Last week, US destroyer the USS Lassen made a high-profile passage through the South China Sea, challenging the 12-nautical-mile (22.2km) territorial limits around artificial islands China has built in the Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島).
Until now, it has not caused a serious problem between the two nations, with each side interpreting the incident in the way that best suits them.
Beijing can say it was an “innocent passage” through its territorial waters, while Washington can declare that it was a victory for “freedom of navigation.”
As Article 19.2 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea states, warships do have the right of innocent passage through other nations’ territorial waters, as long as they adhere to regulations.
In 1989, the US and the former Soviet Union released the Joint Statement on the Uniform Interpretation of Rules of International Law Governing Innocent Passage.
The statement says: “All ships, including warships, regardless of cargo, armament or means of propulsion, enjoy the right of innocent passage through territorial waters in accordance with international law, for which neither prior notification nor authorization is required.”
Just a few days after the Lassen departed from Malaysia, People’s Liberation Army (PLA) naval vessels began tailing the US ship. The Lassen had estimated it would pass by the Subi Reef (Jhubi Reef, 渚碧礁) within 24 hours of leaving port on the morning of Oct. 27, but media reports said the mission was completed in half that time.
Only Beijing and Washington know what the US warship had actually been up to: Had it been taking measurements, fishing, loading or unloading military equipment, collecting intelligence or otherwise interfering with China?
If the Lassen did engage in any of the above activities then, yes, it could be regarded as innocent passage. If the US had any other objectives in mind, then the issue would not be quite so black and white.
The warship sailed from the north to the south in the western Spratlys, taking it through not only within the 12-nautical-mile territorial waters claimed by China, but also the overlapping waters near disputed reefs claimed by US allies such as the Philippines and Vietnam. In other words, by sending a warning to the three nations simultaneously, the US maintained its traditionally neutral position of not getting involved in territorial maritime disputes.
The political consequences of the passage might be more intriguing. Australia and Japan supported the action, while South Korea has been criticized for not taking sides. The Philippines said that the move was legal, while Vietnam said that it was unrelated to the territorial disputes, showing that it understood the situation.
Although PLA naval vessels did not follow the Lassen into the disputed waters claimed by the Philippines and Vietnam, Beijing summoned the US ambassador to China over the passage and criticized Washington for being “extremely irresponsible.”
If Chinese ships had followed the Lassen into waters claimed by other nations, their entry would have been perfectly legal and in line with the “nine-dash line” demarcated by Beijing. So China shot itself in the foot by not entering the disputed waters.
Or is Beijing about to integrate its claims to the South China Sea, based on its invented demarcation line, with its claims to the East China Sea, based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, through the building of more artificial islands?
HoonTing is a political commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS