Thayer Consultancy

Background Briefing:

ABN # 65 648 097 123

South China Sea: Fly Over by

U.S. B-52s Bombers
Carlyle A. Thayer
November 13, 2015
[client name deleted]
Q1. Could you comment on the fact that the U.S. sent two B-52 bombers to the
South China Sea? Is it true that China has in fact already established a quasi-Air
Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea?
ANSWER: The recent flight of a U.S. B-52 bomber over the South China Sea is a
second demonstration that the United States military will sail anywhere and fly
anywhere allowed by international law. The US is giving mixed messages, however,
in reporting that the B-52 did not fly over China's artificial islands. These artificial
islands are not entitled to a 12 nautical mile territorial sea or any airspace. The US
has muddled this issue.
No China has not yet established an ADIZ over the South China Sea. It has no military
aircraft to enforce an ADIZ. But Chinese military authorities on Fiery Cross Reef
routinely tell all foreign aircraft, including the U.S. B-52, not to enter China's airspace
or what they call a "military security zone." This is Chines posturing for political
purposes and what can be called "international law with Chinese characteristics." In
other words, international law is what China says it is, not what the international
says it is.

Suggested citation: Carlyle A. Thayer, South China Sea: Fly Over by U.S. B-52s
Bombers, Thayer Consultancy Background Brief, November 13, 2015. All
background briefs are posted on Scribd.com (search for Thayer). To remove yourself
from the mailing list type UNSUBSCRIBE in the Subject heading and hit the Reply key.
Thayer Consultancy provides political analysis of current regional security issues and
other research support to selected clients. Thayer Consultancy was officially
registered as a small business in Australia in 2002.

Thayer Consultancy

Background Briefing:

ABN # 65 648 097 123

South China Sea: Australias

Freedom of Navigation Flight
Carlyle A. Thayer
December 18, 2015
[client name deleted]
Australian Defence Minister Marise Payne announced that Australia will not bow to
Chinese pressure to halt surveillance flights over disputed islands in the South China
Sea.We request your assessment of the following issues:
Q1. What do you think will happen next? Will Australia be willing to fly over the
artificial islands and send ships close to them?
ANSWER: Australia does not have a formal freedom of navigation program like the
United States. Australia has been flying military aircraft over the South China Sea for
three decades and Australia will continue to deploy military ships and aircraft in the
South China Sea to suit operational requirements.
Up to now Australia has chosen to assert freedom of navigation by going about it
quietly. Australia knows that China knows what Australia is doing. The most recent
incident was revealed by the BBC. A reporter overheard one of the crew of a PC-3
Orion announce that his plane was asserting freedom of navigation. This is a new
development that will put pressure on the Australian government to be more
transparent to the public about what it is doing.
Q2. How do you think China will react if that happens? Will China be willing to risk
confrontation?
ANSWER: China will continue to make routine protests. Chinese personnel on
warships in the area will warn Australian military aircraft out of the area. Australian
aircraft will continue to give a stock reply. This has been the pattern in the past and
is likely to continue in the future. After a series of exchanges the Chinese navy stops
communicating and the Australian military aircraft goes about it business. Chinese
Foreign Ministry spokespersons will criticize Australia. China does not yet have
military aircraft in the South China Sea to respond readily to a flight by an Australian
military aircraft. So a confrontation in the air is unlikely. China does have ships on
station in the South China Sea and a maritime confrontation with Royal Australian
Navy ships is possible but unlikely. Both China and Australia have agreed to the
voluntary CUES - Code for Unexpected Encounters at Sea. Australia would expect
China to abide by the guidance CUES provides to minimize the risk of any
miscalculation or accident.

2
The ANZUS Treaty between Australia and the United States calls for immediate
consultation if the armed forces of either country is attacked in the Pacific. This is a
strong deterrent to China from taking more extreme measures.
Q3. Do you think Japan will step up and follow the U.S. and Australia's footsteps?
ANSWER: Japan is likely to remain circumspect. Relations between Beijing and Tokyo
are thawing after the meeting late last year between Premier Li Keqiang and Prime
Minister Shinzo Abe. The two sides just held discussion on a maritime and air
mechanism to minimize confrontations. China has so far responded with verbal
warnings and in the case of the USS Lassen by sending a warship to follow the
Lassen. If China takes more assertive action then it is possible that the U.S., Japan
and Australia collectively will discuss what action to take.

Suggested citation: Carlyle A. Thayer, South China Sea: Australias Freedom of

Navigation Flight, Thayer Consultancy Background Brief, December 18, 2015. All
background briefs are posted on Scribd.com (search for Thayer). To remove yourself
from the mailing list type UNSUBSCRIBE in the Subject heading and hit the Reply key.
Thayer Consultancy provides political analysis of current regional security issues and
other research support to selected clients. Thayer Consultancy was officially
registered as a small business in Australia in 2002.

Thayer Consultancy

Background Briefing:

ABN # 65 648 097 123

South China Sea: Was the B-52

Over Flight Unintentional?
Carlyle A. Thayer
December 19, 2015

[client name deleted]

Q1. The U.S. B-52 plane flew within two miles of one of Chinas South China Sea
islands. Do you think it was really an unintentional action?
ANSWER: U.S. Defense Department officials are on record that the flight of two B52s was part of a program initiated in 2004 to maintain a continuous bomber
presence in East Asia. In other words, the flight of the B-52s was not part of an
official freedom of navigation program designed to challenge excessive claims by
China under international law. A senior U.S. defense official said that bad weather
was one of the reasons why the B-52 flew off course. This matter is still under
investigation. On the face of it this was an unintentional action. If the US flew a
freedom of navigation patrol and then denied it, this would defeat the purpose of
the freedom of navigation program.
Q2. Last month there were rumors about some differences between the Pentagon
and the White House over dealing with Chinese reclamation activities. While the
military presses for strong responses, the White House Administration prefers
cautious approaches. This leads to the delay in deploying USS Lassen patrols around
two of Chinas artificial islands. Do you think the latest incident involving a B-52 is
another example of these differences? And why?
ANSWER: In the United States the President is the Commander-in-Chief over the
armed forces. The Secretary of Defense is a civilian and is directly responsible to the
President. The military is subordinate to this chain of command. Whatever
differences may exist between The White House and the Pentagon, the Defense
Department would always do what it was directed to do. In other words, it is highly
unlikely if not improbable that a military commander would order a B-52 flight in
contravention of existing directives.
Q3. Some U.S. officials said that the Navy will not conduct another patrol in the
South China Sea until next year, 2016. What are your opinions about their reasons
for this announcement?
ANSWER: When the United States first announced that the USS Lassen had made a
freedom of navigation patrol it also indicated that freedom of navigation patrols

2
would be held at least once a quarter. The USS Lassen conducted its mission in
October or during the final quarter of 2015. It has been reported that the next
freedom of navigation patrol is scheduled for January.
Q4. A Pentagon spokesman insisted that the B-52 flight route was unintentional, and
they were investigating this. How will the US settle this issue and respond to Beijing's
diplomatic protest of the incident?
ANSWER: The United States must investigate in order to respond to Chinas
diplomatic protest. Chinas protest went through diplomatic channels. In order to
resolve this issue both the Department of State and the Department of Defense
must coordinate. The Pentagon must contact the Commander of the U.S. Pacific
Command for details. In turn, the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command will have
to approach authorities on Guam where the B-52 flights originated. The authorities
on Guam will have to interview the pilots and all relevant technical information
about the flight in question. The U.S. will respond with a diplomatic note and officials
will make a public statement. The U.S. will insist that it was not threatening Chinas
security and that the flight of the B-52 was in accord with international law.

Suggested citation: Carlyle A. Thayer, South China Sea: Was the B-52 Over Flight
Unintentional?, Thayer Consultancy Background Brief, December 19, 2015. All
background briefs are posted on Scribd.com (search for Thayer). To remove yourself
from the mailing list type UNSUBSCRIBE in the Subject heading and hit the Reply key.
Thayer Consultancy provides political analysis of current regional security issues and
other research support to selected clients. Thayer Consultancy was officially
registered as a small business in Australia in 2002.