Border face-off: China and India each deploy 3,000 troops

[Double Edge]

Quad in action

Assume Aussie AMB to PH is a quad rep. What can quad do for PH ?

First half is about the whitsun reef, and the usual statements about concern. Working with PH govt bla bla

Second half is about vaccines, the kicker here is Aussies are working on last mile connectivity for all of the PH.

The funding is there to do this is for all of SE Asia over the next three years.

Think about that. covid affects everyone. Here you have a plan to ensure everyone gets a shot.

No way China can compete with an initiative like this

Chris says those Chinese fishing boats will not leave. They've been there since Dec. They will just stay put.

That is until the PH gives up watching them and THEN they will move in and develop the reef.

The PH govt has its red lines, all they need is the spine to enforce them.

What plans does quad have for that ? give them that spine.

[Double Edge]

The US wants India to be able, willing, and readied to sink those Chinese man-made islands.

The only way for India to do this is in an alliance. Taiwanese & Japanese troops won't face a Galwan because they are in an alliance.

But sinking islands is taking things a step further. Is it an act of war ?

How to justify it.

The way i'd phrase it is dismantling infrastructure.

This way you assert control. You don't kill anybody.

The problem is the infrastructure, not people or any number of ships.

There will be pushback and casualties but it makes the point.

The larger one is this is an away game for us. Not home turf.

Winning in China's backyard matters.

[Officer of Engineers]

The only way for India to do this is in an alliance. Taiwanese & Japanese troops won't face a Galwan because they are in an alliance.

You're missing the other point. Nobody is asking for what they want and EVERYONE, including India, is dancing around voicing what they want. This is because they know the other side will say no. No one can say no if nobody ask. Instead, you form this "QUAD" that MAY or MAY NOT sink those islands OR neuter the Pakistani Navy. Now, thinking as a Chinese or Pakistani strategic thinker, I would definetely count on QUAD being militarily against me to sink those islands or block in and out of Pakistani ports. It would be complete stupidity to ignore those possibilities from a defender POV. Both Indian and USN thnkers know this.

[Double Edge]

You're missing the other point. Nobody is asking for what they want and EVERYONE, including India, is dancing around voicing what they want. This is because they know the other side will say no. No one can say no if nobody ask. Instead, you form this "QUAD" that MAY or MAY NOT sink those islands OR neuter the Pakistani Navy. Now, thinking as a Chinese or Pakistani strategic thinker, I would definetely count on QUAD being militarily against me to sink those islands or block in and out of Pakistani ports. It would be complete stupidity to ignore those possibilities from a defender POV. Both Indian and USN thnkers know this.

So India sinks those islands. Chinese sink an Indian ship.

What happens next ?

Is India alone now at war with China

But we're in an alliance so its one for all and all for one.

Chinese realise this and do not sink the Indian ship.

Job done. China backs off.

Nobody is asking for what they want and EVERYONE, including India, is dancing around voicing what they want. This is because they know the other side will say no. No one can say no if nobody ask. Instead, you form this "QUAD" that MAY or MAY NOT sink those islands OR neuter the Pakistani Navy.

I still don't understand what you mean when you say no one is asking what they want.

Every one said free and open indo pacific.

The question is enforcing it. How we will do that and the manner.

I don't even know if this question is on the agenda.

So the "how" has not been decided yet.

We need to hammer out a charter first. The why.

Figure out the why and the how will follow.

This is still a work in progress, give it some more time.

[Officer of Engineers]

So India sinks those islands. Chinese sink an Indian ship.

What happens next ?

Obviously war.

Is India alone now at war with China

But we're in an alliance so its one for all and all for one.

Doesn't work that way. The battlespace can only hold so many combatants. There's your guys and then there's everybody else. You sink whomever is not your guys.

Chinese realise this and do not sink the Indian ship.

Job done. China backs off.

1969 - China was fighting two superpowers simultaneously, the Americans in Vietnam and the Soviets along the border.

I still don't understand what you mean when you say no one is asking what they want.

Every one said free and open indo pacific.

There is no QUAD alliance. There are no treaty obligations. This is a simple coalition and hence, zero obligation on any participant. Therefore, no one is saying crap about what they want and everyone is still dancing around the issue just like what you're doing right here.

[Double Edge]

Nobody is asking for what they want and EVERYONE, including India, is dancing around voicing what they want. This is because they know the other side will say no. No one can say no if nobody ask. Instead, you form this "QUAD" that MAY or MAY NOT sink those islands OR neuter the Pakistani Navy.

Why do you say every one here, besides India ?

US, Japan & Australia are already in an alliance. Isn't it then clear they know what they want and therefore do not need to ask because its a given.

Balloon goes up, US, Japan & Australia are in this together. Yes ? Agree or not.

Thing is listening to one of the arms committee senate hearing, then PACOM Cmdr Harry Harris said the US might be alone on this one (!)

Meaning Aus & Japan participation isn't guaranteed. Bear in mind he said that back in 2015. Today might be different.

Japan is in if Japan is threatened. What if its Taiwan or elsewhere say. They amended their constitution to say help support others. So that's Japan.

Aussies have walked into every conflict since WW1. Surely their participation isn't in question.


Now if India can tag along it helps. Definitely better than not there.

That India got into an apex meeting tells me that the idea is under consideration.

This is also signaling to China, should they provoke us further then we might go the whole hog.

This creates other problems though. What do we do if the Russians cut off arms supply to us ?

That would cripple our ability to fight and leave us vulnerable.

We would be in a worse situation than before.

There is no QUAD alliance. There are no treaty obligations. This is a simple coalition and hence, zero obligation on any participant.

Correct. It's a conceptual body for now. Not a defense treaty. Not an alliance.

And for you that means quad can deter squat. Right now, perhaps.

Therefore, no one is saying crap about what they want and everyone is still dancing around the issue just like what you're doing right here.

You make it sound like there will never be an alliance. Patience.

The thing just got new legs and you've already written it off

The time frame could be a decade or more for what you want to come into being.

Nobody can say things are not moving in that direction.

All depends on China's behaviour. The read is they will get more belligerent.

We better have some plan in place then eh

It's called quad. Like it, hate it, all we got.

[Officer of Engineers]

In military terms, if I was the Chinese commander, I would definettely plan on all 4 country to act as a single unit. Hope for the best. PREPARE for the worst.

If I was the American commander, do I want Dehli, Tokyo, or Canberra vetoing my decisions? Do I want to spend time to negotiate all 3 not to veto my decisions?

Hell no! I would go it alone at that point. If I am forced to use Indian, Japanese, and Australian resources, I want it clearly spelled out what I can do and what I cannot do so I don't have to goto all 3 capitals for a go-no-go. That is treaty obligations, ie, an Indian destroyer under American admiralty command. If Dehli doesn't want that destroyer shelling Chinese islands. Fine, it would be protecting my flank. If Dehli wants to veto my decision to shell Chinese islands, I'm sending that destroyer home.

[Albany Rifles]

Also, while we have a mutual defense pact with Japan and separate deal with Australia under 5 Eyes and ABCA, there is not currently a mutual defense pact tying the US, Japan & Australia together.

Just wanted to be clear on that.

And the Colonel is absolutely correct on how the US INDOPAC naval element commander will act in that scenario.

Keep in mind the US is likely to have the largest forces in the fight as well as the biggest logistics piece as well.

[Double Edge]

US Coast guard is getting in on the action

Palau and USCG Bust Chinese Vessel for Illegal Fishing | Maritime Executive | Dec 24 2020

On December 9, Palau officials near Helen Reef reported an 80-foot Chinese vessel fishing illegally. Working with the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Global Defense Reform Program contractor at Palau's Maritime Law Center, the crew of the patrol boat Remeliik II was dispatched from Koror to apprehend the vessel. The U.S. Coast Guard dispatched an HC-130 Hercules search plane out of Hawaii's Air Station Barbers Point and the Coast Guard Cutter Myrtle Hazard out of Guam to support the mission.

Suspected of harvesting it illegally in Palau's waters. Sea cucumber fetches up to $1,700 per pound in some Asian markets.

"Our bilateral agreements with Palau and other island nations are proving highly impactful," said Cmdr. Jason Brand, the Coast Guard Fourteenth District Chief of Enforcement. "If IUU (Illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing continues unchecked, we can expect a deterioration of fragile coastal States, collapse of critical fish stock populations and increased tension among foreign-fishing nations, threatening geopolitical stability around the world."

Fisheries enforcement is part of the Coast Guard's role in supporting the rule of law in the Western Pacific - one element of U.S. maritime services' strategy to counter Chinese efforts to undermine the rules-based order at sea

Nothing stops the USCG from enforcing so far away from the US coast. This plan can work in a lot of places.

These coast guard boats can travel farther & faster in bad conditions, are armed with heavy machine guns and have helicopter decks.

The Coast Guard is investing greater than $19 billion in at the least eight national-security cutters, 25 offshore-patrol cutters, and 58 fast-response cutters. If all goes to plan within 12 months, at the least eight of these ships can be deployed to counter China. The Coast Guard is exploring stationing a ship in American Samoa.

That should cover the western pacific.

Since the plan worked so well with Palau how about trying it some where else. Taiwan maybe ?

U.S., Taiwan Sign Coast Guard Deal to Counter China Pressure | Bloomberg | Mar 26 2021

The U.S. and Taiwan signed an agreement intended to boost cooperation between their coast guards, in a move to push back at China’s increasingly assertive maritime activities. The two sides signed a memorandum of understanding that establishes a working group to “improve communications, build cooperation, and share information” on coast guard-related efforts, according to a statement dated Friday from the American Institute in Taiwan, the de facto U.S. embassy in Taipei.

The statement from AIT did not say whether closer cooperation meant that U.S. vessels would be used in Taiwanese waters -- a move that would likely elicit an angry response from China.

The move marks the latest effort by the U.S. to counter China’s use of its coast guard and civilian fishing militias to assert its territorial claims. The U.S. has been deploying its coast guard to the Western Pacific to help allies enforce their claims in disputed waters. The crew of a U.S. cutter boarded a Chinese fishing boat illegally operating in the waters of the Pacific nation of Palau in December

While we're at it why not get the US ambassador to Palau to pay Taiwan a visit

US ambassador visits Taiwan for 1st time in 42 years | Taiwan News | Mar 28 2021

Japanese CG can fire back. Good.

Japan Coast Guard may fire at foreign vessels attempting to land on Senkakus, government says | S & S | Feb 26 2021

Next get the Japanese CG to do joint patrolling with the Taiwanese CG and we're set

[Double Edge]

Chinese plan is to box the Aussies in by creating this wall to their North.

Setting up bases or turning islands North of Oz China neutral.

Taiwan loses second ally in a week as Kiribati switches to China | Guardian | Sept 20 2019

Kiribati’s decision leaves Taiwan with four remaining Pacific allies: Tuvalu, Nauru, Palau and Marshall Islands

Solomon Islands & Kiribati. Vanuatu allowed Chinese investment earlier.

US & Aussie plan is to draw islands away from China.

Punch holes through the Chinese wall and the Aussies remain in the game.

Double down on Palau. They're still with Taiwan.

PNG & Timor are with Oz.

[Double Edge]

The fishing boats that collected at Whitsun reef seem to have dispersed but still around

The PH did nothing in 2015 to stop the Chinese building on the islands.

That would have been under Aquino. Duterte only enters office mid 2016. PH presidents only get one six yr term so he's gone next year.

The missiles and radars show up 2017-18. At that point its harder to act as the costs will be more to push back.

The pushback should have started moment they began reclaiming the islands.

Allowing China to build means PH does not control the island any more.

In which case China can do whatever in the future as they control the island.

What's left ? control over the waters. China wants to establish defacto if not legal control over the waters in that region.

So the only remaining option is to challenge their control over those waters and not lose more islands.

By sheer numbers China is trying to make it impossible for civilians to make use of the SCS so fishermen from PH, VN & oil & gas operations.

These fishermen should continue to go to those areas hopefully under the watch of their country's coast guard.

If they give up then they lose access those waters.

Lessons learnt, don't let it happen to more islands PH.

US has reiterated the mutual defense treaty applies to the west PH sea but there are no US forces in PH, nearest are in Okinawa which is two days away.

Saving the visiting forces agreement and working on the expanded defense cooperation agreement has to be done.

[Double Edge]

Manila 'will protect' its territory in new South China Sea row | Nikkei | Mar 25 2021

CLIFF VENZON, Nikkei staff writerMarch 25, 2021 19:24 JST

MANILA -- President Rodrigo Duterte told the Chinese envoy to Manila in a meeting that the Philippines will protect its territory amid the latest spat in the disputed South China Sea, his spokesperson said on Thursday.

Manila and Beijing have been in an impasse for nearly a week over the presence of 183 Chinese vessels in Whitsun Reef in the disputed Spratly region.

"The president repeated what he said in the United Nations [that] we will protect our territory... we believe that this issue should be resolved under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea and we stand by our victory in the international tribunal," spokesperson Harry Roque said in a press conference.

Roque was referring to the 2016 arbitration ruling, which Beijing does not recognize, that invalidated China's expansive claims in the South China Sea. "In the spirit of friendship, we expect them (Chinese ships) to leave," said Roque who did not reveal when the meeting between Duterte and the Chinese envoy took place.

Chinese Ambassador Huang Xilian responded to Duterte by saying that the ships are fishing vessels, according to Roque.

Meanwhile, leader of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Lt. Gen. Cirilito Sobejana has ordered the deployment of additional Navy ships to patrol the contested waters. He had said earlier this week the 183 vessels, believed to be part of China's maritime militia, have been spotted in the Whitsun Reef, 175 nautical miles from the western Philippine province of Palawan and within the country's 200-mile exclusive economic zone.

"By the increased naval presence in the area, we seek to reassure our people of the [military's] strong and unwavering commitment to protect and defend them from harassment and ensure that they can enjoy their rights over the country's rich fishing ground which is the source of their livelihood," military spokesperson Maj. Gen. Edgard Arevalo said Thursday.

Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr. also filed a diplomatic protest early this week, demanding Beijing recalls the fishing vessels and maritime assets near the reef.

The U.S., Japan, Australia, the U.K. and Canada have issued statements expressing support for the Philippines, as well as for a "free" and "open" South China Sea.

But Beijing has insisted Whitsun is part of China and that the ships are fishing vessels seeking shelter from rough seas, and are not part of its maritime militia. "Chinese fishing vessels have been fishing in its adjacent waters for many years," the Chinese embassy in Manila said.

The presence of the ships has raised fresh concerns about Chinese activities in the disputed waters, where Beijing has reclaimed seven artificial islands and build military infrastructure on them. Apart from the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, and Vietnam also have claims in the South China Sea.

Meanwhile, the U.S. embassy in Manila said China was using "maritime militia to intimidate, provoke, and threaten other nations, which undermines peace and security in the region."

The embassy said on Tuesday: "We stand with the Philippines, our oldest treaty ally in Asia."

The Chinese embassy, meanwhile, hit back at U.S., which it said was not a party to the South China Sea issue. "Fanning flames and provoking confrontation in the region will only serve the selfish interests of individual country and undermine the regional peace and stability," the Chinese embassy said.

Despite the maritime dispute, Duterte has forged closer economic ties with China, which has promised investments and recently donated 1 million doses of COVID vaccines to the Philippines.

On Wednesday, opposition Sen. Risa Hontiveros called on the Duterte administration to "unanimously denounce the incivility of China," which she said was putting the country's fishing communities "in grave danger."

Hontiveros said Duterte's administration must reassess "this so-called friendship" as China has caused "irreversible damage to our seas."

Why is India keeping quiet here ? Is the MEA asleep ?

When the terms "free and open" crop up our statement should be automatic !!

Even UK & Canada saw fit to say something.

If GOI cannot grow a pair after what we went through and recognise the same crap happening to others at least there is the media.

Surprised the HK rep bothered to show up.

She would then not have had to leave when the Taiwan rep said Wuhan virus

[Double Edge]

China intrudes yet again in South China Sea | ANI | Apr 05 2021

Last year, a defeatist Duterte stated that China was in "possession" of the South China Sea and that it was, therefore, futile to act against it. Duterte also promulgates a false binary range of options - to go to war with China or to totally accede to Beijing. Certainly, nobody expects Manila to go to war against China, but the country needs to stand up for what it is entitled under international law.

Firstly, in July 2016 the Philippines won a resounding victory in the international court of law when the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in its favour and lambasted China for its outrageous maritime claims and activities in the South China Sea. The court ruled that Chinese territorial claims, including its Nine-Dash Line, have absolutely no merit or legal basis. However, Duterte has frittered away that legal and moral victory with his obeisance to China.

Secondly, the Philippines has a longstanding Mutual Defense Treaty with the USA, something that other neighbours like Malaysia and Vietnam do not have as they too wrestle with Chinese assertiveness. This treaty promises that the USA would militarily support the Philippines should the country or its forces come under attack.

Meanwhile, Teddy Locsin, the Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs, is guilty of following Duterte's limp policy with China. Two days after a trip to China to meet Foreign Minister Wang Yi, he tweeted, "China can say what it wants; the Philippines will do what it must to keep what's hers by right. Irrelevant whether we possess commensurate military power to meet the challenge; we will not yield but die - or trigger World War 3. Not a bad outcome; living is overrated. Honour is all."

Again we see that false dichotomy of two extremes routinely presented by the Philippine government - either surrender or war.

Neither extreme is necessary, but it does illustrate the extraordinary success that Chinese pressure and propaganda has had on the leadership of the Philippines.

The false dichotomy presented by both President & foreign secretary of PH is odd. Bewildering !!!

The net result is PH does nothing and the Chinese get what they want. Or at least that is how it used to be. Will this time be different ?

This modus operandi is typical of China - it ring-fences disputed South China Sea features, establishes permanent presences and drives off others such as local fishermen.

China employs this same methodology along the Indian border too, using gray-zone tactics where possible to avoid outright confrontation and to "soften" the military nature of its territorial activities.

It can be predicted that this arm-wrestling for control is far from over. China is using tried-and-tested methods of ambiguity - gray-zone tactics - that have already been wielded to much success.

It could well be that Beijing is testing out the Philippine response and how well Manila will coordinate with the USA after a new US president took up office.

Furthermore, Duterte will be leaving office in May 2022, so now is a good time for Beijing to take advantage of his leniency and defeatism. The timing is not accidental, even as the world continues to be preoccupied by Covid-19.

The appearance of swarms of Chinese boats to occupy new territory in the South China Sea is therefore not an unexpected gambit.

However, it is one that the Philippines must respond to.

A robust response, such as Indonesia's reaction to a Chinese fishing fleet and accompanying Chinese Coast Guard boats near the Natuna Islands in early 2020, is definitely needed from Manila.

Heh, next PH president won't be such a doormat.

So Indonesia set the model to follow then? Posted about that encounter here.

[Double Edge]

Good lecture on PH territorial rights by retired Supreme Court judge Antonio Carpio

[Double Edge]

US did a FONOPS against India few days back. They put out a press release. Indian media going nuts about it.

Why is this even news ? because USN put out a real time press release.

Earlier, FONOPS details only appeared in the annual report. Nobody knew. Nobody cared.

This op will be the 18th time USN has conducted FONOPS against India, going by annual reports put out by US Secretary of Defense for Policy

Spoiler!

FONOPS against India only
1991.92 India Prior notification for warship to enter 12 nm territorial sea

1993.94 India Prior notification for warship to enter 12 nm territorial sea; historic claim to Gulf of Mannar

1997 India Prior permission for warship to enter the territorial sea

1999 India Prior notification for warship to enter the territorial sea: prior pem1ission required for military

2002.03 India 24 nm security zone; prior authorization for warships to enter territorial sea

2007 India Requirement for prior consent for military maneuvers in the exclusive economic zone.

2008 India Authorization required for military maneuvers in the EEZ

2009 India* Authorization required for military maneuvers in the EEZ
* designates multiple challenges to the claim during FY 09 (1 Oct 08-30 Sep 09)

2010 India* Authorization required for military maneuvers in the EEZ
* designates multiple challenges to the claim during FY 10 (1 Oct 09-30 Sep 10)

2011 India* Authorization required for military exercises or maneuvers in EEZ; prior
* designates multiple challenges to the claim during FY 11 (1 Oct 10-30 Sep 11)

2012 India* Authorization required for military exercises or maneuvers in EEZ
* designates multiple challenges to the claim(s) during the reporting period.

2013 India* Authorization required for military exercises or maneuvers in EEZ
* designates multiple challenges to the claim(s) during the reporting period.

2014 India* Authorization required for foreign military exercises or maneuvers in the EEZ.
* designates multiple challenges to the claim(s) during the reporting period.

2015 India* Prior consent required for foreign military exercises or maneuvers in the EEZ.

2016 India* Prior consent required for military exercises or maneuvers in the EEZ; security jurisdiction claimed in the contiguous zone.

2017 India* Prior consent required for military exercises or maneuvers in the EEZ

2019 India* Prior consent required for military exercises or maneuvers, in particular those involving the use of weapons or explosives, in the exclusive economic zone.

2021 India* Prior consent required for military exercises or maneuvers, in particular those involving the use of weapons or explosives, in the exclusive economic zone.

India : 18 TIMES

No details what military operation was carried out. Could be anything. A simple man overboard exercise qualifies here.

No details whether USN was even challenged by the IN. My guess is not as IN knows it was benign.

For perspective this is a list of FONOPS conducted against US allies

Spoiler!

US FONOPS against allies

1993.94 Egypt Prior notification for warship to enter 12 nm territorial sea
Philippines Excessive straight baselines; claims archipelagic waters as internal waters

1995 Philippines Excessive straight baselines; claims archipelagic waters as internal waters
UAE Prior permission for warship to enter territorial sea

1997 Egypt Excessive straight baselines, prior permission to enter the territorial sea
Philippines Excessive straight baselines; claims archipelagic waters as internal waters
UAE Prior permission for warship to enter territorial sea

1998 Philippines Excessive straight baselines; claims archipelagic waters as internal waters
Saudi Arabia Excessive straight baselines; claimed security zone
UAE Prior permission for warship to enter the territorial sea; claimed security zone

1999 Egypt Prior permission for warship to enter the territorial sea
Japan Excessive straight baselines
Philippines Excessive straight baselines; claims archipelagic waters as internal waters
South Korea Excessive straight baselines

2000 Philippines Excessive straight baselines
Egypt Prior permission for warships / nuclear powered vessels to enter territorial seas

2002.03 Egypt Prior permission for warships / nuclear powered vessels to enter territorial seas
Philippines Excessive straight baselines; claims archipelagic waters as internal waters
Taiwan Excessive straight baselines; 24 nm security zone

2004 Philippines Excessive straight baselines; claims archipelagic waters as internal waters

2005 Philippines Excessive straight baselines; claims archipelagic waters as internal waters

2006 Philippines Excessive straight baselines; claims archipelagic waters as internal waters
Taiwan Restriction on right of innocent passage through territorial sea; requirement of prior notice of warships transiting territorial sea.

2007 Philippines claims archipelagic waters as internal waters

2008 Philippines claims archipelagic waters as internal waters

2009 Philippines* excessive archipelagic baselines
* designates multiple challenges to the claim during FY 09 (1 Oct 08-30 Sep 09)

2010 Japan Excessive straight baselines
Philippines* excessive archipelagic baselines
* designates multiple challenges to the claim during FY 10 (1 Oct 09-30 Sep 10)

2011 Taiwan* Excessive straight baselines; prior notification required for foreign military or government vessels to enter territorial sea
* designates multiple challenges to the claim during FY 11 (1 Oct 10-30 Sep 11)

2012 Japan Excessive straight baselines
Philippines Excessive straight baselines; claims archipelagic waters as internal waters
Taiwan* Excessive straight baselines; prior notification required for foreign military or government vessels to enter territorial sea
* designates multiple challenges to the claim(s) during the reporting period.

2013 Philippines* Claims archipelagic waters as internal waters
Taiwan* Excessive straight baselines; prior notification required for foreign military or government vessels to enter territorial sea
* designates multiple challenges to the claim(s) during the reporting period.

2014 Philippines* Claims archipelagic waters as internal waters
South Korea Excessive straight baselines; prior notification required for foreign military or government vessels to enter the territorial sea.
Taiwan* Excessive straight baselines; prior notification required for foreign military or government vessels to enter territorial sea
* designates multiple challenges to the claim(s) during the reporting period.

2015 Philippines* Claims archipelagic waters as internal waters
Taiwan Prior notification required for foreign military or government vessels to enter the TTS

2016 Italy Claimed historic bay status for the Gulf of Taranto.
Japan Excessive straight baselines
Philippines* Claims archipelagic waters as internal waters
South Korea Excessive straight baselines; prior notification required for foreign military or government vessels to enter the TTS

2017 Montenegro Prior notification required for passage of foreign warships through the TTS (Adriatic Sea)
Philippines* Claims archipelagic waters as internal waters (Sulu Sea)
Taiwan* * Prior notification required for foreign military or government vessels to enter the TTS (Paracel Islands)

2018 Egypt Prior notification required for foreign warships to exercise innocent passage in the territorial sea (Red sea)
Egypt Straight baselines not drawn in accordance with the law of the sea (Red Sea)
Japan Straight baselines not drawn in accordance with the law of the sea.(East China Sea)
Philippines* Claims archipelagic waters as internal waters (Sulu Sea)
Saudi Arabia Claims that innocent passage does not apply in territorial sea when a high seas or exclusive economic zone route exists that is equally suitable with regard to navigational and hydrographic features. (Persian Gulf)
Taiwan* * Prior notification required for foreign military or government vessels to enter the territorial sea. (Spratly & Paracel Islands)
UAE Prior permission required for foreign warships to exercise innocent passage in the territorial sea.

2019 Romania Prior approval required for foreign warships to enter the territorial sea (Black Sea)
KSA Denial that innocent passage applies to its territorial sea where a route to the high seas or an EEZ is “equally suitable” in terms of navigational and hydrographical features
Taiwan* Prior notification required for foreign military or government vessels to enter the territorial sea (Paracel & Spratly Islands)
Taiwan* Straight baseline claims (Philippines Sea)

2020 Japan Straight baseline claims (Tsushima Strait)
South Korea Straight baseline claims (Yellow Sea)
Taiwan* * Prior notification required for foreign military or government vessels to enter the territorial sea (SCS)

Philippines: 21 times
Taiwan : 11 times
Japan : 6 times
Egypt : 6 times
UAE : 4 times
Korea : 3 times
KSA : 2 times

Note the term "Excessive straight baselines" wrt PH. It will come up in a subsequent post.


India happens to be in the minority. In a group of around 20 countries that disagrees that military ships can carry out operations in any countries EEZ.

That's the list of countries US will conduct FONOPS against. Simple

Rest of the world or 170 other countries, at least those with a coast line do not have a problem with it.

China has a double standard with FONOPS. Object if some one else does it in their waters but do not bother to notify when they do it to others.eg. military exercises in the Mediterranean or Baltic Sea with Russia.