US Navy & PLAN - South China Sea Situation News (Closed)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
Blackstone
Brigadier
Threat to what? The USS Lassen was in international waters and took no overtly hostile actions. How do we know that? Because China would have distributed video clips of it. I don't believe for a micro-second US had good intentions, but that doesn't matter because what US did was absolutely legal under current international laws.
The lawfulness of the action itself comes down to the EEZ issue, which I think has been discussed to oblivion and beyond by now.
As for the threat itself, I think China described it as "Relevant actions by the US naval vessel threatened China's sovereignty and security interests, put the personnel and facilities on the islands and reefs at risk and endangered regional peace and stability."
The way I'm interpreting it, is that the presence and loitering of the US vessel (likely combined with the overflying P-8) created a situation of tension where there was the potential danger of miscalculation on both sides leading to accidental conflict.
Blackstone
Brigadier
And that's perfectly fine. In fact, US said it welcomed Chinese reciprocation. The rub is everyone knows it's more difficult for China to regularly reciprocate, so US really isn't giving up much. Or so China hawks think.China should be send flotillas near Hawaii and Alaska on a regular basis now as long as the US is doing the same.
The dirty little secret is US would blow its top if Chinese warships regularly patrol up and down California's coast, because the public outcry would generate political outrage not seen since the Soviet Navy sailed off the US East Coast. So, should PLAN ever gets to the point where it could regularly send ships to "FON" US East or West coasts, then Washington might work out a mutually acceptable compromise. Until then, US simply has little incentive to stop its FON operations.
I can't edit my previous reply to you on the matter, but I think it's worth just laying out why I believe the two situations are different.
When the Chinese ships transited through Alaskan territorial waters, they did so expeditiously consistent with innocent passage. In other words, the method of interpreting this specific action is quite black and white, because if the Chinese ships had traveled in a way which was inconsistent with innocent passage then they could be criticized or be determined as a threat.
When the USS Lassen moved through the waters near China's reclaimed islands, the islands themselves do not have territorial waters and China has not claimed them, however China's interpretation of UNCLOS regarding EEZs means that they believe they have a right to permit or forbid military actions and surveillance inside their EEZ, and they perceived the specific action of USS Lassen and the accompanying airpower (P-8) as an action which they could justifiably protest against.
So the way I see it, in the Alaska case the issue is one of territorial waters and innocent passage (which is well entrenched in international law), whereas in the SCS case it is one of EEZ and military activities (which is under dispute, by China as well as a minority of other nations versus a collection of traditional naval powers who argue the opposite).
Blackstone
Brigadier
Blitzo, whatever side people are on FON in EEZ, the status quo is warships and warplanes may conduct non-hostile operations there. Since Beijing and other like-minded nations want to change the status quo, it's up to them to show sufficient cause, and so far, they haven't done a good enough job to overturn the status quo.
If the incident (hopefully) wouldn't blowup into something more serious, it is a coordinated show announced well in advance, that both sides can exploit for their own agenda. Within a wider context, FoN and legal stuffs are only technicalities to be managed, that wouldn't alter the course of geopolitical power struggle behind.
They haven't been able to overturn the status quo, but it has been disputed and China is actively disputing it now in the SCS and in its various encounters with the USN.
When the dispute is settled as part of clarification regarding the issue of international law is another matter, but as I said before, I wouldn't be surprised if China would want to wait until it is much more powerful to formally contest this, to make sure that it wins.
Until then, both sides are going to continue interpreting the law in their own way.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Yes, we agree on FON in EEZ not settled, and both sides will continue to interpret UNCLOS as they see fit. But, a better way might be for China to take US to the ICJ.
If China takes US to the ICJ, and the latter opts out, then China wins and US is seen as aggessor and bully. If US agrees to be a party and loses the case, then China wins no matter what the Senate says about UNCLOS ratification. And if the ICJ rules against China, then it is (in reality) no worse off than it currently is.
Given the outlined scenarios, China stands to gain more than it loses, and there isn't an outcome that leaves China worst off than in reality it already is. Maybe it's time for Beijing to embrace The Hague?
Who knows, but the nature of international laws means if China seriously wants to change it, it would have to wait a few decades until it has far more influence.
It's good that we can agree that the EEZ issue is not settled.
- Status