What's at stake as U.S. weighs South China Sea patrol

The U.S. and China have been locked in a battle of words since reports surfaced in early October that the U.S. Navy was ready to challenge China's territorial claims in the South China Sea by sending a ship within 12 nautical miles of the Chinese fake Chinese islands built on top of reefs in the Spratly Islands.

The dispute has gotten so heated that it's forced the United States into a difficult position: balancing protecting the interests of our allies in the region, such as the Philippines, with its desire to respect for China's legitimate claims and to avoid fraying ties to the fast-growing regional power. and avoiding fraying its relationship with the fast-growing China.

Here's What you need to know:

1. The conflict. Six nations in the region lay claim to parts or all of the Spratly Islands, which are really just a collection of reefs, rocks and other natural features. In the last two years, China has begun constructing islands on top of the reefs and claiming territorial seas around them to gain fishing and resource rights to most of the South China Sea. which nobody in the region recognizes.

This is dangerous because These disputes have led to violence in the past. In 1974, a conflict between South Vietnam and China led to a shootout in the Paracel Islands, located between Vietnam and China's Hainan Island. That dispute continues to this day.

2. Freedom of navigation. The U.S. Navy sees itself as the main cop on the beat in the South China Sea since the end of World War II, upholding freedom of the seas and the free flow of trade in the region. The U.S. hasn't taken an official position on the validity of China's claims in the Spratly Islands, though public statements would indicated it takes a dim view of constructing islands on top of reefs to bolster such claims.

What Navy leaders see and defense leaders have said is that no matter who owns what, the primary principle to uphold is the freedom of navigation. It's the core principle behind the 1981 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a treaty that China has signed and that the United States abides by, but hasn't signed (despite years of calls from Coast Guard and Navy leaders for congress to ratify it).

But Even if the islands were legitimate Chinese territory, the Navy could still pass through the limit under the right of innocent passage — it just couldn't shoot off guns or do anything provocative. (You also can't fish during innocent passage, so no trawling off the fantail.)

"I think that we have to continue to proceed in accordance with international norms," Chief of Naval Operations Navy top officer Adm. John Richardson told reporters Oct. 15. "[This is] part of routine navigation in international waters, consistent with international rules there: I don't see how these could be interpreted as provocative in any way."

4. Timeframe. Pentagon officials in the Pentagon have said that the patrol could happen at any time, with the and that the Navy is waiting on the White House's go-ahead. If it happens soon, it would likely be carried out by the destroyer Lassen, which is steaming in the South China Sea.The littoral combat ship Fort Worth is also in the region, but a source with knowledge of the planning said it will likely not be carried out by an LCS.

5. Setting a precedent. International law is a funny thing, and it can evolve as norms are established, experts say. If the U.S. Navy or other partners act in a manner consistent with recognizing that China is the rightful owner of the reefs in the Spratly Islands, it lends legitimacy to China's their claims and gives China leverage as it seeks to resolve its disputes.

The fact that the U.S. hasn't gone near China's new islands since they have been built buttresses is a strong case for China's claims.

"We need to remind ourselves that U.S. Navy ... has been conducting freedom of navigation operations since Jimmy Carter was in office," said Craig Allen, a professor of marine and environmental affairs at the University of Washington School of Law. "If you simply acquiesce to somebody else's claims, you could lose your rights, if you don't exercise them."