China establishes air-defence zone over East China Sea

[skyknight]

Not all the AIDZ area is territorial sky。
Every cheerleaders here need learn some basic knowledge about ADIZ then join the discussion。
We have never recognized the Japanese or Korean，American AIDZ so bacially we do not expect any recognition from them too。

 

[SrNair]

Australia is a crucial part of the US Pivot to Asia - this is a clear indication that Australia is moving into the SCS dispute as a interested party.

Honestly say Australia can't do nothing against china.I am not talking in the favour of china.But it is correct.
PRC is twice stronger than Australia.Even Japan and India is stronger than Australia.By making statement favour for japan Australia made a mistake.This will effect the economic relationship
between Bejing and canberra

 

[gambit]

Anyone given thought as to why CHina never intercepted those flights?

1. An ADIZ requires that all aircraft to be identified. The Chinese have done so using its radars already. There is no apparent need for interception if radars are sufficient. An ADIZ is not an ADZ.

2. The aircraft were flying at the very edges of the zone and were no travelling towards Chinese airspace. This is significant, since the MOD clearly stated that they will only instigate a response based on the severity of the threat. Clearly, the B-52s, South Korean, and Japanese aircraft were of little threat value to the Chinese since they did not actually venture far into the zone. Also, the aircraft were flying at the very edge, which means that by the time the Chinese scrambled the aircraft would have already left the zone.

3. China knows that these nations are only there for political purposes and seriously does not think that wasting aviation fuel is a wise idea to respond to an empty threat.

4. In other words, China has already achieved the effect of interception by lighting them up with radar.



The aircraft flew and outlined the edges of it. Why is there confusion over this?



Neither do any forum members.

And it looks like you do not know your own government's statement...So here it is...

Announcement of the Aircraft Identification Rules for the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone of the P.R.C.

First, aircraft flying in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone must abide by these rules.

　　Second, aircraft flying in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone must provide the following means of identification:

　　1. Flight plan identification. Aircraft flying in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone should report the flight plans to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China or the Civil Aviation Administration of China.

　　2. Radio identification. Aircraft flying in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone must maintain the two-way radio communications, and respond in a timely and accurate manner to the identification inquiries from the administrative organ of the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone or the unit authorized by the organ.

　　3. Transponder identification. Aircraft flying in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone, if equipped with the secondary radar transponder, should keep the transponder working throughout the entire course.

　　4. Logo identification. Aircraft flying in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone must clearly mark their nationalities and the logo of their registration identification in accordance with related international treaties.

　　Third, aircraft flying in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone should follow the instructions of the administrative organ of the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone or the unit authorized by the organ. China's armed forces will adopt defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in the identification or refuse to follow the instructions.

　　Fourth, the Ministry of National Defense of the People's Republic of China is the administrative organ of the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone.

　　Fifth, the Ministry of National Defense of the People's Republic of China is responsible for the explanation of these rules.

　　Sixth, these rules will come into force at 10 a.m. November 23, 2013.

To sum it up for you...

The accepted rules, or rather courtesy, is that if the aircraft intends to enter national airspace, which naturally would go thru an ADIZ if exists, then the aircraft is required to file a flight plan (rule One).

But if the aircraft does not intend to enter national airspace, then a filed flight plan is not required but only that the aircraft responds to queries.

The Chinese rules, as presented by the Chinese government, essentially said that ALL aircrafts prior to entering this ADIZ must file a flight plan and why so many are upset.

 

[SrNair]

Take care of your own business, you are not smart enough to predict China's future. The truth is, only few of members in PDF know what's going on in China. I remember last time the Korean war Turkey sent in some Battallions of soldiers, non of them returned alive. We remember every bit of your wrongdoing, and we will pay back in some other day.



You could include any one you just name it, don't forget to join the show by yourself.

No one in CHina expects some positive relationship with Australia, now this time The Aussie show their real face to China.

We will discard any delusion and prepare for engagement.

The harder you contain China, the Stronger China will be.

More important, Russia is with China. Mr president Putin is always with China.

If China and Russia stick back to back, only aliens could undertake us.

If China falls, comes after Russia, and then India follows. The reason why Indian so happily flattered by western sly is due to so-called China threat. When China falls, you guys will know how precious China is to the rest of the Asia.

No man .some western medias and Indians medias may cry about china threat .But we will not create our foriegn policy with that claims.Indian Government whether it is ruled by any party.our bureaucrats , officials and leaders will only considered the long term India national Interests.For that if they need relation with china they will considered that ,otherwise they considered US.We already know how US treat their allies and we also know US hand in 1971.India always follow independent policy

China is a giant magnanimous panda wishing for peaceful life, but those fcukers never allow us to do that. You guys have tasted how Japan acted as boss of Asia in WW2. People always have very bad memory to the past, lots of idiots can't wait to let it happen all over again.

We will smile to face any type of challenge. Those Indians wanna topple China in order to be the boss of Asia shall think twice whether Yankee will let you achieve that final target. China is always there in the past 5000 years, and will be there until the world doom day.

If anyone wanna take away China's land, step over my body first.

People will aways sell his soul to the Deveil as long as interests and Aspiration promised. Abe Shinzo is a Devil, i can see his face clearly. He can cheat the rest of the world, not me.

India also their for 5000 years.You are right , For now US dont concentrate against us and that is due to china.

 

[terranMarine]

@wanglaokan ''Take care of your own business, you are not smart enough to predict China's future. The truth is, only few of members in PDF know what's going on in China. I remember last time the Korean war Turkey sent in some Battallions of soldiers, non of them returned alive. We remember every bit of your wrongdoing, and we will pay back in some other day''
You clown,

What wrong doing are you talking about? Turkey meddled with the Korean War and you are talking about wrong doing?
So how is Turkey gonna pay back? You talk as if your country is that uber powerful.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

USA cannot defy us.

US advises carriers to comply with China air zone - Yahoo News

 

[Rainmaker]

USA cannot defy us.

US advises carriers to comply with China air zone - Yahoo News

Already accepting our ADIZ.

 

[GR!FF!N]

THE announcement by a Chinese military spokesman on November 23rd sounded bureaucratic: any aircraft flying through the newly designated Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea must notify Chinese authorities in advance and follow instructions from its air-traffic controllers. America’s response was rapid. On November 26th Barack Obama sent two B-52 bombers to fly through the new zone without notifying China (see article). This face-off marks the most worrying strategic escalation between the two countries since 1996, when China’s then president, Jiang Zemin, ordered a number of exclusion zones for missile tests in the Taiwan Strait, leading America to send two aircraft-carriers there.

Plenty of countries establish zones in which they require aircraft to identify themselves, but they tend not to be over other countries’ territory. The Chinese ADIZ overlaps with Japan’s own air-defence zone (see map). It also includes some specks of rock that Japan administers and calls the Senkaku islands (and which China claims and calls the Diaoyus), as well as a South Korean reef, known as Ieodo. The move is clearly designed to bolster China’s claims (seearticle). On November 28th Japan and South Korea sent aircraft into the zone.

Teenage testosterone

Growing economic power is bound to go hand-in-hand with growing regional assertiveness. That is fine, so long as the behaviour of the rising power remains within international norms. In this case, however, China’s does not; and America, which has guaranteed free navigation of the seas and skies of East Asia for 60 years, is right to make that clear.

How worrying China’s move is depends partly on the thinking behind it. It may be that, like a teenager on a growth spurt who doesn’t know his own strength, China has underestimated the impact of its actions. The claim that America’s bombers had skirted the edge of the ADIZ was gawkily embarrassing. But teenagers who do not realise the consequences of their actions often cause trouble: China has set up a casus belli with its neighbours and America for generations to come.

It would thus be much more worrying if the provocation was deliberate. The “Chinese dream” of Xi Jinping, the new president, is a mixture of economic reform and strident nationalism. The announcement of the ADIZ came shortly after a party plenum at which Mr Xi announced a string of commendably radical domestic reforms. The new zone will appeal to the nationalist camp, which wields huge power, particularly in the armed forces. It also helps defend Mr Xi against any suggestions that he is a westernising liberal.

If this is Mr Xi’s game, it is a dangerous one. East Asia has never before had a strong China and a strong Japan at the same time. China dominated the region from the mists of history until the 1850s, when the West’s arrival spurred Japan to modernise while China tried to resist the foreigners’ influence. China is eager to re-establish dominance over the region. Bitterness at the memory of the barbaric Japanese occupation in the second world war sharpens this desire. It is this possibility of a clash between a rising and an established power that lies behind the oft-used parallel between contemporary East Asia and early 20th-century Europe, in which the Senkakus play the role of Sarajevo.

Seas of troubles

Tensions are not at that level. Japan’s constitution bans it from any military aggression and China normally goes to great lengths to stress that its rise—unlike that of Japan in the 1920s and 1930s—will be peaceful. But the neighbours are nervous, especially as the establishment of the ADIZ appears to match Chinese ambitions in the South China Sea.

Chinese maps show what is known as the “nine-dash line” encompassing all the South China Sea. In the wake of the global financial crisis, perhaps believing its own narrative of Chinese rise and American decline, it began to overreach in its dealings with its neighbours. It sent ships to disputed reefs, pressed foreign oil companies to halt exploration and harassed American and Vietnamese naval vessels in the South China Sea. These actions brought a swift rebuke from America’s then secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and China appeared to back off and return to its regional charm offensive. Some observers say that the government is using the ADIZ to establish a nine-dash line covering the East China Sea as well. They fear China’s next move will be to declare an ADIZ over the South China Sea, to assert control over both the sea and the air throughout the region.

Whether or not China has such specific ambitions, the ADIZ clearly suggests that China does not accept the status quo in the region and wants to change it. Any Chinese leader now has an excuse for going after Japanese planes. Chinese ships are already ignoring Japanese demands not to enter the waters surrounding the disputed islands.

What can be done? Next week Joe Biden, America’s vice-president, arrives in China. The timing may be uncomfortable, but it is fortuitous. Mr Biden and Mr Xi know each other well: before Mr Xi became president, he spent five days in America at Mr Biden’s invitation. Mr Biden is also going to South Korea and Japan.

America’s “pivot” towards Asia is not taken very seriously there: Mr Obama is seen as distracted by his domestic problems. Mr Biden could usefully make clear America’s commitment to guaranteeing freedom of navigation in the region. Japan and South Korea, who squabble over petty issues, need to be told to get over their differences. As for China, it needs to behave like a responsible world power, not a troublemaker willing to sacrifice 60 years of peace in north-east Asia to score some points by grabbing a few windswept rocks. It should accept Japan’s suggestion of a military hotline, similar to the one that is already established between Beijing and Washington.

The region must work harder to build some kind of architecture where regional powers can discuss security. If such a framework had existed in Europe in 1914, things might have turned out differently.

China, Japan and America: Face-off | The Economist

 

[Water Car Engineer]

U.S. Said Making Daily Flights Into China’s Air Zone - Bloomberg

The U.S. military is conducting daily flights through China’s newly declared air-defense zone without notifying Beijing authorities in advance, a U.S. defense official said today.

The disclosure indicates that U.S. flight activity in the area, where China has unilaterally sought to exert control, is more extensive than was previously known. The Pentagon had acknowledged a flight by two unarmed B-52 bombers through the air zone earlier this week.

The defense official, who asked not to be named discussing military operations, wouldn’t specify the type of aircraft used in subsequent flights nor say whether any of them are armed.

“It’s very important the U.S. signal to the Chinese that we’re not going to be bullied and that we’re going to adhere to our commitments,” which include a defense treaty with Japan, said Nicholas Burns, a former U.S. undersecretary of state forpolitical affairs from 2005 to 2008.

 

[longyi]

US diplomatic iceberg spotted near China


Do you remember president Bill Clinton ordered two US aircraft carrier battle groups into the Strait of Taiwan in 1996 to "send a message" to China? Well, it appears that Barack Obama, the lame-duck, spineless multi-humiliated and multi-defeated president of the US of A, just had a surge of testosterone and decided to provoke China yet again by mocking its decision to extend its air defense zone over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.

The way Uncle Sam sent his usual message of imperial contempt was to send two B-52 bombers to flout the Chinese air defense zone. Not content to do something so mind-bogglingly stupid and irresponsible, the Americans also decided to make sure to add an inflammatory statement.

According to the BBC, (emphasis added): US Colonel Steve Warren at the Pentagon said Washington had "conducted operations in the area of the Senkakus". "We have continued to follow our normal procedures, which include not filing flight plans, not radioing ahead and not registering our frequencies," he said. There had been no response from China, he added. Brilliant, no?

The geniuses at the Pentagon sent two strategic bombers (capable of nuclear strikes) directly into an airspace which the Chinese have just declared an "air defense identification zone" in which non-compliance with Chinese rules would trigger "emergency defensive measures", and to make sure to inflict the maximal amount of loss of face on China they have essentially mocked the Chinese for not taking any measure.

I would qualify all these actions as criminally reckless and phenomenally stupid.

First, imagine just for a second that the Chinese had shot down the two US bombers. Then what? Would the US, which did not even have the balls to strike Iran or Syria, attack China? The US sure could not go to the United Nations Security Council for support where they would be laughed out from the council chambers by both Russia and China and, probably most other members too.

So did the Americans count on the Chinese doing the right thing? If that is the case, then the only message sent to Beijing is "Look, we are irresponsible and reckless, and we count on your sanity". This is most unlikely to impress anybody in China.

Second, now that the Chinese did the smart thing and ignored the US stupidity, what has this move achieved beyond alienating China even further?

One really ought to know absolutely nothing about Asia to believe that you can impose a major loss of face on a superpower like China and not have to pay dearly for it. The big difference between the US and China is that the former acts like a spoiled teenager brat with an attention and memory span in the 5-10 minutes range: "The Chinese did not attack our bombers - that must mean that we taught them a good lesson!"

Wrong.

The Chinese will make you pay - dearly - for each such humiliation (and God knows there have been many such humiliations the past couple of decades - remember the Chinese embassy in Belgrade?), but they will make you pay on their own time, when they decide, and that could take literally centuries.

Chinese diplomats and politicians have 4,000 years of experience dealing with uneducated and uncivilized barbarians, and they know how important it is not to act in haste but with slow focused determination. And they will remember that humiliation for as long as it takes to avenge it.

Third, does anybody in the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom or the White House really think that US colonies/allies in the region will be positively impressed? Of course not! Japanese, South Korean and Taiwanese diplomats will be horrified to be associated with such a sorry bunch of nuke-wielding cowboys, but they will keep their mouths shut because they all know that their countries are simply vassal states of the USPACOM province of the US Empire.

Lastly, what has the US proven to the rest of the world. That it is powerful? Hardly. Having lost the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, having lost control of Libya, and having been defeated by Russia and Iranian diplomats over Syria and Iran, the US is an obese and obnoxious giant but hardly a powerful one.

Yes, it is reckless to send bombers literally into China's backyard (or doorstep - pick you metaphor), but recklessness is not a quality that impresses anybody in Asia, and the Americans are deeply deluded if they think that they "scared" the Chinese.

The one thing that this latest US provocation has achieved is to prove to the world and, especially, Asia, the US simply does not understand the nature and purpose of diplomacy.

I personally take no position whatsoever on the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute itself. What I am saying is that that type of dispute can only be resolved with careful and time-consuming diplomatic negotiations and measures, and that if Japan truly wanted to get China to give up its claim on these islands the best way to do that would be to make sure that this does not involve any loss of face.

But for a country that has not had an administration capable of diplomacy since the years of George Bush (senior), the kind of provocation we have just witnessed is par for the course.

In conclusion, I would like to say here that US politicians are wrong to be ignorant of Hegel's dialectics and its rules. Gradual quantitative changes (over time) do eventually result in qualitative changes, and this very much applies to the Chinese military, which is currently embarked on a huge program of deep modernization and reform which, when completed, will result in a profound strategic shift in the Asian-Pacific Ocean region.

In contrast to the aging and completely overstretched US armed forces, the Chinese armed forces are catching up and catching up really fast. Yes, in the 1980s the Chinese military did look at lot like the Soviet military of the late 1950s, but the economic boom of China has deeply changed this, and today the Chinese armed forces are gradually acquiring more and more 21st century characteristics; soon, they will easily surpass the capabilities of South Korea and Japan.

Next, and before the folks in the White House fully understand it, the US will be facing a large and technologically equal or even superior Chinese military. China is also being very smart in forging an informal but truly strategic alliance with Russia, which, unlike the US, does every effort possible to show respect and support for its large neighbor.

Should it ever come to a shooting match between the US and China, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Russia will offer its fullest support for China short of actually attacking US targets.

In the meantime, US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that China's extension of its air defense zone was a "destabilizing attempt to alter the status quo in the region", while the White House said the zone was "unnecessarily inflammatory".

Yeah, right. Have these cowboys ever looked into a mirror?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-03-271113.html

 

[EastSea]

Already accepting our ADIZ.

"On Wednesday, Psaki had said the U.S. government was working to determine if the new rules applied to civil aviation. But she said that in the meantime, U.S. air carriers were being advised to take all steps they consider necessary to operate safely in the East China Sea region."

It could be not apply if it should be in air zone of Japan.

Two B 52 didn't do that when they were flying on Senkaku area.

 

[shuntmaster]

Operational requirements for aircraft operations associated with an ADIZ are as follows:

d and e below, an IFR or DVFR flight plan must be filed with an appropriate aeronautical facility as follows:

(a) Generally, for all operations that enter an ADIZ.

(b) For operations that will enter or exit the U.S. and which will operate into, within or across the Contiguous U.S. ADIZ regardless of true airspeed.

(c) The flight plan must be filed before departure except for operations associated with the Alaskan ADIZ when the airport of departure has no facility for filing a flight plan, in which case the flight plan may be filed immediately after takeoff or when within range of the aeronautical facility.

2. Two-way Radio. For the majority of operations associated with an ADIZ, an operating two-way radio is required. See 14 CFR Section 99.1 for exceptions.

c1 through c3, pilots operating within a Land-Based ADIZ must report landing or leaving the Land-Based ADIZ if flying too low for radar coverage.

(b) Pilots unable to comply with all requirements must remain clear of Land-Based ADIZ. Pilots entering a Land-Based ADIZ without authorization or who fail to follow all requirements risk interception by military fighter aircraft.

FIG 5-6-1).

1. Approach Phase.As standard procedure, intercepted aircraft are approached from behind. Typically, interceptor aircraft will be employed in pairs, however, it is not uncommon for a single aircraft to perform the intercept operation. Safe separation between interceptors and intercepted aircraft is the responsibility of the intercepting aircraft and will be maintained at all times.

2. Identification Phase.Interceptor aircraft will initiate a controlled closure toward the aircraft of interest, holding at a distance no closer than deemed necessary to establish positive identification and to gather the necessary information. The interceptor may also fly past the intercepted aircraft while gathering data at a distance considered safe based on aircraft performance characteristics.

3. Post Intercept Phase.An interceptor may attempt to establish communications via standard ICAO signals. In time-critical situations where the interceptor is seeking an immediate response from the intercepted aircraft or if the intercepted aircraft remains non-compliant to instruction, the interceptor pilot may initiate a divert maneuver. In this maneuver, the interceptor flies across the intercepted aircraft's flight path (minimum 500 feet separation and commencing from slightly below the intercepted aircraft altitude) in the general direction the intercepted aircraft is expected to turn. The interceptor will rock its wings (daytime) or flash external lights/select afterburners (night) while crossing the intercepted aircraft's flight path. The interceptor will roll out in the direction the intercepted aircraft is expected to turn before returning to verify the aircraft of interest is complying. The intercepted aircraft is expected to execute an immediate turn to the direction of the intercepting aircraft. If the aircraft of interest does not comply, the interceptor may conduct a second climbing turn across the intercepted aircraft's flight path (minimum 500 feet separation and commencing from slightly below the intercepted aircraft altitude) while expending flares as a warning signal to the intercepted aircraft to comply immediately and to turn in the direction indicated and to leave the area. The interceptor is responsible to maintain safe separation during these and all intercept maneuvers. Flight safety is paramount.

NOTE-1. NORAD interceptors will take every precaution to preclude the possibility of the intercepted aircraft experiencing jet wash/wake turbulence; however, there is a potential that this condition could be encountered.

2. During Night/IMC, the intercept will be from below flight path.
FIG 5-6-1
Intercept Procedures

 

[longyi]

Taiwan's civilian flights are occasionally intercepted by Japanese military aircraft within the two nations' overlapping air defense identification zones (ADIZ) in the East China Sea, Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA, 民航局) Director-General Jean Shen (沈啟) said yesterday.

Since 2009, Japanese aviation authorities have demanded that Taiwanese airliners submit their flight plans to Japan when traveling through the overlapping air zone, Shen said.

However, despite having already identified themselves to Japanese authorities, some of these passengers planes are still intercepted by Japanese fighters in the overlapping zone, the CAA head said.

Shen said that moves made by the Japanese military have caused grave concern within the CAA because such harassment is extremely dangerous to the safe flights of passenger aircraft.

According to the CAA, such incidents occurred at least twice in 2002 and 2009.

In both occasions, Japanese fighter jets used an emergency frequency to demand that Taiwanese civilian aircraft that passed through the air zone change their course, the CAA said.

ADIZ of Japan


Aircraft intercepted by Japanese military - The China Post

 

[shuttler]

Has Abe overreached on China's ADIZ?
By Peter Lee
Dec 3, 2013

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/JAP-01-031213.html

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has cleverly exploited the China's unilateral announcement of its air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in order to assert Japanese impunity in military flights equal to that of the United States, a key element of Japan's ambitions to act as the local hegemon in oceanic East Asia.

That's something that won't please China, of course; but it may also displease the United States as another demonstration of Japan's aspirations to status as an independent peer - and not a tractable ally - in the US "pivot to Asia".

But Prime Minister Abe, either as part of his strategy to muddy the waters or in an ill-advised spasm of nationalist elan, seriously overreached with his unprecedented call to Japanese civilian carriers to defy the PRC requirement to file flight plans before entering the ADIZ.

On the civilian flight issue, the Abe administration has crawled off on a long, skinny branch and invited the US and the PRC to saw it off for him.

Anybody who has any doubt about the radical character of Japan's claims to impunity inside the PRC's self-declared ADIZ - and the threat it poses both to regional stability and US prerogatives in Asia - would be well advised to review this detailed Powerpoint presentation prepared by the US Federal Aviation Administration for the benefit of civilian pilots entering the US ADIZ.

The FAA makes it clear that the US/Canadian ADIZ ("a national defense boundary for aerial incursions") is supposed to be observed by everybody.Any aircraft that wishes to fly in or through the boundary must file either a Defense Visual Flight Rules (DVFR) flight plan or an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan before crossing the ADIZ (14 CFR 99.11).Heads up: remember that reference to wishing to fly "in or through" the boundary. It will come up later.

While approaching and crossing the North American ADIZ, aircraft must have an operational radar transponder and maintain two-way radio contact. (see 14 CFR 99.9 & 99.13)Also you need an altitude transponder that can be interrogated remotely. Also you need to obtain a transponder code 15 minutes before you enter the ADIZ.

Let's say you penetrate the ADIZ but you don't want to comply with the regulations. Canadian or US air traffic control thinks you may be up to no good. Over the Caribbean, they'll think you're smuggling drugs. If you're flying toward Washington, well, maybe you're a terrorist.

What happens? First ATC contacts you on your radio - which you are required to have switched on. If you hear somebody on your radio talking about "Unknown Rider" and you think it's you, better answer. Otherwise:Any aircraft flying in these zones without authorization may be identified as a threat and treated as an enemy aircraft, potentially leading to interception by fighter aircraft. [Emphasis in original]A scramble is helpfully identified as "a costly and dangerous mission". The presentation then goes into an interesting discussion of the ways to comply with the signals from an intercepting jet fighter, land at a nearby airfield if necessary, handle the rather nerve-wracking "you have told me to land at this airport but I can't, so sorry" scenario, and in general keep from getting shot down.

Once the absolute character of an ADIZ for a state concerned about its airspace security is made clear, hopefully the recklessness of Prime Minister Abe's declaration that Japanese civilian airliners should ignore the PRC ADIZ should be evident.

The PRC, as we know, unilaterally declared an air defense identification zone over the East China Sea that covered the Senkakus, whose possession by Japan is disputed by China. PM Abe vowed to ignore it, and the Japanese government obtained the agreement of Japanese civil carriers that they would ignore it too (even though they had previously filed flight plans with the PRC in conformance with the new ADIZ requirements).

ADIZs are for air defense early warning and do not involve sovereignty claims. An ADIZ can be declared over international waters. Technically speaking, the matter of overflights of the Senkaku Islands and their 12-nautical mile limit is a matter of sovereignty, not ADIZ. By extending its ADIZ beyond the Senkakus, the PRC is not necessarily limiting the Japanese right to fly toward the Senkakus; but it could subject Japan to the inconvenience of having to interact with Chinese air defense on its way to the (airport-free) islands.

The United States has been willing to help Japan out - at the cost of consistency and logic - to make sure Japan is not subjected to flight-plan requirements for its warplanes in the East China Sea.

I assume that US sympathy for the affront to Japanese sensibilities at being called on to file flight plans when they fly to "their" Senkakus is behind the rather tortured prose deployed by the United States about ADIZs and shouldn't count if foreign aircraft are flying "parallel" to the airspace of an ADIZ-declaring power, as opposed to heading toward the homeland.

There was a certain amount of triumphant hooting and claims that the "parallel flight" exception had been vindicated when Taylor Fravel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology posted some guidelines from a US Navy handbook that were construed as stating that foreign ADIZs could be ignored as long as flying into foreign airspace wasn't an issue.

However, most people apparently didn't read the actual regulations, which state that the US military policy has nothing to do with direction of flight and everything to do with US impunity. The US Air Force, at its own discretion, does not deign to interact with a foreign ADIZ if it does not have the "intention" of penetrating the foreign airspace.

In other words, in the course of zigging and zagging, a US military aircraft might have a heading that, if maintained, would lead to penetration of national airspace. But if the pilot doesn't "intend" to penetrate foreign airspace, it doesn't matter if the heading is parallel to, or directly toward, the foreign national airspace.

The US position apparently has everything to do with the traditional US claims that its military aircraft have an exceptional right to fly anywhere and in any direction in somebody's ADIZ (which the US pointedly asserted by flying two B-52s from Guam into the PRC ADIZ as soon as it was announced) and not too much to do with the whole "parallel" issue.

That's definitely not saying that the sauce for the US goose suits the global gander, or that international rules of the road allow everybody to fly parallel to coastline in somebody's ADIZ.

As noted above, for civil aircraft in the airspace around the United States and Canada, the FAA doesn't accept the "I just happened to be flying parallel to your coastline inside your ADIZ" argument either. From the Powerpoint cited above:

Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft into, within, or across an ADIZ unless that person has filed a flight plan with an appropriate aeronautical facility. (14 CFR 99.11(a))And we can safely say that, if it doesn't apply to civilian aircraft, the US is not going to extend the courtesy of parallel flight to unidentified foreign military aircraft that enter its "national defense boundary for aerial incursions" and then decide to fly off to the side for a while.

If the canard of "Japan has a right to ignore the ADIZ because its planes are not on a heading to enter Chinese national airspace" is stripped out, what's left is that Abe is demanding an unprecedented escalation of Japanese flight privileges, beyond those that even the United States enjoys.

That's because Japan is claiming the same ADIZ-ignoring prerogatives as the United States military, not just for Japanese military aircraft, but also for Japanese civilian aircraft.

That is a big deal.

The United States may not be terribly pleased that Abe is exploiting the ADIZ rumpus to demand equal impunity for its military aircraft as the US military has traditionally enjoyed. After all, the US military claims the right to fly everywhere and sail everywhere (subject only to closely parsed limits to operations in foreign territorial waters and airspace, ie inside the 12-nautical-mile limit; by the way, it is worth recalling that warships can even enter another nation's limit as long as the purpose is "innocent transit"? [1] because it is the guarantor of global security, freedom of navigation, etc. This is not a function it is particularly interested in outsourcing to Japan.

Virtual impunity in military movements is not a reciprocal or universal privilege, ie just because the only hyperpower does it as an expression of its role as the world's only indispensable nation doesn't mean that everybody else - that is, Japan - can do it. If the Barack Obama administration has any hopes of leading, instead of reacting to, regional security initiatives in East Asia, it had better hope that its "pivot" is not defined as "carte blanche for Japanese warplanes".
As for civilian carriers defying an ADIZ, on November 27, the US State Department told US airlines not to do anything stupid:

The US government generally expects that US carriers operating internationally will operate consistent with NOTAMs (Notices to Airmen) issued by foreign countries. Our expectation of operations by US carriers consistent with NOTAMs does not indicate US government acceptance of China's requirements for operating in the newly declared ADIZ. [2]Also, it looks like the rest of the world's airlines have decided to notify the PRC when entering the ADIZ.

That's not a terribly happy place for the Japanese government, which publicly called on the country's civilian carriers, ANA and Japan Airlines, to reverse their previous compliance and enter the Chinese ADIZ without announcing flight plans.

For the edification of readers who find it difficult to grasp the brazen mendacity employed by Japanese government officials in advancing the Abe administration's China stratagems, I offer this spectacle of determined prevarication, which Reuters does not see fit to parse:

However, [Prime Minister Abe] also insisted that the United States had not advised its airlines to comply with Chinese demands for prior notice before their planes enter the new air defense zone.

"We have confirmed through diplomatic channels that the US government didn't request commercial carriers to submit flight plans," he was quoted as saying in the Kyodo report.

And Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera insisted the allies were working in lockstep. "I believe the US government is taking the same stance as the Japanese government," he said in an interview with public broadcaster NHK, as reported by Reuters. [3]"Lockstep" indeed.

With Joe Biden now in Tokyo, I expect one item of his agenda is to ask Prime Minister Abe if he has a Plan B for what happens if the PRC decides to divert a Beijing-bound ANA jet liner to Tianjin and the China passenger business for Japanese carriers evaporates overnight.
But the Obama administration will also have to address a much more serious question: does the US vision for the "pivot to Asia" involve allowing Japan the same absolute impunity in military flights in East Asia that the United States asserts as its birthright around the world?
Notes:
1. See here.
2. See here.
3. See here.


Peter Lee writes on East and South Asian affairs and their intersection with US foreign policy. ​

 

[帅的一匹]

Sooner or later Abe Shinzo will get used to it, further complain will deemed as incapacity.