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

Brumby said:

You have a better read of Chinese statements and meaning than I do and I will defer to your understanding for the moment.

Click to expand...

I mean, I'm just applying my logic to it, your own logic might lead yourself to a different but possibly equally valid conclusion.
But based on what has been said, I think it would be very difficult to believe that the Admiral was threatening war, especially as both sides must have an intimate appreciation that continuing these encounters may well accidentally lead to a shooting war, and both sides know the consequences of such a war which neither really wants.

I am somewhat resigned to the notion that China is firmed on its strategic policy towards the SCS and short of a war will not change that equation. The idea of caving is too strong a term in my view but given how assertive China had been in the past two years with its activities in the SCS, we are starting to see more tangibly the reaction and push back from the other side.

My read is that China knows its position is weak on international law but by pursuing ambiguity it intends to gain as much ground as possible before the other side can react in a firm and coherent manner. Once the smoke screen is cleared, it will limit its options from which then China consolidate its gains and recalibrate its next path albeit in a more restricted sense.

Click to expand...

I think that is about right. I'd like to think that there was a period a decade or more ago when all sides were more agreeable, but the nature of these disagreements is that when one side makes a move which it believes is benign, the other side perceives it as a provocation or escalation and then in turn escalates in response. The first side considers the escalation to be unwarranted and the cycle thus begins.

SamuraiBlue said:

US Coast Guard's job specification is not to maintain FON in the open sea. That job falls into US Navy's jurisdiction. The US Coast Guard is as the name suggests is to Guard US Coasts in which SCS is not part of.

Click to expand...

It's been a busy week and I'm late to the conversation but this seemed a good opportunity to raise a point - It's no one's UN mandated job to enforce FON. Innocent Passage is a global principle accepted by, yes, even China (as noted in a recent and earlier posted Chinese press conference).

So this event is not about the US acting in defense of FON or to right some Chinese violation, but to challenge Chinese territorial claims and security interests. Which is exactly what the Chinese government complained about when describing the recent USN move as a provocative action. Ironically also acknowledged as pretty much exactly that, per recent US Senate hearings on the subject.

Now with the USN having finally gotten the green light and run it's OP, what next? What is the objective? This will not induce China to abandon these positions or its larger regional claims vis-a-vis its local rivals. More likely than not China will site any new action(s) as recurring provocation by a foreign naval power and reason to install defensive systems on its SCS holdings. It would also harden its position on claims. Not an evident win at first glance...

What this does do is gain the US some credit with the other stake holders on security (while at a certain US-China cost), at a time when the TPP has been approved and a number of regional military exercises supported by the US are occurring. In that light I think this has everything to do with the process of coalition building.

Zool said:

So this event is not about the US acting in defense of FON or to right some Chinese violation, but to challenge Chinese territorial claims and security interests. Which is exactly what the Chinese government complained about when describing the recent USN move as a provocative action. Ironically also acknowledged as pretty much exactly that, per recent US Senate hearings on the subject.

Now with the USN having finally gotten the green light and run it's OP, what next? What is the objective? This will not induce China to abandon these positions or its larger regional claims vis-a-vis its local rivals. More likely than not China will site any new action(s) as recurring provocation by a foreign naval power and reason to install defensive systems on its SCS holdings. It would also harden its position on claims. Not an evident win at first glance...

What this does do is gain the US some credit with the other stake holders on security (while at a certain US-China cost), at a time when the TPP has been approved and a number of regional military exercises supported by the US are occurring. In that light I think this has everything to do with the process of coalition building.

Click to expand...

The Chinese claim is completely unilateral, Freedom of Navigation is on the other hand recognized by the world longer then nation made claim on the high sea.
Installing defensive system would have happened regardless of US actions since it's going to be a military installation in the middle of the sea so it really isn't going to be anything new nor was it triggered by this incident.

SamuraiBlue said:

The Chinese claim is completely unilateral, Freedom of Navigation is on the other hand recognized by the world longer then nation made claim on the high sea.
Installing defensive system would have happened regardless of US actions since it's going to be a military installation in the middle of the sea so it really isn't going to be anything new nor was it triggered by this incident.

Click to expand...

It's an excuse sure, but remember nations big and small use excuses shakier if not more lame than that all the time.

On the FON op, in terms of tactical and military aspects the only thing it does is burning more disael for next to no purpose; so that leaves the media war aspect of it, of which the US, Japan and other regional US allies are all cashing in on this one-way street of humiliating China (that China, as seen by their own home crowd and internationally, taking hits and not able to effectively retaliate, thus seems weak and loser)...then China would be seen as to claw back some points by accelerate the militarization of those new island outposts, just as soon as this year's typhoon season is over you're bound to see more construction works there and at a higher tempo.

The fact that round 2 of the FON cruise is about to begin and the Japanese navy is coming for the ride, tells you that the US is keen to escalate, if not more.

From HK newspaper, MingPao, on 11/ 01/ 2015

"解放軍戰機攜實彈降永興島"

PLA fighters carrying missiles landing on Yongxing (Woody) Island.

"解放軍海軍航空兵前日派遣多架戰鬥機攜帶實彈在南海上空實戰訓練，相關圖片更首次公開展示攜彈戰機進駐西沙群島永興島機場。"

PLANAF, a couple of days ago, sent several fighters carrying missiles conducting exercise over the airspace of the South China Sea. Related photos publicly displayed for the first time, fighters carrying missiles stationing at Yongxing (Woody) Island Airport, Xisha (Paracel Islands).

"今次「殲-11B」攜帶「霹靂-12」及「霹靂-8」導彈訓練，可能是演練在南海長時間巡邏。"

For this occasion, the J-11B carried PL-12 and PL-8 missiles for exercise, maybe practicing long-interval patrol at the South China Sea.

"另據中央社報道，台灣外交部對荷蘭海牙常設仲裁庭宣布對菲律賓提出的南海仲裁案具管轄權一事，表示既不承認，也不接受，與大陸官方表態一致。"

Also according to the report of CNA News, the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs has offered its position on the decision of the Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration, on the issue proposed by the Philippines regarding the jurisdiction over the South China Sea, (the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs) neither acknowledges nor accepts (the decision), in-line with the official statement of China.

New Details On Destroyer's Passage

New details about the Lassen’s transit became available Oct. 30 from a US Navy source, who said the warship took steps to indicate it was making a lawful innocent passage with no warlike intent. The ship’s fire control radars were turned off and it flew no helicopters, the source said. Although a US Navy P-8 Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft was in the area, it did not cross inside the 12 nautical mile limit.

“The Chinese naval vessels [that came out to escort the Lassen] were professional,” the source said. “They shadowed the Lassen but stayed at a safe distance.

“There were Chinese merchant vessels present that were not as demure as the Chinese Navy. One came out of its anchorage in the island and crossed the destroyer’s bow but at a safe distance, and the Lassen did not alter course as the merchant ship circled around.”

Fishing vessels in the area added to shipping traffic in the immediate area, the source said, but the ship did not have to maneuver around them. But the extra craft seem to have been present, the source noted, “because they anticipated the Lassen’s transit.”

Click to expand...

The details released is testimony in my view of what is so wrong with the present US administration. It just can't make up its mind as what it intends to do and end up with mixed messages. If it can't project a clear message then in my view don't execute the FON. A lot of political capital were expended and associated risk with this FON to achieve two objectives :
(i) FON ; and
(ii) through that action non recognition of China's sovereignty claim

So what do we end up with from the details :
(i) a statement claiming innocent passage. A layman might not understand the difference but innocent passage and FON are clearly different.
(ii)The P-8 was there for a purpose besides observing but was to add credence to the fact that it was FON and not innocent passage. This means the flight has to go inside the 12 nm to make that point and guess what it did not cross the 12 nm limit.

The upshot of this is the USN own actions are undermining the whole exercise and implicitly in its actions recognising China's claim . What a bummer.

Brumby said:

New Details On Destroyer's Passage

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The details released is testimony in my view of what is so wrong with the present US administration. It just can't make up its mind as what it intends to do and end up with mixed messages. If it can't project a clear message then in my view don't execute the FON. A lot of political capital were expended and associated risk with this FON to achieve two objectives :
(i) FON ; and
(ii) through that action non recognition of China's sovereignty claim

So what do we end up with from the details :
(i) a statement claiming innocent passage. A layman might not understand the difference but innocent passage and FON are clearly different.
(ii)The P-8 was there for a purpose besides observing but was to add credence to the fact that it was FON and not innocent passage. This means the flight has to go inside the 12 nm to make that point and guess what it did not cross the 12 nm limit.

The upshot of this is the USN own actions are undermining the whole exercise and implicitly in its actions recognising China's claim . What a bummer.

Click to expand...

Maybe the US are also playing it safe by deliberately being vague?

Because despite all that, we know the destroyer "loitered" in the area as well, meaning if it was within the 12nmi limit, then despite claiming innocent passage it would not quite be innocent passage as such as they're not exactly moving expeditiously through. Also the supporting P-8 (despite itself being outside the 12nmi limit) would still help to make the case that USS Lassen wasn't exactly there innocently either.

a1a2a3a4a5a6a said:

From HK newspaper, MingPao, on 11/ 01/ 2015

"解放軍戰機攜實彈降永興島"

PLA fighters carrying missiles landing on Yongxing (Woody) Island.

"解放軍海軍航空兵前日派遣多架戰鬥機攜帶實彈在南海上空實戰訓練，相關圖片更首次公開展示攜彈戰機進駐西沙群島永興島機場。"

PLANAF, a couple of days ago, sent several fighters carrying missiles conducting exercise over the airspace of the South China Sea. Related photos publicly displayed for the first time, fighters carrying missiles stationing at Yongxing (Woody) Island Airport, Xisha (Paracel Islands).

"今次「殲-11B」攜帶「霹靂-12」及「霹靂-8」導彈訓練，可能是演練在南海長時間巡邏。"

For this occasion, the J-11B carried PL-12 and PL-8 missiles for exercise, maybe practicing long-interval patrol at the South China Sea.

Click to expand...

Possibly. I've always thought that the Chinese military aviation could deploy a small group of military aircraft on rotational basis to Woody island as the first step to normalize the presence of Chinese military aircraft in SCS, and eventually deploy smaller groups of military aircraft starting with non-combat aircraft, to the new reclaimed islands over time.

"另據中央社報道，台灣外交部對荷蘭海牙常設仲裁庭宣布對菲律賓提出的南海仲裁案具管轄權一事，表示既不承認，也不接受，與大陸官方表態一致。"

Also according to the report of CNA News, the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs has offered its position on the decision of the Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration, on the issue proposed by the Philippines regarding the jurisdiction over the South China Sea, (the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs) neither acknowledges nor accepts (the decision), in-line with the official statement of China.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I'm sure China is happy to hear that. I wonder if the incoming DPP government would change Taiwan's policy on the SCS as well as the Philippines' court case at all.

Brumby said:

upshot of this is the USN own actions are undermining the whole exercise and implicitly in its actions recognising China's claim .

Click to expand...

This exercise would have had a heavy hand from the CINC, meaning the POTUS.

You can be sure that the Lassen was doing exactly what it had been ordered to do.

As I said all along, this was more about (from the US standpoint) punctuating FON to the world, but making sure they did so with full disclosure and (IMHO) making arrangements beforehand with the PRC so there would be no miscalculations.

These further details just punctuate and re-emphasize that.

The US is not interested in pushing the PRC into a conflict. I am sure there are hardliners in the PRC (as there are within any nation) who are not satisfied with even these US efforts to avoid conflict.

But it is clear that the US is as intent on that outcome as it is on punctuating its FON claims.

That's why it went down this way.

I expect any future exercise in this regard will go down the same way from the US standpoint.

Will the more moderate voices in the PRC win out?

IMHO, they should. The PRC is the one who is gaining the advantage in this, not the US>

The PRC is gaining more ability to exert influence in the SCS, which is their design.

The US is maintaining its FON, which is its design...but the US Is not gaining anything more out of it and the PRC is. If I were in the PRC, I would not do anything that risked that bottom line condition.

Bltizo said:

Maybe the US are also playing it safe by deliberately being vague?

Because despite all that, we know the destroyer "loitered" in the area as well, meaning if it was within the 12nmi limit, then despite claiming innocent passage it would not quite be innocent passage as such as they're not exactly moving expeditiously through. Also the supporting P-8 (despite itself being outside the 12nmi limit) would still help to make the case that USS Lassen wasn't exactly there innocently either.

Click to expand...

The whole point of the FONOP was to make a statement and you don't make a statement by being vague. In contrast, the purpose of being vague is to achieve an end without making a statement like many of China's actions.

I can understand that the USN needs to balance its actions without being seen as too provocative within the 12 nm. If launching a helicopter was deemed too provocative, the transit through the 12 nm by the P-8 would be the alternative to punctuate the point that it is FON and not innocent passage. I agree loitering would suggest that it is FON and not innocent passage but is the combination of the actions that make the whole exercise ultimately dubious in nature. In my view the exercise had to be firm and clear but not provocative. What I see in the details are a set of actions that are wavering and that simply lack the will to execute a firm message. If I was the Chinese, it signals to me an administration that is unsure of its own actions. That means full steam ahead for the Chinese because when it comes to the punch, the Obama administration just don't have what it takes.