China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
sorry...that would not be the same by any stretch of the imagination.
Alaska is part of a continental land mass that is part of the US.
Hawaii is a natural set of islands, whose land is a natural extension above water of sea mountains, that are also part of the US.
The reclaimed islands are artificial constructs, and therefore seen significantly different when it comes to territorial waters and normal territorial limits.
That's the difference the US is punctuating.
Look, the US cannot stop the reclamation efforts...short of armed conflict which would be ridiculous and which no one wants or is looking for.
Conversely, the US coming within 12 miles and challenging an artificial islands limits as compared to a natural land mass are also, short of conflict, something that is not going to be stopped.
China should simply keep developing and improving their new holdings and ignore US flights out to 8-10 miles IMHO. Over flights should be challenged.
I believe that for artificial constructs on reefs one recognized distance is 500 meters (which is about 1/4 mile. I doubt the US will ever come that close because it is too close to an over flight which is really pushing things.
If the Chinese challenged the flights with radio messages asking for identification and intentions, and kept their own aircraft in close, but non-hazarding distances...after a while, it would be clear that continued such flights by the US were fruitless and pointless.
Anyhow...just my thoughts on it.
China isn't claiming a territorial sea based on the reclaimed area. Even before reclamation began, Fiery Cross Reef had two rocks that naturally remained above water during high tide; whether or not China reclaimed land doesn't affect that. Those rocks give China a 12 nautical mile radius in territorial waters around Fiery Cross like the Rockalls do for the UK. By sailing within 12 nautical miles of Fiery Cross, the US has directly breached Chinese sovereignty.
The contentious issue isn't whether or not Fiery Cross grants territorial sea, it's whether or not the US actions constitute as "innocent passage" which is allowed under UNCLOS to pass within another country's territorial sea.
It's also contentious as to which islands are due an EEZ; Taiping Island seems the most likely candidate. The Filipinos with their court case seem to have taken the "if we can't have it, no one can" stance. However EEZ disputes are not related to the US destroyer incident.
Brumby
Major
How so notwithstanding the sovereignty issue itself is disputed?
Here, for your sake:
"By sailing within 12 nautical miles of Fiery Cross, the US has directly breached [whoever rightfully owns Fiery Cross]'s sovereignty."
Brumby
Major
You are simply repeating what you previously said. How is the US FONOP breaching Chinese territorial claim? It is a legal question not simply an opinion.
Do you have a official source where the US government officially dispute Fiery Cross Chinese Sovereignty? If yes, which country*s sovereignty does the US recognize? That is your wishful interpretation. Official US stance is it does not take side with sovereignty issues. The Navy ship was sailing under pretext of Innocent passage FON. Nothing mentioned about challenging sovereignty.
Last edited:
Brumby
Major
You should direct the question to jobjed as that issue was raised by that poster, not me.
Fiery Cross is due a territorial sea and the US intruded within that territorial sea.
Brumby
Major
The US is entitled to conduct FONOP as long as it is within international law. How is intrusion necessarily a breach of sovereignty?