Jura The idiot
General
LOL now I read about DDG-170 "Lanzhou" and DDG-138 "Taizhou" in
US Navy & PLAN - South China Sea Situation News (Closed)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
LOL now I read about DDG-170 "Lanzhou" and DDG-138 "Taizhou" in
Brumby
Major
Any serious suggestion what should have been sent by the USN that would not be seen as flexing muscles? Maybe a tugboat? How far do you think the tugboat will get into the 12 nm limit? What do you think got the Phillippines out of the Scarborough Shoal? At least in that example we don't have to interpret who was flexing muscles.
I never said China hasn't flexed its own muscles before.
Also, I'm not trying to make a moral judgement about muscle flexing here, nor am I saying that those on the receiving end of muscle flexing are somehow inherently victimized.
As for the USN, the entire point of the operation was to send a strong message, aka to flex some of its muscles at China. That is typically the point of military posturing, and I see nothing wrong with it on a moral level.
Jeez... ESF ship in the SCS?
Also, last I heard DDG 138 was under refit, in July. Not sure if they completed it so quickly.
Brumby
Major
I actually don't see it as the US flexing muscle because that in it self is a pointless exercise but carries inherent risk. There are two fundamental objectives with the FON. Firstly, in international law there is the principle of acquiescence which has the effect of loosing your right to exercise a certain action if you fail to act in response to a particular development. Given that China has fenced up certain portions of the SCS unilaterally, and going about it in uncertain terms, the US has no choice but to exercise FON to ensure that this right is secured. I think China underestimated the resolve of the US towards the issue of FON. If you recall previously in our conversation, I pointed out that I see this as a red line for the US because it goes to the heart of its founding as a maritime nation. Secondly, the US has consistently said it will not take sides in the dispute. By not acting, the US would be taking side with the Chinese by implicitly respecting the unilateral demands of territorial limits placed on FON.
Sure, I can appreciate that, but from China's position they have repeatedly said civilian FON has is not effected by their reclaimed islands, and thus would likely interpret the USN's vessels presence there somewhat differently to the way that the US may have intended.
Also, the nature and the way in which the operation was conducted and the way it was broadcasted makes it seem like it would have been interpreted by China as a strong message.
In any case, I think what you're saying is that sending a strong message if it is intended to enforce a law means it can't be described as muscle flexing, whereas I'm saying they're practically synonymous and they do not carry any meaningful moral difference (in the context of geopolitics and military matters at least)
Brumby
Major
The end may be identical but the contrast I was attempting to signal is that one is premised on law and the other on might. The moral high ground comes from law and not of might.
I would argue that the way in which an action is interpreted rather than the intent in which an action is made should be the basis of determining whether an action could be described as muscle flexing or not.
And as always, our differences seem to lie in whether international law can confer any kind of morality for geopolitical actions and military actions by various powers. It seems that the positions we usually take is that I say moral highgrounds do not typically exist in geopolitics and military actions and international law given the nature of realpolitik and the way in which many laws and agreements are reached, whereas you seem to view international law and agreements as a far more concrete determinant of the morality of certain actions.
(and in this specific case, trying to enforce a law is done so through might, so the action itself is made on the basis of might, in pursuit of what the US perceives as its own interest)
All I have to do is post the differing responses by the respective governments.
I don't even have to provide analysis - the Chinese reaction says it all.
There was no such statement that the Chinese 5 vessel sail-by constituted "a show of military force intended to militarize".
Note the USA did not claim that Beijing was provoking the USA when those 5 vessels sailed within Alaska's 12 nm limit. Note the USA did not 'feel disgraced' when this happened.
Identical situations.
The USA said this in early September:
China says this today:
Ooh lovely, I was hoping someone would try to make this claim.
Here is why the two cases are different.
The Chinese transit through alaskan waters was indeed part of freedom of navigation as it was the only route in which they could have travelled and they did not linger, whereas the USS Lassen's route was not in line with what could be considered innocent passage.
The Chinese foreign ministry explained it quite clearly in their press conference
Second, last month, Chinese naval vessels sailed within 12 nautical miles off the coastline of Alaska. There was no strong reaction from the US military as they took it as innocent passage. Some people compared China's reaction with that of the US. Do you think they are comparable?
On your second question, the Spokesperson of the Defense Ministry of China has already made a statement. The Strait of Tanaga is for international sailing. In accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the geographic condition of the Strait, all ships passing the Strait have the right of transit passage. What Chinese naval vessels have done is in line with the international law and international practice.
The US naval vessel took the liberty to sail across waters off islands and reefs of China's Nansha Islands. It is completely different from transit passage and is nothing close to the so-called exercise of navigation freedom. Instead, it is a threat to China's sovereignty and security. The Chinese side is firmly opposed to that.
And if you think the Chinese are pulling this out of their hat, there are even those on the US side who have said that the US was deliberately sailing across those waters different to China's innocent passage through Alaskan waters.
The Chinese are cranky about “innocent passage.” They often take offense at any foreign military vessel passing through their territorial waters without prior permission. But in the case of the South China Sea, just asserting the right to sail through may not be enough. That’s because international law, as most nations interpret it, allows innocent passage even through territorial waters, that 12 nautical mile zone around their shores. So if the US just sails past Chinese-built artificial islets without doing anything else, that’s perfectly compatible with China’s claims that the islets are sovereign territory.
“If US ships … just drive through and demonstrate innocent passage… that doesn’t say whether those islands are real territory or not,” said Clark. To make a clear statement that the islets are not Chinese territory and the 12 miles around them are not Chinese territorial waters, the US forces have to conduct some kind of non-“innocent” activity.
This doesn’t have to be much, said Bonnie Glaser: “One option is to loiter in the area of 12 nautical miles for a period of time, not just travel from Point A to Point B, but spend an hour or two, or maybe go around the island.”
More likely, however, is some kind of explicitly military activity. The says a US destroyer will be shadowed by a P-8 Poseidon surveillance plane. “Having the surveillance [plane] is certainly a military activity in and of itself,” said Glaser. “If it’s accompanied by a P-8, that would check that box. The ship itself wouldn’t have to do anything additional.” [UPDATE: This seems to be the approach actually taken Tuesday morning]
If a ship were not accompanied by aircraft, it would need to conduct some unmistakably military activity: deploying its towed-array sonar to practice hunting submarines, for example, or launching a helicopter to look around.
\
====
So yes, the fact that the USS Lassen loitered near the waters in what was not innocent passage in the same way that the Chinese transit through Alaskan waters was considered innocent passage. In other words, the USS Lassen was there deliberately in a non-innocent passage context. However the reason China was irritated probably had nothing to do with the fact that it was within 12nmi, but more because of the intention of why the USN ship was there in the first place, likely in the larger context of Taiping islands EEZ.
- Status