China's SCS Strategy Thread

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Give it a rest guys, there is zero point in trying to reason with such a rabid China-hater.

China's position with regards to the tribunal has been spelt out any number of times by any number of members.

If someone insists on covering there eyes and plugging their ears to those arguments and is only interested in shout his own opinion as loudly and as often as he can, well, then what good will explaining everything to him one more time do when he just point blank refuses to listen to reason and facts?

Better to just ignore the obvious troll and stop giving him the attention he so obviously craves.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Well, with the outcome of the Arbitration Tribunal due very soon - I think it would be better to discuss China's next actions.

Somehow I doubt China will accept whatever comes out given that it believes the Tribunal has ruled on an issue of sovereignty which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and which China explicitly opted out of when it joined UNCLOS.

But what happens next?

If China accepts the situation meekly, it's an invitation for Vietnam and Malaysia to lodge similar claims to UNCLOS. Therefore China must demonstrate that there are costs for such actions. There may be political/economic means available - but there is also talk of China announcing an ADIZ or building a base on Scarborough shoal which was the direct cause of the current disagreement.

So we have CSIS advocating that the Philippines stop any Chinese reclamation attempt at Scarborough Shoal. But the Haiyan oil rig incident demonstrated that even the Vietnamese couldn't get through the oil rig, and note that the Filipino navy is way smaller and weaker than the Vietnamese. Realistically the only way to stop a Chinese reclamation of the Scarborough Shoal would be for the US military to intervene, but then you end up with US Navy destroyers shooting up Chinese fishing boats and starting up the escalation ladder.

We also have PACOM advocating increasingly more frequent and stronger shows of force, but then the Chinese simply respond and escalate right now. There was a demo of a Chinese ICBM with dummy nuclear warheads in the SCS earlier this month.

We can also see that the Russian military is not intimidated by shows of force from the US military - so why should we expect anything different from the Chinese military?

Remember that the Chinese military is way bigger than the Russians, with the notable exception of the number of nuclear warheads. So the lesson that the Chinese are taking on is that a suitably large number of ICBMs results in a US military that is much more careful and cautious about moving military forces into a region where they might end up triggering a conflict and therefore starting up the nuclear escalation ladder.

At the same time, it is in China's long-term interests to maintain good external relations. Hence greater incentives for Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and the rest of non-aligned ASEAN would be the logical response.

Now, if China did declare an ADIZ or reclaimed Scarborough Shoal, what could the USA do?

That revolves mainly around political/economic sanctions - but any public actions would only be counter-productive in the long-run as they would drive a harder response from China and accelerate the development of Chinese technology solutions as foreign companies are pushed out of the huge Chinese market which can sustain its own set of world-class domestic industries.

So the Singaporeans probably had it right some years ago when they advised the Philippines to drop the UNCLOS case as it would only make things worse.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
What China will do will depend largely on what the ruling is.

Without that information, its all largely guesswork as to what China's response will be, since even the Chinese government itself does not even know what it's response will be at this point.

What Beijing would have done is work up a range of options that it can choose from depending on how much they feel the ruling is out of line by.

Personally, I think building an island at Scarborough Shoal is one of the most likely as far as the most extreme realistic scenario being presented to Beijing.

An ADIZ in the SCS is not really in China's interests as a response to this Philippines move, since that will impact on more than the Philippines, and effectively help most of the other claimants to unit against China.

In terms of real measurable gains, an ADIZ doesn't really bring China much, if any benefits and in most ways, its a lot like FON patrols. It's just empty posturing and rhetoric. The other way it is similar to FON is the profound negative burden and commitment it imposes on yourself. Once you start, you can't really stop without risking huge damage to your reputation and credibility.

Others will likely try and ignore any ADIZ China declares, and will probably deliberately violated it to prove a point, which will necessitate China to conduct regular intercepts to show it is being serious about the ADIZ.

That will put massive logistical strains on China's air force, even operating from Woody island.

Realistically speaking, and ADIZ is really only a feasible option after China permanently deploys fighters to the new islands in the Spratly Islands.

But again, deploying fighters to the Spratlys will alienate more than the Philippines, so China will likely hold that card in reserve.

What China will aim to do is punish the Philippines and only the Philippines, in a manner severely enough to serve as a warning to others, yet not enough to warrant American direct interference.

China building an islands at Scarborough Shoal is directed specifically and only at the Philippines, yet it could also be done pretty much anywhere the water is shallow enough in the SCS, so should serve as a good warning to others since the exact same thing can happen at a place they care about should they annoy Beijing enough.

Contrary to what those CSIS tools (their 'analysis', if it could be call that, is just blatant political pandering which ignores obvious key facts, like how Vietnam was the first to break the fundamental agreement between China and ASEAN by starting reclaiming works before China. As such, they are not real academics and are instead intellectual prostitutes who write studies with the conclusion already decided by their paying clients beforehand), there isn't a solitary thing the Philippines could to do stop Chinese reclamation work at Scarborough Shoal.

There is literally nothing they could do to stop it. They can go as far as trying to ram Chinese ships engaged in reclamation works, but their ships are so tiny, they are more likely to sink themselves doing that.

Even opening fire isn't an option, since those Chinese ships will be bristling with cameras and not have any weapons on them.

With improving communications coverage in the SCS thanks to all the new outposts China has been building, China should now have at least information parity, whereas before, the patchy and slow communications to the mainland allowed others to get their version of events out first, which the western media dutifully parroted relentlessly until it became the established 'truth', irrespective of what actually happened.

Even the western media would find it hard to put a positive spin on a live streamed broadcast of Philippines ships opening fire on unarmed Chinese civilian ships.

If the Philippines is idiotic enough to do that, the PLAN can really go to town on them to really set an example, and the US will be able to do nothing by sit and watch, since the Philippines started it all.

That entire CSIS pitch is just so stupid I really want to bill them for the time I wasted reading it.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I suspect that given its importance, Chinese government officials have already been gaming out the different rulings and have their responses prepared.

That would just be common sense
 

ahojunk

Senior Member
Contrary to what those CSIS tools (their 'analysis', if it could be call that, is just blatant political pandering which ignores obvious key facts, like how Vietnam was the first to break the fundamental agreement between China and ASEAN by starting reclaiming works before China. As such, they are not real academics and are instead intellectual prostitutes who write studies with the conclusion already decided by their paying clients beforehand)
@plawolf
I am in total agreement here. The CSIS folks are very bias.

but there is also talk of China announcing an ADIZ or building a base on Scarborough shoal

Personally, I think building an island at Scarborough Shoal is one of the most likely as far as the most extreme realistic scenario being presented to Beijing.

Yes, there were talks about China building in Huangyan. Now, information is leaking out. (See below). I think this leaking is planned and the real stuff will soon follow.

-----------
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Huangyan-2016-03-12_Planet-Labs.jpg

Minnie Chan
PUBLISHED : Monday, 25 April, 2016, 12:16am
UPDATED : Monday, 25 April, 2016, 7:58am

Reclamation work for outpost at Scarborough Shoal off Philippines coast ‘to begin this year’

China will start reclamation at the Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea later this year and may add an airstrip to extend its air force’s reach over the contested waters, a military source and mainland maritime experts say.

A source close to the PLA Navy said Beijing would ramp up work to establish a new outpost 230km off the coast of the Philippines as the US and Manila drew their militaries closer together.

An upcoming ruling on territorial claims by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, widely expected to go against China, would also accelerate the plan, the source said.

Manila wants the court to declare that Beijing’s claims must comply with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the decision could come next month or in June.

“Beijing will take action to carry out land reclamation at Huangyan Island within this year,” said the source, who requested anonymity, referring to the shoal.

“China should regain the initiative to do so because Washington is trying to contain Beijing by establishing a permanent military presence in the region.”

The US and the Philippines began joint patrols in the South China Sea in March, US defence chief Ash Carter revealed during his latest visit to the region. US forces will also have access to at least eight military bases in the Philippines, with two air bases in Pampanga, 330km from Scarborough Shoal.

The atoll is a potential flashpoint in the disputed South China Sea and is claimed by Beijing, Manila and Taipei. Chinese coastguard ships took control of the area after a tense stand-off with Philippine vessels in 2012.

With a new outpost in the shoal, Beijing could “further perfect” its air coverage across the South China Sea, the source said.

The PLA can already land planes at Woody Island, and two additional airstrips are believed to be under construction at Mischief and Fiery Cross reefs.

Subi Reef could also support a landing strip. Last month, the head of US naval operations, Admiral John Richardson,said Chinese activity had been observed around the shoal.

“If China finishes land reclamation at Scarborough Shoal, it can install radar and other facilities for 24-hour monitoring of the US Basa air force base on Pampanga,” Macau-based military expert Antony Wong Dong said.

US defence officials have confirmed China deployed two J-11 fighter jets and bolstered its advanced surface-to-air missile system on Woody Island. Four of the eight HQ-9 launchers were operational, according to US Fox News.

Professor Jin Yongmin, director of the Ocean Strategy Studies Centre at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, said an airstrip at Scarborough Shoal would extend China’s air force reach in the South China Sea by at least 1,000km and close a gap in coverage off Luzon, a gateway to the Pacific. Beijing had been placed under “extreme duress” by the intensified US-Philippine cooperation and impending ruling by The Hague, Jin said.

Another driving factor was Manila’s outpost at Thitu Island in the Spratly chain, Professor Wang Hanling, of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said. It is home to an unpaved landing strip, which the Philippines has said it will repair, although the work allows for the facility to be upgraded.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in February that Beijing halted reclamation work in the Spratlys last August, but other countries continued with their projects.
 

ahojunk

Senior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2016-04-24 06:30:00 | Xinhua | Web Editor: Li Cong

a205cf6dde5747fda325d1cb93ee13cc.jpg
Chinese top diplomat Wang Yi tells a press conference on Saturday, April 23, 2016 in Vietnam, stressing territorial disputes on the South China Sea issues should be resolved through consultations. [Photo.fmprc.gov]

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in Vietnam on Saturday that China has reached a four-point consensus with Brunei, Cambodia and Laos on the South China Sea issue.

The four countries agreed that the territorial disputes over some islands, rocks and shoals in the South China Sea are not an issue between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as a whole which should not affect the development of China-ASEAN relations, Wang told a press conference.

They agreed that the right enjoyed by sovereign states to choose on their own ways to solve disputes under the international law should be respected.

They opposed any attempt to unilaterally impose an agenda on other countries.

The four countries also agreed that territorial and maritime disputes should be resolved through consultations and negotiations by parties directly concerned under Article 4 of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC).

They believed that China and the ASEAN countries are able to jointly maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea through cooperation.

Countries outside the region should play a constructive role in this regard, they agreed.

Laos is the last leg of Wang's three-nation visit, which has taken him to Brunei and Cambodia.
 

ahojunk

Senior Member
China's complaints are getting less diplomatic and more blunt...

--------
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Xinhua, April 22, 2016

b8aeed9906a71884628e08.jpg
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying [fmprc.gov.cn]​

China cautioned the United States to be discreet in its words and deeds regarding the South China Sea after U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken questioned China's intentions over its land reclamation project.

Blinken said on Thursday during his visit to Vietnam that China's land reclamation project and increasing militarization of the outposts fuel regional tension and the United States will continue to sail, fly, and operate anywhere that international law allows.

The deployment of necessary defense facilities on islands and reefs of the Nansha Islands falls under China's sovereignty and the country is exercising its rights of self-protection and self-defense granted by international law, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said at a regular news briefing.

China has always respected and supported countries in exercising freedom of navigation and flight in the South China Sea in line with international law, Hua said.

She said China firmly opposes countries that threaten and harm the sovereignty and security of coastal countries under the pretext of freedom of navigation and flight.

"Does the United States mean freedom of navigation enjoyed by ordinary ships in line with international law or freedom of intrusion by U.S. military planes and vessels?" she said.

"The United States has repeatedly questioned China's intentions, but will the U.S. explain its real motive in stoking tensions and increasing military presence in the area?" Hua said.

As a non-claimant to the South China Sea, the United States should be discreet with its words and deeds and create a sound atmosphere for directly involved parties to resolve disputes peacefully through negotiation," she said.

"The United States should play a constructive role in regional peace and stability, rather than the opposite," she added.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I suspect that given its importance, Chinese government officials have already been gaming out the different rulings and have their responses prepared.

That would just be common sense

Undoubtably. But they would have gamed out far more than just the likely rulings, Chinese response options and consequences.

Chinese strategists would have spent years gaming out possible US counters and Chinese moves, escalation pathways and even direct conflict scenarios.

The conclusion to the overwhelming majority of those games would have played out to China's advantage.

Basically, China holds every advantage in the SCS in any escalation and even conflict scenario short of total nuclear war.

Short of blowing up the entire earth, which I think we can safely ignore, there just aren't any good choices for America and its regional allies in walking further down the escalation route with China in the SCS.

Indeed, the more the issue escalates, the more it actually benefits China.

Despite all these advantages, which China would have known full well it holds going in, at the very start of this entire US engineered crisis, China started off with its usual low key subtle approach to try and warn off the Americans while allowing them to avoid being publicly humiliated.

But rather than take the discreet ladder China offered them to climb down, America mistook Chinese thoughtfulness as weakness and doubled down when they should have folded.

Ever since, China has been gradually increasing the pressure and systematically trumping every move America has made.

As America stubbornly refuses to take the hint, China has been gradually becoming less and less subtle in demonstrating just how overwhelming its advantages are in the SCS.

The US can do all the FON patrols and hold all the joint patrols it wants. That doesn't change the actual power positions of the players in any way, shape or form.

In stark contrast to transitory American FON PR stunts, Chinese counter moves to create and consolidate new islands will continue to yield tangible benefits to China now and in the future, and drastically change the power balance in the region in China's favour.

America has gone to all the trouble and expense of securing military bases in the Philippines, thinking that is some master stroke.

But those bases are largely neutralised if China builds a massive artificial island and military base on it at Scarborough/Huangyan, from where it could see everything going on at those bases, and indeed bring those bases into direct weapons range should Beijing decide to deploy the necessary missiles there.

The fact that China is actually telling America and the Philippines beforehand is pretty much adding insult to injury, by demonstrating just how powerless they are in this situation even if they knew full well what China plans to do in advance.

I actually think China will build an island at Scarborough/Huangyan before it deploys any heavy weapons to any of the new islands it built in the Spratlys.

By not arming the other islands, China could still maintain the facade that its reclamation work at Scarborough/Huangyan is principally for civilian purposes.

Indeed, it would be pretty happy, and indeed, probably prefer to keep those islands civilian in nature and not forward deploy any fighters or missiles to them.

Just having radar sites on them to allow China to effectively monitor all of the SCS is more than enough to give the PLAN a decisive military advantage in the SCS without needing any island based fighter or missile support.

With effective monitoring of the region, and powerful PLAN action groups always patrolling in the area, no one could launch a surprise attack to take the islands without the Chinese seeing them coming from a long way off an being ready to repel the attack.

Nearby PLAN fleets could intercept attacking forces before they can threaten the islands, and land based PLAAF fighters could deploy from Hainan and not worry about having to save fuel for the trip back since they can just land at the islands they are fighting over to refuel and rearm.

The longer the conflict goes on for, the more forces China can bring to bear in the SCS, and the greater its military tactical and strategic advantages.

Even today, without fighters and missiles based on them, China's SCS islands are already going to be a hell of a hard nut to crack, and will only become more so as China's military continue to modernise.

The SCS is probably one of the very worst places anyone could try and pick a fight with China over. If really pushed to it, I have very little doubt that China would be willing to fight a war down there, because its advantages are so overwhelming, and also because it is far away enough that the Chinese mainland would effectively be off limits in any SCS war.

That removes the chief risk and cost for China associated with war - that the war will spill over onto the mainland and devastate China's economic and industrial heartland, as a war over Taiwan or in Korea, for example, carries a significant risk of doing.

For all the unseemly relish the likes of Adm Harris have been publicly voicing about bombing Chinese forces on the SCS islands, not only are China willing to fight in the SCS, given the geographical, situational awareness, numerical and logistical advantages China would enjoy in the SCS, there is a very good chance it could even win.

If American leaders cannot see it and keep expecting China to back down eventually if only they could push China far enough, then they are sleepwalking towards disaster.
 

confusion

Junior Member
Registered Member
The author is puzzled that India would change position and support China on this issue; however, I think it's a very smart move by India. Unlike the Philippines, Indian strategic thinking is top-notch.

The article didn't mention this, but, India interprets FON in a manner similar to China.
Russia, India, China Address South China Sea in Trilateral Statement
The statement cautions against the internationalization of the disputes.
April 21, 2016

thediplomat_2016-04-18_17-16-52-386x257.jpg


Two days ago, in Moscow, the foreign ministers of India, Russia, and China released a joint communique outlining areas of trilateral agreement between the three countries.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the three countries have met annually since 2002 to discuss issues of regional and global importance. While the trilateral hasn’t addressed the issue in the past, this year, the three foreign ministers included the South China Sea disputes in their joint communique. Specifically, the portion of the communique on the maritime disputes there said the following:

Russia, India and China are committed to maintaining a legal order for the seas and oceans based on the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UN Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS). All related disputes should be addressed through negotiations and agreements between the parties concerned. In this regard the Ministers called for full respect of all provisions of UNCLOS, as well as the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and the Guidelines for the implementation of the DOC.

The statement is notable as the first mention of the South China Sea disputes in a Russia-India-China trilateral statement. Last year, at their 13th annual meeting, the foreign ministers omitted any mention of the disputes, despite the fact that China’s construction of artificial islands in the Spratly Islands was already beginning to raise red flags in the international press. This year, however, with a decision looming at at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on the case Philippines v. China —a decision that is likely to not go in China’s favor by most counts—Beijing is looking to shore up its position on the disputes.

Namely, the statement that “All related disputes should be addressed through negotiations and agreements between the parties concerned” is nearly verbatim lifted from China’s frequent foreign ministry statements on the South China Sea disputes. China opposes the internationalization of dispute resolution in the South China Sea, and has said it does not recognize the authority of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in its disputes with the Philippines.

Moreover, last week, before the trilateral meeting in Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov issued similar remarks. ”I am convinced that they (attempts to internationalize the issue) are completely counterproductive,”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. ”Only negotiations, which China and the ASEAN are pursuing, can bring the desired result, namely, mutually acceptable agreements.” The alignment of Russia’s position with China’s came shortly after the G7 group of nations—a group that formerly included Russia as the G8—
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Lu Kang, a spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry, said that
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Finally, what’s striking about the Russia-India-China trilateral joint communique this year is that India was willing to sign on to the statement. Since 2013, New Delhi’s language on the South China Sea has matched that of the United States, Vietnam, the Philippines, Australia, and Japan—all stakeholders in the persistence of the regional status quo, which values a rules-based order privileging international principles such as the freedom of navigation. The Indian decision to acquiesce to the trilateral communique doesn’t suggest a change of policy, but it will frustrate regional states and muddy India’s position on the South China Sea. Just days before the trilateral communique was released,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
:

…reaffirmed the importance of safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation and over flight throughout the region, including in the South China Sea. They vowed their support for a rules-based order and regional security architecture conducive to peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean, and emphasized their commitment to working together and with other nations to ensure the security and stability that have been beneficial to the Asia-Pacific for decades.

The bilateral U.S.-India statement and the Russia-India-China trilateral communique speak to opposing sides of the same issue. As I said, India’s policy almost certainly hasn’t shifted, but it’s still curious that it would acquiesce to a trilateral communique with Russia and China that runs counter to its previously stated positions on how the international community ought to treat the South China Sea disputes.

It appears that India is coming under some criticism for changing its position on the SCS, but I agree with India's strategic thinking here: “maximise gains at minimum costs” is a good description of India's aims. It appears that India wants to secure a permanent spot in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Let's see if the US can offer India something better.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Indian diplomacy rests on engagement with major world powers instead of clinging to a particular country," said an article in state-run newspaper.

Accusing India of following a “tricky two-sided” China policy to “maximise gains at minimum costs”, an article in the state media here said India’s stand on a negotiated settlement in the disputed South China Sea is aimed at securing membership of the China-led SCO grouping.

“Indian diplomacy rests on engagement with major world powers instead of clinging to a particular country. By adopting an ambiguous strategy, India places itself in a position that all the major powers woo it, but it never explicitly promises anything regarding the policies of other nations,” the article in the state-run Global Times said.

“This makes these countries hope about wooing India while not willing to break ties with it due to its ambiguous stance. India has been trying to maximise its interests with minimum costs, which so far has achieved satisfying results,” the article ‘New Delhi may get dragged into tussles’,” said.

Referring to the joint statement issued after the April 18 meeting of foreign ministers of Russia, India and China (RIC), it said India struck a common stance toward the simmering tensions in the South China Sea (SCS) backing a negotiated settlement to solve territorial disputes.

China opposes the Philippines’ arbitration under the UN Convention on Law of Seas (UNCLOS) on the SCS but is open for a negotiated settlement. “Having established a comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination, China-Russia relations have warmed up in the past two years and Russia has expressed understanding and support for China’s stance in the South China Sea. But India’s attitude is tricky,” it said.

“For years, India has remained a prudent yet ambiguous stance over the SCS issue. At a sensitive moment such as now, India expressed the same attitude as China and Russia, indicating a changing state of mind of India,” it said. “One possible reason is that India has been striving for full-fledged membership of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). In July 2015, SCO Ufa summit launched the process of accession for India and Pakistan.

“But India’s inclusion into the SCO has not been completed. India needs to prove that its accession can play a constructive role for the unity of SCO members and the international effect of the SCO,” it said.
 

confusion

Junior Member
Registered Member
As I mentioned earlier, India's interpretation of FON conflicts with the US position. Here's a list of the FON ops conducted by the US last year:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Apr 25, 2016
The U.S. military conducted "freedom of navigation" operations against 13 countries last year, including several in dispute of China's claims in the South and East China seas, according to an annual Pentagon report released on Monday.

The operations were against China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Libya, Malaysia, the Maldives, Oman, the Philippines and Vietnam, the report said.

It did not specify how many such operations were conducted against each of those countries. The U.S. military carried out single operations against Taiwan, Nicaragua and Argentina, for a total of 13 countries, the department said in the two-page report.

The freedom of navigation operations involve sending U.S. Navy ships and military aircraft into areas where other countries have tried to limit access. The aim is to demonstrate that the international community does not accept such restrictions.

The U.S. military has repeatedly conducted operations disputing China's maritime claims in recent years and did so again in 2015, a year in which Beijing's island-building activity in the resource-rich areas of the South China Sea led to rising tensions in the region.

A U.S. guided-missile destroyer conducted a freedom of navigation patrol near one of China's man-made islands in the Spratly archipelago in October. U.S. military flights near the islands have been warned to go away.

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the Navy would continue to operate in the region despite China's condemnation of the patrols.

Admiral Harry Harris, the head of U.S. Pacific Command, said this year the Navy would step up the freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea because of concerns China is attempting to assert its dominance by building military facilities there.

U.S. freedom of navigation operations last year also challenged China's claims of jurisdiction in the airspace above its maritime Exclusive Economic Zone as well as restrictions it has tried to impose on aircraft flying through an Air Defense Identification Zone over the East China Sea.

The number of countries the United States challenged last year was down from 2014, when it targeted 19 countries. That was the largest number in more than a decade.

Iran and the Philippines have been the most frequently challenged countries over the years, mainly because they sit astride heavily traveled sea lanes whose use they have tried to limit or govern.

What's most interesting is that Canada is missing from this list yet again. Despite Canada claiming the entire Northwest Passage as its internal waters, the US navy has not attempted to challenge their claim since
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, when strong public opinion in Canada forced the US to abandon the challenge. If the US was truly an honest broker, why would the US navy not challenge Canada's 'excessive maritime claims' in a similar manner in which they challenge China's?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The “Northwest Passage” refers to the sea route that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans across the top of North America, via waterways through the islands lying between Canada’s northern continental coastline and the Arctic Ocean (displayed in red below). The Canadian government asserts that the Northwest Passage is part of Canada’s internal waters, and subject to the nation’s full sovereignty. In fact, in 2009 the Canadian Parliament renamed the waterways the “Canadian Northwest Passage.” Under Canada’s view, no other nation has the right to navigate in or fly over those waters unless Canada consents.

...


Arctic.jpg

As reaffirmed in the 2009 U.S.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the United States’ position vis-à-vis the status of the Northwest Passage has been clear:

Freedom of the seas is a top national priority. The Northwest Passage is a strait used for international navigation…; the regime of transit passage applies to passage through those straits. Preserving the rights and duties relating to navigation and overflight in the Arctic region supports our ability to exercise these rights throughout the world, including through strategic straits.

Russia is also missing from the US FON list, despite making similar claims to Canada, but it's not hard to understand why the US isn't challenging Russia's 'excessive maritime claims'.

The title here is hilarious - it hasn't stopped the US from challenging China.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S. freedom of navigation interests in the Arctic would be bolstered by joining UNCLOS. Both Russia and Canada have maritime claims in the Arctic that are inconsistent with the rules contained in the Convention. Russia37 and Canada38 draw excessive straight baselines in the Arctic and restrict the right of transit passage in various international straits in the Arctic, including the Northeast Passage, the Northwest Passage and vari- ous straits located within Russia’s Northern Sea Route (NSR)—the Demitri, Laptev and Sannikov Straits. Russia’s straight baselines closing the NSR straits and Canada’s straight baselines around its Arctic Islands do not meet the legal criteria contained in Article 7 of the Convention
 
Top