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

Bltizo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Because the Chinese and you claim it is different?

It *is* the same and you, like the Chinese, cannot perceive reality correctly.

There is no reciprocity in this situation.
China gets to do what it wants, others cannot.
If you don't do what they demand they react like this:

China's Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui summoned U.S. Ambassador Max Baucus, telling him that the patrol was "extremely irresponsible", the Foreign Ministry said. It said earlier the USS Lassen "illegally" entered waters near islands and reefs in the Spratlys.

Click to expand...

“

“In [the] face of the US harassment, Beijing should deal with Washington tactfully and prepare for the worst,” the newspaper argued

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on Wednesday."

“This can convince the White House that

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, despite its unwillingness, is not frightened to fight a war with the US in the region, and is determined to safeguard its national interests and dignity.”

Click to expand...

--------------------------------

Bltizo said:

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.

Click to expand...

So when 5 Chinese naval vessels took the liberty to sail across the waters off the islands of Alaska it is different because...they and you want this to be so?

This claim is pure intellectual nonsense based in non-logic, non-facts, and the response from the Chinese Government and Chinese People in online comments says it all.

All I have to do is post Chinese comments to show the vast gap in responses.

Bltizo said:

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)

Click to expand...

Philosophically it can be argued that pursuance of national interest by simple definition is amoral in nature. However in practice such a view is not sustainable in the long run because human beings are endowed with a moral DNA that differentiates us from the animal kingdom. Pursuance of a national policy that is morally questionable will eventually be counter productive because human beings do entertain certain behaviour as morally wrong and repulsive. The more one pushes the envelope negatively, the greater the reaction eventually. in my view, pursuing a course of action that is divorced from a moral high ground simply lacks sustainability. If we examine international laws and ethics, it is grounded on basic principles including what is just and equitable.

Bltizo, there was a very important similarity in what China did in Alaska and what the US did in the SCS.

China was sending a message. That was their intent.

They had an AOR, an LPD, two FFGs and a DDG. A large group of ships that really had no scientific, survey, geological, or other "purpose" in going through there other than to show they could...which is to say, FON.

How someone "perceives" intent cannot be the deciding factor in relations like this. Leaders and the representatives of nations have to rise above that because such subjectiveness cannot be the basis for maritime law.

The US recognized that the PLAN had the right to do what it did because that was the only way through the straits, and with FON with respect to the 12 mile limit, passing through in such circumstances is according to maritime law. As such, it fell within very objective, very well known criteria.

With the US in the SCS, since the Islands are artificial, according to maritime law, there is no 12 mile limit, therefore FON is also allowed according to well defined objective criteria.

Both nations had the intent to punctuate FON. China with a large group through US waters, the US with a single vessel near Chinese artificial islands in the South China Sea.

In this sense, both operations were punctuating FON. And FON was the entire point.

China could have sent "non-threatening" vessels through the Bearing Strait and past US waters. Yet they deliberately chose to send a large military flotilla instead. The US recognized that group, despite its size, was not a real threat to US national interests.

The US chose to send a single destroyer on its mission...and specifically to do two things:

1) To make its FON point.
2) To make the point with a vessel, that by itself, would not be threatening either.

I believe that China simply cannot have it both ways when it comes to this type of FON.

But, I also recognize that both sides are compelled, for political reasons mainly, to punctuate their own interests. And that is fine. It is exactly what I expected and predicted.

If it holds at this level, and no one makes a significant miscalculation and does something foolish...then it will gravitate back to a status quo.

The US exercising FON, and the Chinese continuing to develop their new islands. Both recognizing that short of conflict, there is really nothing either side can do about it.

And I do not believe either side wants conflict over such a thing.

OK here it's a Public Holiday today so I went through the posts again, I have a question based on:

#1

Bltizo said:

...

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?
...

Click to expand...

and

#2

Bltizo said:

...

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.

...

Click to expand...

and the question is whether there's a difference between

• the US being concerned about its
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  in #1 (I gave a link to wiki because I had checked if there's anything special about EEZ off Alaska), and
• the China being concerned about its EEZ around
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  (here the link to wiki is because I didn't know what it is

?

Both sides were sending messages in their actions.

Just to be clear on my position, I think the cases are basically the same. Make no mistake though, US naval vessel moving around in South China Sea will make a lot more news than Chinese vessels moving off the coast of Alaska.

So this will get reported in China as another evidence of US trying to bring China down, whereas very few people in America is paying attention to either incident. I'm hoping nothing bad happens going forward.

They really need to come to some form of understanding over time.

nfgc said:

Because the Chinese and you claim it is different?

It *is* the same and you, like the Chinese, cannot perceive reality correctly.

There is no reciprocity in this situation.
China gets to do what it wants, others cannot.
If you don't do what they demand they react like this:

Click to expand...

I guess you've missed Blizo's major quote as saying:

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.

Click to expand...

Equation said:

I guess you've missed Blizo's major quote as saying:

Click to expand...

Yes...it was the only route...and therefore was perfectly legitimate for China to send its ships through there from a maritime law and FON perspective.

In the same sense, however, the artificial islands, according to maritime law, are not accorded a 12 mile limit and therefore the US sending the USS Lassen through an arbitrary 12 miles limit around them was also perfectly legitimate from a maritime law and FON perspective.

It is true that they punctuate different aspects of FON according to maritime law...but it is also true that both were punctuating FON in a perfectly legitimate way.

Wait I thought we (US) didn't sign UNCLOS? While China did sign it. So can we use law in UNCLOs for fon? Or there is another law

s002wjh said:

Wait I thought we (US) didn't sign UNCLOS? While China did sign it. So can we use law in UNCLOs for fon? Or there is another law

Click to expand...

The Senate has not ratified it...but the US President has said he will follow it as a matter of policy.

So, it's an agreement for the US, but not a treaty. There is a difference as regards the specifics of US law, but when it comes to FON, it is not just based on UNCLOS. UNCLOS does identify and clarify certain aspects of it that the US has said it will abide.

But FON has been around a long time.

Jeff Head said:

Yes...it was the only route...and therefore was perfectly legitimate for China to send its ships through there from a maritime law and FON perspective.

In the same sense, however, the artificial islands, according to maritime law, are not accorded a 12 mile limit and therefore the US sending the USS Lassen through an arbitrary 12 miles limit around them was also perfectly legitimate from a maritime law and FON perspective.

It is true that they punctuate different aspects of FON according to maritime law...but it is also true that both were punctuating FON in a perfectly legitimate way.
.

Click to expand...

While China is in the minority in it's view civilian ships enjoy broad FON rights and military ships don't, it's not an reasonable argument because UNCLOS wording isn't clear on the subject. One way to resolve it is for Beijing to sue Washington in the International Court of Justice. The obvious benefits are legitimacy through international law, gain moral high ground, and demonstrate to its nervous neighbors China will follow the very global institutions it claims to support.

It's not a forgone conclusion China would lose the case, and even if the court decides against China, it could accept the verdict without losing face (nothing redirects public outrage better than decisions from 9 unelected Justices in black robes). Also, Beijing could open a new lawfare front to constrain US actions it doesn't like through the ICJ, and if US refuses to follow the ICJ, then it would be seen as the offender, while China the supporter of international laws.

It's probably unrealistic to expect great powers to allow international laws to constrain them, because unilateral actions in pursuance of important interests are their traditional perks. But it's worth considering.