US operation aggravates tensions over South China Sea disputes

[TexasTowelie]

The US Navy conducted another “freedom of navigation” operation (FONOP) on August 28 to demonstrate Washington’s rejection of Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea. The provocation involved the guided-missile destroyer USS Wayne E. Meyer entering the 12-nautical mile “exclusion zone” around two Chinese-held islets in the Spratly Islands, Fiery Cross Reef and Mischief Reef. In doing so, it would most likely have passed in close proximity to other islands and reefs held by rival claimants, including Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and Taiwan.

The two territories selected for the FONOP are among the most sensitive in the disputed area. The Chinese military has reclaimed land and constructed bases on both. Fiery Cross has radar installations, a port, hardened shelters for anti-aircraft and anti-shipping missile systems and a runway that can be landed on by strategic bombers. It is most likely garrisoned by 300 or more troops and other personnel. Mischief also has a long runway, a port and, the US has alleged, operational anti-aircraft artillery and missile batteries.

A US defence official told CNN that a “Chinese military vessel” had followed the US ship.

A press release issued by the Japan-based US Seventh Fleet asserted that the Wayne E. Meyer had been deployed to “challenge excessive maritime claims… All operations are designed in accordance with international law and demonstrate that the United States will fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows… FONOPs are not about any one country, nor are they about making political statements.”

Read more: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/08/30/schs-a30.html

[Ghost Dog]

1. "The Navy aligned to great power competition" (Adm. Richardson)

... I would say that the Navy aligned to great power competition. I just keep getting unsolicited emails from the [surface warfare officer community] that says: “Hey, the tone and culture of that whole crowd has changed. They are leaning into this, you know, his drive towards war-fighting excellence." It’s all about how can we be better war fighters. They’re celebrating command, empowering their [commanding officers] to get out there and — not to be completely risk averse — but to manage risk appropriately. Which is exactly what we want our Navy to be doing, particularly that part of our Navy, which is the visible Navy for so many...

... The South China Sea is a kind of illustrative example maybe. I think what has changed there is — and I give all the credit to [Pacific Fleet chief] Adm. [John] Aquilino and [Indo-Pacific Command chief Adm. Phil] Davidson — we’ve kind of normalized our presence there, right? They’ve made it very clear, and it has been our consistent message that we are going to be present.

In fact, that’s the theme of every visit that I’ve made to China and every time I’ve talked with my counterparts there: We’re going to be consistent, you can count on us to be consistent and our actions will be consistent with our words. Our presence has been their constant for 70 years and you will see it in the future. This is a very important part of the world. You know, a third of the world’s trade flows through this body of water.

Since the beginning of the Navy, we’ve been charged with protecting sea lanes, contributing to the economic element of national power. We’re going to be there. So we started to normalize freedom of navigation operations, which is exactly kind of how they should work. You know, before they were something different and kind of a [big] deal. And now it’s: OK, we’re going to be here. And these are for claims around the world, right? Not just in the South China Sea. If you have an excessive maritime claim, you shouldn’t be surprised if we’re going to challenge that. So it’s really that our actions now are really consistent with our words.

We're invested in this system of rules and norms that has allowed the gross domestic product of the world to roughly double or more...

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/08/27/us-navys-top-officer-sounds-off-on-his-way-out-the-door/

U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson on Aug. 22 handed the reins over to Adm. Michael Gilday. Gilday was a nontraditional pick selected from the three-star ranks after the Senate-confirmed CNO, Adm. Bill Moran, stepped down amid an Inspector General investigation. Richardson, who was himself a nontraditional selection, was pulled from his job as head of the naval reactors office, three years into an eight-year billet.

[TexasTowelie]

2. Thanks for the post.

It offers a needed counterbalance to the WSWS report.

[Ghost Dog]

3. Yeah. Balance.

"Excessive maritime claims". Hmm. How does this affect freedom of navigation, in normal peaceful times?

Since China imports and exports enormous quantities of goods through those waters, and its economy and society depend on that trade, China is certainly most interested in guaranteeing freedom of navigation through those waters, and perhaps justifiably might perceive the USA's Pacific Hegemon posturing (in naval alliance with Australia and NZ) as representing a potential threat to the same.

If China were to run FONOPs in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, or off the US Pacific coast, would this be likely to help or hinder such freedom of navigation?

Thanks for your post TexasTowelie.

[soryang]

4. there is a difference between FONO and the notion an island has no riparian territory

The Chinese are asserting an over reaching territorial claim in terms of the nine dash line. This is an entirely separate issue affecting the territorial and economic claims of neighboring states.

The fact is that international law regarding artificial islands never contemplated the size and scope and remote nature of artificial island construction by China. Some sort of buffer zone needs to be created around the islands and respected to avoid unnecessary military confrontations. It doesn't have to be 12 miles, it could be something less. This really doesn't affect freedom of navigation. The South China Sea is a large body of water. A limit that could be negotiated for safety purposes, for example such as having a TCA around an airfield is only common sense. Do US military aircraft have the right to directly overfly these artificial islands? The US position is yes we do. This is unnecessarily provocative. The main problem with artificial islands is the undue extension of claims to a national economic zone or the extension of the national 12 mile territory limit further offshore to affect a claim to a greater economic zone. Artificial islands along an national coastline can easily be distinguished from those built in remote sea locations far from the nations legitimate boundaries. Yet some common sense should be applied diplomatically to work out new standards for safety and security around such islands.

The US is allegedly defending something that was not contemplated previously under international law.