"Navigation is not 'running rampant', and freedom cannot be arbitrary." Recently, at a press conference of the Chinese Ministry of National Defense, the spokesperson made a sharp response to the US Department of Defense's release of the "Freedom of Navigation" report for fiscal year 2023. According to the report, the US challenged 29 "excessive maritime claims" by 17 countries or regions, including China, in fiscal year 2023.
In recent years, "freedom of navigation" has become a common excuse for the United States to show off its military power and conduct joint patrols and military exercises. Since last year, the Philippines has frequently invaded China's Ren'ai Reef and Huangyan Island waters; the United States, Japan and the Philippines held their first trilateral summit and unreasonably attacked China on the South China Sea issue... As the driving force behind the incident, the United States has repeatedly used the rhetoric of "freedom of navigation".
So, what exactly does "freedom of navigation" mean? What is the difference between the American "freedom of navigation" and the "freedom of navigation" recognized by international law? What are the intentions behind this core maritime claim of the United States? Let's take a look at them one by one.
This “freedom of navigation” is not the same as that “freedom of navigation”
Although both are called freedom of navigation, the "freedom of navigation" in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention") and the "freedom of navigation" in the mouth of the United States are completely different. The starting point of the former is to safeguard the fair maritime rights and interests that all countries should enjoy and to maintain the global maritime order; the starting point of the latter is to safeguard the military and diplomatic interests of the United States and to maintain its maritime hegemony.
Opening the Convention, it stipulates corresponding navigation systems for territorial waters, exclusive economic zones, high seas, etc. The width of territorial waters shall not exceed 12 nautical miles, the width of exclusive economic zones shall not exceed 200 nautical miles, and high seas refer to all sea areas not included in the exclusive economic zone, territorial waters or internal waters of a country or the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic country.
According to the Convention, foreign ships enjoy innocent passage in territorial waters, but they must not harm the peace, good order or security of the coastal state; they enjoy freedom of navigation in the exclusive economic zone, but they must take into account the coastal state's sovereign rights over natural resources and its jurisdiction over marine scientific research, environmental protection and other matters; all parties enjoy freedom of navigation on the high seas, but they must comply with the requirement that "the high seas should be used only for peaceful purposes". It is worth noting that the Convention stipulates the right of coastal states to protect, such as coastal states can take appropriate steps to prevent non-innocent passage; coastal states can require foreign warships that do not comply with their domestic laws to leave their territorial waters immediately.
So what is the "freedom of navigation" that the United States talks about? It is simple and crude. In the eyes of the United States, "outside the territorial waters is the high seas", and for this reason it has even created the concept of "international waters". In the United States' concepts and actions, not to mention that US warships can sail absolutely freely within the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zones of other countries, even within the 12-nautical-mile coastal countries, they can pass in the name of innocent passage and "not subject to illegal restrictions by the country".
The difference between the two is obvious. For example, the freedom of navigation stipulated in the Convention is like a village where every household has a yard outside their house, and outside the yard is a vegetable garden with fruits and vegetables. Outsiders need to inform the owner before passing through the vegetable garden, and they cannot enter the yard casually. However, the United States not only wants to pass through the vegetable garden at will, but also wants to enter the yard without saying hello. Under this logic of absolute freedom, American warships often forcibly enter the waters under the jurisdiction of other countries without application or notification, and the dangerous incidents caused by this are too numerous to mention.
It can be seen that this "freedom of navigation" is not the same as that "freedom of navigation", and there is an essential difference between the two. The United States has not joined the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but uses "freedom of navigation operations" to challenge other countries' so-called "excessive maritime claims", which is essentially using American "house rules" to maintain global maritime hegemony.
From "watching" to "ending", the hand of hegemony stirs up chaos in the South China Sea
The United States claims that "freedom of navigation operations" are intended to ensure the safety of sea lanes and commercial prosperity, but is this really the case?
For example, the "Freedom of Navigation" report recently released by the US Department of Defense has been released regularly every year since 1991. According to statistics, as of 2022, the United States has carried out more than 600 "freedom of navigation operations" against more than 60 countries, challenging more than 700 so-called "excessive maritime claims."
Some scholars have conducted research and found that before 2000, the Asia-Pacific region was not the main target area for the United States' "freedom of navigation operations". But after 2000, the role of the Asia-Pacific region increased significantly. After combing through public information, we found that in the 15 years from 1991 to 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense only "named" China in its "freedom of navigation" reports for three fiscal years (fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994 respectively). The reason was "The United States does not recognize that prior notification is required for its warships to enter China's territorial waters." But starting in 2007, the situation changed. Since that year, China has continued to become a target country for the United States to conduct "freedom of navigation operations". According to statistics from the Chinese think tank "South China Sea Strategic Situational Awareness Program", from 2015 to 2022, the US's "freedom of navigation operations" targeting islands and reefs in the South China Sea have continued to increase, with a total of 39 times.
Why has there been such a change? This is closely related to factors such as the United States' adjustment of its global strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region, its deepening strategic concerns about China, and the escalating sovereignty dispute between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea. If we look back at the US foreign policy after the end of the Cold War, we can clearly see the trajectory of the US South China Sea policy change.
In the early 1990s, the United States' basic policy on the South China Sea issue was to take no position on the legitimacy of the territorial claims of the various parties, emphasize the use of peaceful means to resolve territorial disputes, and at the same time pay attention to freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.
With the Obama administration proposing the "re-engagement in Asia-Pacific" and "rebalancing in Asia-Pacific" strategies in 2009 and 2012 respectively, the US South China Sea policy has undergone a substantial change - from an "observer" to an "intervener", and has begun to use the South China Sea issue to contain China.
During Obama's second term, the US demanded that China stop land reclamation in the South China Sea, encouraged the Philippines to submit the South China Sea dispute to international arbitration, and promoted the internationalization and multilateralization of the South China Sea issue. At the same time, the US actively provided diplomatic assistance and military support to Vietnam, the Philippines and other countries, and even directly dispatched aircraft and ships into the disputed areas of the South China Sea.
After the Trump administration came to power in 2017, the United States has significantly increased its "freedom of navigation operations" against China: the US Navy and Air Force have frequently provoked China in the South China Sea. The United States has also wooed Western allies to jointly declare "freedom of navigation" in the South China Sea and held joint military exercises around the South China Sea.
After reviewing, it was found that from May 2015 to May 2017, there were frequent incidents of US warships and aircraft violating China's sovereignty in the South China Sea, and some of the nodes are intriguing. For example, in October 2016, the USS Decatur entered China's Xisha territorial waters without authorization, just when the then Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was visiting China. At that time, China-Philippines relations were fully restored and a series of cooperation agreements were signed.
In 2023, as the Philippines frequently made provocations and troubles in the South China Sea, the US military increased its military operations in the South China Sea and surrounding areas. According to a report released by the "South China Sea Strategic Situational Awareness Plan", in the past year, large U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups and amphibious alert groups entered the South China Sea eight times, and their stay time, training intensity and pertinence were significantly enhanced; at least 11 attack nuclear submarines and Two strategic missile nuclear submarines have appeared in the South China Sea and surrounding waters.
It can be seen that Washington cannot tolerate peace and tranquility in the South China Sea and deliberately creates tension in the region. As experts say, the U.S.'s "freedom of navigation operations" have nothing to do with maintaining the security of international waterways and the prosperity of maritime trade, as it advertises, but are military tools to advance U.S. global strategy and safeguard U.S. security interests.
American public opinion war attempts to beautify "freedom of navigation"
In addition to military operations and diplomatic pronouncements, the United States has also launched a public opinion war against the South China Sea region to give "freedom of navigation operations" a "reasonable" appearance.
After the current Philippine government came to power in June 2022, the US media increased its hype about the situation in the South China Sea. Take the New York Times as an example. Before the new Philippine government came to power, the average monthly coverage was 3.26 articles. After the new Philippine government came to power, the average monthly coverage increased by 42%. Further refinement of the data shows that every time the Philippines launches a provocation against China, the New York Times will follow suit and hype it up.
In order to reflect the so-called "live reporting", American journalists have boarded Philippine Coast Guard ships more than once to film the confrontation between Chinese and Philippine ships, and even turned into actors. In 2023, the New York Times published a long report about a reporter who "broke into" Meiji Island in the South China Sea and was driven away by the Chinese Navy. The reporter described himself as pitiful and "accused" the Chinese Navy of being unreasonable. But the truth is that the ship he was on had already rushed into the 2-nautical-mile territorial waters of Meiji Island!
U.S. Air Force officer Benjamin Goirigorzari once admitted in a forum that the strategy of the Philippine Coast Guard is to "equip Philippine ships with journalists to record conflicts with China and show China's 'bullying behavior.'" It can be seen that this is done in order to use the so-called journalists' perspective to distort China's legitimate rights protection actions into "bullying the weak with the big", portray the provocative Philippines as a "victim", reverse right and wrong, and rationalize the U.S.'s "freedom of navigation."
In this war of public opinion, there is also a frequent troublemaker - American think tanks, such as the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) under the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
Recently, AMTI released a report on the so-called "environmental threat" in the South China Sea, which groundlessly accused China of destroying the environment in the South China Sea. This report was reprinted by many US media. Previously, various reports released by the organization frequently appeared in US media reports on the South China Sea. The AMTI website shows that it has received financial support from the United States and has been compared by public opinion to a "shadow tool" used by the US government to manipulate public opinion on the South China Sea issue. In the United States, there are many think tanks like AMTI.
The U.S. media is hyping up everything, journalists are fabricating facts, and think tank reports are making things up - this kind of U.S.-style propaganda warfare is being played out again and again in the South China Sea.
A Southeast Asian fisherman once wrote to the South China Morning Post, "Let me be frank: the United States is playing with fire in China's sight. If this situation gets out of control, the entire region will suffer. Why should we pay the price for the United States' wrongdoings? Anyone who is capable of independent thinking would not feel something is wrong when seeing the United States repeatedly portray China as the only 'bad boy' in maritime disputes?"
Greg Austin, a researcher at the West Institute, also pointed out that the so-called threat posed by China's actions in the South China Sea to commercial shipping is a big lie told by the Pentagon. In fact, with the joint efforts of China and ASEAN, freedom of navigation in the South China Sea has never been a problem. The United States' promotion of "navigation hegemony" in the name of "freedom of navigation" is the root cause of the risks to maritime and air security.