculation by either party and presumably decisions to this point are not taken lighted and fully considered.

Zool said:

And again in light of US interests (the interests of rival claimants is obvious) I ask, what is to be gained?

Click to expand...

Rule of law and access to the global commons are core pillars to any stable environment. Without which there is only chaos because structure and adherence to a set of rules are footprints to guide behaviour. The alternative is the wild wild west (I guess east in this case)

Brumby said:

I thought Jeff made this point quite clear in his comments. The USN is interested in upholding FON and does not take sides over territorial dispute. The FON itself doesn't change the nature of the dispute over sovereignty. Should other nations try to take advantage of the situation then they are very much on their own.

Click to expand...

I'd refer you back to my post #811 above on how the US has thus far handled principles of international law in the SCS. I will also add to my point in #816 that China, or any nation, must respond to the greater strategic landscape. If a new action introduced by the US towards China (12nm being discussed) will potentially damage China's regional position and allow territorial rivals to strengthen their own, China is likely to act in support of the larger interest. It is unlikely to view and respond to the US move as a straight forward FON patrol. Statements out of both the US and China don't support that.

Zool said:

I'd refer you back to my post #811 above on how the US has thus far handled principles of international law in the SCS.

Click to expand...

My reading of your post #811 is the assertion that the US is not being impartial in the sovereignty dispute between the countries by picking on China through the FON. I think it is important to note in this issue, new facts on the ground are being created by China that is simply of its own creation. China in creating artificial features in the middle of what had been before a global commons and then declaring a 12 nm territorial zone around it is unique among the claimants. Such an exclusion is not supported by any known international law and is simply exercising might is right in its approach. In contrast, the US FON has the full force of international law behind such a passage.

Zool said:

I will also add to my point in #816 that China, or any nation, must respond to the greater strategic landscape. If a new action introduced by the US towards China (12nm being discussed) will potentially damage China's regional position and allow territorial rivals to strengthen their own, China is likely to act in support of the larger interest. It is unlikely to view and respond to the US move as a straight forward FON patrol. Statements out of both the US and China don't support that.

Click to expand...

FON and passage through the high seas is a well established principle. What the US intends to do is nothing new. In contrast, creating man made features and declaring sovereignty around it is clearly new. The facts on the ground do not support your statement that the US is doing something new. Instead I would argue that US is being forced to respond to a particular set of development which could have simply been avoided if China did not impose the 12 nm zone around the man made islands. The area was simply high seas until recently.

The question you should be asking is which party is acting in adherence to the rule of law and make judgement against that or else how do you judge what is right or wrong.

plawolf said:

Indeed, but the US seems to be going out of their way to validate the opinion and position of the hardliners. That is not something it wants to do.

Keep treating China as the enemy, and it may just turn into a self fulfilling prophecy, and none of us want that!

Click to expand...

Wolf, that s simply heated rhetoric. I do not expect the Chinese themselves to follow suite with such terms.

The fact is, the US is NOT treating China remotely like an enemy.

Read:



Such visits and exchanges on both sides are arranged at the highest levels.

The US has a very strong and long held view on FON. It is not going to change. Expressing it, and punctuating it is not combat and it is not enemy treatment.

The Chinese have built impressive artificial islands where there were reefs and shoals before. Having the US respect a 3 or 4 mile limit versus the 12 mile limit is not something either nation will go to war over, or even degrade into harsh action over.

The press is hying it for all it is worth, but when you watch things like the above occurring while they are doing that, it sends a very different message from both nations.

As I have said many times, short of some major miscalculation by the US or China in observing those differences (which I do not expect in the least), both sides will operate accordingly.

The US Navy will sail past one or more of the islands and maybe get to within 8-10 miles. China will issue warnings as they approach. Then the US will sail past and the Chinese will allow them to do so. I would not be surprised to learn at some point that it was all discussed through back channels before it ever happens.

This is not enemy behavior. It is not combat. It is two large nations with differences learning to deal with one another despite those differences.