South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

[Blackstone]

Whilst I do not disagree with you that international relations is basically as you described but the subject matter of conversation was about the specific nature of FONOPs and more importantly the source of its legitimacy.

The problem with US view of FONOP (which I actually agree with) is there are nations with different interpretations of the international law. Since ICJ hasn't clarified which version is correct, then we're left with states promoting their own. Majority of nations in the world agrees with US, but the minority isn't necessary wrong either, that's why I'd like to see countries like China and India take the case to the ICJ and settle it once and for all. But that isn't in the cards, so we're left with shoving matches.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

The problem with US view of FONOP (which I actually agree with) is there are nations with different interpretations of the international law. Since ICJ hasn't clarified which version is correct, then we're left with states promoting their own. Majority of nations in the world agrees with US, but the minority isn't necessary wrong either, that's why I'd like to see countries like China and India take the case to the ICJ and settle it once and for all. But that isn't in the cards, so we're left with shoving matches.

Unfortunately ICJ is not in a position to clarify interpretations unless they are connected to a case submitted to court and since PRC rejects any ICJ arbitration it's out of ICJ's hand.

 

[Blackstone]

Unfortunately ICJ is not in a position to clarify interpretations unless they are connected to a case submitted to court and since PRC rejects any ICJ arbitration it's out of ICJ's hand.

Probably so, but there's a possibility China wouldn't opt out of that specific case, if it thinks it could score a win against the US.

 

[Zool]

The US is not threatening anyone, or said they will military force for anything here.

They are simply sailing naval vessels through the ocean.

Should we presume then that anytime the PLAN sails near any other land mass that this is gun boat diplomacy?

Of course not.

People see what they want to see.

An important point of distinction however, is that the USN FON Patrols are publicly described by administration and service personnel as a 'challenge'. Those statements are out there. Whereas the example you provided of Chinese transit through arctic waters was just that, transit. China did not claim their ships passage as intending to challenge US territorial claims and warn the US to expect more of the same.

I saw the difference anyhow, so I can only imagine the Chinese would see it the same way per that example and each sides stated intent with these actions.

 

[Brumby]

An important point of distinction however, is that the USN FON Patrols are publicly described by administration and service personnel as a 'challenge'. Those statements are out there. Whereas the example you provided of Chinese transit through arctic waters was just that, transit. China did not claim their ships passage as intending to challenge US territorial claims and warn the US to expect more of the same.

I saw the difference anyhow, so I can only imagine the Chinese would see it the same way per that example and each sides stated intent with these actions.

The difference is easy to reconcile. The US FONOP is designed to challenge excessive maritime claims. If China is operating within maritime norm then the FON is simply a passage. An example is the Chinese transit through the straits. No fuss because that is within maritime prescription. However, the Chinese has imposed conditions that are outside the maritime provisions and hence they are considered excessive. if the Chinese operates like the rest of the world in terms of observing what it had signed up for in UNCLOS then there is no issue. The problem is the Chinese is operating with a double standard mindset.

 

[Zool]

The difference is easy to reconcile. The US FONOP is designed to challenge excessive maritime claims. If China is operating within maritime norm then the FON is simply a passage. An example is the Chinese transit through the straits. No fuss because that is within maritime prescription. However, the Chinese has imposed conditions that are outside the maritime provisions and hence they are considered excessive. if the Chinese operates like the rest of the world in terms of observing what it had signed up for in UNCLOS then there is no issue. The problem is the Chinese is operating with a double standard mindset.

My reply to Jeff is specific to his comparison of the Chinese arctic passage being the same as USN SCS FON challenges, where I have noted a significant distinction.

Beyond that we won't be able to resolve positions on UNCLOS and FON because as we have discussed before (and I noticed you recently had a similar conversation again with Blitzo), I see the Chinese position as drawing a distinction between commercial and military transit and operations.

I will also say that while I have seen examples of Chinese actions counter to current UNCLOS provisions, I have seen the same from the US and other nations (Israel as I recall showing an example of many many months ago) globally over the years. That does not provide cover for China but it does expose a degree of hypocrisy in criticism of China over the last year or so. All of that to say, China is acting in it's perceived national interest first and within International Law second. No different to the US, Russia etc in many respects.

Cheers

 

[Brumby]

My reply to Jeff is specific to his comparison of the Chinese arctic passage being the same as USN SCS FON challenges, where I have noted a significant distinction.

Whether It is similar or different is solely dependent on the reaction of the counter party and not the passage itself and I believe that was Jeff's point.

I see the Chinese position as drawing a distinction between commercial and military transit and operations.

Do you have a view as to the basis of the Chinese position because I see it simply as brute force reasoning in the absence of any sound reasoning.

I will also say that while I have seen examples of Chinese actions counter to current UNCLOS provisions, I have seen the same from the US and other nations (Israel as I recall showing an example of many many months ago) globally over the years.

If you are referring to the Israeli blockade then that doesn't fall under UNCLOS but law of armed conflict and is legal under international law.

 

[PanAsian]

I also don't see US FONOPS as gunboat diplomacy, because I doubt there's real threat of military force against China if it doesn't agree with US views. On the other hand, PanAsian is technically correct in calling it by that noun, because it's the very definition from Webster dictionary.

Frankly, China's own FONOP in the Bearing Straits implies either it agrees with US view, or it wants it both ways. The former is good, and civilized nations can't allowed the latter to stand.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

gunboat diplomacy
noun
Definition of gunboat diplomacy
Popularity: Bottom 10% of words

1. : diplomacy backed by the use or threat of military force

The US is not threatening anyone, or said they will military force for anything here.

They are simply sailing naval vessels through the ocean.

Should we presume then that anytime the PLAN sails near any other land mass that this is gun boat diplomacy?

Of course not.

People see what they want to see.

An action indeed appears to have different meaning based on context, so depending on what, and how much if any, context is taken into account an action will mean different things.

Only expeditionary powers actually care about military vessel "FON" as it can only serve three practical purposes:
- Expedient transit of military vessels en route to somewhere else.
- As a show of force of military vessels, where this is unwanted then intimidation or harassment is inherent.
- As a cover for forward deployment of military vessels up to point blank range against a target as intent can change on a dime once presence is allowed or established.

This concept and practice trace a direct lineage to colonial era gunboat diplomacy.

The Chinese does have explaining to do regarding their Aleutians transit as to whether the same standard applies to everyone everywhere, and just which standard are they going to abide by.

However there are key differences between the two "innocent passage"s by China through the Aleutians and by the US through the Paracels:
- China's was not an explicit "FONOP" to challenge local authority, though this is a moot point as the US appropriately held up the occasion as an example of Chinese use of military vessel "FON" as universally interpreted and practiced by the US, and the US behaved as it expects others to behave.
- The US "FONOP" was part of a campaign, with specific stated targeting of China. China's was not part of a "FONOP" campaign, though there is always a first and time will tell with this one. Obviously the US was targeted even though there was no stated targeting though this is a moot point per above as the US sees this as acceptable rather than unacceptable behavior.
- The most serious practical difference even if conceptually unrelated as the US is keen to remind everyone, is that the US military vessel "innocent passage" occurred around disputed territory under Chinese control in the larger context of other US actions aiding and abetting rival claimants, effectively taking sides in the territorial dispute (in line with unofficial statements by relevant US officials) despite official US statements to the contrary. The Chinese military vessel "innocent passage" does not have any such effectively hostile context.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

PLAN war ship transit through the Okinawa Isles chain all the time to reach the Pacific. Is it not the same?

 

[PanAsian]

PLAN war ship transit through the Okinawa Isles chain all the time to reach the Pacific. Is it not the same?

Not the same if they are sailing in international waters which they should be. All this "FON" talk is about military vessels sailing within others' territorial waters within 12nm from the coast.