jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
It has nothing to do with playing nice or naughty. There is no written rule defining the freedom of navigation. It is however used as a red herring by the US that any Chinese objection to its conducting military exercise and espionage mission in its near shore is branded as against the freedom of navigation.
And yes you can say everyone plays by the same rule, that if US can conduct military drills in China's EEZ, then China can as well vice versa, but China doesn't want to conduct military drill anywhere near the US, nor does it want the US to so so in its own backyard. So it naturally wants to better define the rule in its favor. And how is China going to convince the US to accept that? It can't. So the only thing it can do is to deter and disrupt US action that it deems unfavorable, so as to become the norm, or an unwritten rule, just like the current interpretation on the "freedom of navigation". Until it is the US interest to better define or change the rule, that's the best China can and will do.
You did not get my point at all.
First of all, there ARE written rule defining the freedom of navigation. Both Navigation Right and Freedom of Navigation were defined as per UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While US did not sign in at the convention, the US operate on US Law of Navigation (Or US Navigation Rights) but we are talking about the former, not the later, which China belong to the former convention as a Signed and Ratified Parties.
Both navigational right and freedom of navigation is defined as per Article 87 (FON) and Article 88 (Nav Right)
But this is not my point.
My point is as follow.
China can protest or they can ignore the law by its own merit. To be honest, the only thing Chinese Government need to do is to withdrew from the UNCLOS once and for all and issue their own Navigation Right, as per US. The problem is. You can do either one but not both.
You can withdrew from the Convention, then use your own law, but then you cannot protest other being "aggressive" as you lost the right to be protected by the convention, should you choose to leave. And if you are going to do what you do unilaterally, then what do you expect on other party response?
You can protest against the US aggression, if you stick by the UNCLOS. If you think the US is the aggressor per international law, you can speak up in the international forum you belong to. But by doing so, you would be need to respect and abide to the law as we speak. Building Island on an international waterway is not permitted as per UNCLOS.
You can leave, or you can protest, but you cannot do both. Doing one will concede the right of doing the other. What Chinese Government and to some extend PDF Chinese member here doing at this moment is they are doing both.
we are the true believers of freedom of navigation, it is US who cries every time we navigate in front of you.
Look to me it's the Chinese who are doing the crying.
South China Sea: China slams US over warship sailing near artificial islands; US ambassador 'summoned' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
South China Sea: Beijing calls US Navy warship's route a 'provocation'
South China Sea: US Navy warship sails by China's artificial islands, says US
The US, on the other hand, just do what they want to do....They did not protest, they simply challenge it.