7 ms·

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

by 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.)

by evgen 6y ago

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.)