{"id":29304,"date":"2016-11-01T06:00:52","date_gmt":"2016-10-31T19:00:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=29304"},"modified":"2016-11-01T09:50:40","modified_gmt":"2016-10-31T22:50:40","slug":"misoverestimating-freedom-navigation-operations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/misoverestimating-freedom-navigation-operations\/","title":{"rendered":"Misoverestimating freedom-of-navigation operations"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
US President George W. Bush once claimed to be \u2018misunderestimated\u2019\u2014a term of art that left journalists perplexed but, in retrospect, was perhaps best defined as \u2018underestimating by mistake\u2019. In similar vein, I think a number of people in Australia currently misoverestimate what freedom-of-navigation operations (FONOPs) can achieve in the South China Sea. Those people believe\u2014wrongly\u2014that FONOPs can be an effective vehicle for opposing China\u2019s territorial claims, upholding the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and reversing China\u2019s growing strategic presence in the region. I don\u2019t claim any great expertise in South China Sea matters. But I do think that a better understanding of FONOPs might make for a more measured and thoughtful debate about their utility.<\/p>\n
Media headlines are one part of the problem. The ABC, for example, reported the latest US FONOP under the headline \u2018South China Sea: US warship challenges Beijing\u2019s territorial claims with freedom of navigation exercise<\/a>\u2019. That\u2019s misleading. FONOPs are an assertion of maritime rights. They aren\u2019t statements about sovereignty claims\u2014even though China sometimes sees them<\/a> as such. Further confusion between FONOPs and strategic assertiveness appeared in the Wall Street Journal<\/em> recently where an article reflecting on Australia\u2019s unwillingness to conduct FONOPs in the South China Sea appeared under the headline \u2018Australia cedes the seas<\/a>\u2019. With all due respect to the author of that article, Australia has never had a formalised FONOP program similar to America\u2019s, but nor have most other countries. That doesn\u2019t mean we \u2018cede the seas\u2019.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s start by looking at US FONOPs. Washington has run FONOPs\u2014for decades\u2014against a wide range of countries. Those countries include US allies like Denmark, Japan, Thailand and the Philippines, as well as the more usual suspects. FONOPs have been conducted against all South China Sea claimant states, and against Indonesia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and a host of others. (Anyone who wants to have a look at the range of those activities should scan the reports<\/a> provided by the US Department of Defence about the operations it\u2019s conducted since 1991.)<\/p>\n Those operations target excessive maritime claims, such as a requirement for prior notification before entering territorial waters, or for authorisation for foreign military manoeuvres within an Exclusive Economic Zone. They\u2019re not a mechanism for contesting territorial sovereignty. I\u2019d invite readers to peruse the full statement<\/a> of the US Department of Defense in relation to the FONOP past Triton Island conducted in January this year by the USS Curtis Wilbur:<\/p>\n \u2018This operation challenged attempts by the three claimants, China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, to restrict navigation rights and freedoms around the features they claim by policies that require prior permission or notification of transit within territorial seas\u2026.The operation was\u2026not about territorial claims to land features. The United States takes no position on competing sovereignty claims between the parties to naturally-formed land features in the South China Sea.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Just as a FONOP isn\u2019t a vehicle for contesting sovereignty, it also isn\u2019t much of a vehicle for signalling strategic displeasure\u2014unless, of course, the country conducting the FONOP intends it to be one. Australia\u2019s problem is that some who believe we should be conducting a FONOP in the South China Sea do intend it to be such a signal<\/a>. They want Australia to conduct a FONOP specifically against China\u2014even though the Australian Navy has never sailed<\/a> within 12 nautical miles of any contested feature in the South China Sea\u2014for the particular purpose of countering Beijing\u2019s growing power and regional assertiveness. Such an operation would be highly provocative. China could not but interpret it as a deliberate challenge to its strategic interests, as indeed it would be\u2014much more so than any US FONOP is. Moreover, I think the Australian action would be largely ineffective. It would have no discernible effect in reversing China\u2019s growing strategic weight in the South China Sea.<\/p>\n True, Australia does have an easier option open to it\u2014to take FONOPs at face value, and so to accompany the US on an operation in the South China Sea, the central purpose of which would be to strengthen the rules-based maritime order by opposing excessive maritime claims by the different claimant states. It might also choose to conduct such an operation by itself or in good company. The objective of any such operation would be actual freedom of navigation, with the signalling of strategic displeasure a mere by-product. It would also mean conducting operations against a range of countries and not merely one. So, yes, we could head down that track. Do we want to? In one sense, it\u2019s interesting we\u2019re having a debate at all about something as esoteric as FONOPs. A worrying thought is that the debate\u2019s a signal of just how constrained our policy options are in the South China Sea.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" US President George W. Bush once claimed to be \u2018misunderestimated\u2019\u2014a term of art that left journalists perplexed but, in retrospect, was perhaps best defined as \u2018underestimating by mistake\u2019. In similar vein, I think a number …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":29305,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1522,304,471,31],"class_list":["post-29304","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-fonops","tag-royal-australian-navy","tag-south-china-sea","tag-united-states"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n