From AP:

WASHINGTON – The Defense Department charged Monday that five Chinese ships shadowed and maneuvered dangerously close to a U.S. Navy vessel in an apparent attempt to harass the American crew.

Obama administration defense officials said the incident Sunday followed several days of “increasingly aggressive” acts by Chinese ships in the region. U.S. officials said a protest was to be delivered to Beijing’s military attache at a Pentagon meeting Monday.

The USNS Impeccable sprayed one ship with water from fire hoses to force it away. Despite the force of the water, Chinese crew members stripped to their underwear and continued closing within 25 feet, the department said.

“On March 8, 2009, five Chinese vessels shadowed and aggressively maneuvered in dangerously close proximity to USNS Impeccable, in an apparent coordinated effort to harass the U.S. ocean surveillance ship while it was conducting routine operations in international waters,” the Pentagon statement said.

The Chinese ships included a Chinese Navy intelligence collection ship, a Bureau of Maritime Fisheries Patrol Vessel, a State Oceanographic Administration patrol vessel, and two small Chinese-flagged trawlers, officials said.

“The Chinese vessels surrounded USNS Impeccable, two of them closing to within 50 feet, waving Chinese flags and telling Impeccable to leave the area,” defense officials said in the statement.

“Because the vessels’ intentions were not known, Impeccable sprayed its fire hoses at one of the vessels in order to protect itself,” the Defense statement said. “The Chinese crew members disrobed to their underwear and continued closing to within 25 feet.”

Emergency stop
Impeccable crew radioed to tell the Chinese ships that it was leaving the area and requested a safe path to navigate, the Pentagon said.

But shortly afterward, two of the Chinese ships stopped directly ahead of the Impeccable, forcing it to an emergency stop in order to avoid collision because the Chinese had dropped pieces of wood in the water directly in front of Impeccable’s path, the Pentagon said.

Defense officials said the incident took place in international waters in the South China Sea, about 75 miles south of Hainan Island.

“The unprofessional maneuvers by Chinese vessels violated the requirement under international law to operate with due regard for the rights and safety of other lawful users of the ocean,” said Marine Maj. Stewart Upton, a Pentagon spokesman.

“We expect Chinese ships to act responsibly and refrain from provocative activities that could lead to miscalculation or a collision at sea, endangering vessels and the lives of U.S. and Chinese mariners,” Upton added.

Military-to-military consultations resumed
The incident came just a week after China and the U.S. resumed military-to-military consultations following a five-month suspension over American arms sales to Taiwan.

It also comes as Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi is due in Washington this week to meet with U.S. officials.

And it brings to mind the first foreign policy crisis that former President George Bush suffered with Beijing shortly after he took office — China’s forced landing of a spy plane and seizure of the crew in April of 2001.

The Pentagon said the incident came after several other incidents involving the Impeccable and another U.S. vessel Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday.

It described those as the following:

  • On Wednesday, a Chinese Bureau of Fisheries Patrol vessel used a high-intensity spotlight to illuminate the entire length of the ocean surveillance ship USNS Victorious several times as it was operating in the Yellow Sea, about 125 nautical miles from China’s coast, the Pentagon said, adding that the Chinese ship Victorious’ bow at a range of about 1400 yards in darkness without notice or warning. The next day, a Chinese Y-12 maritime surveillance aircraft conducted 12 fly-bys of Victorious at an altitude of about 400 feet and a range of 500 yards.
  • On Thursday, a Chinese frigate approached USNS Impeccable without warning and crossed its bow at a range of approximately 100 yards, the Pentagon said. This was followed less than two hours later by a Chinese Y-12 aircraft conducting 11 fly-bys of Impeccable at an altitude of 600 feet  and a range from 100-300 feet. The frigate then crossed Impeccable’s bow yet again, this time at a range of approximately 400-500 yards without rendering courtesy or notice of her intentions.
  • On Saturday, a Chinese intelligence collection ship challenged USNS Impeccable over bridge-to-bridge radio, calling her operations illegal and directing Impeccable to leave the area or “suffer the consequences.”

And from China recently via Reuters:

BEIJING (Reuters) – China’s plans to add aircraft carriers to its fleet and an historic long-distance mission by its navy are aimed only at protecting the country and its trade interests, senior officials were quoted as saying on Monday.  A long coastline, and high dependence on seaborne trade, meant China needed to have a strong presence at sea, but its growing confidence should not be misread as a “China threat”, the Navy’s deputy chief of staff told the official China Daily.

“Even when the navy has its aircraft carriers one day, our national defence strategy will remain purely defensive,” Major General Zhang Deshun told the paper in a story splashed across its front page.

Beijing has been keen to emphasise its case that its growing economic and political might is not a threat to other nations, even downgrading a doctrine of “peaceful rise” to “peaceful development” over worries the former might sound aggressive.  But long-term plans to add an aircraft carrier to its fleet, and the unprecedented deployment of its navy to fight pirates in waters off Somalia late last year have sparked discussion in the West about Beijing’s ultimate goals.

Zhang said any worries were misplaced.




Posted by UltimaRatioReg in Foreign Policy, Maritime Security

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    *Burma Shave*

    Foggy Bottom needs to get off its A**.

  • R. M. Hayball

    sid:
    As we both know, it takes an act of congress to get one more sailor in the Navy. Additional end strength for manning is coming from where?

    Then there is money. Next year’s rumored 10% naval budget cut plus cost overruns on new construction leaves how much exactly for conversion of 15-20 year old vessels which have no weight and moment to backfit, well, a lot of stuff.

    Which flag is going to give up what money? The money would be better spent on FRAMing figs and making realistic plans to provide short notice contingency CAP and/or escort. Then exercise the plans regularly where interested parties can see. Everybody likes an F18 air show. Let the Seals put on a show, great training.

    The Navy protects US flag merchant shipping as a matter of routine, or should. An attack on a unarmed public vessel is an act of war, or piracy, depending on the identity of the attacker.
    Catch ‘em in the act, you can sink ‘em on the spot, legal. Two way street, same rules apply to us if the situation is reversed (like it ever would).

    We could reinstitute the Service Force, it would take a lot. There is a lot to be said for it. The money comes from where?

    Telling all flags that failure to protect any USNS will result in their very own personal mast, demotion to below scrambled egg cap bill status, and immediate retirement with a bad paper DD214, that would get results.

    IMHO. I could be wrong.

  • sid

    Hay, thats the affordable fleet argument.

    The same one that nearly cost the Brits the Falklands.

    This isn’t so much about concrete number of ships and planes. It is about a military organization that is morphing into just another bureaucracy.

  • jwithington

    There seems to be a lot of focus on what the Impeccable should have done. I would offer what matters more is the response by the US to this action and future actions.

    Move in US warships to reassert the law of the sea to this EXACT location, demonstrating to China that international waters are international waters.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Midn Withington,

    You have very skilfully defined “forward presence”. As I said above, persistent presence comes with sufficient numbers of adequate platforms, ready for the entire spectrum. It is the sufficiency of numbers, with platforms we are willing to risk, that underlines this issue.

    Gotta have ‘em before you can send ‘em.

    Keep up the input. Impressive thus far!

    URR

Subscribe

Get blog posts delivered to your inbox
* = required field

video title