That policy is nothing more than arrogant, bullying, and condescending colonial era gunboat diplomacy, 12 miles is nothing in terms of modern naval weaponry. Obviously the frequency and aggressiveness of case by case acts based on that policy speaks even louder than the policy itself. But the innate threat in that policy warrants dislike and disagreement by others. Asking others to endorse that policy themselves is to encourage raising baseline tensions among more countries.
PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
That policy is nothing more than arrogant, bullying, and condescending colonial era gunboat diplomacy, 12 miles is nothing in terms of modern naval weaponry. Obviously the frequency and aggressiveness of case by case acts based on that policy speaks even louder than the policy itself. But the innate threat in that policy warrants dislike and disagreement by others. Asking others to endorse that policy themselves is to encourage raising baseline tensions among more countries.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Nope, it's not simply arrogant, bullying, and condescending gunboat diplomacy, because most maritime nations agree with the policy. China is the outlier in this case, and reason dictates the party that wants to change the status quo must persuade the majority. So, what reasons has Red China offered, other than colonial oppression?
Last edited:
That popularity contest challenge is fair enough. The long range, high speed, and expansive destructive power of modern naval weapons, and air launched weapons for that matter, is plenty food for thought on allowing or insisting on military activity right up against the 12nm territorial waters of a coastal country.
Blackstone
Brigadier
In this case, it’s not popularity, torpedo, missiles, or bombs that will win the day, but enlightened self-interests of nations. Most of the world agree with current US perspective on freedom of navagation, but is it because they share the same view, or is it due to lack of viable alternatives? Maybe China could lead the opposition and change how the world sees foreign military operations in domestic EEZ. If China really feels it has a good case, then here’s an opportunity to use the Brenton Woods system to reform itself. On the other hand, if China can’t get the majority of the UN to come around, then it really never had a good case in the first place.
shen
Senior Member
This is another one of those lies that have been repeated enough to be taken for granted by many well intentioned but uninformed people. China is far from alone or even in the minority when it comes to objecting to foreign warships operating in territorial and EEZ water. The list of countries in Chinese camp is actually getting bigger every year. US is becoming globally isolated in this regard. Refer to article posted by Panasian in the SCS Strategy thread about 19 countries challenged by American warships in 2014 alone under the US "Freedom of Navigation Program".
Here is a short sample of countries that disagree with American interpretation of "freedom of navigation".
Last edited:
Lies? Hogwash.
There you go splitting the meaning.
No one is talking about within the territorial limit to my knowledge. In that you are correct, China is not alone. The US and China pretty much agree on this.
But, wwhen it comes to freedom of navigation through SLOCs in EEZs, the vast majority of nations agree with the US.
That list nit picks at some very small differences and then is used to indicate some kind of major disagreement, shen.
Like adding territorial limits to the equation and saying that China is with the majority.
We are talking however about freedom of navigation through international waters, and specifically through SLOCs, even I a nation claims an EEZ.
"Bay restrictions, baseline claims, various non-conforming restrictions, certain straits, certain over flight restrictions...etc., etc"
Almost all of these are relatively minor differences, but when it comes to free navigation in recognized SLOCs in international waters (meaning outside of the normal territorial limit), most countries agree.
Such lists as these are cherry picking to try and arrive at a number and show a split where there is very little.
Although there are minor differences in the whole, and a few major points of issue, T=the fact is, Blackstone is right. The vast majority of nations in the maritime environment agree with the US stance on freedom of navigation...and understandably so.
Assuming 9 stories gives you 27metres (probably more), someone taking watch on the top can see at least about 18.5km out. Even more with diffraction taken into account but that tends to vary a lot.
There is a major difference between passing merchant ships through your EEZ and even through your territorial waters, which should always be allowed, and agreeing intimidating foreign naval ships to close to twelve miles of your coast.
antiterror13
Brigadier
wondering whether the US would allow any warship (i.e Chinese, Russian) passing their EEZ, and just outside 12nm territorial waters?