24 ms·

India protests US Navy ship’s transit through its waters without consent

tiahura 6y ago
Kind of a terrible article. It basically comes down to whether military vessels can pass through the Exclusive Economic Zone (the “Economic” suggests an answer), but the article fails to either quote the relevant section of the treaty or quote a purported expert, so we’re left wondering.
- evgen 6y ago
  This was a 'freedom of navigation' exercise and the entire point is that you do not ask permission. Ever. Asking permission presumes that the other party has an opportunity to say 'no', and an FON transit is to show that these international waters are in fact international and not under any particular national jurisdiction. If India wants to complain they can talk to the hand as far as the US is concerned, same answer as would be given to China if these ships were to transit the Taiwan straights, or England and France if they went through the channel.
  - elihu 6y ago
    The channel is only about 15 miles wide. Wouldn't that be inside the territorial waters of France and England and therefore require permission to sail through?
    - evgen 6y ago
      Good point, it probably is :) I was looking for some other example that would have been potentially provocative to a clear ally and was coming up short. But it turns out the USN actually publishes a list of the places where they engage in these exercises and the specific claims that they are refuting through the exercise (https://news.usni.org/2021/03/10/pentagon-2020-freedom-of-navigation-report https://news.usni.org/2021/03/10/pentagon-2020-freedom-of-na...) so anyone who wants to can run down the list and see allies like Korea on the list in addition to countries like China and Iran where the relationship is a bit more contentious.
    - soneil 6y ago
      They don't actually need permission to transit the Channel, as long as they don't stop or conduct military operations in territorial waters. The Channel is subject to the right of "innocent passage", and both China and Russia transit it at will. Re Secion 3 of https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc... (Although you're correct that it's not equivalent; most the restrictions listed don't apply to the EEZ. It's in the name, the Exclusive Economic zone gives them exclusive economic rights - most activities that have no economic impact are allowed.)
cameldrv 6y ago
EEZs do not regulate the transit of ships, and this is very clear in the treaty. India's domestic law has no relevance here. The purpose of the freedom of navigation exercise (and publicizing it, as the former chief of naval staff complained about, is to demonstrate that other countries are free to sail in international waters.
- jessriedel 6y ago
  Thanks. The relevant section is here: > In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention. https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc... It is just baffling to me that a reporter could write this article and not mention this, or ask an Indian official how their assertions are compatible with it.
  - eklavya 6y ago
    It’s baffling how US can quote the international treaty it’s not a signatory to (US hasn’t ratified UNCLOS).
    - akvadrako 6y ago
      Well if they don't follow the treaty they can sail wherever they like.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > It’s baffling how US can quote the international treaty it’s not a signatory The US is a signatory of the UNCLOS. It has not acceded to the UNCLOS by way of ratification, but being a signatory without accession has legal significance in international law. Further, the US views the UNCLOS largely as codification of rules already binding in customary international law, so it is neither surprising that it would cite these rules in the particular articulation another party has explicitly accepted.
mullen 6y ago
From the South China Morning Post. I wonder why a newspaper in China would print a story about another country complaining about the US Navy transiting through their EEZ waters? I wonder why this article is trying to confuse people about transit rights and EEZ and International Waters? You don't think the South China Morning Post might have another goal?
- revicon 6y ago
  The US media posts stories about China violating other sovereign waterways all the time. Why are we salty about China doing the same thing?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    The EEZ (200nm from shore) is not part of the sovereign territory of a nation. The territorial waters (~12nm from shore) are.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > From the South China Morning Post. I wonder why a newspaper in China would print a story about another country complaining about the US Navy transiting through their EEZ waters? Arguably, this works equally well ot better if you reverse it to “about India complaining about a foreign navy transiting through their EEZ waters” and retain the rest of thr post as is.
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  SCMP is Hong Kong based. Probably the largest English language paper in Asia and has been around for ages. It is also quite critical of mainland China. Here is the same story from an Indian newspaper: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-protests-us-naval-exercise/article34279034.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-protests-us-nav...
  - 6y ago
torstenvl 6y ago
Referring to the EEZ as "its waters" is disingenuous. A nation's territorial waters are much, much smaller than its EEZ.
nromiun 6y ago
What is truly shocking is just how bizzare this US policy is. They just pick a country at random one day and go there to do a "FONO" and just generally rub in the fact that no country can afford to cut relation with them. They have done this to pretty much every country by now, China, Russia, Pakistan, Taiwan, Indonesia, India, S.Korea etc. Compare this to China's foreign policy. Their public image got damaged in 2019 because of coronavirus. But in terms of international relationships they have made the most progress in the last three years. Not even offical US sanctions have been able to stop them (with Russia, Iran and Turkey).
- soneil 6y ago
  It's not random, it's a very specific act. They challenge claims they don't recognise to prevent them becoming accepted as de-facto. For an analogy that'd be "closer to home", it's very similar to defending a trademark to prevent it becoming generic. The fact that India claims this right doesn't extend to military vessels (despite UNCLOS allowing it) is what requires this action. If they seek permission first, they're not defending the right, they're cementing that permission is required.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > What is truly shocking is just how bizzare this US policy is. It’s neither bizarre nor an exclusively US thing. In the South China Sea all of Japan, Australia, the UK, and France have conducted FONOPs. > They just pick a country at random one day No, FONOPs are conducted against countries that have asserted the right to close waters to free navigation in coontravention of the UNCLOS (if its not the US doing it) or customary international law whose requirements happen to be substantially identical to UNCLOS in this area (if its the US doing it.) They are very far from random (if they were random, it would seem to indicate that the Pentagon has a 20-sided die with “People’s Republic of China” on, like, 16 or so faces.)
pmdulaney 6y ago
To the powers that be at HN, a suggestion. I don't like the fact that people can flag articles. But if you are going to allow that, can you at least require a comment from the flagger explaining under which provision of HN's policy they are flagging the post?

Kind of a terrible article. It basically comes down to whether military vessels can pass through the Exclusive Economic Zone (the “Economic” suggests an answer), but the article fails to either quote the relevant section of the treaty or quote a purported expert, so we’re left wondering.

evgen 6y ago
This was a 'freedom of navigation' exercise and the entire point is that you do not ask permission. Ever. Asking permission presumes that the other party has an opportunity to say 'no', and an FON transit is to show that these international waters are in fact international and not under any particular national jurisdiction. If India wants to complain they can talk to the hand as far as the US is concerned, same answer as would be given to China if these ships were to transit the Taiwan straights, or England and France if they went through the channel.
- elihu 6y ago
  The channel is only about 15 miles wide. Wouldn't that be inside the territorial waters of France and England and therefore require permission to sail through?
  - evgen 6y ago
    Good point, it probably is :) I was looking for some other example that would have been potentially provocative to a clear ally and was coming up short. But it turns out the USN actually publishes a list of the places where they engage in these exercises and the specific claims that they are refuting through the exercise (https://news.usni.org/2021/03/10/pentagon-2020-freedom-of-navigation-report https://news.usni.org/2021/03/10/pentagon-2020-freedom-of-na...) so anyone who wants to can run down the list and see allies like Korea on the list in addition to countries like China and Iran where the relationship is a bit more contentious.
  - soneil 6y ago
    They don't actually need permission to transit the Channel, as long as they don't stop or conduct military operations in territorial waters. The Channel is subject to the right of "innocent passage", and both China and Russia transit it at will. Re Secion 3 of https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc... (Although you're correct that it's not equivalent; most the restrictions listed don't apply to the EEZ. It's in the name, the Exclusive Economic zone gives them exclusive economic rights - most activities that have no economic impact are allowed.)

cameldrv 6y ago

EEZs do not regulate the transit of ships, and this is very clear in the treaty. India's domestic law has no relevance here. The purpose of the freedom of navigation exercise (and publicizing it, as the former chief of naval staff complained about, is to demonstrate that other countries are free to sail in international waters.

jessriedel 6y ago
Thanks. The relevant section is here: > In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention. https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc... It is just baffling to me that a reporter could write this article and not mention this, or ask an Indian official how their assertions are compatible with it.
- eklavya 6y ago
  It’s baffling how US can quote the international treaty it’s not a signatory to (US hasn’t ratified UNCLOS).
  - akvadrako 6y ago
    Well if they don't follow the treaty they can sail wherever they like.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > It’s baffling how US can quote the international treaty it’s not a signatory The US is a signatory of the UNCLOS. It has not acceded to the UNCLOS by way of ratification, but being a signatory without accession has legal significance in international law. Further, the US views the UNCLOS largely as codification of rules already binding in customary international law, so it is neither surprising that it would cite these rules in the particular articulation another party has explicitly accepted.

mullen 6y ago

From the South China Morning Post. I wonder why a newspaper in China would print a story about another country complaining about the US Navy transiting through their EEZ waters? I wonder why this article is trying to confuse people about transit rights and EEZ and International Waters? You don't think the South China Morning Post might have another goal?

revicon 6y ago
The US media posts stories about China violating other sovereign waterways all the time. Why are we salty about China doing the same thing?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 6y ago
  The EEZ (200nm from shore) is not part of the sovereign territory of a nation. The territorial waters (~12nm from shore) are.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> From the South China Morning Post. I wonder why a newspaper in China would print a story about another country complaining about the US Navy transiting through their EEZ waters? Arguably, this works equally well ot better if you reverse it to “about India complaining about a foreign navy transiting through their EEZ waters” and retain the rest of thr post as is.
throwaway4good 6y ago
SCMP is Hong Kong based. Probably the largest English language paper in Asia and has been around for ages. It is also quite critical of mainland China. Here is the same story from an Indian newspaper: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-protests-us-naval-exercise/article34279034.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-protests-us-nav...
- 6y ago

torstenvl 6y ago

Referring to the EEZ as "its waters" is disingenuous. A nation's territorial waters are much, much smaller than its EEZ.

nromiun 6y ago

What is truly shocking is just how bizzare this US policy is. They just pick a country at random one day and go there to do a "FONO" and just generally rub in the fact that no country can afford to cut relation with them. They have done this to pretty much every country by now, China, Russia, Pakistan, Taiwan, Indonesia, India, S.Korea etc. Compare this to China's foreign policy. Their public image got damaged in 2019 because of coronavirus. But in terms of international relationships they have made the most progress in the last three years. Not even offical US sanctions have been able to stop them (with Russia, Iran and Turkey).

soneil 6y ago
It's not random, it's a very specific act. They challenge claims they don't recognise to prevent them becoming accepted as de-facto. For an analogy that'd be "closer to home", it's very similar to defending a trademark to prevent it becoming generic. The fact that India claims this right doesn't extend to military vessels (despite UNCLOS allowing it) is what requires this action. If they seek permission first, they're not defending the right, they're cementing that permission is required.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> What is truly shocking is just how bizzare this US policy is. It’s neither bizarre nor an exclusively US thing. In the South China Sea all of Japan, Australia, the UK, and France have conducted FONOPs. > They just pick a country at random one day No, FONOPs are conducted against countries that have asserted the right to close waters to free navigation in coontravention of the UNCLOS (if its not the US doing it) or customary international law whose requirements happen to be substantially identical to UNCLOS in this area (if its the US doing it.) They are very far from random (if they were random, it would seem to indicate that the Pentagon has a 20-sided die with “People’s Republic of China” on, like, 16 or so faces.)

pmdulaney 6y ago

To the powers that be at HN, a suggestion. I don't like the fact that people can flag articles. But if you are going to allow that, can you at least require a comment from the flagger explaining under which provision of HN's policy they are flagging the post?