US must veer away from collision course of testing China's claims in South China Sea
Mark Valencia warns of the danger of Washington giving in to rabble-rousing talk on South China Sea
US congressman J. Randy Forbes has organised a bipartisan letter signed by him and 28 of his fellow congressmen to President Barack Obama and Defence Secretary Ashton Carter, urging the US government to challenge China's purported claims to 12-nautical-mile territorial seas around its "artificial formations" in the South China Sea. The letter implies that China's actions are threatening "freedom of navigation".
Forbes chairs the subcommittee for seapower and projection forces in the House of Representatives' Armed Services Committee. Meanwhile, in the US Senate, senators from both parties, including John McCain, chairman of the senate Committee on Armed Services, said the US needs to go within the 12-mile limit to make it clear that it does not recognise China's claim that the islands are its territory. McCain said that "[not doing so] is a dangerous mistake that grants de facto recognition of China's man-made sovereignty claims".
On the contrary: these calls for what will amount to an effort by the US military to intimidate China are ill-advised and even dangerous.
The US gambit that many are calling for could result in serious international conflict, threatening regional peace
China occupies at least seven features in the Spratlys - Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reefs, Johnson South Reef, Mischief Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef, and has undertaken reclamation and construction on all of them.
Why is physically challenging China's claims "ill-advised"?
First, it is not clear that China does or will claim maritime zones from submerged features it has "reclaimed". Second, we do know China claims sovereignty over all the features in the South China Sea, including legal islands like Spratly, Itu Aba and Thitu that are occupied by others.
Of course, their sovereignty is disputed. Nevertheless, China could argue that the "artificial formations" are within its jurisdiction by virtue of its exclusive economic zone and shelf claims from legal islands. This jurisdiction carries with it the exclusive right to construct and regulate the construction, operation and use of artificial structures.
Such structures are entitled to reasonable safety zones around them, usually not exceeding 500 metres. China might argue that these safety zones include the airspace above them and thus explain its warnings to foreign military aircraft not to violate this airspace.