By Chris Mirasola
China seizes U.S. underwater drone off the Philippine Coast
The Chinese Navy seized a US underwater drone as it was about to be retrieved by a US naval vessel approximately 50 nautical miles off the Philippines coast last Thursday. It was the first such seizure by the Chinese in recent memory. By Saturday Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook confirmed that Washington had “secured an understanding” that China would return the drone. The Chinese Foreign Ministry similarly told Reuters that the two countries were using military channels to “appropriately handle this issue.” The Chinese Navy returned the drone to US Pacific Fleet on Monday near the location where it was initially seized. The drone is one of approximately 130 similar underwater vehicles used by the US Navy to collect unclassified oceanographic data, including temperature and depth.
Officials in both Beijing and Washington engaged in a heated exchange about this seizure throughout the week. Cook told reporters that, “this incident was inconsistent with both international law and standards of professionalism for conduct between navies at sea.” The Pentagon’s press statement went on to state that the seized vehicle “is a sovereign immune vessel of the U.S. Navy which was conducting routine operations in international waters of the South China Sea in full compliance with international law.” The Chinese Defense Ministry sharply contradicted this characterization, writing that the Chinese Navy simply discovered a piece of “unidentified equipment,” which it checked to prevent any navigational safety issues. A spokesperson also accused Washington of unilaterally “hyping up” the issue in an “inappropriate” manner “not beneficial to the smooth resolution of this issue.”
President-elect Trump also weighed in on the issue. On Saturday he tweeted, “China steals United States Navy research drone in international waters – rips it out of water and takes it to China in unpresidented act.” Chinese officials denied that the drone was stolen. Hours later, however, Trump tweeted that, “We should tell China that we don’t want the drone they stole back – let them keep it!” Beijing thereafter had no further comment.
A week after the seizure, many questions remain unanswered. First, it is unclear whether Chinese officials have developed a legal rationale for this seizure. Much of this confusion stems from contradictory statements on China’s characterization of the waters within which this seizure occurred. In one statement, the Defense Ministry framed the issue as one occurring “within Chinese waters.” A front-page editorial in the People’s Daily, on the other hand, called the area China’s “jurisdictional waters.” Taylor Fravel at the Maritime Awareness Project, however, found that the seizure took place outside even China’s so-called nine-dash line. Indeed, a trio of Lawfarecontributors contends that the seizure simply cannot be supported under international maritime law. Julian Ku concludes that, “China has seized a vessel belonging to a foreign government in clear violation of any possible theory of international law it could offer.” James Kraska and Pete Pedrozo similarly find that the seizure violates US sovereign immunity and interferes with high seas freedoms. For a detailed look at legal arguments proffered in Chinese sources, see William Yale’s wonderful summary in The Navalist.
Second, we do not fully understand the level at which the decision to seize this drone was made. The Pentagon is still assessing whether personnel on the Chinese vessels that seized the drone or more senior officials in Beijing made this decision. Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying criticized those who would “over-read” the situation by asking whether it was “a misjudgment or orders from higher up.”
Lastly, analysts continue to debate China’s motivations in seizing the drone. Chinese Rear Admiral Yang Yi asked whether the underwater drone, “was indeed some sort of scientific experiment or military reconnaissance in such a pretext.” Other statements reinforced this concern with US surveillance. Defense Ministry Spokesperson Yang Yujun said that, “China resolutely opposes” close-in reconnaissance and military surveys “and demands that the US side should stop such activities.” Zhang Bohai, a Hong Kong-based security expert, however, argued that the drone was more likely perceived as a threat to China’s fleet of strategic nuclear submarines operating in the area. This thesis is supported by an editorial from the People’s Daily contending that the underwater domain will become a predominant arena for Sino-American competition. Shaun Rein at IBT, as well as Harry Kazianis at the Center for the National Interest, posit that the move was intended to warn President-elect Trump against changes in the “One China” policy. Bonnie Glaser from CSIS contends more generally that the move was meant to signal that, “the US couldn’t challenge China’s core interests with impunity.” It is common for China to prod each new US administration, though such tests have traditionally occurred after inauguration.
Whatever the reason, Wu Shicun, a key government advisor on South China Sea affairs, suggested that, “China wants to send out a signal that if you spy on us underwater and threaten our national security, we have measures to deal with it. On the South China Sea issue, we took in humiliations with a humble view in past years. I think this era has finished.”
It appears that some US partners in the region are concerned that Washington will not be forceful in responding to this new era of Chinese strategy. A US defense official told the Washington Post that the Obama administration was “glad to get [the drone] back and put this behind us.” Japanese officials were less reassured. Chief Cabinet Secretary Roshihide Suga said that, “it is necessary for China to clearly explain the matter to the international community, including the basis (for its actions) under international law.” Unsurprisingly, Beijing officials criticized Tokyo’s involvement. Jane Perlez at the New York Times reports that, “Across Asia, diplomats and analysts said they were perplexed at the inability of the Obama administration to devise a strong response to China’s challenge.” US Senator John McCain reflected a similar sentiment, stating that “freedom of the seas . . . are not self-enforcing. American leadership is required in their defense. But that leadership has been sorely lacking.”
A number of analysts have written on what this incident will mean for Sino-American relations, and the region more broadly. Richard Heydarian at the New York Timesconcludes that all Southeast Asian countries are “bracing not only for unpredictability, but also for stormy waters involving U.S. and China primarily.” Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana reflected this concern, stating that “I think one of these days we will require the US to inform us what they are doing” in Philippine waters and that “we are very concerned if there will be miscalculation on the part of the two superpowers.” Jerome Cohen writes that analysts should see the Taiwan dilemma and this confrontation in the South China Sea as connected. Jeff Smith at The Diplomatargues that this seizure reveals the danger of China’s strategic ambiguity. Perhaps Chinese scholars had the opportunity to discuss these issues at an underwater drone symposium scheduled two days after the seizure took place.
No comments:
Post a Comment