US Navy & PLAN - South China Sea Situation News (Closed)

Don't see the issue here

China can easily send it's warships to US shores under international maritime law and come close to US shores

If USN can do it so can PLAN, 12 miles or 12 nautical miles so China can also get close if they want

Brumby said:

Your attempted explanation for China's inconsistent behaviour is hard to digest. The quid pro quo reasoning is a false equivalence at best and is simply hypocrisy at worst. The US position regarding surveillance within the EEZ is that it is within the provisions of UNCLOS. China disagrees with this view and considers it as illegal but then turns around and does the same thing. The US in reaction considers such Chinese activities as within the law but in contrast China reacts with all the huff and puff. In other words, it is not the act but the reaction that is in question.

Click to expand...

I think hypocrisy is an excellent term to describe it, because it is true that china can be considered to be having its cake and eating it too. Not exactly new in geopolitics, but it still exists.

However the important part in my view, is that china conducting such an operation and describing it as "within the law" doesn't necessarily invalidate their larger position on viewing EEZ surveillance without permission as illegal... IF they are intending and accepting that they will give up their own activities of this nature if/once the ambiguity is resolved.

asif iqbal said:

Don't see the issue here

China can easily send it's warships to US shores under international maritime law and come close to US shores

If USN can do it so can PLAN, 12 miles or 12 nautical miles so China can also get close if they want

Click to expand...

With China everything is a big deal when it doesn't go its way. That was nfgc's point (ref post #141). It is not easy to reconcile to reason with petulant syndrome.

asif iqbal said:

Don't see the issue here

China can easily send it's warships to US shores under international maritime law and come close to US shores

If USN can do it so can PLAN, 12 miles or 12 nautical miles so China can also get close if they want

Click to expand...

It is about strategic balance and equivalency of responses.

Sending a warship close to another nations shores when one has naval and air forces also close to that nation's shores, is a different strategic posture and threat to sending a warship close to a nations shores alone without having naval and air forces forward deployed.

Technically speaking there is no difference in law, as there are no international laws or agreements covering the ability of nations to project power in a strategic sense, but the practical differences in strategic posture and military capabilities that can be delivered in both cases vary vastly.

Bltizo said:

However the important part in my view, is that china conducting such an operation and describing it as "within the law" doesn't necessarily invalidate their larger position on viewing EEZ surveillance without permission as illegal... IF they are intending and accepting that they will give up their own activities of this nature if/once the ambiguity is resolved.

Click to expand...

I can accept that China has taken a particular world view with regards to certain issues pertaining to its national interest. It needs to do what it considers necessary. I think China just needs to recalibrate its messaging in terms of content plus with more finesse to it.

Brumby said:

I can accept that China has taken a particular world view with regards to certain issues pertaining to its national interest. It needs to do what it considers necessary. I think China just needs to recalibrate its messaging in terms of content plus with more finesse to it.

Click to expand...

No disagreements there. In fact I think the need for China to state its interests in less ambiguous and more PR friendly ways should be a strategic priority as great as its military development or urbanization programme.

Bltizo said:

No disagreements there. In fact I think the need for China to state its interests in less ambiguous and more PR friendly ways should be a strategic priority as great as its military development or urbanization programme.

Click to expand...

It is proof that we can find common ground for agreement. Lol.

According to Chinese media, it wasn't Lassen just passed through alone, FON.
It was a gathering of forces. Carrier Reagan was nearby to provide backup in case something wrong, P8 was deployed from aerial above and possibly USN subs to detect Chinese diesel subs nearby and to give Lassen warning and guidance.

Pretty much this is what's the situation so far:
The actual status quo is unchanged, China still has their island bases, the US still doing what they've been doing all this time.

The biggest casualty is Chinese pride, I reckon - consider all the tones seen on all newswires and various forums in and out of China, the fact that USN do pretty much as they pleased left Chinese took a thousand stabs on their pride...and the stabbings set to go round 2 when the USN going to take the Japanese navy along for the ride.

If I were the top Chinese brass, I would implicitly ban all major contracts to American firms like Boeing, GE, GM, etc for a prolonged period of time. Let their corporations take care of their respective politicians. Didn't Airbus just win a humongous contract today? Cameron learned it the hard way when he met with the Dalai Lama a couple of years ago.

The silver lining is that the navy and the air force will be given additional funding given what the Americans just did...