Saturday, 10 April 2021 | PNS | New Delhi
MEA expresses concerns to US over exercise without permission
A naval drill by the US Navy earlier this week in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) has raised eyebrows as no prior consent from New Delhi was taken for the strategic exercise, which was in total disregard of international conventions. However, the US has claimed it has abided by the international laws.
This exercise without approval by India came at a time when the two countries are marching ahead to forge closer strategic and defence ties. Moreover, the two countries, now part of the Quadrilateral last year, held the Malabar series of exercises along with Japan and Australia.
Taking exception to the exercise, the External Affairs Ministry said here on Friday India has expressed its concerns to the US through diplomatic channels.
A Ministry statement said UN Convention on Law of the Sea did not authorise other states to carry out military exercises or manoeuvres, in particular those involving use of weapons, in EEZ and on continental shelf, without consent of coastal state.
It further said the US warship USS John Paul Jones was continuously monitored transiting from the Persian Gulf towards the Malacca Straits. “We have conveyed our concerns regarding this passage through our EEZ to the Government of the USA through diplomatic channels,” the MEA statement said.
The US informed about its drill when a statement by the US Navy 7th fleet said it conducted Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) within India’s exclusive economic zone off the Lakshadweep Islands without India’s permission.
“On April 7, 2021, the USS John Paul Jones asserted navigational rights and freedoms approximately 130 nautical miles west of the Lakshadweep Islands, inside India’s EEZ, without requesting India’s prior consent, consistent with international law. India requires prior consent for military exercises or manoeuvres in its exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, a claim inconsistent with international law,” said a statement by the US 7th Fleet Public Affairs.
The statement irked New Delhi since the US is among India’s closest strategic partners with both sides having repeatedly opposed China’s maritime expansionism, particularly in the South China Sea. India and the US hold naval exercises throughout the year.
The US statement also said, “We conduct routine and regular FONOPs, as we have done in the past and will continue to do in the future. FONOPs are not about one country, nor are they about making political statements.”
In the Quad group meeting held in February this year, the first since a new US administration took over, the partners pledged “to strengthen cooperation on advancing a free and open Indo-Pacific region, including support for freedom of navigation and territorial integrity”.
Reacting to this development, former Navy Chief Admiral Arun Prakash said on Twitter, “There is irony here. While India ratified UN Law of the Seas in 1995, the US has failed to do it so far. For the 7th Fleet to carry out FoN missions in Indian EEZ in violation of our domestic law is bad enough. But publicising it? USN please switch on IFF (Identification, friend or foe)!,”
The US regularly conducts FONOPs against several countries challenging what it says are “excessive maritime claims” and FONOPs were regularly conducted against India too in the past.
Both the countries have differences on the rights of Littoral States to stop foreign warships from carrying out military activities in their EEZ.
India and the US have fundamental differences in coastal states’ rights to stop foreign military ships from conducting military activities within their EEZ.
When India ratified the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1995, it declared that in its understanding “the provisions of the Convention do not authorise other States to carry out in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf military exercises or manoeuvres, in particular those involving the use of weapons or explosives without the consent of the coastal State”. The US has so far not ratified UNCLOS.
The differences, which began during the drafting of the treaty, is over the interpretation of Article 58 (i) of the Convention, which says:.. In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and over flight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft
and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.
The second clause of the Article then lists Articles “88 to 115” as also applying to the EEZ “in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part”.
The US asserts that the phrase “other internationally lawful uses of the sea” means that they can enjoy the freedom to operate in the EEZ. They also cite Article 87 that lists freedoms in the high seas, including freedom of navigation, implying that this applies to the EEZ.
