Home » Foreign Forces » Brazil Drops Out of RIMPAC 2018 Exercise in Southern California


Brazil Drops Out of RIMPAC 2018 Exercise in Southern California

Brazil has dropped out of the 2018 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise after planning to participate in the massive biennial international exercise for its first time ever, U.S. 3rd Fleet confirmed to USNI News.

The Navy had previously boasted a 26-nation exercise, but a recent infographic depicted just 25.

“Unfortunately, due to a change in operational schedules, Brazil will not be participating in RIMPAC 2018, but remains interested in a future opportunity to participate in the exercise,” Navy spokeswoman Lt. j.g. Ada Anderson told USNI News.
“We value our partnership with the Brazilian Navy and look forward to operating with them in the future.”

Brazil had planned on participating in the Southern California portion of the exercise with a group of ground forces and staff planners. It was not involved in main portion of the exercise in Hawaii. U.S. Marines and sailors have already begun RIMPAC events in California with their Mexican and Canadian counterparts. Due to the smaller group of personnel Brazil had planned to bring, no portions of the exercise have had to be revamped to account for their absence.

In May, however, China was disinvited from the exercise. In that case, China had been scheduled to be part of the Combined Task Force (CTF) 175, led by U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Bertholf (WMSL-750), and in CTF 171, led by U.S. naval expeditionary dive and salvage forces. Those task forces had to reassess which ships would conduct what work during exercise events, due to the absence of the Chinese ships. China would have brought four ships total, including its hospital ship Peace Ark, as well as a salvage diving team.

Like What You've Been Reading? Get Proceedings Today
Categories: Foreign Forces, News & Analysis
Megan Eckstein

About Megan Eckstein

Megan Eckstein is a staff writer for USNI News. She previously covered Congress for Defense Daily and the U.S. surface navy and U.S. amphibious operations as an associate editor for Inside the Navy.

  • Richard Kouyoumdjian Inglis

    It would be interesting to know the real reason for Brasil dropping out for a second time. Hope it does not have to do with pressures from other countries.

    Kind regards,

    Richard

    • Secundius

      Brazil probably can’t get the A140, PHeM “Atlantico” (i.e. ex-HMS Ocean) refitted on time…

  • Mattis2016

    Funny how they pull out after China bails out Petrobras 14B refinery debacle.

  • Secundius

    It’s not that! It’s simply that “.Hugo.” doesn’t care…

    • .Hugo.

      defy unclos, then i will care.

  • Secundius

    You got it…

  • Marcd30319

    Don’t you mean “define?”

    LMAO!

  • .Hugo.

    sure, so have you checked the relevant chinese maritime laws too?

  • Marcd30319

    Still not trying.

  • Marcd30319

    LOL. You keep trying and failing.

  • Marcd30319

    Keep looking.

  • Marcd30319

    Nice try to duck but how did you put it again?

    “… defy unclos?””

    Laughable.

  • .Hugo.

    wrong.
    .
    it is chinese eez defined in unclos.
    .

  • .Hugo.

    the u.s. has refused to sign on unclos, but still wants to enjoy the rights it likes. that’s all.

  • .Hugo.

    how can you jump to article 89 without going thru 86 first?
    .
    that’s why china is not claiming the high seas but only claim eez rights in its adjacent waters, i.e. eez.
    .
    Article86

    Application of the provisions of this Part

    The provisions of this Part apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. This article does not entail any abridgement of the freedoms enjoyed by all States in the exclusive economic zone in accordance with article 58.
    .
    based on unclos article 86, the high seas is the area outside of the 12 n.m. territorial waters and 200 n.m. eez.
    .
    you just can’t change that fact, can you?
    .

  • .Hugo.

    no it doesn’t. that’s why unclos is very specific on the definition of the high seas, and there is nothing called international waters in it.
    .

  • .Hugo.

    “will accept” =/= “has signed”
    .
    unDOTorg/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm
    .
    so where is the united states?

  • .Hugo.

    but you can’t quote unclos to support your accusation, so who is lying?
    .

  • .Hugo.

    thanks, you have highlighted the right of the coastal state owning the eez, i.e. china.
    .
    the u.s. is not an unclos signatory and it is not a coastal state in the scs.
    .
    and still article 56 doesn’t define international waters.

  • .Hugo.

    that’s why china is not claiming the high seas but only claim eez rights in its adjacent waters, i.e. eez.
    .
    Article86

    Application of the provisions of this Part

    The provisions of this Part apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. This article does not entail any abridgement of the freedoms enjoyed by all States in the exclusive economic zone in accordance with article 58.

  • .Hugo.

    china is not claiming eez as territorial water, it is only claiming its eez rights in its own eez.
    .
    and china is not claiming the high seas either which is well outside of its territorial waters and eez.

    .

  • .Hugo.

    yes, the u.s. has refused to sign on unclos.
    .
    yes, the u.s. wants to enjoy unclos rights even when it has refused to sign on it.
    .

  • .Hugo.

    wrong.
    .
    u.s. only recognizes its unclos rights (but refused to sign on unclos so to restrict its own naval activities right inside other signatories’ eez).
    .
    it is also funny to say the u.s. has really followed any international law when deploying its military forces all over the world.

  • .Hugo.

    who said eez is territorial water? china is not claiming eez as territorial water but only claiming its eez rights in its own eez.
    .
    .

  • .Hugo.

    wrong.
    .
    the high seas doesn’t cover eez as defined in unclos.

  • .Hugo.

    that’s for the high seas not eez.
    .
    eez is 200 n.m. from the shore, the u.s. spy ships are operating well inside chinese eez.
    .

  • .Hugo.

    wrong.
    .
    the high seas doesn’t cover eez as defined in unclos.

  • .Hugo.

    Article86

    Application of the provisions of this Part

    The provisions of this Part apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. This article does not entail any abridgement of the freedoms enjoyed by all States in the exclusive economic zone in accordance with article 58.
    .
    .
    see exclusive economic zone?

  • .Hugo.

    Article86

    Application of the provisions of this Part

    The provisions of this Part apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. This article does not entail any abridgement of the freedoms enjoyed by all States in the exclusive economic zone in accordance with article 58.
    .
    .
    see exclusive economic zone?
    .

  • .Hugo.

    whatever, are you trying to avoid the question?

  • .Hugo.

    whatever, are you trying to avoid the question?
    .
    are you not seeing “exclusive economic zone” in the high seas definition?

  • .Hugo.

    Article86

    Application of the provisions of this Part

    The provisions of this Part apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. This article does not entail any abridgement of the freedoms enjoyed by all States in the exclusive economic zone in accordance with article 58.

  • .Hugo.

    there is no such aka in unclos. high seas is clearly defined as anything outside of the territorial waters and eez.
    .

  • Secundius

    I guess it would depend on “Who” or “If” the PRC PLAN has a Attache assigned to the Pentagon and has and/or are permitted access to US Military websites…

    • .Hugo.

      don’t speculate, it’s only a public website. 🙂
      .

    • Marcd30319

      .Hugo. is no attache, just a miserable little troll.

      • Secundius

        I never said the “.Hugo.” was an Attache! All I said it only requires the Subscription of One Person to access the Website/Blog Site for others to use. There might not even be an PRC PLAN “Attache” at the Pentagon! How did you become a Member? I became a Member by Accident, while looking up Information of a Weapons System for “Jane’s” where I was already a Member off…

        • Marcd30319

          You never said that, and I never said that.

          • Secundius

            Reading your comment, somewhat implies that I “Did” say that! Or at the very least “Implied” that I said he was…

  • Secundius

    Actually earlier! SVV-175, Viktor Leonov started Spying off the Eastern United States Coast (~26nmi) just after CVN-78, USS Gerald Ford started his first set of Sea Trials in Late September 2015. First spotted by a P-8 Poseidon, then shadowed by a USCG Cutter, and eventually chased off by a USN Destroyer…

    • .Hugo.

      unclos i (1956) predates the geneva conventions of the law of the sea (1958). the geneva conventions of the law of the sea was actually a follow-up discussion of unclos i, which was eventually replaced by unclos ii and unclos iii, and the u.s. is never a signatory. 🙂
      .
      Article311

      Relation to other conventions and international agreements

      1. This Convention shall prevail, as between States Parties, over the Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea of 29 April 1958.
      .
      .
      so who has lied? 🙂
      .

  • Secundius

    Out all the Maintenance problems the Russian Navy has been having since Putin took power, their Spy Ships are pretty well Maintained…

  • muzzleloader

    “Hugo” is a Chinese troll.
    I call him wang

    • .Hugo.

      good excuse. 🙂
      .

  • Marcd30319

    Trolls like .Hugo. lie and complain about US spy ships operating in Chinese EEZ.

    Maybe these very same trolls should google “Viktor Leonov” which is the name of a Russian spy ship (SVV-175) that operated off the east coast of the US in 2016, 2017, and earlier this year, often within 30 miles of our coast. Yet, well within our EEZ but beyond our 12-mile territorial limit because it is still considered international water or the high seas.

    Also, the US remains a signatory of the 1958 Geneva Conventions of the Law of the Sea which is the precursor of UNCLOS, and the US is also a member of the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

    www. snopes. com/fact-check/russian-spy-ship-east-coast/

    Trolls like .Hugo. need to grow up and face the truth!