Home » Budget Industry » U.S. Destroyer Made an ‘Innocent Passage’ Near Chinese South China Sea Artificial Island in Recent Mission

U.S. Destroyer Made an ‘Innocent Passage’ Near Chinese South China Sea Artificial Island in Recent Mission

USS Lassen (DDG 82) is underway in 2013. US Navy Photo

USS Lassen (DDG-82) underway in 2013. US Navy Photo

Last week’s South China Sea freedom of navigation mission — in which a U.S. guided missile destroyer came within 12 nautical miles of a Chinese facility on an artificial island on Subi Reef — was conducted as an “innocent passage,” a defense official with knowledge of the operation confirmed to USNI News on Monday morning.

While the mission of USS Lassen (DDG-82) was deemed successful by Washington, focusing world attention on the myriad of overlapping and disputed claims in the South China Sea, the use of the innocent passage stipulation could result in a perception that the U.S. implicitly acknowledges Chinese claims to its recently constructed artificial islands.

Under international maritime law, a warship is allowed to make an innocent passage
through any nations territorial waters without prior notification if it does not conduct any military operations in transit — like activating fire control radars, firing weapons, conducting drills or transmitting propaganda.

The U.S. does not recognize any of the expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea’s Spratly Island chain — not only by China but also by Vietnam and the Philippines — and believes its ships are within their rights to come within 12 nautical miles of any of the disputed features without having to honor innocent passage rules.

Lassen’s innocent passage was meant by no means a U.S. recognition of any of China’s territorial claims based on their artificial islands, a defense official told USNI News on Monday.

However, the ramification of even implicit territorial recognition of any of the features could kick off a spate of enforcement by nations bordering the South China Sea in an attempt to claim exclusive national rights of navigation and overflight and economic controls over what is now recognized as international territory, according to maritime law experts.

“Given the proliferation of claims over the hundreds of rocks, reefs, skerries and cays in the South China Sea, if the international community recognizes the maximum theoretical rights generated by each of them, the oceans and airspace will come to look like Swiss cheese and be practically closed off to free navigation and overflight,” wrote James Kraska, professor in the Stockton Center for the Study of International Law at the Naval War College in September.

Chinese Subi Reef facilities in April 2015. Digital Globe Photo via The Diplomat

Chinese Subi Reef facilities in April 2015. Digital Globe Photo via The Diplomat

The decision for Lassen to transit via innocent passage by Subi Reef was made by the White House from a menu of freedom of navigation missions presented by Pentagon and U.S. Pacific Command officials, several sources confirmed to USNI News on Monday.

While the particulars of Lassen’s freedom of navigation mission were designed to create a minimum amount of stir in China, Beijing’s intense reaction to the passage — innocent or not — made international headlines.

Not only did China accuse the U.S. of meddling in its internal affairs, but the military and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also promised a commensurate response to the U.S. operation.

“Relevant actions by the U.S. naval vessel threatened China’s sovereignty and security interests, put the personnel and facilities on the islands and reefs at risk and endangered regional peace and stability. The Chinese side hereby expresses strong dissatisfaction and opposition,” read a statement last week from Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang.
“We will keep a close eye on what is happening in the relevant waters and airspace and take all necessary measures as needed.”

In addition, regional U.S. allies like Australia have committed to more South China Sea freedom of navigation actions following Lassen’s lead.

While the outcome for the U.S. could reasonably be deemed successful it was preceded by weeks of high-level press leaks and speculation a U.S. South China Sea freedom of navigation mission was in the offing. The White House, according to The New York Times, told the Pentagon to remain silent after the mission.

The only U.S. official to publically acknowledge the mission on the record last week was Secretary of Defense Ash Carter before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Carter acknowledged press reports but provided no additional detail after intense questioning from SASC chair Sen John McCain (R-Ariz.)

“I don’t like in general the idea of commenting on our military operations but I can say but what you read in the newspaper is accurate but I don’t want to say more than that,” Carter said.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter testifes before the Senate Armed Services Committee on U.S. military strategy in the Middle East Oct. 27, 2015. DoD Photo

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter testifes before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Oct. 27, 2015. DoD Photo

Traditionally, the opposite has been the case with freedom of navigation operations (FON op)— officials and the military remain silent about the operation until after it occurs and then after the fact disclose particulars.

Even while breaking with precedent, Washington may have gotten lucky in how it handled the non-traditional lead-up to the operation, Kraska told USNI News on Monday.

“The apparent indecision within the U.S. Government over whether to conduct the mission appeared to undermine U.S. resolve. On the other hand, the weeks of discussion and media speculation attracted greater attention regionally, including eliciting statements of support from Australia, Japan, and the Philippines and others,” he told USNI News on Monday afternoon.
“In the end, the operation was anti-climatic, as it demonstrated that China was unwilling or unable to prevent free use of the South China Sea. The Lassen FON op has been successful, as far as it goes.”

What’s next is if the U.S. will make good on its commitment to continue the freedom of navigation missions in the region, Kraska said.

“International law is built upon state practice over an extended period of time, so a single operation is just one step,” he said.
“To be effective, the United States and other countries will have to maintain a routine presence in the area, and to regularly exercise their right to freedom of navigation and overflight and other internationally lawful uses of the sea.”

Like What You've Been Reading? Get Proceedings Today
Categories: Budget Industry, Foreign Forces, Surface Forces, U.S. Navy
Sam LaGrone

About Sam LaGrone

Sam LaGrone is the editor of USNI News. He was formerly the U.S. Maritime Correspondent for the Washington D.C. bureau of Jane’s Defence Weekly and Jane’s Navy International. He has covered legislation, acquisition and operations for the Sea Services and spent time underway with the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and the Canadian Navy.

  • Tony Mac

    Who does McCain want to bomb and kill today?

  • Tony

    If Subi Reef did not have an above low tide elevation prior to having an artificial island built on top of it, then “innocent passage” does NOT apply, and LASSEN simply sailed through international waters. Innocent passage only applies to features that HAVE territorial waters associated with them.

    • Tony

      Correction: above high tide (I mis-spoke). However, everything I have read indicates that Subi Reef has no above high tide elevations, so it does not have its own TTWs, and innocent passage does not apply.

  • sferrin

    Look at that back peddling in action. Disgusting. Helllloooo, you can’t exercise “innocent passage” in the middle of international waters. It’s only relevant inside the 12 mile limit nations are allowed to claim around their territory. By claiming “innocent passage” the idiots in Washington just legitimatized China’s claim to that island as being Chinese territory. The Keystone Cops could have done better.

    • John Allard

      Yup, I was in support of the freedom of navigation exercises, but if it’s done under innocent passage, it’s a farce. Very, very dissapointed in my government.

    • Tony

      “Like” – oh, ooops, this isn’t Facebook – sorry!

    • John B. Morgen

      The people in Washington, DC were acting as if they were a “Chinese Fire Brigade.”

  • Hugh

    Chinese over-reaction seems to be their norm now, as they don’t have any solid arguments. Furthermore the Chinese military does its thing irrespective of the government – dangerous.

    I hear the USN is considering a passage within 12 nautical miles of these reclamations approximately every 3 months.

  • Pingback: Why the US Navy’s first South China Sea FONOP wasn’t a FONOP()

  • Marjus

    In the end, the Chinese know that the US Armed Forces are a professional entity, as such US commanders have the right to self defense no matter how much of a community organizer the POTUS may be, so if they are shot at, they are not going to wait for Obama and his team of council to debate it to death. Now, Combatant Commanders will have to plead with Obama, but on the scene captains and commanders of ships and aircraft will use whatever firepower they have to destroy the enemy forces they face. They are not going to give up their lives because the politicians back in DC can’t find a spine if they had a million years to look for one.

  • Tony Mac

    OMG keep John McCain out of everything concerning foreign affairs or the military. McCain is determined to start world war III

  • Bush+Obama=Satans love child

    Obama has set a precedent by traveling 12 miles & not 10 while shutting radar operations down. He is a disgrace to the office he holds & the documents he has sworn to honor & protect.


    Don’t really know what “conducted as an innocent passage” means. It is not like there is a sign on the ship saying “We are conducting an innocent passage”. If the ship could have been conducting an innocent passage, that doesn’t mean it conducted an innocent passage, it also could be sailing in international waters. Of course it is stupid to go to all the trouble and then not do something to demonstrate explicitly that you do not recognize the claim. Typical Obama trying to be on both sides of the issue, unfortunately it doesn’t work concerning international law.

  • Pingback: Why Did Obama Just Give the South China Sea to the Chinese Communist Regime? | CAPITOL ZERO()

  • Pingback: Why Did Obama Just Give the South China Sea to the Chinese Communist Regime? - News Syndication Site()

  • Pingback: Why Did Obama Just Give the South China Sea to the Chinese Communist Regime?()

  • Pingback: Sea Control 100 - South China Sea Freedom of Navigation()

  • Pingback: How Washington Can Get Back on Course in the South China Sea | Economicworld – Breaking News, Latest News and Current News from economicworld.net Breaking news and video. Latest Current News: U.S., World, Entertainment, Health, …()

  • Pingback: Washington’s Muddled Message in the South China Sea | Global Times()

  • Pingback: Top Stories 2015: US Navy Operations – USNI News | American Veteran Coalition()

  • Pingback: Top Stories 2015: U.S. Navy Operations | Aircrew Systems()