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

Bltizo said:

Jeff, my question for you is where has China actually explicitly claimed a 12nm limit around the islands?

Click to expand...

In my own reading, it is clear that the issue with China was this incursion within 12 miles.

The Lassen and USS Ft. worth were in the EEZ and near the same islands, but outside the 12 mile limit, just a few weeks ago.

There was not a big hue and cry then.

This is what the AP reports:

AP said:

China's Foreign Ministry said authorities monitored and warned the USS Lassen as it entered what China claims as a 12-mile (21-kilometer) territorial limit around Subi Reef in the Spratly Islands archipelago, a group of reefs, islets, and atolls where the Philippines has competing claims.

"The actions of the U.S. warship have threatened China's sovereignty and security interests, jeopardized the safety of personnel and facilities on the reefs, and damaged regional peace and stability," the ministry said on its website.

"The Chinese side expresses its strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition," the statement said.

Click to expand...

As I say, no such announcement was made when the Lassen and the Ft. Worth sailed together through those waters (which are within the EEZ) a few weeks ago

I believe all of this was discussed at some level beforehand, and everyone knows their differences and then agreed to do their thing in relation to them...knowing the place and time it would occur.

Bltizo said:

Jeff, my question for you is where has China actually explicitly claimed a 12nm limit around the islands?

Because in both cases including the P-8 and the USS Lassen, China's MFA statements never described a 12nm limit around the reclaimed islands but rather described it in terms of simply in waters near Chinese islands or reefs or a military alert zone.

I want to emphasize this, because China is opposed to military surveillance or actions within its EEZ as well, and China also claims Taiping island in the SCS which has its own 200km EEZ, and both Subi and Mischief reefs are within the EEZ of Taiping island, so the presence of US vessels conducting actions near both of those reefs would be considered as provocative and a challenge to China's sovereignty... but not necessarily because of any existence of a 12nm limit.

I think the entire issue for the US has been about the 12nm limit, but the issue for China has been about US military vessels and aircraft operating around those reclaimed islands, in the context of Taiping Islands EEZ.
At the very least, unless we have direct evidence of China saying "we claim there to be a 12nm territorial limit around the reclaimed islands," then I feel like we might be misinterpreting China's actual intentions.

Click to expand...

I understand you are directing this issue at Jeff. My view is that you are simply spinning on this. If we take an aggregate view of the USN FON through the SCS earlier in the year and this recent event, your story doesn't stack up.

With regards to China's interpretation of the EEZ, it is a minority view not supported by provisions of UNCLOS especially to the intended meaning of sovereignty vs. sovereign rights; the nature of the grand bargain leading to UNCLOS; the records of deliberation leading to the eventual text in UNCLOS; customary laws of the sea; and UN resolutions regarding the meaning of military activities. I suggest China takes it to the international court or change the UNCLOS provisions and see how far it will get with such interpretation.

Blackstone said:

Humm..., you don't suppose Obama and Xi arranged the kabuki dance in their recent Washington Summit, do you?

Click to expand...

Certainly not the specific details. But they did say they discussed this matter.

And then the specifics were announced by the US before they did so.

If the US was intent on really PO'ing the PRC, or if they thought there was a real possibility of a forceful confrontation, they would never have announced it like that...they would have just gone in. IMHO, this is indicative of everyone wanting to know what was happening and when, and then avoiding any miscalculations.

Jeff Head said:

In my own reading, it is clear that the issue with China was this incursion within 12 miles.

The Lassen and USS Ft. worth were in the EEZ and near the same islands, but outside the 12 mile limit, just a few weeks ago.

There was not a big hue and cry then.

This is what the AP reports:



As I say, no such announcement was made when the Lassen and the Ft. Worth sailed together through those waters (which are within the EEZ) a few weeks ago

I believe all of this was discussed at some level beforehand, and everyone knows their differences and then agreed to do their thing in relation to them...knowing the place and time it would occur.

Click to expand...

I agree that China has been selective in its protests, and I think it shows that China is willing to be flexible in its willingness to protest against the presence of foreign vessels and ships around those islands and the EEZ. That is to say, China's probably not going to protest every time a nation sails a ship within the EEZ of Taiping island because it simply would not be practical.

In other words, the fact that the US was seeking to deploy ships this close to the islands within the EEZ, with its intentions of challenging China in a general sense, is probably why China phrased its words the way it did this time around.

More importantly, I still see no evidence of China claiming a 12nm limit around those islands, and a lot of the media (and us) are misinterpreting China's responses to the US actions to be related to the passage of the ship within the 12nm limit, when it could just as likely be due to general US intentions by sending the ship there.
At the very least, I feel like the original post in this thread should address and acknowledge that there is some ambiguity and that China has not explicitly declared a 12nm limit... unless anyone can find evidence of China officially stating it in indisputable terms.

Brumby said:

I understand you are directing this issue at Jeff. My view is that you are simply spinning on this. If we take an aggregate view of the USN FON through the SCS earlier in the year and this recent event, your story doesn't stack up.

Click to expand...

Doesn't it?
To the best of my knowledge, China has never said that they claim a 12nm limit around the islands, and whenever China has protested against USN vessels or aircraft near the islands it was usually in the context of "waters near islands or reefs" or a "military alert zone". They've been quite careful, it seems, in not stating the reclaimed islands have a 12nm territorial zone.

That is why I interpret China's protests as not being related to the incursion into the 12nm limit specifically, but more about the posture and the intentions of US military vessels and aircraft within the EEZ, where China merely reserves the right to deem them illegal or not depending on how China views their presence in the waters of Taiping island's EEZ.

With regards to China's interpretation of the EEZ, it is a minority view not supported by provisions of UNCLOS especially to the intended meaning of sovereignty vs. sovereign rights; the nature of the grand bargain leading to UNCLOS; the records of deliberation leading to the eventual text in UNCLOS; customary laws of the sea; and UN resolutions regarding the meaning of military activities. I suggest China takes it to the international court or change the UNCLOS provisions and see how far it will get with such interpretation.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this, but it would probably be in China's interest to only pursue this as a case when it is more geopolitically influential in later decades so any change would be made in its favour.

Directly looking at the Associated Press article:

China's Foreign Ministry said authorities monitored and warned the USS Lassen as it entered what China claims as a 12-mile (21-kilometer) territorial limit around Subi Reef in the Spratly Islands archipelago, a group of reefs, islets, and atolls where the Philippines has competing claims.

Click to expand...

They say China has claimed a 12 mile limit around the reef, but I do not recall China having done so (though I'd be happy to be proven wrong).

The AP article then writes:

"The actions of the U.S. warship have threatened China's sovereignty and security interests, jeopardized the safety of personnel and facilities on the reefs, and damaged regional peace and stability," the ministry said on its website.

"The Chinese side expresses its strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition," the statement said.

Click to expand...

But the above statement from the foreign ministry again does not say that China has claimed a 12nm limit around the reclaimed islands, nor does it say that the US has breached any 12nm limit, only that the actions of the US warship threatened China's sovereignty and security interests and that it was dissatisfied and opposed to the action.

Until we have evidence to suggest that China has claimed a 12nmi limit around the islands, I think it is best to err on the side of caution, @Jeff Head, and for the opening post of this thread to be rephrased a little so as to reflect the current ambiguity of the situation.

Bltizo, I believe it is fairly obvious what the issue is. It is clerly revolving around the 12 mile limit.

What China has actually claimed, which I believe is not in question, is that the whole of the area as its own "territorial waters." I believe they have made this clear.

That would of course mean that the 12 miles around every shoal, every reef, and every island or artificially created island would be within their territorial waters.

Most nations recognize territorial waters as being relegated to a 12 mile zone around the natural land...continental or actual islands.

This is what the US is clearly testing not only because it is the international norm, but because the US has already, on numerous occasions sailed thorough the SCS in the areas supposedly claimed by China without an issue...and now it is clear that this 12 mile limit goes to the heart of China's overall claim.

Clearly, China has accepted the right of passage of US ships through the other areas of the South China Sea because it has done it numerous times without such a dispute, or protests.

Now, the US is specifically testing the 12-mile limit which is the international norm, and the US is of course claiming, that the artificial islands are not allowed such a claim according to international law. And so it is intent on showing FON through there to punctuate it.
China's own reaction has made clear that this is the crux of the matter.

So, based on all of this, I will change the first part of this thread to China's even more (IMHO) audacious claim of the whole area as its "territorial waters," and that the US has chosen now to use FON within the 12-mile limit for artificial islands per international law to punctuate its own FON claims.

...I made the change to the opening post.

Jeff Head said:

Bltizo, I believe it is fairly obvious what the issue is. It is clerly revolving around the 12 mile limit.

What China has actually claimed, which I believe is not in question, is that the whole of the area as its own "territorial waters." I believe they have made this clear.

Click to expand...

Jeff, I'm going to cut your post off here, because the underlined part is what I'm disputing.
Everything else you post subsequent to it depends on whether China has actually claimed all of the islands as having a 12nmi territorial limit or not. If China has explicitly done so and it can be demonstrated, then I agree with the the rest of your post and agree to the original opening statement for the thread.

But at present I think we lack evidence to suggest that China has made such a claim, and I also think we have reason to believe that China has gone out of its way to avoid stating that they have a 12nmi territorial boundaries for the reclaimed islands. I don't think they've described various encounters in the last year as US ships or aircraft entering "territorial airspace" or "territorial waters" but rather other terms, suggesting they are quite aware of what the different terms entail. In fact I would say that China's entire position on the SCS dispute has been one of deliberate ambiguity.

I see the US as being interested in pre-empting any possible Chinese claim that the reclaimed islands have a 12nmi limit, by conducting FON operations.
I believe China, OTOH, is reacting negatively not because the US is interested in challenging any 12nmi claim but rather because the US is sending military vessels and aircraft in an unfriendly way, within waters that China claim as part of its EEZ.

Jeff Head said:

Now, the US is specifically testing the 12-mile limit which is the international norm, and the US is of course claiming, that the artificial islands are not allowed such a claim according to international law. And so it is intent on showing FON through there to punctuate it.
China's own reaction has made clear that this is the crux of the matter.

So, based on all of this, I will change the first part of this thread to China's even more (IMHO) audacious claim of the whole area as its "territorial waters," and that the US has chosen now to use FON within the 12-mile limit for artificial islands per international law to punctuate its own FON claims.

Click to expand...

I feel like that is a step in the wrong direction, and a misinterpretation of the present evidence we have, when a far more reasonable conclusion could be derived from my Taiping Island EEZ theory, and more importantly that China's negative reaction is not due to the USN ship entering any 12nmi line but simply reflective of their intention in waters where China perceives itself to have the ability to deny permission for military vessels to conduct actions and surveillance in.