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

Brumby said:

Whether the artificial islands are a threat to FON is actually up to Chinese actions. Up to the point until the recent FON, there is sufficient messaging from China that it regards the SCS as its territory. The USN is simply making a passage through the high seas as provided for under UNCLOS and customary law of the seas. The recent reaction from the Chinese just validates the point and is no longer a nebulous notion as you put it.

Chinese officials had said it before the artificial islands posed no threat to FON for commercial ships which is the most important point, not military ships of foreign navy causing trouble for political reasons.


I think your statement is somewhat oxymoron in nature. Either FON is legal or it is not. Please explain what is a belligerent FON.

Click to expand...

My point was that that the US Navy is using the FON threat follow up by the few SCS nations leaders as an excuse to flex it's muscle and threatening China's territory and sovereignty. Island building has so far causes NO lost of lives therefore NO threat to anybody in the world.

Threatening China's territory and sovereignty?
When?
The SCS is not China's sovereign territory so it can't be threatened in the first place.
It's PRC overreacting with their bluff being called.

law

Equation said:

My point was that that the US Navy is using the FON threat follow up by the few SCS nations leaders as an excuse to flex it's muscle and threatening China's territory and sovereignty.

Click to expand...

Your premise is the SCS or at least the main bulk of it is Chinese sovereign territory. Such a position taken by the Chinese is simply by fiat and there is no recognition of such a title until it is established. A good start will be for China to explain its nebulous claim.

Until title is established and territorial limits defined, the USN and any other nation has the right to FON. This position is as clear as daylight in accordance with international law unlike the Chinese position. It is about operating within a system of law and order which the Chinese simply ignore.

Please explain how is one flexing muscle when it is operating within what is provided by law. The converse is applicable to China because it is flexing its muscle as it doesn't have the law on its side. That is belligerent behaviour.

Equation said:

Island building has so far causes NO lost of lives therefore NO threat to anybody in the world.

Click to expand...

By that standard of measure, how is FON any different? It is simply passage from one point to another? Chinese actions are a serious threat because it is taking by force what it cannot acquire by law. In principle, that is no different from the behaviour of some countries leading to WW2 because they think they can simply take what they want by force. The difference is the former is annexing land, and with the latter the seas.

Equation said:

My point was that that the US Navy is using the FON threat follow up by the few SCS nations leaders as an excuse to flex it's muscle and threatening China's territory and sovereignty. Island building has so far causes NO lost of lives therefore NO threat to anybody in the world.

Click to expand...

The "threatening China's territory" narrative needs clarity. What territory and sovereignty does China claim US threatened? Does Beijing officially claim 12-miles around its artificial islands? If so, what section of international law does China say justifies iits claims?

Brumby said:

Your statement reminds us of the kind of thinking a few years ago when a Chinese official said the following to the other nations "China is a big country”, “and other countries are small countries and that is just a fact.” It assumes that China can act with impunity and that there are no consequences. I am under no illusion, China will militarize the islands - eventually (the infrastructures are built) and is simply at a timing of its choosing regardless of the actions of others.

Should China continue to behave belligerently, there will be a tipping point, a recognition and eventual consensus that China will not rise peacefully but will take what it wants outside of established law and order. Its own actions will testify to that image should it continue to pursue such path. No degree of smoke screen or ambiguity can hide such actions.

Click to expand...

The good thing about having more power, is that it means the side with more power is able to settle disagreements on their own terms and it means the side with more power always has an extra card to play compared to the other side.

This is the rule I see in international relations and disagreements, and I believe that every side with more power in history has abused it.

Whether other nations will seek to resist China's power or whether they'll acknowledge it and choose to align themselves with China in exchange for concessions depends on how well all sides play their cards.


===

Brumby said:

Please explain how is one flexing muscle when it is operating within what is provided by law. The converse is applicable to China because it is flexing its muscle as it doesn't have the law on its side. That is belligerent behaviour.

Click to expand...

I'd just like to point out that it's perfectly possible for a nation to act within the law but to also flex muscles or act in a belligerent manner, the two are far from mutually exclusive.

Equation said:

My point was that that the US Navy is using the FON threat follow up by the few SCS nations leaders as an excuse to flex it's muscle and threatening China's territory and sovereignty.

Click to expand...

It's hard to call FON Operation with a lone Burke, with maybe a nuclear attack submarine hiding nearby muscle flexing. More of a weak attempt at maintaining US military primacy. The fact other maritime nations didn't join US FON Ops (even though they considered it) means regional countries want no part of great power confrontations.

As for threatening Chinese territory and sovereignty, what exactly do you mean? What territory did US threaten? What sovereignty does China claim?

Island building has so far causes NO lost of lives therefore NO threat to anybody in the world.

Click to expand...

Not sure if island building claimed any lives, since no construction accident reports have surfaced, but those islands are definitely threatening to some in the region. Even if you put aside the US, several other countries have mouthed concerns over them. The reason is they fear China is building its own version of the Monroe Doctrine, and guess what? They are right!

Bltizo said:

I'd just like to point out that it's perfectly possible for a nation to act within the law but to also flex muscles or act in a belligerent manner, the two are far from mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

That may be so but specific to the FON issue which is what we are discussing, the USN is exercising FON in accordance to laws that are well established. The Chinese on the other hand is reacting with bellicose statement based on some nebulous position that it will not even bother to outline. There is no equivalence both morally and legally in the respective actions.

Brumby said:

That may be so but specific to the FON issue which is what we are discussing, the USN is exercising FON in accordance to laws that are well established. The Chinese on the other hand is reacting with bellicose statement based on some nebulous position that it will not even bother to outline. There is no equivalence both morally and legally in the respective actions.

Click to expand...

Reading Equation's original post, he seemed to be suggesting that the US seeking to enforce its FON in this particular way is considered by him to be flexing muscles itself.

In other words, the way I interpret his words, is that yes the USN is exercising FON in accordance with laws sure, but it's also done in a way which could be interpreted by China as muscle flexing.

Hey Jeff, see below for a direct quote from the Chinese foreign ministry website regarding China's actual reaction and word, that Bltizo kindly provided in a separate thread.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has released a statement on that at noon.

The USS Lassen illegally entered waters near relevant islands and reefs of China's Nansha Islands without the permission of the Chinese government on October 27. Relevant authorities of the Chinese side monitored, followed and warned the US vessel. 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 Chinese side hereby expresses strong opposition.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi also issued a solemn warning to the American side this morning when answering a journalist's question, urging the US not to stir up troubles.

The Chinese side has stressed on many occasions that China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and their adjacent waters. China's sovereignty and relevant rights over the South China Sea have been formed over the long course of history and upheld by successive Chinese governments.

Construction by the Chinese side on its own territory is in the realm of China's sovereignty. It does not target nor affect any country, and has not and will not have any impact on the freedom of navigation and over-flight in the South China Sea to which all countries are entitled under international law.

The Chinese side respects and safeguards the freedom of navigation and over-flight in the South China Sea to which all countries are entitled under international law. In fact, the Chinese side cares more about navigation safety and freedom in the South China Sea than any other countries including some country outside the region. Commercial shipping is different from military actions. We stand firmly against the harm caused by any country to China's sovereignty and security interests under the cloak of navigation and over-flight freedom. The Chinese side is steadfast in safeguarding its territorial sovereignty and security as well as lawful and justified maritime rights and interests. The Chinese side will firmly respond to any deliberate provocation by any country. We will keep a close eye on what is happening in the relevant waters and airspace and take all necessary measures as needed.

The Chinese side strongly urges the American side to take China's solemn representations seriously, put right mistakes, refrain from any dangerous or provocative actions detrimental to China's sovereignty and security interests, and honor its commitment of not taking sides on disputes over territorial sovereignty so as to avoid any further damage to China-US relations and regional peace and stability.

Click to expand...

You will note that the overall tone is markedly different from what is being spun by the western press. Who cannot even use the pathetic excuse of lost in translation, since this is provided in plain English.

Note the most salient points, which I have highlighted in bold, which spells out exactly what the Chinese are upset and protesting about, and it has nothing to do with the 12nm limit.

China even explicitly stated there isn't a freedom of navigation issue, and stated that all nations are entitled to it in the SCS in that statement. Funny how no western media outlet managed to pick up on it.

As always, the Chinese are drawing a clear line between military and civilian actions, and that is the source and core of their beef with the US and the Lassen mission.

As far as the Chinese are concerned, the Lassen was on an explicitly military operation inside Chinese EEZ, thus would have gone beyond what is allowed under "innocent passage" under UNCLOS, hence when China feels it is illegal.

They also explicitly stated that they do not see the US FON mission as being about freedom of navigation at all, since China has never tried to restrict that in any way in the SCS, and rather sees the Lassen as being sent in to undermine and challenge Chinese sovereignty and control of those islands "under the cloak of navigation and over-flight freedom".

As any first year law student would know mens rea, or mental intent involved, is crucial in determining guilt or culpability in the eyes of the law. The exact the same act or action could result in vastly different legal outcomes based on the mens rea, or mental intend behind it.

Thus, when China is looking at the Lassen incident, it is considering the mens rea behind the mission, and since the Lassen was sent in on a specific mission targeted at Chinese interests inside what China considers to be its EEZ, then that is not "innocent passage" in Chinese eyes, and any honest legal scholar would have to agree that China has a certain point.

Had the Lassen been transiting the area and so happened to pass within 12nm of some of China's new islands, I don't think the Chinese government would have said anything.

A pure FON op should have been done that way. To first test if China was trying to impose any limits on freedom of navigation. Gather evidence one way or the other, and then react based on what China actually does rather than what the US thinks China might do.

By baselessly assuming China has or will impose such limitations without any evidence, and launch a mission specifically to "challenge" something that no one has any evidence was there in the first place, and turning it all into a media circus and high profile PR op, the US changed the very nature of the mission and forced China to react.

If that was what this mission was really about, then it was a success. If FON was the real point, then not only is this mission a total flop, it could potentially backfire badly.

China almost certainly wasn't originally planning on claiming 12nm territorial waters around new built islands which would not have qualified for it before construction started, since it would have not no basis to do so under international law, but it may well now decide to adopt a stance of deliberate ambiguity on the matter, neither confirming or denying it.

Thus the US would have ironically claimed the 12nm territorial waters for China by keep insisting that's what China is doing. Every time it sends warships within 12nm of the islands, China will protest based on the rationale highlighted above, but the US military and western media will instead claim that China is protesting because China considers that to be Chinese waters, and after a while, a new fact on the ground is established, and as soon as the US stops FON ops for whatever reason, it would be seen as an acquiescence to China's claims.

any news what's most recently happened at sea, in SCS? (personally, I'd appreciate some specific info more than the posts written in Legalese which by the way seemed inconclusive to me)