Excusing "freedom of navigation", The U.S. attempts to control the South China Sea to lock Chinese Navy

Let's talk about the topics of freedom of navigation and the island chain. Most recently. Recently, the South China Sea situation evolves, causing the parties attach great importance. June 28, the U.S. Navy and the Philippines Navy in the South China Sea held a large-scale military exercises. We can say that the situation in the South China Sea this exercise a higher and more heat into the state.

Chung-Hoo DDG93 arrived Puerto Princesa, Philippines for US and Philippines Sea Joint readiness training exercises

If we look back on can be found, the U.S. has been trying to actively interfere in this issue. South China Sea and the United States had no significant relationship. Purely from a geographical point of view, the South China Sea can be described as thousands of kilometers away from the United States. Why the United States will actively interfere in this issue? With the Americans own words: evolution of the situation and development of the South China Sea, the United States in this area impede freedom of navigation, related to U.S. national interests. If you want the U.S. to respond to this argument or excuse for it. I think that is very simple, that is the situation in the South China Sea, and did not affect the normal operation of international waters.

On this conclusion, we have two excellent reasons. First, very few except the United States and other countries, there is no situation in which countries for the development of the South China Sea, affecting the freedom of navigation in international waters. Even in those countries surrounding the South China Sea, or some European countries, but also do not believe that the evolution of the situation in the South China Sea, affecting their freedom of navigation in this area.

Second, the South China Sea International Shanghai in fact one of the regions busiest transportation. The production of the South China Sea can be described as a long time. In such a long time, the South China Sea ups and downs, twists and turns frequently, but did not affect the normal sailing in international waters.

Chinese Navy submarine

Chinese Navy submarine through Okinawa - Miyako Strait

Therefore, since there is no impact to the so-called "freedom of navigation," this issue. That why the United States have to actively intervene in the South China Sea issue? Not only do we have to ask: to what extent the development in the end, be regarded as affecting the freedom of navigation. Can you give a concrete example of it? Let us enlarge the view, looked to the north, the view is into the face of mainland China East China Sea.

Not long ago, the area had such a thing happened. Chinese naval fleet, the first island chain by Miyako Strait, into the western Pacific at the normal annual training activities. This action, in some countries which raised a storm. Some countries in the Chinese Navy ships through the Strait of Miyako process, sent a reconnaissance aircraft, tracking, also photographs, videos published. Even senior officials in these countries also claim: China as a responsible big country, during these exercises, they should show restraint, restraint.

In fact, this is the impact of "free navigation" a typical example. Chinese Navy through the Miyako Strait is an international waterway. In fact the Chinese Navy has the right to freedom of navigation. When we are a legitimate exercise of freedom of navigation rights, but some irresponsible remarks, and all of us to obstruct the navigation of the move. This is in fact affected the freedom of navigation at sea in China. If we compared the East China Sea and South China Sea, then you will find the South China Sea navigation is free, smooth; the East China Sea island chain of the first international waterway, the current Chinese navy has developed a "impede freedom of navigation" in situation.

Spoke of "freedom of navigation" is the word, we need to look at the United States and China for the understanding of the term What is the difference.

Rights of passage in international waters in the basic norms of international law. These rules ensure the normal operation of international shipping, to ensure that countries in the world for the common use of international waters. But in fact, the specific expression of different countries has a difference in the nature. International law "right to freedom of navigation", it is not exclusive, we shared a right. The United States put forward in the South China Sea, the so-called "freedom of navigation" is "exclusive" state.

Talked about freedom of navigation, we might look back more distant times. In China's semi-feudal era, Western powers have an agreement that is in China's inland waterways (such as the Yangtze) have a free right of passage. In fact, the United States is now in the South China Sea claimed "freedom of navigation", and had the Western powers in China's inland waterways have a "free right of passage" similar to.

Traditional Western sea theory, is to ensure one's own freedom to use the waters, and obstruct the other free to use the area. If you reach this level, then it means that you have the control or command of the sea waters. We compare, you will find the United States proposed that "freedom of navigation", in fact, the substitution of the concept, and do not reflect international law, "freedom of navigation", but reflects the Western tradition of sea waters in the theory of "control."

For China, to the present level of economic development, more dependent on international waters, this "freedom of navigation" principle. In fact, China's right of navigation in international waters by the restrictions. For example, in the face of the first island chain in mainland China, the United States and some of the country's military deployment and operations in China are affecting the right to freedom of navigation in international waters. And this situation is also being further intensified. The original United States in the Western Pacific, mainly in the large military presence in central and northern part of the first island chain, and now the United States to actively intervene in the South China Sea through the affairs of the southern end of the first island chain is still a military deployment.

Not long ago, the Philippine Foreign Minister visited the United States, the United States has repeatedly stressed that a thing is the "Philippine-US joint defense treaty." Vietnam War, the United States was forced to withdraw from Southeast Asia. Two U.S. military bases in the Philippines that year, Clark and Subic bases bases are lost. Now revert to the United States, "Philippine-US joint defense treaty," and the name for the allies to protect the name began to discuss the issue back to Clark and Subic. This move is actually the first island chain in strengthening the central and northern military deployment at the same time, gradually strengthen the military power to the southern end of the first island chain. In other words, the first island chain in the United States trying to build a complete military deployment. This military deployment, can not but cast doubt on China's national interests such as freedom of navigation effects.

China to today, freedom of navigation at sea is our strategy can not be ignored. Therefore, the first island chain and the freedom of navigation should be quite a long time we will attach great importance to the issue.

1 Post a Comment:

I'm curious to find out what blog system you are using? I'm having some
small security problems with my latest website and I would like to
find something more safeguarded. Do you have any suggestions?

Also visit my webpage ... diet plan for women