prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.



Report 2: On February 12, 2018, the Trump Administration submitted to Congress its FY2019 budget request, which included $41 86 billion of base (or enduring) funds for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS)  Of that amount, $13 26 billion would have been for State operations, international broadcasting, and related agencies and $28 60 billion for foreign operations  Comparing the request with the FY2018 actual SFOPS funding levels, the FY2019 request represented a 23 3% decrease in SFOPS funding  The proposed State and related agency funding would have been 18 7% below FY2018 funding levels, and the foreign operations funding would have been reduced by 25 2%  The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  116-6 ), signed into law on February 15, included a total of $54 377 billion for SFOPS accounts, a 0 3% decrease over the FY2018 funding level and about 30% more than the Administration's request  An account-by-account comparison of the SFOPS request with the FY2018 actual funding and FY2019 enacted appropriation is provided in Appendix A   International Affairs 150 function funding levels are detailed in Appendix B   A chart depicting the components of the SFOPS appropriations bill is in Appendix C   A glossary is provided in Appendix D   The appropriations process for FY2019 was shaped by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA, H R  1892 , P L  115-123 ), which Congress passed on February 9, 2018  The act raised the overall revised discretionary spending limits set by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P L  112-25 ) from $1 069 trillion for FY2017 to $1 208 trillion for FY2018 and to $1 244 trillion for FY2019  The BBA increased FY2019 defense funding levels by $85 billion, from $562 billion to $647 billion, and nondefense funding (including SFOPS) by $68 billion, from $529 billion to $597 billion  It also extended direct spending reductions from FY2021 in the original BCA through FY2027, as amended  Every year since FY2012, the Administration has distinguished SFOPS spending as either enduring (base) funds or those to support overseas contingency operations (OCO)  The OCO designation gained increased significance with enactment of the BCA, which specified that emergency or OCO funds do not count toward the spending limits established by the act  In early years of requesting OCO funds, the Obama Administration described OCO requests for "extraordinary, but temporary, costs of the Department of State and USAID in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan " Syria and other countries were added in later years, and the Trump Administration expanded OCO use in its first budget request in FY2018 to be available for longer-term, core activities and more countries  For FY2019, because the BBA raised spending limits, the Administration did not seek foreign affairs OCO funds, but requested the entire SFOPS budget within base funds  The final legislation, P L  116-6 , included $8 0 billion designated as OCO, or about 15% of enacted SFOPS funding  For funding trends, see Table 1   House and Senate SFOPS Legislation   FY2019 SFOPS legislation was introduced and approved by the full appropriations committee in each chamber  The House legislation, H R  6385 , included total SFOPS funding of $54 18 billion, 0 6% lower than FY2018 funding and 29% more than requested  The Senate proposal, S  3108 , would have provided $54 602 billion for SFOPS accounts, which is about 0 1% more than FY2018 funding and 30% more than requested  Neither bill received floor consideration in its respective chamber  Continuing Resolutions   On September 28, 2018, the President signed into law P L  115-245 , legislation which included the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (CR) to continue funding for SFOPS accounts (among seven other appropriations that were not completed by the start of FY2019) at a prorated 2018 funding level through December 7, 2018  Funds designated as OCO in 2018 appropriations continued to be so designated for SFOPS in the CR  On December 3, 2018, Congress and the Administration extended funding through December 21, 2018 by enacting P L  115-298   After December 21, funding lapsed and a partial shutdown of the government occurred  On January 25, an agreement was reached to continue funding for SFOPS and other appropriations that had lapsed through February 15, at the FY2018 level ( P L  116-5 )  Enacted Legislation   On February 14 Congress passed, and the President later signed into law, a full year appropriation ( P L  116-6 , Division F) that included $54 38 billion in total SFOPS funding, a 0 3% decrease from the FY2018 funding level and about 30% more than the Administration's request  Of that total, $16 46 billion was for State Department operations and related agencies; $37 92 billion for foreign operations accounts  About 14 7%, or $8 0 billion, was designated as OCO  The State Department sought to cut funding for the Department of State and Related Agency category by 19% in FY2019 from FY2018 funding levels, to $13 26 billion  Conversely, both the House and Senate committee bills sought to maintain funding near previous fiscal year levels  The House committee bill would have increased funding in this category to $16 38 billion, or 0 4% above the FY2018 funding level  The Senate committee bill would have raised funding to $16 34 billion, around $40 million less than the House committee bill and approximately 0 1% more than the FY2018 funding level  Similar to the House and Senate committee bills, the FY2019 enacted appropriation ( P L  116-6 ) maintained funding for the State Department and Related Agency category slightly above FY2018 funding level  It provided $16 46 billion for this category, or 0 9% more than the F2018 level  The State Department's request sought to fund the entirety of this category through base (or enduring) funding  Following passage of the BBA and the resulting increase in discretionary spending cap levels for FY2018 and FY2019, the State Department moved the $3 69 billion request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) in this category into the base budget request  Both the House and Senate committee bills sought to retain OCO funding within the Department of State and Related Agency category  The House committee bill would have provided $3 03 billion for OCO, or around 28% less than the FY2018 figure of $4 18 billion  The Senate committee bill would have provided $4 11 billion, which constituted about 2% less than FY2018 level  While the House committee bill would have afforded approximately $1 08 billion less for OCO than the Senate committee bill, the House committee bill provided around $1 12 billion more in enduring funding ($13 35 billion) than the Senate committee bill ($12 23 billion)  As with the House and Senate committee bills, P L  116-6 retained OCO funding for the Department of State and Related Agency category  The law provided a total of $4 37 billion for OCO, or 4 5% more than the FY2018 funding level  While the law provided more for OCO than either the Senate or House committee bills, it provided less in enduring funding ($12 09 billion)  Areas where the State Department's proposed cuts were focused included the diplomatic security accounts (the Worldwide Security Protection programmatic allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account and, separately, the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance account), Contributions to International Organizations, and Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities  In most cases, P L  116-6 , in a manner similar to the House and Senate committee bills, maintained annual budget authority for these accounts closer to the FY2018 funding levels than the Administration requested (see following sections for more detailed analysis)  The State Department also requested $246 2 million to implement the Leadership and Modernization Impact Initiative, which serves as the implementation phase of the department's "Redesign" efforts  While neither the House nor the Senate committee bill directly addressed the Impact Initiative, both included provisions enabling Congress to conduct oversight of any broader reorganization efforts at the department  The enacted legislation, P L  116-6 , took the same approach  Table 3 provides an overview of proposed changes to selected accounts within the State Department and Related Agency category  Under the State Department's budget request, the Diplomatic Programs account, which is the State Department's principal operating appropriation, would have declined by 11% from the FY2018 funding level of $8 82 billion, to $7 81 billion  According to the State Department, this account provides funding for "core people, infrastructure, security, and programs that facilitate productive and peaceful U S  relations" with foreign governments and international organizations  The House and Senate committee bills would have provided $8 80 billion and $8 92 billion, respectively, for Diplomatic Programs  For FY2019 enacted, P L  116-6 provided $9 17 billion, or 4% more than the FY2018 funding level and 17% more than the State Department's request  In Section 7081 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P L  115-31 ), Congress authorized the establishment of a new "Consular and Border Security Programs" (CBSP) account into which consular fees shall be deposited for the purposes of administering consular and border security programs  As a result, consular fees retained by the State Department to fund consular services will be credited to this new account  The State Department thus requested that Congress rename the former Diplomatic and Consular Programs account "Diplomatic Programs " However, because many consular fees are generated and retained by the State Department to administer consular programs, they do not comprise part of the department's annual appropriations and therefore do not count against overall funds appropriated annually for this account  The FY2019 enacted legislation, P L  116-6 , authorized the renaming of Diplomatic and Consular Programs to Diplomatic Programs, as did the House and Senate committee bills  The Diplomatic Programs account provides funds for a large share of U S  direct hire positions, including but not limited to State Department Foreign Service and Civil Service officers  Although the Trump Administration lifted the federal hiring freeze upon issuance of OMB M-17-22 on April 12, 2017, the State Department elected to keep its own hiring freeze in place  The Department of State released guidance in May 2018 lifting the hiring freeze and allowing the department to increase staffing to December 31, 2017 levels  Some Members of Congress expressed concern with the hiring freeze and the continued impacts of perceived personnel shortages at the Department of State  Both the House and Senate committee bills, and the committee reports accompanying those bills, included oversight provisions pertaining to State Department personnel levels  In this vein, Section 7073 of P L  116-6 required that no appropriated funds may be used to expand or reduce the size of the State Department and USAID's Civil Service, Foreign Service, eligible family member, and locally employed staff workforce from the on-board levels as of December 31, 2017 without consultation with the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives  Section 7073 also required the Secretary of State to submit reports to Congress, beginning 60 days after enactment of the law, and every 60 days thereafter until September 30, 2020, regarding the State Department's on-board personnel levels, hiring, and attrition of the Civil Service, Foreign Service, eligible family member, and locally employed staff workforce  These reports were also required to include a hiring plan for maintaining Foreign Service and Civil Service personnel numbers at not less than December 31, 2017, levels through FY2019  Among other personnel-related provisions, the joint explanatory statement accompanying this law noted that keeping personnel at these levels reflected "minimum necessary hiring" and encouraged the Secretary of State to work with Congress to increase hiring above such levels as appropriate  The Human Resources funding category within Diplomatic Programs provides funding for the Charles B  Rangel International Affairs and Thomas R  Pickering Foreign Affairs fellowship programs to promote greater diversity in the Foreign Service, as authorized by Section 47 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (P L  84-885)  While Congress required the State Department to expand the number of fellows participating in the Rangel and Pickering programs by 10 apiece pursuant to Section 706 of the Department of State Authorities Act, 2017 ( P L  114-323 ), it has provided the department the discretion to fund these programs at levels it deems appropriate from monies appropriated for Human Resources  P L  116-6 , like the House and Senate committee bills, continued to provide such discretion to the State Department  In addition, the House committee report indicated support for department efforts to increase diversity in hiring, including through the Rangel and Pickering programs  It also encouraged the Secretary of State to explore more opportunities to further the goal of increasing workforce diversity  The Senate committee report recommended the continued expansion of the department's workforce diversity programs and directed that qualified graduates of the Rangel and Pickering programs shall be inducted into the Foreign Service  While neither P L  116-6 nor the accompanying joint explanatory statement addressed the Rangel and Pickering programs specifically or Foreign Service diversity more generally, the joint explanatory statement did not negate any of the language in the House and Senate committee reports  The Diplomatic Programs account also provides funding for a number of overseas programs  These include programs carried out by the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations and the department's regional bureaus  Activities of the department's Bureau of Medical Services, which is responsible for providing health care services to U S  government employees and their families assigned to overseas posts, are also funded through this account  Public diplomacy programs are among the overseas programs funded through Diplomatic Programs, which include the Global Engagement Center's (GEC's) countering state disinformation (CSD) program  According to the State Department, planned CSD activities, for which $20 million was requested, included "coordinating U S  government efforts in specific sub-regions; enhancing the capacity of local actors to build resilience against disinformation, including thwarting attacks on their IT systems; providing attribution of adversarial disinformation; and convening anti-disinformation practitioners, journalists, and other influencers to exchange best practices, build networks, and generate support for U S  efforts against disinformation " The House committee report registered concern regarding "foreign propaganda and disinformation that threatens United States national security, especially as carried out by China, Russia, and extremists groups" and asserted that the GEC "is expected to use a wide range of technologies and techniques to counter these campaigns," consistent with its statutory mandate  The Senate committee report recommended up to $75 4 million for the GEC, including up to $40 million for countering foreign state propaganda and disinformation  The joint explanatory statement accompanying for the FY2019-enacted legislation ( P L  116-6 ) included up to $55 4 million for the GEC and up to $20 million for CSD, a funding level for CSD identical to the department's request  Section 1284 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 ( P L  115-232 ) authorized the Department of Defense (DOD) to transfer not more than $60 million to the GEC for each of FY2019 and FY2020; DOD has previously transferred funds to the GEC under similar authorities  The State Department's FY2019 budget request sought to provide approximately $5 36 billion for the department's key embassy security accounts: $3 70 billion for the Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) programmatic allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account and $1 66 billion for the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account  The House committee bill would have provided $3 76 billion for WSP and $2 31 billion for ESCM, for a total funding level of $6 07 billion for these accounts  While the House bill would have funded the ESCM account exclusively through the base budget, it would have provided approximately $2 38 billion of overall funding for WSP through OCO  The Senate committee bill would have provided $3 82 billion for WSP and $1 92 billion for ESCM, for a total funding level of $5 74 billion  As with the House committee measure, the Senate committee bill would have funded the ESCM account with base budget funds only  For WSP, the Senate committee measure, like the House committee bill, would provide $2 38 billion of total account funds through OCO  The FY2019 enacted appropriations provided a total of $4 10 billion for WSP and $1 98 billion for ESCM, for a total funding level of $6 08 billion in budget authority for these accounts  Like the House and Senate committee bills, P L  116-6 funded ESCM exclusively through the base budget  Of the $4 10 billion provided for WSP in the law, $2 63 billion was done so through OCO  Had the Administration's request been enacted, it would have marked a decline of 2% for WSP and 28% for ESCM relative to the FY2018 figures of approximately $3 76 billion and $2 31 billion, respectively  The enacted legislation provided 9% more funding for WSP and 15% less for ESCM relative to FY2018 levels  Over the past several years, Congress has provided no-year appropriations for both WSP and ESCM, thereby authorizing the State Department to indefinitely retain appropriated funds beyond the fiscal year for which they were appropriated  As a result, the department has carried over large balances of unexpired, unobligated funds each year that it is authorized to obligate for programs within both accounts when it deems appropriate to do so  For example, for FY2018, the State Department carried over more than $7 6 billion in previously appropriated funds for ESCM  Both the House and Senate committee bills would have continued this practice with respect to WSP, and the Senate committee bill would have continued with respect to ESCM, as well  The House committee bill, if enacted, would have provided that all funds appropriated for ESCM remained available until September 30, 2023, rather than indefinitely  P L  116-6 provided no-year appropriations for WSP  For ESCM, the law stipulated that while funds for worldwide security upgrades and for purposes of acquisition and construction would remain available until expended, all other monies within this account (such as funds for preserving, maintaining, repairing, and planning for real property that State Department owns) would remain available only until September 30, 2023  The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account supports the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's (DS's) implementation of security programs located at over 275 overseas posts and 125 domestic offices of the State Department, including a worldwide guard force protecting overseas diplomatic posts, residences, and domestic offices  The State Department revisited previous assumptions for funding for the U S  security presence, which prompted it to ask for a rescission of $301 20 million for WSP OCO funds provided through the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 (SAAA) ( P L  114-254 )  State Department officials noted that this funding was "intended to support diplomatic reengagements in Syria, Libya, and Yemen that were predicated on different security and political conditions " The department maintained that this proposed cancellation was based on evolving security and political conditions, and would not affect DS operations  While neither the House nor the Senate committee bill included a rescission, P L  116-6 provided for a rescission of $301 2 million of SAAA funds appropriated for Diplomatic Programs and designated them more generally for OCO  The Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account funds the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations (OBO), which is responsible for providing U S  diplomatic and consular missions overseas with secure, safe, and functional facilities  The State Department's request included $869 54 million to provide its share of what it maintains is the $2 20 billion in annual funding that the Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB) recommended for the Capital Security Cost Sharing (CSCS) and Maintenance Cost Sharing (MCS) programs (the remainder of the funding is provided through consular fee revenues and contributions from other agencies)  These programs are used to fund the planning, design, and construction of new overseas posts and the maintenance of existing diplomatic facilities  The House committee report maintained that funds the House bill made available for ESCM would allow for the State Department's CSCS and MCS contributions, when combined with those from other agencies and consular fees, to exceed the ARB's annual recommended funding and support " the accelerated multi-year program to construct new secure replacement facilities for the most vulnerable embassies and consulates " The Senate committee bill stipulated that of funds made available for ESCM by it and prior acts making appropriations for SFOPS, not less than $1 02 billion shall be made available for the department's FY2019 CSCS and MCS contributions; the joint explanatory statement accompanying P L  116-6 indicated that Congress provided the same amount for this purpose for FY2019  In FY2019, OBO intended to fund four CSCS projects and one MCS project (see Table 4 )  The House committee report noted concern with the cost of new embassy and consulate compound projects, including ongoing projects in Beirut, Lebanon; Mexico City, Mexico; New Delhi, India; Erbil, Iraq; and Jakarta, Indonesia  Like Section 7004(h) of the House bill, as noted in the joint explanatory statement accompanying P L  116-6 , Congress mandated that the State Department provide more detailed reports regarding the costs of these projects than previously required  The State Department maintained that the "construction of a new U S  Embassy facility in Jerusalem is a high priority for the Administration     planning and interagency coordination for the Jerusalem Embassy move is ongoing and the department intends to realign CSCS project funding, as necessary, to execute this project " It later attached a timeframe to its intent, and the United States opened a new U S  embassy in Jerusalem in May 2018  This new embassy is located in a building that housed consular operations of the former U S  Consulate General in Jerusalem  The State Department has said that one of its next steps would be to construct an embassy annex to the current building, while also considering options for a permanent embassy over the long term  The department could choose to draw upon the unexpired, unobligated funds previously appropriated by Congress to the ESCM account for any construction expenses related to interim and permanent embassy facilities in Jerusalem  The Senate committee report requires the Secretary of State to "regularly inform the Committee" on the status of plans for a permanent New Embassy Compound in Jerusalem  Neither P L  116-6 nor its joint explanatory statement addresses this issue or negates the Senate committee report language  The State Department's FY2019 budget request included a combined request of $2 29 billion for the Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) and Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) accounts, a 20% reduction from the FY2018 funding levels for these accounts  The CIO account is the source for funding for annual U S  assessed contributions to 45 international organizations, including the United Nations and its affiliated organizations and other international organizations, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)  The State Department's FY2019 request for CIO totaled approximately $1 10 billion  Following passage of the BBA, the department increased its request for CIO by approximately $100 million to fund a higher U S  contribution to the U N  regular budget at a rate of 20% of the overall U N  budget (the U S  assessment is 22%)  According to the department, U N  assessments of U S  contributions to the United Nations and its affiliated agencies exceeded the request for funds to pay these contributions  Therefore, if the department's request was enacted, the United States may have accumulated arrears to some organizations  The Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account provides U S  funding for U N  peacekeeping missions around the world that the State Department says "seek to maintain or restore international peace and security " The State Department's FY2019 request for CIPA totaled $1 20 billion  According to the department, this request "reflects the Administration's commitment to seek reduced costs by reevaluating the mandates, design, and implementation of peacekeeping missions and sharing the funding burden more fairly among U N  members " Under this request, no U S  contribution would have exceeded 25% of all assessed contributions for a single operation, which is the cap established in Section 404(b) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 ( P L  103-236 )  The State Department maintained that it expected that the "unfunded portion of U S  assessed expenses will be met through a combination of a reduction in the U S  assessed rate of contributions, reductions in the number of U N  peacekeeping missions, and significant reductions in the budgets of peacekeeping missions across the board " The department also requested that Congress provide two-year funds for CIPA (in other words, that Congress make funds available for both the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated and the subsequent fiscal year) "due to the demonstrated unpredictability of the requirements in this account from year to year and the nature of multi-year operations that have mandates overlapping U S  fiscal years " The House committee bill would have provided $1 36 billion for CIO and $1 59 billion for CIPA, for a combined total of $2 95 billion for these accounts, which was 29% higher than the department's request and 4% higher than the FY2018 funding levels  The Senate committee bill would have provided $1 44 billion for CIO and $1 68 billion for CIPA, for a combined total of $3 12 billion  This figure was 36% higher than the department's request and 9% higher than the FY2018 level  The Senate committee bill included a provision not present in recent appropriations laws mandating that funds appropriated for CIO "are made available to pay not less than the full fiscal year 2019 United States assessment for each respective international organization " With regard to CIPA, both the House and Senate committee reports noted that appropriated monies were intended to support an assessed peacekeeping cost at the statutory level of 25% rather than the U N  assessed rate for the United States of 28 4%  Both committee reports called on the department to review peacekeeping missions for cost savings and work to renegotiate rates of assessment  For FY2019, P L  116-6 provided $1 36 billion for CIO and $1 55 billion for CIPA, for a total of $2 91 billion—slightly less than both the House and Senate committee bills  This figure was still 2% higher than the FY2018 figure and 27% higher than the department's request  While the law did not include the aforementioned Senate committee bill provision regarding payment of full U S  assessments for organizations funded through the CIO account, the law's joint explanatory statement noted that it assumed the payment of the full United States assessment for each relevant organization (with some exceptions, including organizations from which the United States has withdrawn) and required the Secretary of State to consult with the Committees on Appropriations with respect to any decision not to provide the full assessment for any such organization  With respect to CIPA, the joint explanatory statement noted that sufficient funds are provided for contributions to peacekeeping missions at the statutory level of 25%  The enacted legislation, like the House and Senate committee bills, provided a share of CIPA funds as two-year funds, as requested by the department  The State Department requested $246 2 million for FY2019 to implement the Leadership and Modernization Impact Initiative (hereinafter, the Impact Initiative)  The Impact Initiative constitutes the implementation phase of the State Department's "Redesign" project  Former Secretary Tillerson initiated the redesign in 2017 to implement Executive Order 13781 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-17-22, which aim to "improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch " The Impact Initiative constitutes 16 keystone modernization projects in three focus areas: Modernizing Information Technology and Human Resources Operations; Modernizing Global Presence, and Creating and Implementing Policy; and Improving Operational Efficiencies (see Table 5 )  According to the State Department, these focus areas and modernization projects are derived from the results of the listening tour that former Secretary Tillerson launched in May 2017, which included interviews conducted with approximately 300 individuals that the department said comprised a representative cross-section of its broader workforce, and a survey completed by 35,000 department personnel that asked them to discuss the means they use to help complete the department's mission and obstacles they encounter in the process  Of the $246 2 million requested, $150 0 million was requested from the IT Central Fund (which is funded through funds appropriated by Congress to the Capital Investment Fund account and, separately, expedited passport fees) and $96 2 million from the D&CP account to implement modernization projects  Proceeds from the IT Central Fund were intended to implement projects focused on IT, including modernizing existing IT infrastructure, systems, and applications based on a roadmap to be created in FY2018 and centralizing management of all WiFi networks  Funds from the D&CP account were intended to implement modernization projects focusing on Human Resources issues, including leadership development, management services consolidation, data analytics, and workforce readiness initiatives  Like the House and the Senate committee bills and reports, neither P L  116-6 nor the joint explanatory statement accompanying the law specifically mentioned the Impact Initiative by name  However, both the law and the joint explanatory statement included provisions explicitly prohibiting the Department of State from using appropriated funds to implement a reorganization without prior consultation, notification, and reporting to Congress (for example, see Section 7073 of P L  116-6 )  Like the Senate committee bill, P L  116-6 stated that no funds appropriated for SFOPs may be used to "downsize, downgrade, consolidate, close, move, or relocate" the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration  Foreign operations accounts, together with food aid appropriated through the Agriculture appropriations bill, constitute the foreign aid component of the international affairs budget  These accounts fund bilateral economic aid, humanitarian assistance, security assistance, multilateral aid, and export promotion programs  For FY2019, the Administration requested $28 60 billion for foreign aid programs within the international affairs (function 150) budget, about 28% less than the FY2018 actual funding level  None of the requested funds were designated as OCO  The FY2019 enacted appropriation provided $37 92 billion for foreign operations account, including $3 63 billion designated as OCO  Together with food aid accounts in the Agriculture appropriation, total enacted foreign aid within the international affairs budget was $39 85 billion, or 0 7% below the FY2018 actual funding level and 39% above the FY2019 request  Table 6 shows foreign aid funding by type for FY2017 and FY2018 actual, and the FY2019 request, committee-approved legislation, and enacted legislation  Account Mergers and Eliminations   The Administration aimed to simplify the foreign operations budget in part by channeling funds through fewer accounts and eliminating certain programs  These account mergers and eliminations were also proposed in the FY2018 budget request Under bilateral economic assistance, the Development Assistance (DA), Economic Support Fund (ESF), Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA) and Democracy Fund (DF) accounts were zero funded in the FY2019 request  Programs currently funded through these accounts would have been funded through a new Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF) account  The proposed funding level for ESDF, $5 063 billion, was more than 36% below the FY2018 funding for the accounts it would have replaced  Fifteen countries that received DA, ESF, or AEECA in FY2017 would no longer have received funding from these accounts or from ESDF under the FY2019 request  Within multilateral assistance, the International Organizations & Programs (IO&P) account, which funds U S  voluntary contributions to many U N  entities, including UNICEF, U N  Development Program, and UN Women, would also have been zeroed out  Budget documents suggested that some unspecified activities currently funded through IO&P could have received funding through the ESDF or other accounts  Related to humanitarian assistance, the P L  480 Title II food aid account in the Agriculture appropriation would have been zero-funded and all food assistance would have been funded through the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account, which would have nevertheless declined by about 17% from FY2018 actual funding (see " Humanitarian Assistance " section below)  The Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) account would have been subsumed into the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account  Closeout of Inter-American Foundation and U S -Africa Development Foundation   The FY2019 request proposed to terminate the Inter-American Foundation (IAF) and the U S -Africa Development Foundation (ADF), independent entities that implement small U S  assistance grants, often in remote communities  The Administration proposed to consolidate all small grant programs aimed at reaching the poor under USAID, as a means of improving their integration with larger development programs and U S  foreign policy objectives, as well as improving efficiency  Funds were requested for IAF and ADF only for the purposes of an orderly closeout  Development Finance Institution   The Administration requested, for the first time in FY2019, the consolidation of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and USAID's Development Credit Authority (DCA) into a new standalone Development Finance Institution (DFI)  The request called for $96 million for administrative expenses and $38 million for credit subsidies for DFI, but assumed that these expenses would be more than offset by collections, resulting in a net income of $460 million (based on OPIC's projected offsetting collections)  In addition, $56 million in ESDF funds would have been used to support DFI activities  The Administration sought congressional authority for the new standalone entity, which it described as a means of incentivizing private sector investment in development and improving the efficiency of U S  development finance programs  Both the House and Senate committee bills, as well as the enacted FY2019 appropriation, rejected these account changes, with the exception of the elimination of the ERMA account, which the House bill eliminated and the Senate and final bill funded with $1 million  All the FY2019 SFOPS legislation, including P L  116-6 , used the same bilateral account structure used for FY2018, not a new ESDF, and funded IAF and ADF at the FY2018 levels  Prior to enactment of the final FY2019 SFOPS appropriation, Congress passed the BUILD Act ( P L  115-254 ), which authorized the establishment of a new International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC), consistent with the Administration's DFI proposal  The IDFC is expected to become operational near the end of FY2019, and P L  116-6 made FY2019 appropriations for OPIC and DCA using the same account structure as in prior years, but authorized $5 million in the OPIC noncredit account to be used for transition costs  Top Country Recipients   Under the FY2019 request, top foreign assistance recipients would not have changed significantly, continuing to include strategic allies in the Middle East (Israel, Egypt, Jordan) and major global health and development partners in Africa (see Table 7 )  Israel would have seen an increase of $200 million from FY2017, reflecting a new 10-year security assistance Memorandum of Understanding  Zambia and Uganda would both have seen an 11% increase  All other top recipients would have seen reduced aid in FY2019 compared with FY2017 (comprehensive FY2018 country allocations were not yet available), though unallocated global health and humanitarian funds (added to the request after passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018) may have changed these totals  Figure 1 and Table 7 show the requested FY2019 foreign operations budget allocations by region and country  Under the FY2019 request, foreign assistance for every region would have been reduced compared to FY2018 funding  The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and Sub-Saharan Africa would continue to be the top regional recipients, together comprising nearly 80% of aid allocated by region ( Figure 2 )  Proposed cuts ranged from 61% in Europe and Eurasia to 2% in the MENA  Aid to Sub-Saharan Africa would have declined by 31%, aid to East Asia and Pacific by approximately half (51%), aid to South and Central Asia by about 4%, and aid to Western Hemisphere by 35%  The House bill ( H R  6385 ) and accompanying report did not provide comprehensive country and regional allocations, but did specify aid levels for some countries and regional programs, including Israel ($3 300 billion), Egypt ($1 457 billion), Jordan ($1 525 billion), Ukraine ($441 million), the U S  Strategy for Engagement in Central America ($595 million), and the Countering Russian Influence Funds ($250 million)  The Senate bill ( S  3108 ) and report specified aid allocations for several countries and regional programs, including Israel ($3 300 billion), Egypt ($1 082 billion), Jordan ($1 525 billion), Iraq ($429 million), West Bank & Gaza ($286 million), Afghanistan ($698 million), Pakistan ($271 million), Colombia ($391 million), Ukraine $426 million), U S  Strategy for Engagement in Central America ($515 million) and the Countering Russian Influence Fund ($300 million)  The enacted legislation, P L  116-6 , and the accompanying explanatory statement, specified FY2019 aid levels for several countries, including Israel ($3 300 billion), Egypt ($1 419 billion), Jordan ($1 525 billion), Iraq ($407 million), Colombia ($418 million), Mexico ($163 million), and Ukraine ($446 million), as well as for the U S  Strategy for engagement in Central America ($528 million) and the Countering Russian Influence Fund ($275 million)  The budget submission did not identify any new foreign assistance initiatives  The FY2019 request called for decreases in foreign aid funding generally while continuing to prioritize the aid sectors that have long made up the bulk of U S  foreign assistance: global health, humanitarian, and security assistance  The Administration requested $6 70 billion for global health programs in FY2019  This was a 23% reduction from the FY2018 funding level, yet global health programs would have increased slightly as a proportion of the foreign aid budget, from 22% of total aid in FY2018 to 23% in the FY2019 request, due to deeper proposed cuts elsewhere  HIV/AIDS programs, for which funding would have been cut about 27% from FY2018 actual levels, would have continued to make up the bulk (69%) of global health funding, as they have since the creation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2004  Family planning and reproductive health services (for which the Administration proposed no funding for FY2018) would have received $302 million, a 42% reduction from FY2018 funding  Assistance levels would have been reduced for every health sector compared to FY2018, including maternal and child health (-25%), tuberculosis (-31%), malaria (-11%), neglected tropical diseases (-25%), global health security (-0 1%, funded through a proposed repurposing of FY2015 Ebola emergency funds), and nutrition (-37%)  The House committee bill included $8 69 billion for global health programs, the same as FY2018 funding  While total funding would remain the same, the House proposal would have reduced funding for family planning and reproductive health by about 12% compared to FY2018, while slightly increasing funding for polio, nutrition, and maternal and child health, and more than doubling funding for global health security and emerging threats  The Senate committee bill would have funded global health programs $8 792 billion, 1 2% above the FY2018 level  No subsectors would have received reduced funding and allocations for tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, family planning, nutrition, neglected tropical diseases and vulnerable children would all have increased slightly  While both bills included long-standing language preventing the use of appropriated funds to pay for abortions, the House bill, but not the Senate bill, also included a provision prohibiting aid to any foreign nongovernmental organizations that "promotes or performs" voluntary abortion, with some exceptions, regardless of the source of funding for such activities  P L  116-6 provides $8 84 billion for global health programs for FY2019, a 1 7% increase over FY2018 funding  Every health subsector was funded at the same or slightly higher level than in FY2018  The Trump Administration's FY2019 budget request for humanitarian assistance totaled $6 358 billion, which was roughly 32% less than FY2018 actual funding ($9 37 billion) and about 22% of the total FY2019 foreign aid request  The request included $2,800 4 million for the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account (-17% from FY2018) and $3,557 4 million for the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account (-17%) ( Figure 2 )  As in its FY2018 request, the Administration proposed to eliminate the Food for Peace (P L  480, Title II) and Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) accounts, asserting that the activities supported through these accounts can be more efficiently and effectively funded through the IDA and MRA accounts, respectively  (Congress did not adopt the proposed changes to Food for Peace for FY2018, appropriating $1 716 billion for the account through the Agriculture appropriation, but did appropriate only $1 million for ERMA, a 98% reduction from FY2017 funding ) The Administration also sought authority to transfer and merge IDA and MRA base funds (current authority only applies to OCO-designated funds)  The Administration described its IDA request as focused "on crises at the forefront of U S  security interests, such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan " The MRA request focused on "conflict displacement in Afghanistan, Burma, Iraq, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen," as well as strengthening bilateral relationships with "key refugee hosting countries such as Kenya, Turkey, Jordan, Ethiopia and Bangladesh " Consistent with last year, the request suggested that the proposed funding reduction assumes that other donors will shoulder an increased share of the overall humanitarian assistance burden worldwide  The House committee bills proposed $9 145 billion for humanitarian assistance accounts, about 2% less than FY2018 funding  The total included $1 5 billion for Food for Peace from the Agriculture appropriation but would not have funded the ERMA account  The Senate committee bills proposed $9 534 billion for humanitarian assistance, about 2% more than FY2018 funding  The total included $1 716 billion for Food for Peace and $1 million for the ERMA account  Neither bill included language authorizing broad transfers and mergers between the IDA and MRA base funding account, though both bills include provisions allowing for the transfer and merger of funds from several accounts, including IDA and MRA, as an extraordinary measure in response to a severe international infectious disease outbreak  As in FY2018, Congress did not adopt the significant humanitarian aid changes proposed by the Administration  P L  116-6 provided a total of $9 534 billion for humanitarian assistance in FY2019, almost level with FY2018 funding (-0 5%), of which about 21% was designated as OCO  This total included $3 434 billion in MRA funds, $1 million for ERMA, and $4 385 billion for IDA in the SFOPS division of the bill, as well as $1 716 billion for Food for Peace in the Agriculture division  The FY2019 security assistance request within foreign operations accounts totaled $7 304 billion, a 19% reduction from the FY2018 actual funding level and about 26% of the total foreign aid request  Consistent with recent years, 63% of the entire security assistance request was for FMF aid to Israel and Egypt  However, six countries were identified in the request as joint Department of Defense (DOD) and State Department security sector assistance priorities: Philippines, Vietnam, Ukraine, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Colombia  The International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account would have been reduced by about 36% from FY2018 actual levels, Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related (NADR) by 21%, and International Military Education and Training (IMET) by about 14%  In each of these cases, the Administration described the proposed reductions as concentrating resources where they offer the most value and U S  national security impact  As in the FY2018 request, the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account, which supports most non-U N  multilateral peacekeeping and regional stability operations, including U S  training and equipment for African militaries and funding for the U N  Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS), would have seen the biggest reduction (-46%) under the FY2019 request  This is because Administrations generally request UNSOS funds through the CIPA account, while Congress usually funds the office through the PKO account  The Foreign Military Financing (FMF) account would have been reduced by 13% compared to FY2018, with specific allocations for 11 countries and a proposed $75 million Global Fund to be allocated flexibly  This was a notable change from the FY2018 FMF request, in which funds were allocated to four countries and a larger global fund, and from FY2018-enacted funding, for which allocations were specified for more than 20 countries  The House committee bill would have provided $9 274 billion for security assistance, a 3% increase over FY2018 funding, with funding increases proposed for the INCLE (+7%) and FMF (+4%) accounts and a reduction proposed for the PKO account (-9%)  Consistent with the request, and in contrast to recent year appropriations, no security assistance funding in the House committee bill was designated as OCO  The Senate committee bill included $8 789 billion for security assistance programs, a 2 6% total decrease from FY2018 funding  The INCLE account would have increased by 2 6% while the FMF and PKO accounts would be reduced by 3% and 11%, respectively  About 16% of the security assistance funding in the Senate bill was designated as OCO  In the final FY2019 appropriation, P L  116-6 , security assistance funding totaled $9 153 billion, a 1 4% increase from FY2018  Of the total, $555 million within the PKO and FMF accounts (6% of total security funding) was designated as OCO  Funding provided for most accounts was similar to FY2018 levels, with the exception of INCLE, which increased by 9 4% in part to support increased efforts to address the flow of illegal opioids, and PKO, for which funding decreased by about 9 2%  Bilateral economic development assistance is the broad category that includes programs focused on education, agricultural development and food security, good governance and democracy promotion, microfinance, environmental management, and other sectors  While the majority of this aid is implemented by USAID, it also includes the programs carried out by the independent Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Peace Corps, Inter-American Foundation and the U S -Africa Development Foundation  Excluding global health assistance, bilateral economic development assistance in the Administration's FY2019 request totaled $6 354 billion, a 33% reduction from FY2018 funding levels  Proposed FY2019 allocations for key sectors, compared with FY2018 levels prescribed in legislation, included the following: food security, $518 million (-48% from FY2018); democracy promotion programs, $1,235 million (-47% from FY2018); and education, $512 million (-51% from FY2018)  The Administration requested $800 million for MCC and $396 million for Peace Corps, representing cuts of 12% and 3%, respectively  As discussed above, the budget request also proposed to merge I-AF and USADF into USAID, and requested only small amounts of funding to close out their independent activities  The House committee bill would have provided $9 383 billion for economic development assistance and specified allocations for several development sectors, including education ($1 035 billion), conservation programs ($360 million), food security and agricultural development ($1 001 million), microenterprise and microfinance ($265 million), water and sanitation ($400 million) and democracy programs ($2 4 billion)  The Senate committee bill would have provided $9 764 billion for economic development activities and specifies allocations for education ($750 million), environment and renewable energy ($943 million), food security and agricultural development ($1 001 billion), small and micro credit ($265 million), water and sanitation ($435 million), and democracy programs ($2 4 billion), among others  Both the House and Senate bills would have funded the I-AF, USADF, Peace Corp, and MCC at the FY2018 funding level, and both bills explicitly rejected the Administration's proposal to merge I-AF and USADF into USAID  The enacted appropriation for FY2019, P L  116-6 , provided about $9 239 billion for nonhealth economic development aid  Minimum allocations specified for key sectors included $1 035 billion for education (basic and higher), $285 million for biodiversity conservation, $125 million for sustainable landscapes, $1 001 billion for food security and agricultural development, $265 million to support micro and small enterprises, $67 million to combat trafficking in persons, and $435 million for water and sanitation programs  The independent agencies were all funded at the same level as in FY2018  Appendix A  State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Account Appendix B  International Affairs Budget The International Affairs budget, or Function 150, includes funding that is not in the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation: foreign food aid programs (P L  480 Title II Food for Peace and McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs) are in the Agriculture Appropriations, and the Foreign Claim Settlement Commission and the International Trade Commission are in the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations  In addition, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation measure includes funding for certain international commissions that are not part of the International Affairs Function 150 account  Appendix C  SFOPS Organizational Chart Appendix D  Glossary
Report 2:  5515 , the House agreed to by voice vote H Amdt  644 , an en bloc amendment including, inter alia, amendment number 91 as printed in H Rept  115-698 of May 21, 2018, providing for consideration of H R  5515   Amendment 91 added Section 1298, which states the following: SEC  1298  Modification to annual report on military and security developments involving the People's Republic of China  Paragraph (22) of section 1202(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65; 10 U S C  113 note), as most recently amended by section 1261 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91; 131 Stat  1688), is further amended by striking "activities in the South China Sea" and inserting the following: ""activities— "(A) in the South China Sea; "(B) in the East China Sea, including in the vicinity of the Senkaku islands; and "(C) in the Indian Ocean region "  In S  2987 as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee ( S Rept  115-262 of June 5, 2018), Section 1064 states the following: SEC  1064  United States policy with respect to freedom of navigation and overflight  (a) Declaration of policy —It is the policy of the United States to fly, sail, and operate throughout the oceans, seas, and airspace of the world wherever international law allows  (b) Implementation of policy —In furtherance of the policy set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense should— (1) plan and execute a robust series of routine and regular air and naval presence missions throughout the world and throughout the year, including for critical transportation corridors and key routes for global commerce; (2) in addition to the missions executed pursuant to paragraph (1), execute routine and regular air and maritime freedom of navigation operations throughout the year, in accordance with international law, including the use of expanded military options and maneuvers beyond innocent passage; and (3) to the maximum extent practicable, execute the missions pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) with regional partner countries and allies of the United States  Section 1241 of S  2987 as reported states the following: SEC  1241  Redesignation, expansion, and extension of Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative  (a) Redesignation as Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative — (1) IN GENERAL —Subsection (a)(2) of section 1263 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (10 U S C  333 note) is amended by striking "the 'Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative'" and inserting "the 'Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative'"  (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT —The heading of such section is amended to read as follows: "SEC  1263  Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative"  (b) Expansion — (1) EXPANSION OF REGION TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING —Subsection (a)(1) of such section is amended by inserting "and the Indian Ocean" after "South China Sea" in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)  (2) RECIPIENT COUNTRIES OF ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING GENERALLY —Subsection (b) of such section is amended— (A) in paragraph (2), by striking the comma at the end and inserting a period; and (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs: "(6) Bangladesh  "(7) Sri Lanka "  (3) COUNTRIES ELIGIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF CERTAIN INCREMENTAL EXPENSES —Subsection (e)(2) of such section is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(D) India "  (c) Extension —Subsection (h) of such section is amended by striking "September 30, 2020" and inserting "December 31, 2025"  Regarding Section 1241, S Rept  115-262 states the following: Redesignation, expansion, and extension of Southeast AsiaMaritime Security Initiative (sec  1241) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1263 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) to: redesignate the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative as the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative; add Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as recipient countries of assistance and training; add India as a covered country eligible for payment of certain incremental expenses; and extend the authority under the section through December 31, 2025  The committee continues to strongly support efforts under the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative aimed at enhancing the capabilities of regional partners to more effectively exercise control over their maritime territory and to deter adversaries  The committee is encouraged by the progress that has been made under the initiative, and notes that to date, the Department of Defense has utilized the authority under section 1263 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), as amended, to support specified partner capacity-building efforts in the region, to include the provision of training, sustainment support, and participation in multilateral engagements  The committee recognizes that the initiative was designed to support a long-term capacity building effort, which will require increased resources in future years as requirements are established and refined, as programs mature, and as the regional security environment continues to evolve  The committee believes the Department's efforts to improve maritime domain awareness and maritime security should be fully integrated into a U S  strategy for a free and open Indo-Pacific  Therefore, the committee supports redesignating the authority under section 1263 as the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative, the inclusion of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as recipient countries, and the addition of India as a covered country to encourage its participation in regional security initiatives of this kind  Furthermore, as a demonstration of the United States' commitment to allies and partners in the region, the committee supports the extension of the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative through the end of 2025  Beyond the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative, the committee encourages the Department to make use of the full complement of security cooperation authorities available to the Department, particularly those under section 1241 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), to enhance the capabilities of foreign security partners in South and Southeast Asia to protect mutual security interests  (Pages 296-297) Section 1245 of S  2987 as reported states the following: SEC  1245  Prohibition on participation of the People's Republic of China in Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercises  (a) Sense of Congress —It is the sense of Congress that— (1) the pace and militarization by the Government of the People's Republic of China of land reclamation activities in the South China Sea is destabilizing the security of United States allies and partners and threatening United States core interests; (2) these activities of the Government of the People's Republic of China adversarially threaten the maritime security of the United States and our allies and partners; (3) no country that acts adversarially should be invited to multilateral exercises; and (4) the involvement of the Government of the People's Republic of China in multilateral exercises should undergo reevaluation until such behavior changes  (b) Conditions for future participation in RIMPAC —The Secretary of Defense shall not enable or facilitate the participation of the People's Republic of China in any Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercise unless the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that China has— (1) ceased all land reclamation activities in the South China Sea; (2) removed all weapons from its land reclamation sites; and (3) established a consistent four-year track record of taking actions toward stabilizing the region  A June 26, 2018, statement of Administration policy regarding S  2987 stated the following: Prohibition on Participation of the People's Republic of China in Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Naval Exercises  The Administration objects to section 1245 because China's participation in RIMPAC and other military-to-military events may be appropriate or inappropriate in any given year, depending on numerous other factors  Section 1245 would place restrictions on the Secretary of Defense's ability to manage a strategic relationship in the context of competition, limiting DOD's options on China and ability to act in the national security interest of the United States  Section 1251 of S  2987 as reported states the following: SEC  1251  Report on military and coercive activities of the People's Republic of China in South China Sea  (a) In general —Except as provided in subsection (d), immediately after the commencement of any significant reclamation or militarization activity by the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea, including any significant military deployment or operation or infrastructure construction, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the congressional defense committees, and release to the public, a report on the military and coercive activities of China in the South China Sea in connection with such activity  (b) Elements of report to public —Each report on a significant reclamation or militarization activity under subsection (a) shall include a short narrative on, and one or more corresponding images of, such significant reclamation or militarization activity  (c) Form — (1) SUBMITTAL TO CONGRESS —Any report under subsection (a) that is submitted to the congressional defense committees shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex  (2) RELEASE TO PUBLIC —If a report under subsection (a) is released to the public, such report shall be so released in unclassified form  (d) Waiver — (1) RELEASE OF REPORT TO PUBLIC —The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirement in subsection (a) for the release to the public of a report on a significant reclamation or militarization activity if the Secretary determines that the release to the public of a report on such activity under that subsection in the form required by subsection (c)(2) would have an adverse effect on the national security interests of the United States  (2) NOTICE TO CONGRESS —If the Secretary issues a waiver under paragraph (1) with respect to a report on an activity, not later than 48 hours after the Secretary issues such waiver, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees written notice of, and justification for, such waiver  Regarding Section 1251, S Rept  115-262 states the following: Report on military and coercive activities of the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea (sec  1251) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit to the congressional defense committees and release to the public, a report on the military and coercive activities of China in the South China Sea in connection with such activity immediately after the commencement of any significant reclamation or militarization activity by the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea, including any significant military deployment or operation or infrastructure construction  The committee is concerned that sufficient information has not been made publicly available in a timely fashion regarding China's reclamation and militarization activities of China in the South China Sea  Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to determine that the public interest in selective declassification of China's activities in the South China Sea outweighs the potential damage from disclosure  The Secretary should consider mandating that the directors of National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency provide the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) at the State Department with declassified aircraft-generated imagery and supporting analysis describing Chinese activities of concern  The committee also urges that the State Department brief and distribute the reports to the media and throughout Southeast Asia  (Page 300) In the conference report ( H Rept  115-874 of July 25, 2018) on H R  5515 / P L  115-232 of August 13, 2018, Section 1086 states the following: SEC  1086  UNITED STATES POLICY WITH RESPECT TO FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION AND OVERFLIGHT  (a) DECLARATION OF POLICY —It is the policy of the United States to fly, sail, and operate throughout the oceans, seas, and airspace of the world wherever international law allows  (b) IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY —In furtherance of the policy set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense should— (1) plan and execute a robust series of routine and regular air and naval presence missions throughout the world and throughout the year, including for critical transportation corridors and key routes for global commerce; (2) in addition to the missions executed pursuant to paragraph (1), execute routine and regular air and maritime freedom of navigation operations throughout the year, in accordance with international law, including, but not limited to, maneuvers beyond innocent passage; and (3) to the maximum extent practicable, execute the missions pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) with regional partner countries and allies of the United States  Section 1252 of H R  5515 states the following: SEC  1252  REDESIGNATION, EXPANSION, AND EXTENSION OF SOUTHEAST ASIA MARITIME SECURITY INITIATIVE  (a) REDESIGNATION AS INDO-PACIFIC MARITIME SECURITY INITIATIVE — (1) IN GENERAL —Subsection (a)(2) of section 1263 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (10 U S C  333 note) is amended by striking ''the 'Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative' '' and inserting ''the 'Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative' ''  (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT —The heading of such section is amended to read as follows: ''SEC  1263  INDO-PACIFIC MARITIME SECURITY INITIATIVE ''  (b) EXPANSION — (1) EXPANSION OF REGION TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING —Subsection (a)(1) of such section is amended by inserting ''and the Indian Ocean'' after ''South China Sea'' in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)  (2) RECIPIENT COUNTRIES OF ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING GENERALLY —Subsection (b) of such section is amended— (A) in paragraph (2), by striking the comma at the end and inserting a period; and (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs: ''(6) Bangladesh  ''(7) Sri Lanka ''  (3) COUNTRIES ELIGIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF CERTAIN INCREMENTAL EXPENSES —Subsection (e)(2) of such section is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ''(D) India ''  (c) EXTENSION —Subsection (h) of such section is amended by striking ''September 30, 2020'' and inserting ''December 31, 2025''  Section 1259 of H R  5515 states the following: SEC  1259  PROHIBITION ON PARTICIPATION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN RIM OF THE PACIFIC (RIMPAC) NAVAL EXERCISES  (a) CONDITIONS FOR FUTURE PARTICIPATION IN RIMPAC — (1) IN GENERAL —The Secretary of Defense shall not enable or facilitate the participation of the People's Republic of China in any Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercise unless the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that China has— (A) ceased all land reclamation activities in the South China Sea; (B) removed all weapons from its land reclamation sites; and (C) established a consistent four-year track record of taking actions toward stabilizing the region  (2) FORM —The certification under paragraph (1) shall be in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex as necessary  (b) NATIONAL SECURITY WAIVER — (1) IN GENERAL —The Secretary of Defense may waive the certification requirement under subsection (a) if the Secretary determines the waiver is in the national security interest of the United States and submits to the congressional defense committees a detailed justification for the waiver  (2) FORM —The justification required under paragraph (1) shall be in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex as necessary  Section 1262 of H R  5515 states the following: SEC  1262  REPORT ON MILITARY AND COERCIVE ACTIVITIES OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN SOUTH CHINA SEA  (a) IN GENERAL —Except as provided in subsection (d), immediately after the commencement of any significant reclamation, assertion of an excessive territorial claim, or militarization activity by the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea, including any significant military deployment or operation or infrastructure construction, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees, and release to the public, a report on the military and coercive activities of China in the South China Sea in connection with such activity  (b) ELEMENTS OF REPORT TO PUBLIC —Each report on the commencement of a significant reclamation, an assertion of an excessive territorial claim, or a militarization activity under subsection (a) shall include a short narrative on, and one or more corresponding images of, such commencement of a significant reclamation, assertion of an excessive territorial claim, or militarization activity  (c) FORM — (1) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS —Any report under subsection (a) that is submitted to the appropriate congressional committees shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex  (2) RELEASE TO PUBLIC —If a report under subsection (a) is released to the public, such report shall be so released in unclassified form  (d) WAIVER — (1) RELEASE OF REPORT TO PUBLIC —The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirement in subsection (a) for the release to the public of a report on the commencement of any significant reclamation, an assertion of an excessive territorial claim, or a militarization activity by the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea if the Secretary determines that the release to the public of a report on such activity under that subsection in the form required by subsection (c)(2) would have an adverse effect on the national security interests of the United States  (2) NOTICE TO CONGRESS —If the Secretary issues a waiver under paragraph (1) with respect to a report on an activity, not later than 48 hours after the Secretary issues such waiver, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees written notice of, and justification for, such waiver  (e) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED —In this section, the term ''appropriate congressional committees'' means— (1) the congressional defense committees; and (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives  Regarding Section 1262, H Rept  115-874 states the following: Report on military and coercive activities of the People's Republic of China in South China Sea (sec  1262) The House bill contained a provision (sec  1261) that would require Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, to submit a report to appropriate congressional committees on a quarterly basis describing China's activities in the Indo-Pacific region, and to disseminate the report to regional allies and partners and provide public notification, as appropriate  The provision would require that the dissemination and availability of the report and public notification be made in a manner consistent with national security and the protection of classified national security information  The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec  1251) that would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit to the congressional defense committees and release to the public, a report on the military and coercive activities of China in the South China Sea in connection with such activity immediately after the commencement of any significant reclamation or militarization activity by the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea, including any significant military deployment or operation or infrastructure construction  The House recedes with an amendment that would clarify that the required report shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees immediately after the commencement of any significant reclamation, assertion of an excessive territorial claim, or military activity by the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea  The conferees are concerned that sufficient information has not been made publicly available in a timely fashion regarding China's reclamation and militarization activities in the South China Sea  Moreover, the conferees recognize that China has engaged in provocative military activities elsewhere throughout the Indo-Pacific Region, including the East China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, and the Indian Ocean  The conferees urge the Secretary of Defense to give full consideration to the strategic and public interest in selective declassification of China's activities in the South China Sea and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region  (Pages 993-994) Section 1288 of H R  5515 states the following: SEC  1288  MODIFICATION OF FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS  Subsection (a) of section 1275 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328; 130 Stat  2540), as amended by section 1262(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91; 131 Stat  1689), is further amended by striking ''the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives'' and inserting ''the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives''  Appendix A  Strategic Context from U S  Perspective This appendix presents a brief discussion of some elements of the strategic context from a U S  perspective in which the issues discussed in this report may be considered  There is also a broader context of U S -China relations and U S  foreign policy toward the Indo-Pacific that is covered in other CRS reports  Shift in International Security Environment World events have led some observers, starting in late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment has undergone a shift from the familiar post-Cold War era of the past 20 to 25 years, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U S -led international order that has operated since World War II  China's actions in the SCS and ECS can be viewed as one reflection of that shift  Uncertainty Regarding Future U S  Role in World The overall U S  role in the world since the end of World War II in 1945 (i e , over the past 70 years) is generally described as one of global leadership and significant engagement in international affairs  A key aim of that role has been to promote and defend the open international order that the United States, with the support of its allies, created in the years after World War II  In addition to promoting and defending the open international order, the overall U S  role is generally described as having been one of promoting freedom, democracy, and human rights, while criticizing and resisting authoritarianism where possible, and opposing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia or a spheres-of-influence world  Certain statements and actions from the Trump Administration have led to uncertainty about the Administration's intentions regarding the future U S  role in the world  Based on those statements and actions, some observers have speculated that the Trump Administration may want to change the U S  role in one or more ways  A change in the overall U S  role could have profound implications for U S  foreign policy, including U S  policy regarding maritime territorial and EEZ disputes involving China  U S  Grand Strategy Discussion of the above-mentioned shift in the international security environment has led to a renewed emphasis in discussions of U S  security and foreign policy on grand strategy and geopolitics  From a U S  perspective, grand strategy can be understood as strategy considered at a global or interregional level, as opposed to strategies for specific countries, regions, or issues  Geopolitics refers to the influence on international relations and strategy of basic world geographic features such as the size and location of continents, oceans, and individual countries  From a U S  perspective on grand strategy and geopolitics, it can be noted that most of the world's people, resources, and economic activity are located not in the Western Hemisphere, but in the other hemisphere, particularly Eurasia  In response to this basic feature of world geography, U S  policymakers for the past several decades have chosen to pursue, as a key element of U S  grand strategy, a goal of preventing the emergence of a regional hegemon in one part of Eurasia or another, on the grounds that such a hegemon could represent a concentration of power strong enough to threaten core U S  interests by, for example, denying the United States access to some of the other hemisphere's resources and economic activity  Although U S  policymakers have not often stated this key national strategic goal explicitly in public, U S  military (and diplomatic) operations in recent decades—both wartime operations and day-to-day operations—can be viewed as having been carried out in no small part in support of this key goal  Focus on Great Power Competition with China and Russia The Trump Administration's December 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) and the 11-page unclassified summary of its January 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) reorient U S  national security strategy and, within that, U S  defense strategy, toward an explicit primary focus on great power competition with China and Russia and on countering Chinese and Russian military capabilities  The new U S  strategy orientation set forth in the 2017 NSS and 2018 NDS is sometimes referred to a "2+3" strategy, meaning a strategy for countering two primary challenges (China and Russia) and three additional challenges (North Korea, Iran, and terrorist groups)  Concept of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) In addition to the 2017 NSS and 2018 NDS, the Trump Administration has highlighted the concept of a free and open Indo-Pacific (FOIP), with the term Indo-Pacific referring to the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, and the countries (particularly those in Eurasia) bordering on those two oceans  The concept, which is still being fleshed out by the Trump Administration, appears to be a general U S foreign policy and national security construct for the region, but observers view it as one that includes a military component  Challenge to U S  Sea Control and U S  Position in Western Pacific Observers of Chinese and U S  military forces view China's improving naval capabilities as posing a potential challenge in the Western Pacific to the U S  Navy's ability to achieve and maintain control of blue-water ocean areas in wartime—the first such challenge the U S  Navy has faced since the end of the Cold War  More broadly, these observers view China's naval capabilities as a key element of an emerging broader Chinese military challenge to the long-standing status of the United States as the leading military power in the Western Pacific  Regional U S  Allies and Partners The United States has certain security-related policies pertaining to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act ( H R  2479 / P L  96-8 of April 10, 1979)  The United States has bilateral security treaties with Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, and an additional security treaty with Australia and New Zealand  In addition to U S  treaty allies, certain other countries in the Western Pacific can be viewed as current or emerging U S  security partners  Appendix B  U S  Treaties with Japan and Philippines This appendix presents brief background information on the U S  security treaties with Japan and the Philippines  U S -Japan Treaty on Mutual Cooperation and Security The 1960 U S -Japan treaty on mutual cooperation and security states in Article V that Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes  The United States has reaffirmed on a number of occasions over the years that since the Senkaku Islands are under the administration of Japan, they are included in the territories referred to in Article V of the treaty, and that the United States "will honor all of our treaty commitments to our treaty partners " (At the same time, the United States, noting the difference between administration and sovereignty, has noted that such affirmations do not prejudice the U S  approach of taking no position regarding the outcome of the dispute between China, Taiwan, and Japan regarding who has sovereignty over the islands ) Some observers, while acknowledging the U S  affirmations, have raised questions regarding the potential scope of actions that the United States might take under Article V  U S -Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty The 1951 U S -Philippines mutual defense treaty states in Article IV that Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes  Article V states that For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific  The United States has reaffirmed on a number of occasions over the years its obligations under the U S -Philippines mutual defense treaty  On May 9, 2012, Filipino Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F  del Rosario issued a statement providing the Philippine perspective regarding the treaty's application to territorial disputes in the SCS  U S  officials have made their own statements regarding the treaty's application to territorial disputes in the SCS  Appendix C  Treaties and Agreements Related to the Maritime Disputes This appendix briefly reviews some international treaties and agreements that bear on the issues discussed in this report  UN Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes a treaty regime to govern activities on, over, and under the world's oceans  UNCLOS was adopted by Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in December 1982, and entered into force in November 1994  The treaty established EEZs as a feature of international law, and contains multiple provisions relating to territorial waters and EEZs  As of May 10, 2018, 168 nations were party to the treaty, including China and most other countries bordering on the SCS and ECS (the exceptions being North Korea and Taiwan)  The treaty and an associated 1994 agreement relating to implementation of Part XI of the treaty (on deep seabed mining) were transmitted to the Senate on October 6, 1994  In the absence of Senate advice and consent to adherence, the United States is not a party to the convention and the associated 1994 agreement  A March 10, 1983, statement on U S  ocean policy by President Ronald Reagan states that UNCLOS contains provisions with respect to traditional uses of the oceans which generally confirm existing maritime law and practice and fairly balance the interests of all states  Today I am announcing three decisions to promote and protect the oceans interests of the United States in a manner consistent with those fair and balanced results in the Convention and international law  First, the United States is prepared to accept and act in accordance with the balance of interests relating to traditional uses of the oceans—such as navigation and overflight  In this respect, the United States will recognize the rights of other states in the waters off their coasts, as reflected in the Convention, so long as the rights and freedoms of the United States and others under international law are recognized by such coastal states  Second, the United States will exercise and assert its navigation and overflight rights and freedoms on a worldwide basis in a manner that is consistent with the balance of interests reflected in the convention  The United States will not, however, acquiesce in unilateral acts of other states designed to restrict the rights and freedoms of the international community in navigation and overflight and other related high seas uses  Third, I am proclaiming today an Exclusive Economic Zone in which the United States will exercise sovereign rights in living and nonliving resources within 200 nautical miles of its coast  This will provide United States jurisdiction for mineral resources out to 200 nautical miles that are not on the continental shelf  UNCLOS builds on four 1958 law of the sea conventions to which the United States is a party: the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the Convention on the High Seas, the Convention on the Continental Shelf, and the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas  1972 Convention on Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs) China and the United States, as well as more than 150 other countries (including all those bordering on the South East and South China Seas, but not Taiwan), are parties to an October 1972 multilateral convention on international regulations for preventing collisions at sea, commonly known as the collision regulations (COLREGs) or the "rules of the road " Although commonly referred to as a set of rules or regulations, this multilateral convention is a binding treaty  The convention applies "to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels " It thus applies to military vessels, paramilitary and law enforcement (i e , coast guard) vessels, maritime militia vessels, and fishing boats, among other vessels  In a February 18, 2014, letter to Senator Marco Rubio concerning the December 5, 2013, incident involving the Cowpens , the State Department stated the following: In order to minimize the potential for an accident or incident at sea, it is important that the United States and China share a common understanding of the rules for operational air or maritime interactions  From the U S  perspective, an existing body of international rules and guidelines—including the 1972 International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs)—are sufficient to ensure the safety of navigation between U S  forces and the force of other countries, including China  We will continue to make clear to the Chinese that these existing rules, including the COLREGs, should form the basis for our common understanding of air and maritime behavior, and we will encourage China to incorporate these rules into its incident-management tools  Likewise, we will continue to urge China to agree to adopt bilateral crisis management tools with Japan and to rapidly conclude negotiations with ASEAN on a robust and meaningful Code of Conduct in the South China in order to avoid incidents and to manage them when they arise  We will continue to stress the importance of these issues in our regular interactions with Chinese officials  In the 2014 edition of its annual report on military and security developments involving China, the DOD states the following: On December 5, 2013, a PLA Navy vessel and a U S  Navy vessel operating in the South China Sea came into close proximity  At the time of the incident, USS COWPENS (CG 63) was operating approximately 32 nautical miles southeast of Hainan Island  In that location, the U S  Navy vessel was conducting lawful military activities beyond the territorial sea of any coastal State, consistent with customary international law as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention  Two PLA Navy vessels approached USS COWPENS  During this interaction, one of the PLA Navy vessels altered course and crossed directly in front of the bow of USS COWPENS  This maneuver by the PLA Navy vessel forced USS COWPENS to come to full stop to avoid collision, while the PLA Navy vessel passed less than 100 yards ahead  The PLA Navy vessel's action was inconsistent with internationally recognized rules concerning professional maritime behavior (i e , the Convention of International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea), to which China is a party  2014 Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) On April 22, 2014, representatives of 21 Pacific-region navies (including China, Japan, and the United States), meeting in Qingdao, China, at the 14 th Western Pacific Naval Symposium (WPNS), unanimously agreed to a Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES)  CUES, a nonbinding agreement, establishes a standardized protocol of safety procedures, basic communications, and basic maneuvering instructions for naval ships and aircraft during unplanned encounters at sea, with the aim of reducing the risk of incidents arising from such encounters  The CUES agreement in effect supplements the 1972 COLREGs Convention (see previous section); it does not cancel or lessen commitments that countries have as parties to the COLREGS Convention  Two observers stated that "the [CUES] resolution is non-binding; only regulates communication in 'unplanned encounters,' not behavior; fails to address incidents in territorial waters; and does not apply to fishing and maritime constabulary vessels [i e , coast guard ships and other maritime law enforcement ships], which are responsible for the majority of Chinese harassment operations " DOD stated in 2015 that Going forward, the Department is also exploring options to expand the use of CUES to include regional law enforcement vessels and Coast Guards  Given the growing use of maritime law enforcement vessels to enforce disputed maritime claims, expansion of CUES to MLE [maritime law enforcement] vessels would be an important step in reducing the risk of unintentional conflict  U S  Navy officials have stated that the CUES agreement is generally working well, and that the United States (as noted in the passage above) is interested in expanding the agreement to cover coast guard ships  Officials from Singapore and Malaysia reportedly have expressed support for the idea  An Obama Administration fact sheet about Chinese President Xi Jinping's state visit to the United States on September 24-25, 2015, stated the following: The U S  Coast Guard and the China Coast Guard have committed to pursue an arrangement whose intended purpose is equivalent to the Rules of Behavior Confidence Building Measure annex on surface-to-surface encounters in the November 2014 Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Department of Defense and the People's Republic of China Ministry of National Defense  A November 3, 2018, press report published following an incident in the SCS between a U S  Navy destroyer and a Chinese destroyer stated the following: The U S  Navy's chief of naval operations has called on China to return to a previously agreed-upon code of conduct for at-sea encounters between the ships of their respective navies, stressing the need to avoid miscalculations  During a Nov  1 teleconference with reporters based in the Asia-Pacific region, Adm  John Richardson said he wants the People's Liberation Army Navy to "return to a consistent adherence to the agreed-to code that would again minimize the chance for a miscalculation that could possibly lead to a local incident and potential escalation " The CNO cited a case in early October when the U S  Navy's guided-missile destroyer Decatur reported that a Chinese Type 052C destroyer came within 45 yards of the Decatur as it conducted a freedom-of-navigation operation in the South China Sea  However, he added that the "vast majority" of encounters with Chinese warships in the South China Sea "are conducted in accordance with the Code of Unplanned Encounters at Sea and done in a safe and professional manner " The code is an agreement reached by 21 Pacific nations in 2014 to reduce the chance of an incident at sea between the agreement's signatories  2014 U S -China MOU on Air and Maritime Encounters In November 2014, the U S  DOD and China's Ministry of National Defense signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding rules of behavior for safety of air and maritime encounters  The MOU makes reference to UNCLOS, the 1972 COLREGs convention, the Conventional on International Civil Aviation (commonly known as the Chicago Convention), the Agreement on Establishing a Consultation Mechanism to Strengthen Military Maritime Safety (MMCA), and CUES  The MOU as signed in November 2014 included an annex on rules of behavior for safety of surface-to-surface encounters  An additional annex on rules of behavior for safety of air-to-air encounters was signed on September 15 and 18, 2015  An October 20, 2018, press report states the following: Eighteen nations including the U S  and China agreed in principle Saturday [October 20] to sign up to guidelines governing potentially dangerous encounters by military aircraft, a step toward stabilizing flashpoints but one that leaves enough wiggle room to ignore the new standards when a country wants  The guidelines essentially broaden a similar agreement reached by the U S  and China three years ago and are an attempt to mitigate against incidents and collisions in some of the world's most tense areas…  The in-principle agreement, which will be put forward for formal adoption by the group of 18 nations next year, took place at an annual meeting of defense ministers under the aegis of the 10-country Association of Southeast Asian Nations, hosted by Singapore  Asean nations formally adopted the new guidelines themselves Friday  "The guidelines are very useful in setting norms," Singapore's defense minister Ng Eng Hen told reporters after the meeting  "All the 18 countries agreed strong in-principle support for the guidelines "… The aerial-encounters framework agreed to Saturday includes language that prohibits fast or aggressive approaches in the air and lays out guidelines on clear communications including suggestions to "refrain from the use of uncivil language or unfriendly physical gestures " Signatories to the agreement, which is voluntary and not legally binding, would agree to avoid unprofessional encounters and reckless maneuvers…  The guidelines fall short on enforcement and geographic specifics, but they are "better than nothing at all," said Evan Laksmana, senior researcher with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Jakarta  "Confidence-building surrounding military crises or encounters can hardly move forward without some broadly agreed-upon rules of the game," he said  Negotiations on SCS Code of Conduct (COC) In 2002, China and the 10 member states of ASEAN signed a nonbinding Declaration on the Conduct (DOC) of Parties in the South China Sea in which the parties, among other things,     reaffirm their respect for and commitment to the freedom of navigation in and overflight above the South China Sea as provided for by the universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea         undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means, without resorting to the threat or use of force, through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea         undertake to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others, refraining from action of inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays, and other features and to handle their differences in a constructive manner        reaffirm that the adoption of a [follow-on] code of conduct in the South China Sea would further promote peace and stability in the region and agree to work, on the basis of consensus, towards the eventual attainment of this objective     In July 2011, China and ASEAN adopted a preliminary set of principles for implementing the DOC  U S  officials since 2010 have encouraged ASEAN and China to develop the follow-on binding Code of Conduct (COC) mentioned in the final quoted paragraph above  China and ASEAN have conducted negotiations on the follow-on COC, but China has not yet agreed with the ASEAN member states on a final text  On March 8, 2017, China announced that the first draft of a framework for the COC had been completed, and that "China and ASEAN countries feel satisfied with this " On May 18 and 19, 2017, it was reported that the China and the ASEAN countries had agreed on the framework  An article from a Chinese news outlet stated the following: All countries involved have agreed not to release the framework document, but to maintain it as an internal document at this time since the consultation will continue and they do not want any external interference, [Vice-Foreign Minister] Liu [Zhenmin] said  "Against the backdrop of economic globalization, China and ASEAN countries should continue making our regional rules to guide our own actions and protect our common interests," Liu said  A May 18, 2017, press report stated that Liu Zhemin "called on others to stay out [of the negotiations], apparently a coded message to the United States  'We hope that our consultations on the code are not subject to any outside interference,' Liu said " An August 3, 2017, press report stated the following: Southeast Asian ministers meeting this week are set to avoid tackling the subject of Beijing's arming and building of manmade South China Sea islands, preparing to endorse a framework for a code of conduct that is neither binding nor enforceable  The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has omitted references to China's most controversial activities in its joint communique, a draft reviewed by Reuters shows  In addition, a leaked blueprint for establishing an ASEAN-China code of maritime conduct does not call for it to be legally binding, or seek adherence to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)     Analysts and some ASEAN diplomats worry that China's sudden support for negotiating a code of conduct is a ploy to buy time to further boost its military capability     The agreed two-page framework is broad and leaves wide scope for disagreement, urging a commitment to the "purposes and principles" of UNCLOS, for example, rather than adherence  The framework papers over the big differences between ASEAN nations and China, said Patrick Cronin of the Center for a New American Security  "Optimists will see this non-binding agreement as a small step forward, allowing habits of cooperation to develop, despite differences," he said  "Pessimists will see this as a gambit favorable to a China determined to make the majority of the South China Sea its domestic lake " An August 6, 2017, press report stated the following: Southeast Asian nations agreed with China on Sunday [August 6] to endorse a framework for a maritime code of conduct that would govern behavior in disputed waters of the South China Sea, a small step forward in a negotiation that has lasted well over a decade  Though not the long-discussed code itself, the framework sets out parameters for discussion of an agreement intended to bring predictability to a potential flashpoint as China increasingly asserts its military presence over the area in the face of rival claims  The 10 countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations will meet with China at the end of August to discuss legalities for negotiations on the code of conduct, with formal talks beginning soon after, Philippines department of foreign affairs spokesman Robespierre Bolivar said Sunday  The endorsement of the framework, which was tentatively agreed to in May, came during a bilateral meeting between China and Asean on the sidelines of a series of security-oriented meetings that will conclude Tuesday  The unsticking of the framework after years of obstruction is widely seen as a concession by China, which has opposed any legally binding code on maritime engagement, stepped up naval patrols and built artificial islands to enforce its claims, equipping them with military weapons  Beijing's move to allow discussion on the code of conduct follows a resetting of ties with the Philippines under President Rodrigo Duterte, who in October—just four months after taking office—visited Beijing and declared a new friendship between the two countries  An August 8, 2017, blog post about the framework states the following: In Manila on 6 August 2017, the foreign ministers of ASEAN and China endorsed the framework for the Code of Conduct for the South China Sea (COC)  While the framework is a step forward in the conflict management process for the South China Sea, it is short on details and contains many of the same principles and provisions contained in the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) which has yet to be even partially implemented  The text includes a new reference to the prevention and management of incidents, as well as a seemingly stronger commitment to maritime security and freedom of navigation  However, the phrase "legally binding" is absent, as are the geographical scope of the agreement and enforcement and arbitration mechanisms  The framework will form the basis for further negotiations on the COC  Those discussions are likely to be lengthy and frustrating for those ASEAN members who had hoped to see a legally binding, comprehensive and effective COC  Some observers have argued that China has been dragging out the negotiations on the COC for years as part of a "talk and take strategy," meaning a strategy in which China engages in (or draws out) negotiations while taking actions to gain control of contested areas  A May 25, 2017, news report states the following: To call negotiations between China and the ten-country Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) over rival claims in the South China Sea "drawn out" would be a gross understatement  At the centre of the matter is an unsquareable circle: the competing claims of China and several South-East Asian countries  Nobody wants to go to war; nobody wants to be accused of backing down  Still, at a meeting of senior Chinese and ASEAN officials on May 18 th , something happened: the two sides agreed on a "framework" for a code of conduct  An official from Singapore (which currently co-ordinates ASEAN-China relations) called the agreement a sign of "steady progress"     ASEAN members called for a legally binding code of conduct as far back as 1996     Since then, code-of-conduct negotiations have proceeded glacially     Last July, after China received an unfavourable ruling on its maritime claims in a case brought by the Philippines to a tribunal in The Hague, China agreed to expedite the talks     The draft framework will be presented to ASEAN and Chinese foreign ministers at a conference in August  This will then form the basis for the thorny negotiations to follow  The text has not (yet) been leaked  But its most salient feature may be what it appears to lack: any hint of enforcement mechanisms or consequences for violations  China has long rejected a legally binding agreement—or indeed any arrangement that could limit its actions in the South China Sea  The result, explains Ian Storey, of the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, a think-tank in Singapore, is a framework "that makes China look co-operative…without having to do anything that might constrain its freedom of action"  ASEAN, meanwhile, gets the appearance of progress  "The ASEAN secretariat is a bureaucracy, and bureaucrats like process," explains Mr Storey  A July 13, 2018, blog post states the following: The COC has become a "holy grail," highly desired but unattainable  A major concern should be that this holy grail could turn into a tool for China to legitimize its actions in the South China Sea by engaging in the process while subverting its spirit  To this end, the challenges to the COC process are likely to be: China will use the COC talks to delay, exploit, and divert focus from any ASEAN consensus on the South China Sea; China will seek to include unhelpful and imprecise language in the COC which it could then use to justify its actions; China will nonetheless claim the COC as a diplomatic success and will use it as cover to avoid criticism while still pursuing its unilateral strategy to control the South China Sea…  If the COC process continues on its current trajectory, and China succeeds in filling the document with vague articles that would have little impact on its behavior, it would effectively be abusing the rules-based order to its own benefit  Instead of protecting against unilateral actions in the South China Sea, the rules-based order in the form of the COC could assist and justify China's expansion and ultimately its sole control of the South China Sea  Other regional actors need to recognize these traps of concluding a counter-productive COC, and resist the urge to reach an agreement just to be able to say they made progress  Instead, they should insist on negotiating the terms and conditions of a real COC, one that would establish effective rules-based dispute management mechanisms, not one that would by-pass them for the sake of an easy "win " An August 2, 2018, press report states the following: After more than a decade of talks, a bloc of Southeast Asian nations and China have agreed on a draft code of conduct that will lay the foundation for negotiations over the disputed South China Sea  Observers said the agreement showed that China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) could make progress through talks despite rising regional tensions, but they also warned that there was still a long way to go until a final deal  The agreement on the "Single Draft COC Negotiating Text" was announced at a meeting of Asean foreign ministers in Singapore on Thursday [August 2], after being nailed down at a China-Asean meeting in the central Chinese city of Changsha in June  An August 9, 2018, press report stated the following: Talks on completing a code of conduct for the disputed South China Sea will be long and complex and it would be unrealistic to set a timetable, state media on Thursday [August 9] cited a senior Chinese diplomat as saying…  In an interview with China Newsweek magazine, Yi Xianliang, Director General of the Chinese Foreign Ministry's Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs, said the talks were continuing  Many of the topics were complex and sensitive and there were many different points of view, he said  "If these issues are to be resolved, and the code finally comes together, all sides need to keep looking for the greatest common denominator," Yi added  "There are voices from the outside, who are trying to set a timetable for the talks on the code  I think this is unrealistic," he said  Any multilateral talks take time, especially on such a complex issue as the South China Sea, Yi added  "It is impossible to define a timetable  Instead of setting the timetable unrealistically, and binding one's hands, it's better to step forward one foot at a time "… "Certain countries outside the region have been agitating that the code must be legally binding  This issue is quite complicated, including the domestic legal procedures involved in the countries concerned," he added, without elaborating  An October 22, 2018, press report stated the following: As China moves to complete the creation of military outposts in the South China Sea, Beijing's negotiation with southeastern Asian nations over a binding code of conduct is gaining momentum  But U S  officials and experts warn China's insertions in the draft South China Sea code of conduct may put Washington and Beijing on a collision course  The text of the draft also shows that deep divisions remain among claimants  One of the Chinese provisions in the text states, "The Parties shall not hold joint military exercises with countries from outside the region, unless the parties concerned are notified beforehand and express no objection " China also proposed cooperation on the marine economy "shall not be conducted in cooperation with companies from countries outside the region " A State Department spokesperson told VOA the United States is concerned by reports China has been pressing members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations "in the closed-door talks, to accept restrictions on their ability to conduct exercises with security partners, and to agree not to conduct oil and gas exploration in their claimed waters with energy firms based in countries which are not part of the ongoing negotiations " "These proposals, if accepted, would limit the ability of ASEAN nations to conduct sovereign, independent foreign and economic policies and would directly harm the interests of the broader international community," added the State Department spokesperson…  "In other words, China would like a veto over all the military exercises held by ASEAN countries with other nations  I think this really provides some evidence that China indeed is trying to limit American influence in the region, one might go so far as to say to push American military presence out of the region eventually, but certainly in the area of the South China Sea," said Bonnie Glaser, director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington…  The United States is also calling for ongoing discussions on the South China Sea code of conduct to be transparent and consultative with the rest of the international community  U S  officials said the international community has direct stakes in the outcome  A September 6, 2018, blog post stated the following: After two decades of talks, scepticism about the development of a South China Sea Code of Conduct (COC) is well-deserved, but it is also important to acknowledge progress when it happens  The agreement on a single draft negotiating text, revealed ahead of the ASEAN–China Post Ministerial Meeting on 2 August 2018, is an important step in the process that deserves recognition  The COC will not resolve the South China Sea disputes, nor was it ever meant to  Instead the COC is intended to manage disputes to avoid conflict pending their eventual resolution by direct negotiation or arbitration among the claimants  But any system to effectively manage the South China Sea disputes would require three things, none of which are achieved yet in the draft text  First, an effective COC would need to be geographically defined…  Second, an effective COC would need a dispute settlement mechanism…  Third, any effective regime to manage the South China Sea disputes would need detailed provisions on fisheries management and oil and gas development…  The solution to this problem could be a COC signed by all 10 ASEAN members and China that establishes general rules of behaviour within a clear geographic area, sets up an effective dispute settlement mechanism and endorses the immediate start of follow-on negotiations involving only the relevant claimants on fisheries management and oil and gas cooperation  Such a document would be a major step towards peacefully managing the South China Sea disputes and there are hints that at least some sections of the negotiating text might be on the right track  But the differences between parties remain considerable and final agreement on an effective COC still seems some way off  An October 29, 2018, press report states the following: The Philippines on Monday said a set of rules intended to prevent conflict in the South China Sea need not legally compel countries to follow it—an issue of importance for the Chinese government  Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr  raised this possibility during a joint news conference with Wang Yi, his Chinese counterpart, in Davao City where they held bilateral talks to firm up preparations for President Xi Jinping's visit to Manila next month  The Association of Southeast Asian Nations and China are negotiating a code of conduct in the South China Sea  The 10-member bloc wants it to be legally binding, but Beijing prefers just "binding," ASEAN diplomats have said  "Perhaps, we will not be able to arrive at a legally binding COC, but it will be a standard on how people of ASEAN and governments of ASEAN will behave with each other -- always with honor, never with aggression, and always for mutual progress," Locsin said…  Wang said China will abide by the code whether it is legally binding or not  He said China hopes to finish the negotiations before Manila's term as ASEAN-China coordinator ends  "We welcome constructive opinions within the framework    that has been agreed," Wang said, referring to the general outline agreed last year, which dropped a reference to a legally binding code  The framework essentially repeats the spirit of a 2002 declaration on the South China Sea that called on parties to exercise restraint to avoid escalating tensions, and respect international law, among other things  Critics and ASEAN officials said the declaration failed to manage tensions in the disputed area because it was not legally binding  A November 14, 2018, press report stated the following: A rulebook to settle disputes in the hotly contested South China Sea should be finished in three years, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said on Tuesday, insisting his nation does not seek "hegemony or expansion " Li's comments appeared to be the first clear timeframe for finishing the code of conduct  Talks have dragged on for years, with China accused of delaying progress as it prefers to deal with less powerful countries on a one-to-one basis  Appendix D  July 2016 Tribunal Award in SCS Arbitration Case Involving Philippines and China This appendix provides background information on the July 2016 tribunal award in the SCS arbitration case involving the Philippines and China  Overview In 2013, the Philippines sought arbitration under UNCLOS over the role of historic rights and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, the status of certain maritime features and the maritime entitlements they are capable of generating, and the lawfulness of certain actions by China that were alleged by the Philippines to violate UNCLOS  A tribunal was constituted under UNCLOS to hear the case  China stated repeatedly that it would not accept or participate in the arbitration and that, in its view, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction in this matter  China's nonparticipation did not prevent the case from moving forward, and the tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction over various matters covered under the case  On July 12, 2016, the tribunal issued its award (i e , ruling) in the case  The award was strongly in favor of the Philippines—more so than even some observers had anticipated  The tribunal ruled, among other things, that China's nine-dash line claim had no legal basis; that none of the land features in the Spratlys is entitled to any more than a 12-nm territorial sea; that three of the Spratlys features that China occupies generate no entitlement to maritime zones; and that China violated the Philippines' sovereign rights by interfering with Philippine vessels and by damaging the maritime environment and engaging in reclamation work on a feature in the Philippines' EEZ  Under UNCLOS, the award is binding on both the Philippines and China (China's nonparticipation in the arbitration does not change this)  There is, however, no mechanism for enforcing the tribunal's award  The United States has urged China and the Philippines to abide by the award  China, however, has declared the ruling null and void  Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who took office just before the tribunal's ruling, has not sought to enforce it  The tribunal's press release summarizing its award states the following in part: The Award is final and binding, as set out in Article 296 of the Convention [i e , UNCLOS] and Article 11 of Annex VII [of UNCLOS]  Historic Rights and the 'Nine-Dash Line':     On the merits, the Tribunal concluded that the Convention comprehensively allocates rights to maritime areas and that protections for pre-existing rights to resources were considered, but not adopted in the Convention  Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention  The Tribunal also noted that, although Chinese navigators and fishermen, as well as those of other States, had historically made use of the islands in the South China Sea, there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or their resources  The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the 'nine-dash line'  Status of Features:     Features that are above water at high tide generate an entitlement to at least a 12 nautical mile territorial sea, whereas features that are submerged at high tide do not  The Tribunal noted that the reefs have been heavily modified by land reclamation and construction, recalled that the Convention classifies features on their natural condition, and relied on historical materials in evaluating the features  The Tribunal then considered whether any of the features claimed by China could generate maritime zones beyond 12 nautical miles  Under the Convention, islands generate an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and a continental shelf, but "[r]ocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf "     the Tribunal concluded that none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones  The Tribunal also held that the Spratly Islands cannot generate maritime zones collectively as a unit  Having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it could—without delimiting a boundary—declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China  Lawfulness of Chinese Actions:     Having found that certain areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, the Tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines' sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone by (a) interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, (b) constructing artificial islands and (c) failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone  The Tribunal also held that fishermen from the Philippines (like those from China) had traditional fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal and that China had interfered with these rights in restricting access  The Tribunal further held that Chinese law enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels  Harm to Marine Environment: The Tribunal considered the effect on the marine environment of China's recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands and found that China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species  The Tribunal also found that Chinese authorities were aware that Chinese fishermen have harvested endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams on a substantial scale in the South China Sea (using methods that inflict severe damage on the coral reef environment) and had not fulfilled their obligations to stop such activities  Aggravation of Dispute: Finally, the Tribunal considered whether China's actions since the commencement of the arbitration had aggravated the dispute between the Parties  The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the implications of a stand-off between Philippine marines and Chinese naval and law enforcement vessels at Second Thomas Shoal, holding that this dispute involved military activities and was therefore excluded from compulsory settlement  The Tribunal found, however, that China's recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on a State during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has inflicted irreparable harm to the marine environment, built a large artificial island in the Philippines' exclusive economic zone, and destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features in the South China Sea that formed part of the Parties' dispute  Assessments of Impact of Arbitral Award One Year Later In July 2017, a year after the arbitral panel's award, some observers assessed the impact to date of the award  For example, one observer stated the following: One year ago, China suffered a massive legal defeat when an international tribunal based in The Hague ruled that the vast majority of Beijing's extensive claims to maritime rights and resources in the South China Sea were not compatible with international law  Beijing was furious  At an official briefing immediately after the ruling, Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin twice called it "nothing more than a piece of waste paper," and one that "will not be enforced by anyone " And yet, one year on, China is, in many ways, abiding by it     China is not fully complying with the ruling—far from it  On May 1, China imposed a three-and-a-half-month ban on fishing across the northern part of the South China Sea, as it has done each year since 1995  While the ban may help conserve fish stocks, its unilateral imposition in wide areas of the sea violates the ruling  Further south, China's occupation of Mischief Reef, a feature that is submerged at high tide and the tribunal ruled was part of the Philippines' continental shelf, endures  Having built a vast naval base and runway here, China looks like it will remain in violation of that part of the ruling for the foreseeable future  But there is evidence that the Chinese authorities, despite their rhetoric, have already changed their behavior  In October 2016, three months after the ruling, Beijing allowed Philippine and Vietnamese boats to resume fishing at Scarborough Shoal, west of the Philippines  A China Coast Guard ship still blocks the entrance to the lagoon, but boats can still fish the rich waters around it  The situation is not perfect but neither is China flaunting its defiance     Much more significantly, China has avoided drilling for oil and gas on the wrong side of the invisible lines prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)         the ruling means China has no claim to the fish, oil or gas more than 12 nautical miles from any of the Spratlys or Scarborough Shoal  The Chinese authorities appear not to accept this     There are clear signs from both China's words and deeds that Beijing has quietly modified its overall legal position in the South China Sea  Australian researcher Andrew Chubb noted a significant article in the Chinese press in July last year outlining the new view         China's new position seems to represent a major step towards compliance with UNCLOS and, therefore, the ruling  Most significantly, it removes the grounds for Chinese objections to other countries fishing and drilling in wide areas of the South China Sea     Overall, the picture is of a China attempting to bring its vision of the rightful regional order (as the legitimate owner of every rock and reef inside the U-shaped line) within commonly understood international rules  Far from being "waste paper," China is taking the tribunal ruling very seriously  It is still some way from total compliance but it is clearly not deliberately flouting the ruling  Another observer stated the following: A year ago today, an arbitral tribunal formed pursuant to the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea issued a blockbuster award finding much of China's conduct in the South China Sea in violation of international law  As I detailed that day on this blog and elsewhere, the Philippines won about as big a legal victory as it could have expected  But as many of us also warned that day, a legal victory is not the same as an actual victory  In fact, over the past year China has succeeded in transforming its legal defeat into a policy victory by maintaining its aggressive South China Sea policies while escaping sanction for its non-compliance  While the election of a new pro-China Philippines government is a key factor, much of the blame for China's victory must also be placed on the Obama Administration     International law seldom enforces itself, and even the reputational costs of violating international law do not arise unless other states impose those costs on the law-breaker  Both the Philippines and the U S  had policy options that would have raised the costs of China's non-compliance with the award  But neither country's government chose to press China on the arbitral award     Looking back after one year, we cannot say (yet) that U S  policy in the South China Sea is a failure  But we can say that the U S  under President Obama missed a huge opportunity to change the dynamics in the region in its favor, and it is hard to know whether or when another such opportunity will arise in the future  Reported Chinese Characterization of Arbitral Award as "Waste Paper" When the arbitral panel's award was announced, China stated that "China does not accept or recognize it," and that the award "is invalid and has no binding force " The first of the two passages quoted above states that "at an official briefing immediately after the ruling, Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin twice called it 'nothing more than a piece of waste paper,' and one that 'will not be enforced by anyone '" A November 22, 2017, press report states the following: An eight-page essay pumped through social media and Chinese state newspapers in recent days extolled the virtues of president Xi Jinping  Among his achievements, in the Chinese language version, was that he had turned the South China Sea Arbitration at The Hague—which found against China—into "waste paper"  It was an achievement that state news agency Xinhua's lengthy hymn, entitled "Xi and His Era", did not include in the English version for foreign consumption  Assessments and Events Two Years Later Another observer writes in a May 10, 2018, commentary piece that Two years after an international tribunal rejected expansive Chinese claims to the South China Sea, Beijing is consolidating control over the area and its resources  While the U S  defends the right to freedom of navigation, it has failed to support the rights of neighboring countries under the tribunal's ruling  As a result, Southeast Asian countries are bowing to Beijing's demands…  While Beijing's dramatic military buildup in the South China Sea has received much attention, its attempts at "lawfare" are largely overlooked  In May, the Chinese Society of International Law published a "critical study" on the South China Sea arbitration case  It rehashed old arguments but also developed a newer one, namely that China is entitled to claim maritime zones based on groups of features rather than from individual features  Even if China is not entitled to historic rights within the area it claims, this argument goes, it is entitled to resources in a wide expanse of sea on the basis of an exclusive economic zone generated from outlying archipelagoes  But the Convention on the Law of the Sea makes clear that only archipelagic states such as the Philippines and Indonesia may draw straight archipelagic baselines from which maritime zones may be claimed  The tribunal also explicitly found that there was "no evidence" that any deviations from this rule have amounted to the formation of a new rule of customary international law  China's arguments are unlikely to sway lawyers, but that is not their intended audience  Rather Beijing is offering a legal fig leaf to political and business elites in Southeast Asia who are already predisposed to accept Beijing's claims in the South China Sea  They fear China's threat of coercive economic measures and eye promises of development through offerings such as the Belt and Road Initiative  Why did Washington go quiet on the 2016 tribunal decision? One reason is Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's turn toward China and offer to set aside the ruling  The U S  is also worried about the decision's implications for its own claims to exclusive economic zones from small, uninhabited land features in the Pacific  The Trump administration's failure to press Beijing to abide by the tribunal's ruling is a serious mistake  It undermines international law and upsets the balance of power in the region  Countries have taken note that the tide in the South China Sea is in China's favor, and they are making their strategic calculations accordingly  This hurts U S  interests in the region  A July 12, 2018, press report stated the following: The Philippines is celebrating today the second anniversary of its landmark arbitration award against China's territorial claims in the South China Sea handed down by an arbitral tribunal in The Hague…  Until now, the Philippines remains sharply divided on how to leverage its arbitration award  Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte has repeatedly downplayed the relevance of the ruling by questioning its enforceability amid China's vociferous opposition  Soon after taking office in mid-2016, Duterte declared that he would "set aside" the arbitration award in order to pursue a "soft landing" in bilateral relations with China  In exchange, he has hoped for large-scale Chinese investments as well as resource-sharing in the South China Sea…  Other major leaders in the Philippines, however, have taken a tougher stance and continue to try to leverage the award to resist China's expanding footprint in the area  The Stratbase-Albert Del Rosario Institute, an influential think tank co-founded by former Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario, hosted today a high-level forum on the topic at the prestigious Manila Polo Club  Del Rosario oversaw the arbitration proceedings against China under Duterte's predecessor, Benigno Aquino  He opened the event attended by dignitaries from major Western and Asian countries with a strident speech which accused China of trying to "dominate the South China Sea through force and coercion " He defended the arbitration award as an "overwhelming victory" to resist "China's unlawful expansion agenda " The ex-top diplomat also accused the Duterte administration of acquiescence to China by acting as an "abettor" and "willing victim" by soft-pedaling the Philippines' claims in the South China Sea and refusing to raise the arbitration award in multilateral fora  The keynote speaker of the event was Vice President Leni Robredo, who has recently emerged as the de facto leader of the opposition against Duterte  Though falling short of directly naming Duterte, her spirited speech served as a comprehensive indictment of the administration's policy in the South China Sea…  Her keynote address, widely covered by the local media, was followed by an even more spirited speech by interim Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonio Carpio, another leading critic of Duterte's foreign policy  The chief magistrate, who also oversaw the Philippines' arbitration proceedings against China, lashed out at Duterte for placing the landmark award in a "deep freeze " He called on the Duterte administration to leverage the award by negotiating maritime delimitation agreements with other Southeast Asian claimant states such as Malaysia and Vietnam which welcomed the arbitral tribunal's nullification of China's nine-dashed-line map  He also called on the Philippines to expand its maritime entitlement claims in the area, in accordance to the arbitration award, by applying for an extended continental shelf in the South China Sea at the UN  Another July 12, 2018, press report stated the following: Tarpaulins bearing the words "Welcome to the Philippines, province of China" were seen hanging from several footbridges in Metro Manila Thursday, two years after the country won its arbitration case against China  The red banners bore the Chinese flag and Chinese characters  It is unclear who installed the tarpaulins, which are possible reference to a "joke" by President Rodrigo Duterte that the country can be a province of the Asian giant  "He (Xi Jinping) is a man of honor  They can even make us 'Philippines, province of China,' we will even avail of services for free," Duterte said in apparent jest before an audience of Chinese-Filipino business leaders earlier in 2018  "If China were a woman, I'd woo her "… In a Palace briefing, presidential spokesperson Harry Roque said enemies of the government are behind the tarpaulins  A report on ANC said that the Metro Manila Development Authority already took the banners down  The tarpaulins sparked outrage among social media users  A July 17, 2018, press report stated the following: Protesters held a rally in front of the Chinese Consulate [in San Francisco] before proceeding to the Philippine Consulate downtown, demanding that China "get out of Philippine territory in the West Philippine Sea " The protest was timed with others in Los Angeles and Vancouver on the second anniversary of the UN's Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling that China had no right to the territory it was claiming  Filipino American Human Rights Advocates (FAHRA) in a statement celebrated the court's finding that "China's historical claim of the "nine-dash line" [is] illegal and without basis " "China continues to violate the UN's decision with the backing of its puppet Philippine government headed by President Duterte, who is deceived by the 'build, build, build' economic push while China establishes a 'steal, steal, steal' approach to islands and territories belonging to the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Philippines as determined by UN," the statement lamented  FAHRA also found it unacceptable that Filipino fishermen must now ask permission to fish in the Philippine waters from "a Chinese master " "Duterte is beholden to the $15-billion loan with monstrous interest rate and China's investments in Boracay and Marawi, at the expense of Philippine sovereignty," FAHRA claimed  "This is not to mention that China remains to be the premier supplier of illegal drugs to the country through traders that include the son, Paolo Duterte, with his P6 billion shabu shipment to Davao," it further charged  The group demanded that "China abide by the UN International Tribunal Court's decision two years ago, to honor the full sovereignty of the Philippines over all territories at the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) including the West Philippine Sea and the dismantling of the nuclear missiles and all military facilities installed by the Chinese government at the Spratly islands meant to coerce the Filipinos and all peace-loving people of Southeast Asia who clamor for equal respect and equal sovereignty in the area" among others  Appendix E  Additional Elements of China's Approach to Maritime Disputes This appendix presents background information on additional elements of China's approach to the maritime disputes in the SCS and ECS  Map of Nine-Dash Line China depicts its claims in the SCS using the so-called map of the nine-dash line—a Chinese map of the SCS showing nine line segments that, if connected, would enclose an area covering roughly 90% (earlier estimates said about 80%) of the SCS ( Figure E-1 )  The area inside the nine line segments far exceeds what is claimable as territorial waters under customary international law of the sea as reflected in UNCLOS, and, as shown in Figure E-2 , includes waters that are within the claimable EEZs (and in some places are quite near the coasts) of the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Vietnam  The map of the nine-dash line, also called the U-shaped line or the cow tongue, predates the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949  The map has been maintained by the PRC government, and maps published in Taiwan also show the nine line segments  In a document submitted to the United Nations on May 7, 2009, which included the map shown in Figure E-1 as an attachment, China stated the following: China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof (see attached map [of the nine-dash line])  The above position is consistently held by the Chinese Government, and is widely known by the international community  The map does not always have exactly nine dashes  Early versions of the map had as many as 11 dashes, and a map of China published by the Chinese government in June 2014 includes 10 dashes  The exact positions of the dashes have also varied a bit over time  China has maintained ambiguity over whether it is using the map of the nine-dash line to claim full sovereignty over the entire sea area enclosed by the nine-dash line, or something less than that  Maintaining this ambiguity can be viewed as an approach that preserves flexibility for China in pursuing its maritime claims in the SCS while making it more difficult for other parties to define specific objections or pursue legal challenges to those claims  It does appear clear, however, that China at a minimum claims sovereignty over the island groups inside the nine line segments—China's domestic Law on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, enacted in 1992, specifies that China claims sovereignty over all the island groups inside the nine line segments  China's implementation on January 1, 2014, of a series of fishing regulations covering much of the SCS suggests that China claims at least some degree of administrative control over much of the SCS  An April 30, 2018, blog post states the following: In what is likely a new bid to reinforce and even expand China's sweeping territorial claims in the South China Sea, a group of Chinese scholars recently published a "New Map of the People's Republic of China " The alleged political national map, reportedly first published in April 1951 but only "discovered" through a recent national archival investigation, could give new clarity to the precise extent of China's official claims in the disputed waters  Instead of dotted lines, as reflected in China's U-shaped Nine-Dash Line claim to nearly all of the South China Sea, the newly discovered map provides a solid "continuous national boundary line and administrative region line " The Chinese researchers claim that through analysis of historical maps, the 1951 solid-line map "proves" beyond dispute that the "U-boundary line is the border of China's territorial sea" in the South China Sea  They also claim that the solid administrative line overlaying the U-boundary "definitely indicated that the sovereignty of the sea" enclosed within the U-boundary "belonged to China " The study, edited by the Guanghua and Geosciences Club and published by SDX Joint Publishing Company, has not been formally endorsed by the Chinese government  April 2018 Press Report of Proposal for Continuous Boundary Line in SCS An April 22, 2018, press report states the following: Researchers are proposing a new boundary in the South China Sea that they say will help the study of natural science while potentially adding weight to China's claims over the disputed waters, according to a senior scientist involved in the government-funded project  The new boundary will help to define more clearly China's claims in the contested region, but it is not clear whether or when it will be officially adopted by Beijing, the scientist said  A precise continuous line will split the Gulf of Tonkin between China and Vietnam, go south into waters claimed by Malaysia, take a U-turn to the north along the west coast of the Philippines and finish at the southeast of Taiwan  For decades, China's sovereign claim in the South China Sea has been murky, in large part because of the use of a segmented, vaguely located borderline known as the 'nine-dash line'  A United Nations tribunal ruled in July 2016 that China had no legal basis to claim the area within the dash lines  One reason for China losing the case was that it could not define the territory precisely  However, analysts said Beijing was unlikely to officially change the nine-dash line any time soon, in the face of potential international opposition     The vast area of blue outlined by the new boundary, hanging on a map like a Christmas stocking under South China, overlaps the dashes and fills in the gaps  It includes all contested waters, such as the Paracel Islands, the Spratly Islands, James Shoal and Scarborough Shoal  The boundary would determine for the first time the exact area that China claimed to own with historic rights in the South China Sea, according to the researcher  Its purpose was partly the study of natural science and partly driven by a political motivation "to strengthen China's claims" over the waters to prepare for possible changes in its South China Sea policy in the future, the researcher said  Within the boundary, China would claim the right to activities ranging from fishing, prospecting and mining for energy or mineral resources to the construction of military bases with deep water ports or airports  Other countries' access to these rights would, however, be open for discussion, as is the case at Scarborough Shoal, which China controls but allows Philippine fishing boats to access  While Beijing would consider the area within the boundary its territory, other countries would still have freedom of navigation, the researcher said     "Soon we will have a clear idea of what belongs to us in the South China Sea and what does not," said the researcher  "This will allow us to better plan and coordinate the efforts to protect our national interest in the region while reducing the risk of conflict with other countries caused by the absence of a border over the ocean "    "More often, when we are sending vessels out to the sea or looking down at an area via satellite, we are not sure whether it was our water," said the researcher in the boundary-drawing project  "The nine-dash line can no longer meet the demands of increasing Chinese activities in the South China Sea "    The continuous boundary was generated not only by curve-extending, gap-filling algorithms on computer  It was also based on a solid piece of historic evidence, according to the project team  In 1951, an official map approved by the central government of China marked the China-claimed area in the South China Sea with a pair of non-stopping lines  There was an inner black line indicating the sovereign boundary and an outer red line representing where China could exercise administrative power  "We were thrilled when we found the map," the researcher said  "It is something we can show the world " A detailed description of the map was published by the project team in a paper in domestic academic journal China Science Bulletin in March this year  Its authors recommended using the continuous U-shape boundary line as a replacement for the nine-dash line  The "U-boundary is the border of China's sea in the South China Sea, and its sovereignty belongs to China", the authors wrote in the paper  It "can further express the certainty of the integrity, continuity and border of China's seas in the South China Sea", they wrote, adding that it was "more vivid, accurate, complete and scientific"  Professor Yu Minyou, director of the China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies at Wuhan University, said that if the old map was published with government approval, which was usually the case in China, "it surely will add legal weight to China's claim" in the region     But other countries should bear in mind that it did not represent the Chinese government's position as long as the dash lines stayed on official maps, Yu said, adding that China's strategy for the South China Sea was "open and clear"  "China wants to achieve peace, stability, harmony and prosperity in the region," he said  "We are willing to share natural resources with other countries and leave the disputes to be solved in the future  "What we are doing now is creating a suitable environment for the final settlement of the issue " A government expert at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies in Haikou, Hainan, said the continuous boundary would serve as a useful tool for some studies of natural science  But it was highly unlikely to be printed on an official map, said the expert, who requested not to be named because he was not allowed to speak to overseas media about sensitive issues  "To my knowledge, the Chinese government currently has no plan to change the dash lines," he said  "Most diplomats and ocean law experts will oppose joining the dashes " The tension in the South China Sea has eased significantly in recent times, with neighbouring countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam no longer seeking direct confrontation with China over disputed areas  "Things are moving towards the right direction," the government expert said  "It is not the best time to cut a boundary " September 2017 Press Report of Potential New "Four-Sha" Legal Claim A September 21, 2017, press report states the following: The Chinese government recently unveiled a new legal tactic to promote Beijing's aggressive claim to own most of the strategic South China Sea  The new narrative that critics are calling "lawfare," or legal warfare, involves a shift from China's so-called "9-Dash Line" ownership covering most of the sea  The new lawfare narrative is called the "Four Sha"—Chinese for sand—and was revealed by Ma Xinmin, deputy director general in the Foreign Ministry's department of treaty and law, during a closed-door meeting with State Department officials last month  China has claimed three of the island chains in the past and recently added a fourth zone in the northern part of the sea called the Pratas Islands near Hong Kong  The other locations are the disputed Paracels in the northwestern part and the Spratlys in the southern sea  The fourth island group is located in the central zone and includes Macclesfield Bank, a series of underwater reefs and shoals  China calls the island groups Dongsha, Xisha, Nansha, and Zhongsha, respectively  Ma, the Foreign Ministry official, announced during the meetings in Boston on Aug  28 and 29 that China is asserting sovereignty over the Four Sha through several legal claims  He stated the area is China's historical territorial waters and also part of China's 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone that defines adjacent zones as sovereign territory  Beijing also claims ownership by asserting the Four Sha are part of China's extended continental shelf  U S  officials attending the session expressed surprise at the new Chinese ploy to seek control over the sea as something not discussed before     A State Department notice at the end of what was billed as an annual U S -China Dialogue on the Law of the Sea and Polar Issues made no mention of the new Chinese lawfare tactic  The statement said only that officials from foreign affairs and maritime agencies "exchanged views on a wide range of issues related to oceans, the law of the sea, and the polar regions " A September 25, 2017, blog post about the claim states the following: While dropping or even de-emphasizing China's Nine-Dash Line claim in favor of the Four Shas has important diplomatic and political implications, the legal significance of such a shift is harder to assess  The constituent parts of China's Four Sha claims have long been set forth publicly in Chinese domestic law and official statements  Based on what we know so far, these new Chinese legal justifications are no more lawful than China's Nine-Dash Line claim  The challenge for critics of Chinese claims in the South China Sea, however, will be effectively explaining and articulating why this shift does not actually strengthen China's legal claims in the South China Sea  The Four Sha claim has a long pedigree in Chinese law and practice  China's 1992 law on the territorial sea and contiguous zone, for example, declared that China's land territory included the "Dongsha island group, Xisha island group, Zhongsha island group, [and] Nansha island group " A 2016 white paper disputing the Philippines' claims in the South China Sea arbitral process similarly claimed that: China's Nanhai Zhudao (the South China Sea Islands) consist of Dongsha Qundao (the Dongsha Islands), Xisha Qundao (the Xisha Islands), Zhongsha Qundao (the Zhongsha Islands) and Nansha Qundao (the Nansha Islands)  These Islands include, among others, islands, reefs, shoals and cays of various numbers and sizes     In a 2016 white paper, Beijing stated that, "China has, based on Nanhai Zhudao [the "Four Sha"], internal waters, territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf " Neither the white paper nor the Beacon's report explain how China derives these maritime zones from the four island groups     Because China is not constituted "wholly by one or more archipelagos" (think Indonesia or the Philippines), the U S  and most countries would view straight baselines around an island group as contrary to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)     For this reason, this new Chinese legal strategy is even weaker than the Nine-Dash Line given that it clearly violates UNCLOS (e g , Articles 46 and 47)  Most Chinese defenses of the Nine Dash Line argued that the claim predated China's accession to UNCLOS and therefore not governed by it  Despite the legal weaknesses of its possible new strategy, China may still reap some benefits from trading the Nine-Dash Line for the Four Shas  First, the Chinese leadership may have realized that the Nine Dash Line has become too much of a diplomatic liability  The Nine-Dash Line is completely sui generis and no other state has made a historic maritime claim anything like it  For this reason, the Nine-Dash Line makes China an easy target for foreign criticism in a way that straight baselines around island groups probably will not  Second, by adopting language more similar to that found in UNCLOS, China may be betting that it can tamp down criticism, and win potential partners in the region     Third, and most intriguingly, China may have concluded that it can better shape (or undermine, depending on your point of view) the law of the sea by adopting UNCLOS terminology     So while we might be encouraged to see the Nine-Dash Line pass into the (legal) dustbins of history, we should be skeptical about whether the Four Shas herald a new more modest Chinese role in the South China Sea  China's legal justification for the Four Shas is just as weak, if not weaker, than its Nine-Dash Line claim  But explaining why the Four Shas is weak and lawless will require sophisticated legal analysis married with effective public messaging  Comparison with U S  Actions Toward Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Some observers have compared China's approach toward its near-seas region with the U S  approach toward the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico in the age of the Monroe Doctrine  It can be noted, however, that there are significant differences between China's approach to its near-seas region and the U S  approach—both in the 19 th and 20 th centuries and today—to the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico  Unlike China in its approach to its near-seas region, the United States has not asserted any form of sovereignty or historical rights over the broad waters of the Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico (or other sea areas beyond the 12-mile limit of U S  territorial waters), has not published anything akin to the nine-dash line for these waters (or other sea areas beyond the 12-mile limit), and does not contest the right of foreign naval forces to operate and engage in various activities in waters beyond the 12-mile limit  Appendix F  U S  Position on Operational Rights in EEZs This appendix presents additional background information on the U S  position on the issue of operational rights of military ships in the EEZs of other countries  Operational Rights in EEZs Regarding a coastal state's rights within its EEZ, Scot Marciel, then-Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, stated the following as part of his prepared statement for a July 15, 2009, hearing before the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: I would now like to discuss recent incidents involving China and the activities of U S  vessels in international waters within that country's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)  In March 2009, the survey ship USNS Impeccable was conducting routine operations, consistent with international law, in international waters in the South China Sea  Actions taken by Chinese fishing vessels to harass the Impeccable put ships of both sides at risk, interfered with freedom of navigation, and were inconsistent with the obligation for ships at sea to show due regard for the safety of other ships  We immediately protested those actions to the Chinese government, and urged that our differences be resolved through established mechanisms for dialogue—not through ship-to-ship confrontations that put sailors and vessels at risk  Our concern over that incident centered on China's conception of its legal authority over other countries' vessels operating in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the unsafe way China sought to assert what it considers its maritime rights  China's view of its rights on this specific point is not supported by international law  We have made that point clearly in discussions with the Chinese and underscored that U S  vessels will continue to operate lawfully in international waters as they have done in the past  As part of his prepared statement for the same hearing, Robert Scher, then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, Office of the Secretary of Defense, stated that we reject any nation's attempt to place limits on the exercise of high seas freedoms within an exclusive economic zones [sic] (EEZ)  Customary international law, as reflected in articles 58 and 87 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, guarantees to all nations the right to exercise within the EEZ, high seas freedoms of navigation and overflight, as well as the traditional uses of the ocean related to those freedoms  It has been the position of the United States since 1982 when the Convention was established, that the navigational rights and freedoms applicable within the EEZ are qualitatively and quantitatively the same as those rights and freedoms applicable on the high seas  We note that almost 40% of the world's oceans lie within the 200 nautical miles EEZs, and it is essential to the global economy and international peace and security that navigational rights and freedoms within the EEZ be vigorously asserted and preserved  As previously noted, our military activity in this region is routine and in accordance with customary international law as reflected in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention  As mentioned earlier in the report, if China's position on whether coastal states have a right under UNCLOS to regulate the activities of foreign military forces in their EEZs were to gain greater international acceptance under international law, it could substantially affect U S  naval operations not only in the SCS and ECS (see Figure F-1 for EEZs in the SCS and ECS), but around the world, which in turn could substantially affect the ability of the United States to use its military forces to defend various U S  interests overseas  As shown in Figure F-2 , significant portions of the world's oceans are claimable as EEZs, including high-priority U S  Navy operating areas in the Western Pacific, the Persian Gulf, and the Mediterranean Sea  Some observers, in commenting on China's resistance to U S  military survey and surveillance operations in China's EEZ, have argued that the United States would similarly dislike it if China or some other country were to conduct military survey or surveillance operations within the U S  EEZ  Skeptics of this view argue that U S  policy accepts the right of other countries to operate their military forces freely in waters outside the 12-mile U S  territorial waters limit, and that the United States during the Cold War acted in accordance with this position by not interfering with either Soviet ships (including intelligence-gathering vessels known as AGIs) that operated close to the United States or with Soviet bombers and surveillance aircraft that periodically flew close to U S  airspace  The U S  Navy states that When the commonly recognized outer limit of the territorial sea under international law was three nautical miles, the United States recognized the right of other states, including the Soviet Union, to exercise high seas freedoms, including surveillance and other military operations, beyond that limit  The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention moved the outer limit of the territorial sea to twelve nautical miles  In 1983, President Reagan declared that the United States would accept the balance of the interests relating to the traditional uses of the oceans reflected in the 1982 Convention and would act in accordance with those provisions in exercising its navigational and overflight rights as long as other states did likewise  He further proclaimed that all nations will continue to enjoy the high seas rights and freedoms that are not resource related, including the freedoms of navigation and overflight, in the Exclusive Economic Zone he established for the United States consistent with the 1982 Convention  DOD states that the PLA Navy has begun to conduct military activities within the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of other nations, without the permission of those coastal states  Of note, the United States has observed over the past year several instances of Chinese naval activities in the EEZ around Guam and Hawaii  One of those instances was during the execution of the annual Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise in July/August 2012  While the United States considers the PLA Navy activities in its EEZ to be lawful, the activity undercuts China's decades-old position that similar foreign military activities in China's EEZ are unlawful  In July 2014, China participated, for the first time, in the biennial U S -led Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercise, the world's largest multilateral naval exercise  In addition to the four ships that China sent to participate in RIMPAC, China sent an uninvited intelligence-gathering ship to observe the exercise without participating in it  The ship conducted operations inside U S  EEZ off Hawaii, where the exercise was located  A July 29, 2014, press report stated that The high profile story of a Chinese surveillance ship off the cost of Hawaii could have a positive aspect for U S  operations in the Pacific, the head of U S  Pacific Command (PACOM) said in a Tuesday [July 29] afternoon briefing with reporters at the Pentagon  "The good news about this is that it's a recognition, I think, or acceptance by the Chinese for what we've been saying to them for sometime," PACOM commander Adm  Samuel Locklear told reporters  "Military operations and survey operations in another country's [Exclusive Economic Zone]—where you have your own national security interest—are within international law and are acceptable  This is a fundamental right nations have " One observer stated the following: The unprecedented decision [by China] to send a surveillance vessel while also participating in the RIMPAC exercises calls China's proclaimed stance on international navigation rights [in EEZ waters] into question    During the Cold War, the U S  and Soviets were known for spying on each other's exercises  More recently, Beijing sent what U S  Pacific Fleet spokesman Captain Darryn James called "a similar AGI ship" to Hawaii to monitor RIMPAC 2012—though that year, China was not an official participant in the exercises         the spy ship's presence appears inconsistent with China's stance on military activities in Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)     That Beijing's AGI [intelligence-gathering ship] is currently stationed off the coast of Hawaii suggests either a double standard that could complicate military relations between the United States and China, or that some such surveillance activities are indeed legitimate—and that China should clarify its position on them to avoid perceptions that it is trying to have things both ways     In its response to the Chinese vessel's presence, the USN has shown characteristic restraint  Official American policy permits surveillance operations within a nation's EEZ, provided they remain outside of that nation's 12-nautical mile territorial sea (an EEZ extends from 12 to 200 nautical miles unless this would overlap with another nations' EEZ)  U S  military statements reflect that position unambiguously     That consistent policy stance and accompanying restraint have characterized the U S  attitude toward foreign surveillance activity since the Cold War  Then, the Soviets were known for sending converted fishing ships equipped with surveillance equipment to the U S  coast, as well as foreign bases, maritime choke points, and testing sites  The U S  was similarly restrained in 2012, when China first sent an AGI to observe RIMPAC     China has, then, sent a surveillance ship to observe RIMPAC in what appears to be a decidedly intentional, coordinated move—and in a gesture that appears to contradict previous Chinese policy regarding surveillance and research operations (SROs)  The U S  supports universal freedom of navigation and the right to conduct SROs in international waters, including EEZs, hence its restraint when responding to the current presence of the Chinese AGI  But the PRC opposes such activities, particularly on the part of the U S , in its own EEZ     How then to reconcile the RIMPAC AGI with China's stand on surveillance activities? China maintains that its current actions are fully legal, and that there is a distinct difference between its operations off Hawaii and those of foreign powers in its EEZ  The PLAN's designated point of contact declined to provide information and directed inquiries to China's Defense Ministry  In a faxed statement to Reuters, the Defense Ministry stated that Chinese vessels had the right to operate "in waters outside of other country's territorial waters," and that "China respects the rights granted under international law to relevant littoral states, and hopes that relevant countries can respect the legal rights Chinese ships have " It did not elaborate  As a recent Global Times article hinted—China's position on military activities in EEZs is based on a legal reading that stresses the importance of domestic laws  According to China maritime legal specialist Isaac Kardon, China interprets the EEZ articles in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as granting a coastal state jurisdiction to enforce its domestic laws prohibiting certain military activities—e g , those that it interprets to threaten national security, economic rights, or environmental protection—in its EEZ  China's domestic laws include such provisions, while those of the United States do not  Those rules would allow China to justify its seemingly contradictory approach to AGI operations—or, as Kardon put it, "to have their cake and eat it too " Therefore, under the Chinese interpretation of UNCLOS, its actions are neither hypocritical nor illegal—yet do not justify similar surveillance against China  Here, noted legal scholar Jerome Cohen emphasizes, the U S  position remains the globally dominant view—"since most nations believe the coastal state has no right to forbid surveillance in its EEZ, they do not have domestic laws that do so " This renders China's attempted constraints legally problematic, since "international law is based on reciprocity " To explain his interpretation of Beijing's likely approach, Cohen invokes the observation that a French commentator made several decades ago in the context of discussing China's international law policy regarding domestic legal issues: "I demand freedom from you in the name of your principles  I deny it to you in the name of mine " Based on his personal experience interacting with Chinese officials and legal experts, Kardon adds, "China is increasingly confident that its interpretation of some key rules and—most critically—its practices reinforcing that interpretation can over time shape the Law of the Sea regime to suit its preferences " But China is not putting all its eggs in that basket  There are increasing indications that it is attempting to promote its EEZ approach vis-à-vis the U S  not legally but politically  "Beijing is shifting from rules- to relations-based objections," Naval War College China Maritime Studies Institute Director Peter Dutton observes  "In this context, its surveillance operations in undisputed U S  EEZs portend an important shift, but that does not mean that China will be more flexible in the East or South China Seas " The quasi-authoritative Chinese commentary that has emerged thus far supports this interpretation     [A recent statement from a Chinese official] suggests that Beijing will increasingly oppose U S  SROs on the grounds that they are incompatible with the stable, cooperative Sino-American relationship that Beijing and Washington have committed to cultivating  The Obama Administration must ensure that the "new-type Navy-to-Navy relations" that Chinese Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Wu Shengli has advocated to his U S  counterpart does not contain expectations that U S  SROs will be reduced in nature, scope, or frequency     China's conducting military activities in a foreign EEZ implies that, under its interpretation, some such operations are indeed legal  It therefore falls to China now to clarify its stance—to explain why its operations are consistent with international law, and what sets them apart from apparently similar American activities  If China does not explain away the apparent contradiction in a convincing fashion, it risks stirring up increased international resentment—and undermining its relationship with the U S  Beijing is currently engaging in activities very much like those it has vociferously opposed  That suggests the promotion of a double standard untenable in the international system, and very much at odds with the relationships based on reciprocity, respect, and cooperation that China purports to promote     If, however, China chooses to remain silent, it will likely have to accept—at least tacitly, without harassing—U S  surveillance missions in its claimed EEZ  So, as we watch for clarification on Beijing's legal interpretation, it will also be important to watch for indications regarding the next SROs in China's EEZ  In September 2014, a Chinese surveillance ship operated in U S  EEZ waters near Guam as it observed a joint-service U S  military exercise called Valiant Shield  A U S  spokesperson for the exercise stated the following: "We'd like to reinforce that military operations in international commons and outside of territorial waters and airspace is a fundamental right that all nations have     The Chinese were following international norms, which is completely acceptable " Appendix G  Options Suggested by Observers for Strengthening U S  Actions This appendix presents a bibliography of some recent writings by observers who have suggested options (or are reporting on options suggested by others) for strengthening U S  actions for responding to China's actions in the SCS and ECS, organized by date, beginning with the most-recent item  Andrew S  Erickson, "Maritime Numbers Game, Understanding and Responding to China's Three Sea Forces," Indo-Pacific Defense Forum , January 28, 2019  James R  Holmes, "Use It or Lose It: Seagoing Nations Must Defend Embattled Waterways," The Hill , January 27, 2019  Gregory Poling and Eric Sayers, "Time to Make Good on the U S -Philippine Alliance," War on the Rocks , January 21, 2019  Gregory Poling and Bonnie S  Glaser, "How the U S  Can Step Up in the South China Sea," Foreign Affairs , January 16, 2019  Zack Cooper and Gregory Poling, "America's Freedom of Navigation Operations Are Lost at Sea, Far Wider Measures Are Needed to Challenge Beijing's Maritime Aggression," Foreign Policy , January 8, 2019  Andrew S  Erickson, "Shining a Spotlight: Revealing China's Maritime Militia to Deter its Use," National Interest , November 25, 2018  Eric Sayers, "Assessing America's Indo-Pacific Budget Shortfall," War on the Rocks , November 15, 2018  Patrick N  Cronin and Richard Javad Heydarian, "This Is How America and the Philippines Can Upgrade Their Alliance," National Interest , November 12, 2018  John Lee, Freedom of Navigation and East Asian Stability: Countering Beijing's Campaign of Historical Revisionism ," Hudson Institute, November 2018, 8 pp  Ryan Martinson and Peter Dutton, "Chinese Scientists Want to Conduct Research in U S  Waters—Should Washington Let Them?" National Interest , November 4, 2018  Hunter Stires, "Understanding and Defeating China's Maritime Insurgency in the South china Sea," National Interest , November 1, 2018  Robert D  Kaplan, "How President Trump Is Helping Beijing Win in the South China Sea," Washington Post , October 9, 2018  Tuan Pham, "China's Worth Nightmare: RIMPAC 2020 in the South China Sea?" National Interest , September 29, 2018  Patrick M  Cronin, "China is Waging a Maritime Insurgency in the South China Sea  It's Time for the Unitd States to Counter It " National Interest , August 6, 2018  Shigeki Sakamoto, "China's South China Sea Project Must Not Succeed; The International Community Shouldn't Quietly Let China Ignore the 2016 [Arbitral Tribunal] Decision " Diplomat , August 6, 2018  James Amedeo, "America Needs a Clear Strategy to Counter China's Expansion in the South China Sea," National Interest , August 1, 2018  Lynn Kuok, "Countering China's Actions in the South China Sea," Lawfare , August 1, 2018  Timothy Perry, "Use Maritime-Law Trends to Offset Beijing's Gains in the South China Sea," Defense One , July 24, 2018  J  Michael Cole, "It's Time to Stop China's Seaward Expansion," National Interest , July 21, 2018  Lindsey W  Ford, "Was China's RIMPAC Exclusion An Opening or a Wasted Shot?" East Asia Forum , July 20, 2018  Lynn Kuok, "China Is Winning in the South China Sea," Wall Street Journal , July 17, 2018  "Washington and Its Allies Need to Contain Beijing," Financial Times , July 1, 2018  Patrick M  Cronin and Melodiw Ha, "Toward a New maritime Strategy in the South China Sea," The Diplomat , June 22, 2018  (A similar version was posted as: Patrick M  Cronin and Melodie Ha, "Toward a New Maritime Strategy in the South China Sea," CSIS, June 21, 2018 (PacNet #42)  Paul J  Leaf, "Taiwan and the South China Sea Must Be Taken Off the Back Burner," National Interest , June 18, 2018  Robert E  McCoy, "A Better Way to Repel China in the South China Sea," Asia Times , June 8, 2018  Robert Farley, "The South China Sea Conundrum for the United States," The Diplomat , June 5 2018  Joel Gehrke, "Marco Rubio: US Must Develop Plan to 'Destroy' Chinese Assets in South China Sea," Washington Examiner , June 4, 2018  Duncan DeAeth, "Taiwan Should Invite US to Open Military Base on Taiping Island, Says DPP Think-Tank," Taiwan News , June 4, 2018  Julian Ku, "It's Time for South China Sea Economic Sanctions," Lawfare , June 1, 2018  Eric Sayers, "Time to Launch a Combined Maritime Task Force for the Pacific," War on the Rocks , June 1, 2018  Matthew Krull, "America's Annual Naval Patrol Report and How to Fix It," National Interest , May 29, 2018  Tuan N  Pham, "A Sign of the Times: China's Recent Actions and the Undermining of Global Rules, Pt  3," CIMSEC (Center for International Maritime Security), May 24, 2018  Ryan D  Martinson and Andrew Erickson, "Re-Orienting American Seapower for the China Challenge," War on the Rocks , May 10, 2018  Ben Cipperley, "In the Era of Great Power Competition, the US Needs to Step Up Its Game," The Diplomat , May 8, 2018  Stephen Bryen, "How to Counter China's Fortified Islands in South China Sea," Asia Times , May 5, 2018  Ely Ratner, "Exposing China's Actions in the South China Sea," Council on Foreign Relations, April 6, 2018  Shawn Lansing, "A White Hull Approach to Taming the Dragon: Using the Coast Guard to Counter China," War on the Rocks , February 22, 2018  Dean Cheng, "Wanted: A Strategy to Limit China's Grand Plans for the South China Sea," National Interest , January 30, 2018  Hal Brands, "China Hasn't Won the Pacific (Unless You Think It Has)," Bloomberg , January 5, 2018 

ground_truth: Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution provides that the President shall appoint officers of the United States "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." This report describes the process by which the Senate provides advice and consent on presidential nominations, including receipt and referral of nominations, committee practices, and floor procedure. Committees play the central role in the process through investigations and hearings. Senate Rule XXXI provides that nominations shall be referred to appropriate committees "unless otherwise ordered." Most nominations are referred, although a Senate standing order provides that some "privileged" nominations to specified positions will not be referred unless requested by a Senator. The Senate rule concerning committee jurisdictions (Rule XXV) broadly defines issue areas for committees, and the same jurisdictional statements generally apply to nominations as well as legislation. A committee often gathers information about a nominee either before or instead of a formal hearing. A committee considering a nomination has four options. It can report the nomination to the Senate favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation, or it can choose to take no action. It is more common for a committee to take no action on a nomination than to reject a nominee outright. The Senate handles executive business, which includes both nominations and treaties, separately from its legislative business. All nominations reported from committee are listed on the Executive Calendar, a separate document from the Calendar of Business, which lists pending bills and resolutions. Generally speaking, the majority leader schedules floor consideration of nominations on the Calendar. Nominations are considered in "executive session," a parliamentary form of the Senate in session that has its own journal and, to some extent, its own rules of procedure. The Senate can call up a nomination expeditiously, because a motion to enter executive session to consider a specific nomination on the Calendar is not debatable. This motion requires a majority of Senators present and voting, a quorum being present, for approval. After a nomination has been called up, the question before the Senate is "will the Senate advise and consent to this nomination?" A majority of Senators voting is required to approve a nomination. However, Senate rules place no limit on how long a nomination may be debated, and ending consideration could require invoking cloture. On April 6, 2017, the Senate reinterpreted Rule XXII in order to allow cloture to be invoked on nominations to the Supreme Court by a majority of Senators voting. This expanded the results of similar actions taken by the Senate in November 2013, which changed the cloture vote requirement to a majority for nominations other than to the Supreme Court. After the 2013 decision, the number of nominations subjected to a cloture process increased. On April 3, 2019, the Senate reinterpreted Rule XXII again. The Senate reduced, from 30 hours to 2 hours, the maximum time nominations can be considered after cloture has been invoked. This change applied to all executive branch nominations except to high-level positions such as heads of departments, and it applied to all judicial nominations except to the Supreme Court and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The full impact of this change is difficult to assess at this time, but it is likely to shorten the time between a cloture vote and a vote on the nomination. If Senators respond as they did to the last reinterpretation of the cloture rule, it might also increase the number of nominations subjected to a cloture process. Nominations that are pending when the Senate adjourns sine die at the end of a session or recesses for more than 30 days are returned to the President unless the Senate, by unanimous consent, waives the rule requiring their return (Senate Rule XXXI, clause 6). If a nomination is returned, and the President still desires Senate consideration, he must submit a new nomination.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution provides that the President shall appoint officers of the United States "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate " The method by which the Senate provides advice and consent on presidential nominations, referred to broadly as the confirmation process, serves several purposes  First, largely through committee investigations and hearings, the confirmation process allows the Senate to examine the qualifications of nominees and any potential conflicts of interest  Second, Senators can influence policy through the confirmation process, either by rejecting nominees or by extracting promises from nominees before granting consent  Also, the Senate sometimes has delayed the confirmation process in order to increase its influence with the executive branch on unrelated matters  Senate confirmation is required for several categories of government officials  Military appointments and promotions make up the majority of nominations, approximately 65,000 per two-year Congress, and most are confirmed routinely  Each Congress, the Senate also considers approximately 2,000 civilian nominations, and, again, many of them, such as appointments to or promotions in the Foreign Service, are routine  Civilian nominations considered by the Senate also include federal judges and specified officers in executive departments, independent agencies, and regulatory boards and commissions  Many presidential appointees are confirmed routinely by the Senate  With tens of thousands of nominations each Congress, the Senate cannot possibly consider them all in detail  A regularized process facilitates quick action on thousands of government positions  The Senate may approve en bloc hundreds of nominations at a time, especially military appointments and promotions  The process also allows for close scrutiny of candidates when necessary  Each year, a few hundred nominees to high-level positions are regularly subject to Senate investigations and public hearings  Most of these are routinely approved, while a small number of nominations are disputed and receive more attention from the media and Congress  Judicial nominations, particularly Supreme Court appointees, are generally subject to greater scrutiny than nominations to executive posts, partly because judges may serve for life  Among the executive branch positions, nominees for policymaking positions are more likely to be examined closely, and are slightly less likely to be confirmed, than nominees for non-policy positions  There are several reasons that the Senate confirms a high percentage of nominations  Most nominations and promotions are not to policymaking positions and are of less interest to the Senate  In addition, some sentiment exists in the Senate that the selection of persons to fill executive branch positions is largely a presidential prerogative  Historically, the President has been granted wide latitude in the selection of his Cabinet and other high-ranking executive branch officials  Another important reason for the high percentage of confirmations is that Senators are often involved in the nomination stage  The President would prefer a smooth and fast confirmation process, so he may decide to consult with Senators prior to choosing a nominee  Senators most likely to be consulted, typically by White House congressional relations staff, are Senators from a nominee's home state, leaders of the committee of jurisdiction, and leaders of the President's party in the Senate  Senators of the President's party are sometimes invited to express opinions or even propose candidates for federal appointments in their own states  There is a long-standing custom of "senatorial courtesy," whereby the Senate will sometimes decline to proceed on a nomination if a home-state Senator expresses opposition  Positions subject to senatorial courtesy include U S  attorneys, U S  marshals, and U S  district judges  Over the past decade, Senators have expressed concerns over various aspects of the confirmation process, including the rate of confirmation for high-ranking executive branch positions and judgeships, as well as the speed of Senate action on routine nominations  When the Senate is controlled by the party of the President, this concern has often been raised as a complaint that minority party Senators are disputing a higher number of nominations, and have increasingly used their leverage under Senate proceedings to delay or even block their consideration  These concerns have led the Senate to make several changes to the confirmation process since 2011  The changes are taken into account in the following description of the process and are described in detail in other CRS Reports  The President customarily sends nomination messages to the Senate in writing  Once received, nominations are numbered by the executive clerk and read on the floor  The clerk actually assigns numbers to the presidential messages, not to individual nominations, so a message listing several nominations would receive a single number  Except by unanimous consent, the Senate cannot vote on nominations the day they are received, and most are referred immediately to committees  Senate Rule XXXI provides that nominations shall be referred to appropriate committees "unless otherwise ordered " A standing order of the Senate provides that some nominations to specified positions will not be referred unless a Senator requests referral  Instead of being immediately referred, the nominations are instead listed in a special section of the Executive Calendar , a document distributed daily to congressional offices and available online  This section of the Calendar is titled "Privileged Nominations " After the chair of the committee with jurisdiction over a nomination has notified the executive clerk that biographical and financial information on the nominee has been received, this is indicated in the Calendar  After 10 days, the nomination is moved from the "Privileged Nominations" section of the Calendar and placed on the "Nominations" section with the same status as a nomination that had been reported by a committee  (See " Executive Calendar " below ) Importantly, at any time that the nomination is listed in the new section of the Executive Calendar , any Senator can request that a nomination be referred, and it is then sent to the appropriate committee of jurisdiction  Formally the presiding officer, but administratively the executive clerk's office, refers the nominations to committees according to the Senate's rules and precedents  The Senate rule concerning committee jurisdictions (Rule XXV) broadly defines issue areas for committees, and the same jurisdictional statements generally apply to nominations as well as legislation  An executive department nomination can be expected to be referred to the committee with jurisdiction over legislation concerning that department or to the committee that handled the legislation creating the position  Judicial branch nominations, including judges, U S  attorneys, and U S  marshals, are under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee  In some instances, the committee of jurisdiction for a nomination has been set in statute  The number of nominations referred to various committees differs considerably  The Committee on Armed Services, which handles all military appointments and promotions, receives the most  The two other committees with major confirmation responsibilities are the Committee on the Judiciary, with its jurisdiction over nominations in the judicial branch, and the Committee on Foreign Relations, which considers ambassadorial and other diplomatic appointments  Occasionally, nominations are referred to more than one committee, either jointly or sequentially  A joint referral might occur when the jurisdictional claim of two committees is essentially equal  In such cases, both committees must report on the nomination before the whole Senate can act on it, unless the Senate discharges one or both committees  If two committees have unequal jurisdictional claims, then the nomination is more likely to be sequentially referred  In this case, the first committee must report the nomination before it is sequentially referred to the second committee  The second referral often is subject to a requirement that the committee report within a certain number of days  Typically, nominations are jointly or sequentially referred by unanimous consent  Sometimes the unanimous consent agreement applies to all future nominations to a position or category of positions  Most Senate committees that consider nominations have written rules concerning the process  Although committee rules vary, most contain standards concerning information to be gathered from a nominee  Many committees expect a biographical resumé and some kind of financial statement listing assets and liabilities  Some specify the terms under which financial statements will or will not be made public  Committee rules also frequently contain timetables outlining the minimum layover required between committee actions  A common timing provision is a requirement that nominations be held for one or two weeks before the committee proceeds to a hearing or a vote, permitting Senators time to review a nomination before committee consideration  Other committee rules specifically mandate a delay between steps of the process, such as the receipt of pre-hearing information and the date of the hearing, or the distribution of hearing transcripts and the committee vote on the nomination  Some of the written rules also contain provisions for the rules to be waived by majority vote, by unanimous consent, or by the chair and the ranking minority Member  Committees often gather and review information about a nominee either before or instead of a formal hearing  Because the executive branch acts first in selecting a nominee, congressional committees are sometimes able to rely partially on any field investigations and reports conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)  Records of FBI investigations are provided only to the White House, although a report or a summary of a report may be shared, with the President's authorization, with Senators on the relevant committee  The practices of the committees with regard to FBI materials vary  Some rarely if ever request them  On other committees, the chair and ranking Member review any FBI report or summary, but on some committees these materials are available to any Senator upon request  Committee staff usually do not review FBI materials  Almost all nominees are also asked by the Office of the Counsel to the President to complete an "Executive Personnel Financial Disclosure Report, SF-278," which is reviewed and certified by the relevant agency as well as the Director of the Office of Government Ethics  The documents are then forwarded to the relevant committee, along with opinion letters from ethics officers in the relevant agency and the director of the Office of Government Ethics  In contrast to FBI reports, financial disclosure forms are made public  All committees review financial disclosure reports and some make them available in committee offices to Members, staff, and the public  To varying degrees, committees also conduct their own information-gathering exercises  Some committees, after reviewing responses to their standard questionnaire, might ask a nominee to complete a second questionnaire  Committees frequently require that written responses to these questionnaires be submitted before a hearing is scheduled  The Committee on the Judiciary sends form letters, sometimes called "blue slips," to Senators from a nominee's home state to determine whether they support the nomination  The Committee on the Judiciary also has its own investigative staff  The Committee on Rules and Administration handles relatively few nominations and conducts its own investigations, sometimes with the assistance of the FBI or the Government Accountability Office (GAO)  It is not unusual for nominees to meet with committee staff prior to a hearing  High-level nominees may meet privately with Senators  Generally speaking, these meetings, sometimes initiated by the nominee, serve basically to acquaint the nominee with the Members and committee staff, and vice versa  They occasionally address substantive matters as well  A nominee also might meet with the committee's chief counsel to discuss the financial disclosure report and any potential conflict-of-interest issues  Historically, approximately half of all civilian appointees were confirmed without a hearing  All committees that receive nominations do hold hearings on some nominations, and the likelihood of hearings varies with the importance of the position and the workload of the committee  The Committee on the Judiciary, for example, which receives a large number of nominations, does not usually hold hearings for U S  attorneys, U S  marshals, or members of part-time commissions  The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, on the other hand, typically hold hearings on most nominations that are referred to them  Committees often combine related nominations into a single hearing  The length and nature of hearings varies  One or both home-state Senators will often introduce a nominee at a hearing  The nominee typically testifies at the hearing, and occasionally the committee will invite other witnesses, including Members of the House of Representatives, to testify as well  Some hearings function as routine welcomes, while others are directed at influencing the policy program of an appointee  In addition to policy views, hearings might address the nominee's qualifications and potential conflicts of interest  Senators also might take the opportunity to ask questions of particular concern to them or their constituents  Committees sometimes send questions to nominees in advance of a hearing and ask for written responses  Nominees also might be asked to respond in writing to additional questions after a hearing  Especially for high-level positions, the nomination hearing may be only the first of many times an individual will be asked to testify before a committee  Therefore, the committee often gains a commitment from the nominee to be cooperative with future oversight activities of the committee  Hearings, under Senate Rule XXVI, are open to the public unless closed by majority vote for one of the reasons specified in the rule  Witness testimony is sometimes made available online through the website of the relevant committee and also through several commercial services, including Congressional Quarterly  Most committees print the hearings, although no rule requires it  The number of Senators necessary to constitute a quorum for the purpose of taking testimony varies from committee to committee, but it is usually smaller than a majority of the membership  A committee considering a nomination has four options  It may report the nomination to the Senate favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation, or it may choose to take no action at all  It is more common for a committee to take no action on a nomination than to report unfavorably  Particularly for policymaking positions, committees sometimes report a nomination favorably, subject to the commitment of the nominee to testify before a Senate committee  Sometimes, committees choose to report a nomination without recommendation  Even if a majority of Senators on a committee do not agree that a nomination should be reported favorably, a majority might agree to report a nomination without a recommendation in order to permit a vote by the whole Senate  The timing of a vote to report a nomination varies in accordance with committee rules and practice  Most committees do not vote to report a nomination on the same day that they hold a hearing, but instead wait until the next meeting of the committee  Senate Rule XXVI, clause 7(a)(1) requires that a quorum for making a recommendation on a nomination consist of a majority of the membership of the committee  In most cases, the number of Senators necessary to constitute a quorum for making a recommendation on a nomination to the Senate is the same that the committee requires for reporting a measure  Every committee reports a majority of nominations favorably  Most of the time, committees do not formally present reports on nominations on the floor of the Senate  Instead, committee staff prepare the appropriate paperwork on behalf of the committee chair and file it with the clerk  The executive clerk then arranges for the nomination to be printed in the Congressional Record and placed on the Executive Calendar   If a report were presented on the floor, it would have to be done in executive session  Executive session and the Executive Calendar will be discussed in the next section  According to Senate Rule XXXI, the Senate cannot vote on a nomination the same day it is reported except by unanimous consent  It is fairly common for the Senate to discharge a committee from consideration of an unreported nomination by unanimous consent  This removes the nomination from the committee in order to allow the full Senate to consider it  When the Senate discharges a committee by unanimous consent, it is doing so with the support of the committee for the purposes of simplifying the process  It is unusual for Senators to attempt to discharge a committee by motion or resolution, instead of by unanimous consent, and only a few attempts have ever been successful  Senate Rule XVII does permit any Senator to submit a motion or resolution that a committee be discharged from the consideration of a subject referred to it  The discharge process, however, does not allow a simple majority to quickly initiate consideration of a nomination still in committee  It requires several steps and, most notably, a motion or resolution to discharge is debatable  This means that a cloture process may be necessary to discharge a committee  Cloture on a discharge motion or resolution requires the support of three-fifths of the Senate, usually 60 Senators, and several days  The Senate handles executive business, which includes both nominations and treaties, separately from its legislative business  All nominations reported from committee, regardless of whether they were reported favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation, are listed on the Executive Calendar , a separate document from the Calendar of Business , which lists pending bills and resolutions  Usually, the majority leader schedules the consideration of nominations on the Calendar  Nominations are considered in executive session, a parliamentary form of the Senate in session that has its own journal and, to some extent, its own rules of procedure  After a committee reports a nomination or is discharged from considering it, the nomination is assigned a number by the executive clerk and placed on the Executive Calendar   Under a standing order of the Senate, certain nominations might also be placed in this status on the Executive Calendar after certain informational and time requirements are met  The list of nominations in the Executive Calendar includes basic information such as the name and office of the nominee, the name of the previous holder of the office, and whether the committee reported the nomination favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation  Long lists of routine nominations are printed in the Congressional Record and identified only by a short title in the Executive Calendar , such as "Foreign Service nominations (84) beginning John F  Aloia, and ending Paul G  Churchill " In addition to reported nominations and treaties, the Executive Calendar contains the text of any unanimous consent agreements concerning executive business  The Executive Calendar is distributed to Senate personal offices and committee offices when there is business on it  It is also available online by following the link to "Calendars and Schedules" on the Virtual Reference Desk under the Reference tab of the Senate website (www Senate gov)   Business on the Executive Calendar , which consists of nominations and treaties, is considered in executive session  In contrast, all measures and matters associated with lawmaking are considered in legislative session  Until 1929 executive sessions were also closed to the public, but now they are open unless ordered otherwise by the Senate  The Senate usually begins the day in legislative session and enters executive session either by a non-debatable motion or, far more often, by unanimous consent  Only if the Senate adjourned or recessed while in executive session would the next meeting automatically open in executive session  The motion to go into executive session can be offered at any time, is not debatable, and cannot be laid upon the table  All business concerning nominations, including seemingly routine matters such as requests for joint referral or motions to print hearings, must be done in executive session  In practice, Senators often make such motions or unanimous consent requests "as if in executive session " These usually brief proceedings during a legislative session do not constitute an official executive session  In addition, at the start of each Congress, the Senate adopts a standing order, by unanimous consent, that allows the Senate to receive nominations from the President and for them to be referred to committees even on days when the Senate does not meet in executive session  The majority leader, by custom, makes most motions and requests that determine when or whether a nomination will be called up for consideration  For example, the majority leader may move or ask unanimous consent to "immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on the Executive Calendar     " By precedent, the motion to go into executive session to take up a specified nomination is not debatable  The nomination itself, however, is debatable  It is not in order for a Senator to move to consider a nomination that is not on the Calendar, and, except by unanimous consent, a nomination on the Calendar cannot be taken up until it has been on the Calendar at least one day (Rule XXXI, clause 1)  A day for this purpose is a calendar day  In other words, a nomination reported and placed on the Calendar on a Monday can be considered on Tuesday, even if it is the same legislative day  If the Senate simply resolved into executive session, the business immediately pending would be the first item on the Executive Calendar   A motion to proceed to another matter on the Calendar would be debatable and subject to a filibuster  For this reason, the Senate does not begin consideration of executive business this way  Instead, the motion made to call up a nomination is a motion to proceed to executive session to consider that specific nomination  If the Senate is already in executive session, and the Leader wishes to call up a nomination, the Leader will first move that the Senate enter legislative session and then that the Senate enter executive session to take up the nomination  Both motions (to enter legislative session and to enter executive session) are not subject to debate and are decided by a simple majority  Typically they are approved by voice vote  The question before the Senate when a nomination is taken up is "will the Senate advise and consent to this nomination?" The Senate can approve or reject a nomination  A majority of Senators present and voting, a quorum being present, is required to approve a nomination  According to Senate Rule XXXI, any Senator who voted with the majority on the nomination has the option of moving to reconsider a vote on the day of the vote or the next two days the Senate meets in executive session  Only one motion to reconsider is in order on each nomination, and often the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table, by unanimous consent, shortly after the vote on the nomination  This action prevents any subsequent attempt to reconsider  After the Senate acts on a nomination, the Secretary of the Senate attests to a resolution of confirmation or disapproval and transmits it to the White House  Many nominations are brought up by unanimous consent and approved without objection; routine nominations often are grouped by unanimous consent in order to be brought up and approved together, or en bloc   A small proportion of nominations, generally to higher-level positions, may need more consideration  When there is debate on a nomination, the chair of the committee usually makes an opening speech  For positions within a state, Senators from the state may wish to speak on the nominee, particularly if they were involved in the selection process  Under Senate rules, there are no time limits on debate except when conducted under cloture or a unanimous consent agreement  Senate Rule XXII provides a means to bring debate on a nomination to a close, if necessary  Under the terms of Rule XXII, at least 16 Senators sign a cloture motion to end debate on a pending nomination  The motion proposed is "to bring to a close the debate upon [the pending nomination] " A Senator can interrupt a Senator who is speaking to present a cloture motion  Cloture may be moved only on a question that is pending before the Senate; therefore, absent unanimous consent, the Senate must be in executive session and considering the nomination when the motion is filed  After the clerk reads the motion, the Senate returns to the business it was considering before the presentation of the motion  Unless a unanimous consent agreement provides otherwise, the Senate does not vote on the cloture motion until the second day of session after the day it is presented; for example, if the motion was presented on a Monday, the Senate would act on it on Wednesday  One hour after the Senate has convened on the day the motion "ripened," the presiding officer can interrupt the proceedings during an executive session to present a cloture motion for a vote  If the Senate is in legislative session when the time arrives for voting on the cloture motion, it proceeds into executive session prior to taking action on the cloture petition  According to Rule XXII, the presiding officer first directs the clerk to call the roll to ascertain that a quorum is present, although this requirement is often waived by unanimous consent  Senators then vote either yea or nay on the question: "Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" In April 2017, the Senate reinterpreted Rule XXII in order to allow cloture to be invoked on all nominations by a majority of Senators voting (a quorum being present), including Supreme Court justice nominations  This expanded the results of similar actions taken by the Senate in November 2013, which changed the cloture vote requirement to a majority for nominations except to the Supreme Court  Once cloture is invoked, for most nominations there can be a maximum of two hours of post-cloture consideration  The two hour maximum includes debate as well as any actions taken while the nomination is formally pending, including quorum calls  If cloture is invoked on nominations to the highest ranking executive branch positions, or on nominations to the Supreme Court or the U S  Circuit Court of Appeals, then the maximum time for consideration after cloture is invoked is 30 hours (see Table 1 )  Under the rule, the 2 or 30 hours is floor time spent considering the nomination in the Senate, not simply the passage of time  Thus, for time to count against the 2 or 30-hour maximum, the Senate must be in session and the question must be pending  Time spent in recess or adjournment does not count, and if the Senate were to take up other business by unanimous consent, the time spent on that other business also would not count against the post-cloture time  A hold is a request by a Senator to his or her party leader to prevent or delay action on a nomination or a bill  Holds are not mentioned in the rules or precedents of the Senate, and they are enforced only through the agenda decisions of party leaders  A standing order of the Senate aims to ensure that any Senator who places a hold on any matter (including a nomination) make public his or her objection to the matter  Senators have placed holds on nominations for a number of reasons  One common purpose is to give a Senator more time to review a nomination or to consult with the nominee  Senators may also place holds because they disagree with the policy positions of the nominee  Senators have also admitted to using holds in order to gain concessions from the executive branch on matters not directly related to the nomination  The Senate precedents reducing the threshold necessary to invoke cloture on nominations, and the recent precedent reducing the time necessary for a cloture process, could affect the practice of holds  In some sense, holds are connected to the Senate traditions of mutual deference, since they may have originated as requests for more time to examine a pending nomination or bill  The effectiveness of a hold, however, ultimately has been grounded in the power of the Senator placing the hold to filibuster the nomination and the difficulty of invoking cloture to overcome a filibuster  Invoking cloture is now easier because the support of fewer Senators is necessary, and in most cases, the floor time required for a cloture process is less  The large number of nominations submitted by the President for Senate consideration, however, might still lead Senators to seek unanimous consent to quickly approve nominations  On April 3, 2019, the Senate reinterpreted Senate Rule XXII to reduce, from 30 hours to 2 hours, the maximum time allowed for consideration of most nominations after cloture is invoked  The Senate took this step by reversing two rulings by the Presiding Officer  The first vote established that "postcloture time under rule XXII for all executive branch nominations other than a position at level 1 of the Executive Schedule under section 5312 of title 5 of the United States Code is 2 hours " On the second vote, the Senate established that "postcloture time under rule XXII for all judicial nominations, other than circuit courts or Supreme Court of the United States, is 2 hours" (see Table 1 )  It is uncommon for the Senate to reverse a decision by the Presiding Officer  Any Senator can attempt to reverse a ruling by making an appeal, and except in specific cases, appeals are decided by majority vote  In most circumstances, however, appeals are debatable, and therefore supermajority support (through a cloture process) is typically necessary to reach a vote to reverse a decision of the Presiding Officer  In the April 3 proceedings, however, the appeal was raised after cloture had been invoked  Senate Rule XXII states that after a successful cloture vote, "appeals from the decision of the Presiding Officer, shall be decided without debate " Therefore, when the Majority Leader appealed the rulings of the Presiding Officer, the questions on whether the ruling should stand as the judgment of the Senate received a vote without an opportunity for extended debate  The Senate voted that the ruling should not stand, and thereby upheld instead the position of the Majority Leader  The future impact of these decisions on the nominations process is difficult to assess  The immediate and obvious expected impact is that the time between a cloture vote and a confirmation vote will decrease  In recent years, a vote to confirm a nominee has typically occurred the day after cloture was invoked (or on the next day of Senate session)  Usually, Senators did not spend all of the time between the votes debating the nomination  Instead, Senators typically debated the nomination for some time post-cloture, but also usually entered into unanimous consent agreements that affected when the vote would occur  For example, it became common in recent Congresses for the Senate to agree, by unanimous consent, to consider the time the Senate spent in adjournment or recesses (e g , overnight) to count as post-cloture time  The cloture rule affected the time of the vote set by unanimous consent: the rule provided for up to 30 hours of consideration of the nomination, and the Senate would agree to vote on the nomination a day later—reflecting the approximate time that the Senate could have debated the nomination under the rule  Assuming the Senate continues to establish times for voting on nominations by unanimous consent, those negotiations will be affected by the reinterpretation of the rule  In the absence of a unanimous consent agreement, most nominations can now receive a vote two hours after a vote to invoke cloture  The two hours is not formally divided between the parties pursuant to the rule (or pursuant to the reinterpretation of the rule), but it might be divided, by unanimous consent, between the Majority and Minority Leader  Even without an explicit unanimous consent agreement, the Majority and Minority Leaders are recognized before any other Senators  In addition, a Senator can speak for a maximum of one hour post-cloture  As a result, the Majority Leader could claim the first hour, and the Minority Leader the second, or vice versa  (Of course, Senators could speak on a nomination at times other than after cloture has been invoked, even when the nomination is not formally pending before the Senate  ) It is also possible that the recent reinterpretation of the rule will affect how often the Senate relies on the cloture process to approve nominations  After the first reinterpretation of the cloture rule in 2013, the number of nominations subjected to cloture motions increased significantly in both of the Congresses when the Senate was controlled by the same party as the President (113 th (2013-2014) and 115 th (2017-2018) Congresses)  Nominations that are not confirmed or rejected are returned to the President at the end of a session or when the Senate adjourns or recesses for more than 30 days (Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6)  If the President still wants a nominee considered, he must submit a new nomination to the Senate  The Senate can, however, waive this rule by unanimous consent, and it often does to allow nominations to remain "in status quo" between the first and second sessions of a Congress or during a long recess  The majority leader or his designee also may exempt specific nominees by name from the unanimous consent agreement, allowing them to be returned during the recess or adjournment  The Constitution, in Article II, Section 2, grants the President the authority to fill temporarily vacancies that "may happen during the Recess of the Senate " These appointments do not require the advice and consent of the Senate; the appointees temporarily fill the vacancies without Senate confirmation  In most cases, recess appointees have also been nominated to the positions to which they were appointed  Furthermore, when a recess appointment is made of an individual previously nominated to the position, the President usually submits a new nomination to the Senate in order to comply with a provision of law affecting the pay of recess appointees (5 U S C  5503(a))  Recess appointments have sometimes been controversial and have occasionally led to inter-branch conflict 


Report 2:  5515 , the House agreed to by voice vote H Amdt  644 , an en bloc amendment including, inter alia, amendment number 91 as printed in H Rept  115-698 of May 21, 2018, providing for consideration of H R  5515   Amendment 91 added Section 1298, which states the following: SEC  1298  Modification to annual report on military and security developments involving the People's Republic of China  Paragraph (22) of section 1202(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65; 10 U S C  113 note), as most recently amended by section 1261 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91; 131 Stat  1688), is further amended by striking "activities in the South China Sea" and inserting the following: ""activities— "(A) in the South China Sea; "(B) in the East China Sea, including in the vicinity of the Senkaku islands; and "(C) in the Indian Ocean region "  In S  2987 as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee ( S Rept  115-262 of June 5, 2018), Section 1064 states the following: SEC  1064  United States policy with respect to freedom of navigation and overflight  (a) Declaration of policy —It is the policy of the United States to fly, sail, and operate throughout the oceans, seas, and airspace of the world wherever international law allows  (b) Implementation of policy —In furtherance of the policy set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense should— (1) plan and execute a robust series of routine and regular air and naval presence missions throughout the world and throughout the year, including for critical transportation corridors and key routes for global commerce; (2) in addition to the missions executed pursuant to paragraph (1), execute routine and regular air and maritime freedom of navigation operations throughout the year, in accordance with international law, including the use of expanded military options and maneuvers beyond innocent passage; and (3) to the maximum extent practicable, execute the missions pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) with regional partner countries and allies of the United States  Section 1241 of S  2987 as reported states the following: SEC  1241  Redesignation, expansion, and extension of Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative  (a) Redesignation as Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative — (1) IN GENERAL —Subsection (a)(2) of section 1263 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (10 U S C  333 note) is amended by striking "the 'Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative'" and inserting "the 'Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative'"  (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT —The heading of such section is amended to read as follows: "SEC  1263  Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative"  (b) Expansion — (1) EXPANSION OF REGION TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING —Subsection (a)(1) of such section is amended by inserting "and the Indian Ocean" after "South China Sea" in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)  (2) RECIPIENT COUNTRIES OF ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING GENERALLY —Subsection (b) of such section is amended— (A) in paragraph (2), by striking the comma at the end and inserting a period; and (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs: "(6) Bangladesh  "(7) Sri Lanka "  (3) COUNTRIES ELIGIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF CERTAIN INCREMENTAL EXPENSES —Subsection (e)(2) of such section is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(D) India "  (c) Extension —Subsection (h) of such section is amended by striking "September 30, 2020" and inserting "December 31, 2025"  Regarding Section 1241, S Rept  115-262 states the following: Redesignation, expansion, and extension of Southeast AsiaMaritime Security Initiative (sec  1241) The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1263 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) to: redesignate the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative as the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative; add Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as recipient countries of assistance and training; add India as a covered country eligible for payment of certain incremental expenses; and extend the authority under the section through December 31, 2025  The committee continues to strongly support efforts under the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative aimed at enhancing the capabilities of regional partners to more effectively exercise control over their maritime territory and to deter adversaries  The committee is encouraged by the progress that has been made under the initiative, and notes that to date, the Department of Defense has utilized the authority under section 1263 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), as amended, to support specified partner capacity-building efforts in the region, to include the provision of training, sustainment support, and participation in multilateral engagements  The committee recognizes that the initiative was designed to support a long-term capacity building effort, which will require increased resources in future years as requirements are established and refined, as programs mature, and as the regional security environment continues to evolve  The committee believes the Department's efforts to improve maritime domain awareness and maritime security should be fully integrated into a U S  strategy for a free and open Indo-Pacific  Therefore, the committee supports redesignating the authority under section 1263 as the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative, the inclusion of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as recipient countries, and the addition of India as a covered country to encourage its participation in regional security initiatives of this kind  Furthermore, as a demonstration of the United States' commitment to allies and partners in the region, the committee supports the extension of the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative through the end of 2025  Beyond the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative, the committee encourages the Department to make use of the full complement of security cooperation authorities available to the Department, particularly those under section 1241 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), to enhance the capabilities of foreign security partners in South and Southeast Asia to protect mutual security interests  (Pages 296-297) Section 1245 of S  2987 as reported states the following: SEC  1245  Prohibition on participation of the People's Republic of China in Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercises  (a) Sense of Congress —It is the sense of Congress that— (1) the pace and militarization by the Government of the People's Republic of China of land reclamation activities in the South China Sea is destabilizing the security of United States allies and partners and threatening United States core interests; (2) these activities of the Government of the People's Republic of China adversarially threaten the maritime security of the United States and our allies and partners; (3) no country that acts adversarially should be invited to multilateral exercises; and (4) the involvement of the Government of the People's Republic of China in multilateral exercises should undergo reevaluation until such behavior changes  (b) Conditions for future participation in RIMPAC —The Secretary of Defense shall not enable or facilitate the participation of the People's Republic of China in any Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercise unless the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that China has— (1) ceased all land reclamation activities in the South China Sea; (2) removed all weapons from its land reclamation sites; and (3) established a consistent four-year track record of taking actions toward stabilizing the region  A June 26, 2018, statement of Administration policy regarding S  2987 stated the following: Prohibition on Participation of the People's Republic of China in Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Naval Exercises  The Administration objects to section 1245 because China's participation in RIMPAC and other military-to-military events may be appropriate or inappropriate in any given year, depending on numerous other factors  Section 1245 would place restrictions on the Secretary of Defense's ability to manage a strategic relationship in the context of competition, limiting DOD's options on China and ability to act in the national security interest of the United States  Section 1251 of S  2987 as reported states the following: SEC  1251  Report on military and coercive activities of the People's Republic of China in South China Sea  (a) In general —Except as provided in subsection (d), immediately after the commencement of any significant reclamation or militarization activity by the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea, including any significant military deployment or operation or infrastructure construction, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the congressional defense committees, and release to the public, a report on the military and coercive activities of China in the South China Sea in connection with such activity  (b) Elements of report to public —Each report on a significant reclamation or militarization activity under subsection (a) shall include a short narrative on, and one or more corresponding images of, such significant reclamation or militarization activity  (c) Form — (1) SUBMITTAL TO CONGRESS —Any report under subsection (a) that is submitted to the congressional defense committees shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex  (2) RELEASE TO PUBLIC —If a report under subsection (a) is released to the public, such report shall be so released in unclassified form  (d) Waiver — (1) RELEASE OF REPORT TO PUBLIC —The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirement in subsection (a) for the release to the public of a report on a significant reclamation or militarization activity if the Secretary determines that the release to the public of a report on such activity under that subsection in the form required by subsection (c)(2) would have an adverse effect on the national security interests of the United States  (2) NOTICE TO CONGRESS —If the Secretary issues a waiver under paragraph (1) with respect to a report on an activity, not later than 48 hours after the Secretary issues such waiver, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees written notice of, and justification for, such waiver  Regarding Section 1251, S Rept  115-262 states the following: Report on military and coercive activities of the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea (sec  1251) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit to the congressional defense committees and release to the public, a report on the military and coercive activities of China in the South China Sea in connection with such activity immediately after the commencement of any significant reclamation or militarization activity by the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea, including any significant military deployment or operation or infrastructure construction  The committee is concerned that sufficient information has not been made publicly available in a timely fashion regarding China's reclamation and militarization activities of China in the South China Sea  Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to determine that the public interest in selective declassification of China's activities in the South China Sea outweighs the potential damage from disclosure  The Secretary should consider mandating that the directors of National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency provide the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) at the State Department with declassified aircraft-generated imagery and supporting analysis describing Chinese activities of concern  The committee also urges that the State Department brief and distribute the reports to the media and throughout Southeast Asia  (Page 300) In the conference report ( H Rept  115-874 of July 25, 2018) on H R  5515 / P L  115-232 of August 13, 2018, Section 1086 states the following: SEC  1086  UNITED STATES POLICY WITH RESPECT TO FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION AND OVERFLIGHT  (a) DECLARATION OF POLICY —It is the policy of the United States to fly, sail, and operate throughout the oceans, seas, and airspace of the world wherever international law allows  (b) IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY —In furtherance of the policy set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense should— (1) plan and execute a robust series of routine and regular air and naval presence missions throughout the world and throughout the year, including for critical transportation corridors and key routes for global commerce; (2) in addition to the missions executed pursuant to paragraph (1), execute routine and regular air and maritime freedom of navigation operations throughout the year, in accordance with international law, including, but not limited to, maneuvers beyond innocent passage; and (3) to the maximum extent practicable, execute the missions pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) with regional partner countries and allies of the United States  Section 1252 of H R  5515 states the following: SEC  1252  REDESIGNATION, EXPANSION, AND EXTENSION OF SOUTHEAST ASIA MARITIME SECURITY INITIATIVE  (a) REDESIGNATION AS INDO-PACIFIC MARITIME SECURITY INITIATIVE — (1) IN GENERAL —Subsection (a)(2) of section 1263 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (10 U S C  333 note) is amended by striking ''the 'Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative' '' and inserting ''the 'Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative' ''  (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT —The heading of such section is amended to read as follows: ''SEC  1263  INDO-PACIFIC MARITIME SECURITY INITIATIVE ''  (b) EXPANSION — (1) EXPANSION OF REGION TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING —Subsection (a)(1) of such section is amended by inserting ''and the Indian Ocean'' after ''South China Sea'' in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)  (2) RECIPIENT COUNTRIES OF ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING GENERALLY —Subsection (b) of such section is amended— (A) in paragraph (2), by striking the comma at the end and inserting a period; and (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs: ''(6) Bangladesh  ''(7) Sri Lanka ''  (3) COUNTRIES ELIGIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF CERTAIN INCREMENTAL EXPENSES —Subsection (e)(2) of such section is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ''(D) India ''  (c) EXTENSION —Subsection (h) of such section is amended by striking ''September 30, 2020'' and inserting ''December 31, 2025''  Section 1259 of H R  5515 states the following: SEC  1259  PROHIBITION ON PARTICIPATION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN RIM OF THE PACIFIC (RIMPAC) NAVAL EXERCISES  (a) CONDITIONS FOR FUTURE PARTICIPATION IN RIMPAC — (1) IN GENERAL —The Secretary of Defense shall not enable or facilitate the participation of the People's Republic of China in any Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercise unless the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that China has— (A) ceased all land reclamation activities in the South China Sea; (B) removed all weapons from its land reclamation sites; and (C) established a consistent four-year track record of taking actions toward stabilizing the region  (2) FORM —The certification under paragraph (1) shall be in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex as necessary  (b) NATIONAL SECURITY WAIVER — (1) IN GENERAL —The Secretary of Defense may waive the certification requirement under subsection (a) if the Secretary determines the waiver is in the national security interest of the United States and submits to the congressional defense committees a detailed justification for the waiver  (2) FORM —The justification required under paragraph (1) shall be in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex as necessary  Section 1262 of H R  5515 states the following: SEC  1262  REPORT ON MILITARY AND COERCIVE ACTIVITIES OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN SOUTH CHINA SEA  (a) IN GENERAL —Except as provided in subsection (d), immediately after the commencement of any significant reclamation, assertion of an excessive territorial claim, or militarization activity by the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea, including any significant military deployment or operation or infrastructure construction, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees, and release to the public, a report on the military and coercive activities of China in the South China Sea in connection with such activity  (b) ELEMENTS OF REPORT TO PUBLIC —Each report on the commencement of a significant reclamation, an assertion of an excessive territorial claim, or a militarization activity under subsection (a) shall include a short narrative on, and one or more corresponding images of, such commencement of a significant reclamation, assertion of an excessive territorial claim, or militarization activity  (c) FORM — (1) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS —Any report under subsection (a) that is submitted to the appropriate congressional committees shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex  (2) RELEASE TO PUBLIC —If a report under subsection (a) is released to the public, such report shall be so released in unclassified form  (d) WAIVER — (1) RELEASE OF REPORT TO PUBLIC —The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirement in subsection (a) for the release to the public of a report on the commencement of any significant reclamation, an assertion of an excessive territorial claim, or a militarization activity by the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea if the Secretary determines that the release to the public of a report on such activity under that subsection in the form required by subsection (c)(2) would have an adverse effect on the national security interests of the United States  (2) NOTICE TO CONGRESS —If the Secretary issues a waiver under paragraph (1) with respect to a report on an activity, not later than 48 hours after the Secretary issues such waiver, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees written notice of, and justification for, such waiver  (e) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED —In this section, the term ''appropriate congressional committees'' means— (1) the congressional defense committees; and (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives  Regarding Section 1262, H Rept  115-874 states the following: Report on military and coercive activities of the People's Republic of China in South China Sea (sec  1262) The House bill contained a provision (sec  1261) that would require Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, to submit a report to appropriate congressional committees on a quarterly basis describing China's activities in the Indo-Pacific region, and to disseminate the report to regional allies and partners and provide public notification, as appropriate  The provision would require that the dissemination and availability of the report and public notification be made in a manner consistent with national security and the protection of classified national security information  The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec  1251) that would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit to the congressional defense committees and release to the public, a report on the military and coercive activities of China in the South China Sea in connection with such activity immediately after the commencement of any significant reclamation or militarization activity by the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea, including any significant military deployment or operation or infrastructure construction  The House recedes with an amendment that would clarify that the required report shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees immediately after the commencement of any significant reclamation, assertion of an excessive territorial claim, or military activity by the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea  The conferees are concerned that sufficient information has not been made publicly available in a timely fashion regarding China's reclamation and militarization activities in the South China Sea  Moreover, the conferees recognize that China has engaged in provocative military activities elsewhere throughout the Indo-Pacific Region, including the East China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, and the Indian Ocean  The conferees urge the Secretary of Defense to give full consideration to the strategic and public interest in selective declassification of China's activities in the South China Sea and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region  (Pages 993-994) Section 1288 of H R  5515 states the following: SEC  1288  MODIFICATION OF FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS  Subsection (a) of section 1275 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328; 130 Stat  2540), as amended by section 1262(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91; 131 Stat  1689), is further amended by striking ''the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives'' and inserting ''the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives''  Appendix A  Strategic Context from U S  Perspective This appendix presents a brief discussion of some elements of the strategic context from a U S  perspective in which the issues discussed in this report may be considered  There is also a broader context of U S -China relations and U S  foreign policy toward the Indo-Pacific that is covered in other CRS reports  Shift in International Security Environment World events have led some observers, starting in late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment has undergone a shift from the familiar post-Cold War era of the past 20 to 25 years, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U S -led international order that has operated since World War II  China's actions in the SCS and ECS can be viewed as one reflection of that shift  Uncertainty Regarding Future U S  Role in World The overall U S  role in the world since the end of World War II in 1945 (i e , over the past 70 years) is generally described as one of global leadership and significant engagement in international affairs  A key aim of that role has been to promote and defend the open international order that the United States, with the support of its allies, created in the years after World War II  In addition to promoting and defending the open international order, the overall U S  role is generally described as having been one of promoting freedom, democracy, and human rights, while criticizing and resisting authoritarianism where possible, and opposing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia or a spheres-of-influence world  Certain statements and actions from the Trump Administration have led to uncertainty about the Administration's intentions regarding the future U S  role in the world  Based on those statements and actions, some observers have speculated that the Trump Administration may want to change the U S  role in one or more ways  A change in the overall U S  role could have profound implications for U S  foreign policy, including U S  policy regarding maritime territorial and EEZ disputes involving China  U S  Grand Strategy Discussion of the above-mentioned shift in the international security environment has led to a renewed emphasis in discussions of U S  security and foreign policy on grand strategy and geopolitics  From a U S  perspective, grand strategy can be understood as strategy considered at a global or interregional level, as opposed to strategies for specific countries, regions, or issues  Geopolitics refers to the influence on international relations and strategy of basic world geographic features such as the size and location of continents, oceans, and individual countries  From a U S  perspective on grand strategy and geopolitics, it can be noted that most of the world's people, resources, and economic activity are located not in the Western Hemisphere, but in the other hemisphere, particularly Eurasia  In response to this basic feature of world geography, U S  policymakers for the past several decades have chosen to pursue, as a key element of U S  grand strategy, a goal of preventing the emergence of a regional hegemon in one part of Eurasia or another, on the grounds that such a hegemon could represent a concentration of power strong enough to threaten core U S  interests by, for example, denying the United States access to some of the other hemisphere's resources and economic activity  Although U S  policymakers have not often stated this key national strategic goal explicitly in public, U S  military (and diplomatic) operations in recent decades—both wartime operations and day-to-day operations—can be viewed as having been carried out in no small part in support of this key goal  Focus on Great Power Competition with China and Russia The Trump Administration's December 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) and the 11-page unclassified summary of its January 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) reorient U S  national security strategy and, within that, U S  defense strategy, toward an explicit primary focus on great power competition with China and Russia and on countering Chinese and Russian military capabilities  The new U S  strategy orientation set forth in the 2017 NSS and 2018 NDS is sometimes referred to a "2+3" strategy, meaning a strategy for countering two primary challenges (China and Russia) and three additional challenges (North Korea, Iran, and terrorist groups)  Concept of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) In addition to the 2017 NSS and 2018 NDS, the Trump Administration has highlighted the concept of a free and open Indo-Pacific (FOIP), with the term Indo-Pacific referring to the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, and the countries (particularly those in Eurasia) bordering on those two oceans  The concept, which is still being fleshed out by the Trump Administration, appears to be a general U S foreign policy and national security construct for the region, but observers view it as one that includes a military component  Challenge to U S  Sea Control and U S  Position in Western Pacific Observers of Chinese and U S  military forces view China's improving naval capabilities as posing a potential challenge in the Western Pacific to the U S  Navy's ability to achieve and maintain control of blue-water ocean areas in wartime—the first such challenge the U S  Navy has faced since the end of the Cold War  More broadly, these observers view China's naval capabilities as a key element of an emerging broader Chinese military challenge to the long-standing status of the United States as the leading military power in the Western Pacific  Regional U S  Allies and Partners The United States has certain security-related policies pertaining to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act ( H R  2479 / P L  96-8 of April 10, 1979)  The United States has bilateral security treaties with Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, and an additional security treaty with Australia and New Zealand  In addition to U S  treaty allies, certain other countries in the Western Pacific can be viewed as current or emerging U S  security partners  Appendix B  U S  Treaties with Japan and Philippines This appendix presents brief background information on the U S  security treaties with Japan and the Philippines  U S -Japan Treaty on Mutual Cooperation and Security The 1960 U S -Japan treaty on mutual cooperation and security states in Article V that Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes  The United States has reaffirmed on a number of occasions over the years that since the Senkaku Islands are under the administration of Japan, they are included in the territories referred to in Article V of the treaty, and that the United States "will honor all of our treaty commitments to our treaty partners " (At the same time, the United States, noting the difference between administration and sovereignty, has noted that such affirmations do not prejudice the U S  approach of taking no position regarding the outcome of the dispute between China, Taiwan, and Japan regarding who has sovereignty over the islands ) Some observers, while acknowledging the U S  affirmations, have raised questions regarding the potential scope of actions that the United States might take under Article V  U S -Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty The 1951 U S -Philippines mutual defense treaty states in Article IV that Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes  Article V states that For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific  The United States has reaffirmed on a number of occasions over the years its obligations under the U S -Philippines mutual defense treaty  On May 9, 2012, Filipino Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F  del Rosario issued a statement providing the Philippine perspective regarding the treaty's application to territorial disputes in the SCS  U S  officials have made their own statements regarding the treaty's application to territorial disputes in the SCS  Appendix C  Treaties and Agreements Related to the Maritime Disputes This appendix briefly reviews some international treaties and agreements that bear on the issues discussed in this report  UN Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes a treaty regime to govern activities on, over, and under the world's oceans  UNCLOS was adopted by Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in December 1982, and entered into force in November 1994  The treaty established EEZs as a feature of international law, and contains multiple provisions relating to territorial waters and EEZs  As of May 10, 2018, 168 nations were party to the treaty, including China and most other countries bordering on the SCS and ECS (the exceptions being North Korea and Taiwan)  The treaty and an associated 1994 agreement relating to implementation of Part XI of the treaty (on deep seabed mining) were transmitted to the Senate on October 6, 1994  In the absence of Senate advice and consent to adherence, the United States is not a party to the convention and the associated 1994 agreement  A March 10, 1983, statement on U S  ocean policy by President Ronald Reagan states that UNCLOS contains provisions with respect to traditional uses of the oceans which generally confirm existing maritime law and practice and fairly balance the interests of all states  Today I am announcing three decisions to promote and protect the oceans interests of the United States in a manner consistent with those fair and balanced results in the Convention and international law  First, the United States is prepared to accept and act in accordance with the balance of interests relating to traditional uses of the oceans—such as navigation and overflight  In this respect, the United States will recognize the rights of other states in the waters off their coasts, as reflected in the Convention, so long as the rights and freedoms of the United States and others under international law are recognized by such coastal states  Second, the United States will exercise and assert its navigation and overflight rights and freedoms on a worldwide basis in a manner that is consistent with the balance of interests reflected in the convention  The United States will not, however, acquiesce in unilateral acts of other states designed to restrict the rights and freedoms of the international community in navigation and overflight and other related high seas uses  Third, I am proclaiming today an Exclusive Economic Zone in which the United States will exercise sovereign rights in living and nonliving resources within 200 nautical miles of its coast  This will provide United States jurisdiction for mineral resources out to 200 nautical miles that are not on the continental shelf  UNCLOS builds on four 1958 law of the sea conventions to which the United States is a party: the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the Convention on the High Seas, the Convention on the Continental Shelf, and the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas  1972 Convention on Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs) China and the United States, as well as more than 150 other countries (including all those bordering on the South East and South China Seas, but not Taiwan), are parties to an October 1972 multilateral convention on international regulations for preventing collisions at sea, commonly known as the collision regulations (COLREGs) or the "rules of the road " Although commonly referred to as a set of rules or regulations, this multilateral convention is a binding treaty  The convention applies "to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels " It thus applies to military vessels, paramilitary and law enforcement (i e , coast guard) vessels, maritime militia vessels, and fishing boats, among other vessels  In a February 18, 2014, letter to Senator Marco Rubio concerning the December 5, 2013, incident involving the Cowpens , the State Department stated the following: In order to minimize the potential for an accident or incident at sea, it is important that the United States and China share a common understanding of the rules for operational air or maritime interactions  From the U S  perspective, an existing body of international rules and guidelines—including the 1972 International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs)—are sufficient to ensure the safety of navigation between U S  forces and the force of other countries, including China  We will continue to make clear to the Chinese that these existing rules, including the COLREGs, should form the basis for our common understanding of air and maritime behavior, and we will encourage China to incorporate these rules into its incident-management tools  Likewise, we will continue to urge China to agree to adopt bilateral crisis management tools with Japan and to rapidly conclude negotiations with ASEAN on a robust and meaningful Code of Conduct in the South China in order to avoid incidents and to manage them when they arise  We will continue to stress the importance of these issues in our regular interactions with Chinese officials  In the 2014 edition of its annual report on military and security developments involving China, the DOD states the following: On December 5, 2013, a PLA Navy vessel and a U S  Navy vessel operating in the South China Sea came into close proximity  At the time of the incident, USS COWPENS (CG 63) was operating approximately 32 nautical miles southeast of Hainan Island  In that location, the U S  Navy vessel was conducting lawful military activities beyond the territorial sea of any coastal State, consistent with customary international law as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention  Two PLA Navy vessels approached USS COWPENS  During this interaction, one of the PLA Navy vessels altered course and crossed directly in front of the bow of USS COWPENS  This maneuver by the PLA Navy vessel forced USS COWPENS to come to full stop to avoid collision, while the PLA Navy vessel passed less than 100 yards ahead  The PLA Navy vessel's action was inconsistent with internationally recognized rules concerning professional maritime behavior (i e , the Convention of International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea), to which China is a party  2014 Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) On April 22, 2014, representatives of 21 Pacific-region navies (including China, Japan, and the United States), meeting in Qingdao, China, at the 14 th Western Pacific Naval Symposium (WPNS), unanimously agreed to a Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES)  CUES, a nonbinding agreement, establishes a standardized protocol of safety procedures, basic communications, and basic maneuvering instructions for naval ships and aircraft during unplanned encounters at sea, with the aim of reducing the risk of incidents arising from such encounters  The CUES agreement in effect supplements the 1972 COLREGs Convention (see previous section); it does not cancel or lessen commitments that countries have as parties to the COLREGS Convention  Two observers stated that "the [CUES] resolution is non-binding; only regulates communication in 'unplanned encounters,' not behavior; fails to address incidents in territorial waters; and does not apply to fishing and maritime constabulary vessels [i e , coast guard ships and other maritime law enforcement ships], which are responsible for the majority of Chinese harassment operations " DOD stated in 2015 that Going forward, the Department is also exploring options to expand the use of CUES to include regional law enforcement vessels and Coast Guards  Given the growing use of maritime law enforcement vessels to enforce disputed maritime claims, expansion of CUES to MLE [maritime law enforcement] vessels would be an important step in reducing the risk of unintentional conflict  U S  Navy officials have stated that the CUES agreement is generally working well, and that the United States (as noted in the passage above) is interested in expanding the agreement to cover coast guard ships  Officials from Singapore and Malaysia reportedly have expressed support for the idea  An Obama Administration fact sheet about Chinese President Xi Jinping's state visit to the United States on September 24-25, 2015, stated the following: The U S  Coast Guard and the China Coast Guard have committed to pursue an arrangement whose intended purpose is equivalent to the Rules of Behavior Confidence Building Measure annex on surface-to-surface encounters in the November 2014 Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Department of Defense and the People's Republic of China Ministry of National Defense  A November 3, 2018, press report published following an incident in the SCS between a U S  Navy destroyer and a Chinese destroyer stated the following: The U S  Navy's chief of naval operations has called on China to return to a previously agreed-upon code of conduct for at-sea encounters between the ships of their respective navies, stressing the need to avoid miscalculations  During a Nov  1 teleconference with reporters based in the Asia-Pacific region, Adm  John Richardson said he wants the People's Liberation Army Navy to "return to a consistent adherence to the agreed-to code that would again minimize the chance for a miscalculation that could possibly lead to a local incident and potential escalation " The CNO cited a case in early October when the U S  Navy's guided-missile destroyer Decatur reported that a Chinese Type 052C destroyer came within 45 yards of the Decatur as it conducted a freedom-of-navigation operation in the South China Sea  However, he added that the "vast majority" of encounters with Chinese warships in the South China Sea "are conducted in accordance with the Code of Unplanned Encounters at Sea and done in a safe and professional manner " The code is an agreement reached by 21 Pacific nations in 2014 to reduce the chance of an incident at sea between the agreement's signatories  2014 U S -China MOU on Air and Maritime Encounters In November 2014, the U S  DOD and China's Ministry of National Defense signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding rules of behavior for safety of air and maritime encounters  The MOU makes reference to UNCLOS, the 1972 COLREGs convention, the Conventional on International Civil Aviation (commonly known as the Chicago Convention), the Agreement on Establishing a Consultation Mechanism to Strengthen Military Maritime Safety (MMCA), and CUES  The MOU as signed in November 2014 included an annex on rules of behavior for safety of surface-to-surface encounters  An additional annex on rules of behavior for safety of air-to-air encounters was signed on September 15 and 18, 2015  An October 20, 2018, press report states the following: Eighteen nations including the U S  and China agreed in principle Saturday [October 20] to sign up to guidelines governing potentially dangerous encounters by military aircraft, a step toward stabilizing flashpoints but one that leaves enough wiggle room to ignore the new standards when a country wants  The guidelines essentially broaden a similar agreement reached by the U S  and China three years ago and are an attempt to mitigate against incidents and collisions in some of the world's most tense areas…  The in-principle agreement, which will be put forward for formal adoption by the group of 18 nations next year, took place at an annual meeting of defense ministers under the aegis of the 10-country Association of Southeast Asian Nations, hosted by Singapore  Asean nations formally adopted the new guidelines themselves Friday  "The guidelines are very useful in setting norms," Singapore's defense minister Ng Eng Hen told reporters after the meeting  "All the 18 countries agreed strong in-principle support for the guidelines "… The aerial-encounters framework agreed to Saturday includes language that prohibits fast or aggressive approaches in the air and lays out guidelines on clear communications including suggestions to "refrain from the use of uncivil language or unfriendly physical gestures " Signatories to the agreement, which is voluntary and not legally binding, would agree to avoid unprofessional encounters and reckless maneuvers…  The guidelines fall short on enforcement and geographic specifics, but they are "better than nothing at all," said Evan Laksmana, senior researcher with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Jakarta  "Confidence-building surrounding military crises or encounters can hardly move forward without some broadly agreed-upon rules of the game," he said  Negotiations on SCS Code of Conduct (COC) In 2002, China and the 10 member states of ASEAN signed a nonbinding Declaration on the Conduct (DOC) of Parties in the South China Sea in which the parties, among other things,     reaffirm their respect for and commitment to the freedom of navigation in and overflight above the South China Sea as provided for by the universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea         undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means, without resorting to the threat or use of force, through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea         undertake to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others, refraining from action of inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays, and other features and to handle their differences in a constructive manner        reaffirm that the adoption of a [follow-on] code of conduct in the South China Sea would further promote peace and stability in the region and agree to work, on the basis of consensus, towards the eventual attainment of this objective     In July 2011, China and ASEAN adopted a preliminary set of principles for implementing the DOC  U S  officials since 2010 have encouraged ASEAN and China to develop the follow-on binding Code of Conduct (COC) mentioned in the final quoted paragraph above  China and ASEAN have conducted negotiations on the follow-on COC, but China has not yet agreed with the ASEAN member states on a final text  On March 8, 2017, China announced that the first draft of a framework for the COC had been completed, and that "China and ASEAN countries feel satisfied with this " On May 18 and 19, 2017, it was reported that the China and the ASEAN countries had agreed on the framework  An article from a Chinese news outlet stated the following: All countries involved have agreed not to release the framework document, but to maintain it as an internal document at this time since the consultation will continue and they do not want any external interference, [Vice-Foreign Minister] Liu [Zhenmin] said  "Against the backdrop of economic globalization, China and ASEAN countries should continue making our regional rules to guide our own actions and protect our common interests," Liu said  A May 18, 2017, press report stated that Liu Zhemin "called on others to stay out [of the negotiations], apparently a coded message to the United States  'We hope that our consultations on the code are not subject to any outside interference,' Liu said " An August 3, 2017, press report stated the following: Southeast Asian ministers meeting this week are set to avoid tackling the subject of Beijing's arming and building of manmade South China Sea islands, preparing to endorse a framework for a code of conduct that is neither binding nor enforceable  The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has omitted references to China's most controversial activities in its joint communique, a draft reviewed by Reuters shows  In addition, a leaked blueprint for establishing an ASEAN-China code of maritime conduct does not call for it to be legally binding, or seek adherence to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)     Analysts and some ASEAN diplomats worry that China's sudden support for negotiating a code of conduct is a ploy to buy time to further boost its military capability     The agreed two-page framework is broad and leaves wide scope for disagreement, urging a commitment to the "purposes and principles" of UNCLOS, for example, rather than adherence  The framework papers over the big differences between ASEAN nations and China, said Patrick Cronin of the Center for a New American Security  "Optimists will see this non-binding agreement as a small step forward, allowing habits of cooperation to develop, despite differences," he said  "Pessimists will see this as a gambit favorable to a China determined to make the majority of the South China Sea its domestic lake " An August 6, 2017, press report stated the following: Southeast Asian nations agreed with China on Sunday [August 6] to endorse a framework for a maritime code of conduct that would govern behavior in disputed waters of the South China Sea, a small step forward in a negotiation that has lasted well over a decade  Though not the long-discussed code itself, the framework sets out parameters for discussion of an agreement intended to bring predictability to a potential flashpoint as China increasingly asserts its military presence over the area in the face of rival claims  The 10 countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations will meet with China at the end of August to discuss legalities for negotiations on the code of conduct, with formal talks beginning soon after, Philippines department of foreign affairs spokesman Robespierre Bolivar said Sunday  The endorsement of the framework, which was tentatively agreed to in May, came during a bilateral meeting between China and Asean on the sidelines of a series of security-oriented meetings that will conclude Tuesday  The unsticking of the framework after years of obstruction is widely seen as a concession by China, which has opposed any legally binding code on maritime engagement, stepped up naval patrols and built artificial islands to enforce its claims, equipping them with military weapons  Beijing's move to allow discussion on the code of conduct follows a resetting of ties with the Philippines under President Rodrigo Duterte, who in October—just four months after taking office—visited Beijing and declared a new friendship between the two countries  An August 8, 2017, blog post about the framework states the following: In Manila on 6 August 2017, the foreign ministers of ASEAN and China endorsed the framework for the Code of Conduct for the South China Sea (COC)  While the framework is a step forward in the conflict management process for the South China Sea, it is short on details and contains many of the same principles and provisions contained in the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) which has yet to be even partially implemented  The text includes a new reference to the prevention and management of incidents, as well as a seemingly stronger commitment to maritime security and freedom of navigation  However, the phrase "legally binding" is absent, as are the geographical scope of the agreement and enforcement and arbitration mechanisms  The framework will form the basis for further negotiations on the COC  Those discussions are likely to be lengthy and frustrating for those ASEAN members who had hoped to see a legally binding, comprehensive and effective COC  Some observers have argued that China has been dragging out the negotiations on the COC for years as part of a "talk and take strategy," meaning a strategy in which China engages in (or draws out) negotiations while taking actions to gain control of contested areas  A May 25, 2017, news report states the following: To call negotiations between China and the ten-country Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) over rival claims in the South China Sea "drawn out" would be a gross understatement  At the centre of the matter is an unsquareable circle: the competing claims of China and several South-East Asian countries  Nobody wants to go to war; nobody wants to be accused of backing down  Still, at a meeting of senior Chinese and ASEAN officials on May 18 th , something happened: the two sides agreed on a "framework" for a code of conduct  An official from Singapore (which currently co-ordinates ASEAN-China relations) called the agreement a sign of "steady progress"     ASEAN members called for a legally binding code of conduct as far back as 1996     Since then, code-of-conduct negotiations have proceeded glacially     Last July, after China received an unfavourable ruling on its maritime claims in a case brought by the Philippines to a tribunal in The Hague, China agreed to expedite the talks     The draft framework will be presented to ASEAN and Chinese foreign ministers at a conference in August  This will then form the basis for the thorny negotiations to follow  The text has not (yet) been leaked  But its most salient feature may be what it appears to lack: any hint of enforcement mechanisms or consequences for violations  China has long rejected a legally binding agreement—or indeed any arrangement that could limit its actions in the South China Sea  The result, explains Ian Storey, of the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, a think-tank in Singapore, is a framework "that makes China look co-operative…without having to do anything that might constrain its freedom of action"  ASEAN, meanwhile, gets the appearance of progress  "The ASEAN secretariat is a bureaucracy, and bureaucrats like process," explains Mr Storey  A July 13, 2018, blog post states the following: The COC has become a "holy grail," highly desired but unattainable  A major concern should be that this holy grail could turn into a tool for China to legitimize its actions in the South China Sea by engaging in the process while subverting its spirit  To this end, the challenges to the COC process are likely to be: China will use the COC talks to delay, exploit, and divert focus from any ASEAN consensus on the South China Sea; China will seek to include unhelpful and imprecise language in the COC which it could then use to justify its actions; China will nonetheless claim the COC as a diplomatic success and will use it as cover to avoid criticism while still pursuing its unilateral strategy to control the South China Sea…  If the COC process continues on its current trajectory, and China succeeds in filling the document with vague articles that would have little impact on its behavior, it would effectively be abusing the rules-based order to its own benefit  Instead of protecting against unilateral actions in the South China Sea, the rules-based order in the form of the COC could assist and justify China's expansion and ultimately its sole control of the South China Sea  Other regional actors need to recognize these traps of concluding a counter-productive COC, and resist the urge to reach an agreement just to be able to say they made progress  Instead, they should insist on negotiating the terms and conditions of a real COC, one that would establish effective rules-based dispute management mechanisms, not one that would by-pass them for the sake of an easy "win " An August 2, 2018, press report states the following: After more than a decade of talks, a bloc of Southeast Asian nations and China have agreed on a draft code of conduct that will lay the foundation for negotiations over the disputed South China Sea  Observers said the agreement showed that China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) could make progress through talks despite rising regional tensions, but they also warned that there was still a long way to go until a final deal  The agreement on the "Single Draft COC Negotiating Text" was announced at a meeting of Asean foreign ministers in Singapore on Thursday [August 2], after being nailed down at a China-Asean meeting in the central Chinese city of Changsha in June  An August 9, 2018, press report stated the following: Talks on completing a code of conduct for the disputed South China Sea will be long and complex and it would be unrealistic to set a timetable, state media on Thursday [August 9] cited a senior Chinese diplomat as saying…  In an interview with China Newsweek magazine, Yi Xianliang, Director General of the Chinese Foreign Ministry's Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs, said the talks were continuing  Many of the topics were complex and sensitive and there were many different points of view, he said  "If these issues are to be resolved, and the code finally comes together, all sides need to keep looking for the greatest common denominator," Yi added  "There are voices from the outside, who are trying to set a timetable for the talks on the code  I think this is unrealistic," he said  Any multilateral talks take time, especially on such a complex issue as the South China Sea, Yi added  "It is impossible to define a timetable  Instead of setting the timetable unrealistically, and binding one's hands, it's better to step forward one foot at a time "… "Certain countries outside the region have been agitating that the code must be legally binding  This issue is quite complicated, including the domestic legal procedures involved in the countries concerned," he added, without elaborating  An October 22, 2018, press report stated the following: As China moves to complete the creation of military outposts in the South China Sea, Beijing's negotiation with southeastern Asian nations over a binding code of conduct is gaining momentum  But U S  officials and experts warn China's insertions in the draft South China Sea code of conduct may put Washington and Beijing on a collision course  The text of the draft also shows that deep divisions remain among claimants  One of the Chinese provisions in the text states, "The Parties shall not hold joint military exercises with countries from outside the region, unless the parties concerned are notified beforehand and express no objection " China also proposed cooperation on the marine economy "shall not be conducted in cooperation with companies from countries outside the region " A State Department spokesperson told VOA the United States is concerned by reports China has been pressing members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations "in the closed-door talks, to accept restrictions on their ability to conduct exercises with security partners, and to agree not to conduct oil and gas exploration in their claimed waters with energy firms based in countries which are not part of the ongoing negotiations " "These proposals, if accepted, would limit the ability of ASEAN nations to conduct sovereign, independent foreign and economic policies and would directly harm the interests of the broader international community," added the State Department spokesperson…  "In other words, China would like a veto over all the military exercises held by ASEAN countries with other nations  I think this really provides some evidence that China indeed is trying to limit American influence in the region, one might go so far as to say to push American military presence out of the region eventually, but certainly in the area of the South China Sea," said Bonnie Glaser, director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington…  The United States is also calling for ongoing discussions on the South China Sea code of conduct to be transparent and consultative with the rest of the international community  U S  officials said the international community has direct stakes in the outcome  A September 6, 2018, blog post stated the following: After two decades of talks, scepticism about the development of a South China Sea Code of Conduct (COC) is well-deserved, but it is also important to acknowledge progress when it happens  The agreement on a single draft negotiating text, revealed ahead of the ASEAN–China Post Ministerial Meeting on 2 August 2018, is an important step in the process that deserves recognition  The COC will not resolve the South China Sea disputes, nor was it ever meant to  Instead the COC is intended to manage disputes to avoid conflict pending their eventual resolution by direct negotiation or arbitration among the claimants  But any system to effectively manage the South China Sea disputes would require three things, none of which are achieved yet in the draft text  First, an effective COC would need to be geographically defined…  Second, an effective COC would need a dispute settlement mechanism…  Third, any effective regime to manage the South China Sea disputes would need detailed provisions on fisheries management and oil and gas development…  The solution to this problem could be a COC signed by all 10 ASEAN members and China that establishes general rules of behaviour within a clear geographic area, sets up an effective dispute settlement mechanism and endorses the immediate start of follow-on negotiations involving only the relevant claimants on fisheries management and oil and gas cooperation  Such a document would be a major step towards peacefully managing the South China Sea disputes and there are hints that at least some sections of the negotiating text might be on the right track  But the differences between parties remain considerable and final agreement on an effective COC still seems some way off  An October 29, 2018, press report states the following: The Philippines on Monday said a set of rules intended to prevent conflict in the South China Sea need not legally compel countries to follow it—an issue of importance for the Chinese government  Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr  raised this possibility during a joint news conference with Wang Yi, his Chinese counterpart, in Davao City where they held bilateral talks to firm up preparations for President Xi Jinping's visit to Manila next month  The Association of Southeast Asian Nations and China are negotiating a code of conduct in the South China Sea  The 10-member bloc wants it to be legally binding, but Beijing prefers just "binding," ASEAN diplomats have said  "Perhaps, we will not be able to arrive at a legally binding COC, but it will be a standard on how people of ASEAN and governments of ASEAN will behave with each other -- always with honor, never with aggression, and always for mutual progress," Locsin said…  Wang said China will abide by the code whether it is legally binding or not  He said China hopes to finish the negotiations before Manila's term as ASEAN-China coordinator ends  "We welcome constructive opinions within the framework    that has been agreed," Wang said, referring to the general outline agreed last year, which dropped a reference to a legally binding code  The framework essentially repeats the spirit of a 2002 declaration on the South China Sea that called on parties to exercise restraint to avoid escalating tensions, and respect international law, among other things  Critics and ASEAN officials said the declaration failed to manage tensions in the disputed area because it was not legally binding  A November 14, 2018, press report stated the following: A rulebook to settle disputes in the hotly contested South China Sea should be finished in three years, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said on Tuesday, insisting his nation does not seek "hegemony or expansion " Li's comments appeared to be the first clear timeframe for finishing the code of conduct  Talks have dragged on for years, with China accused of delaying progress as it prefers to deal with less powerful countries on a one-to-one basis  Appendix D  July 2016 Tribunal Award in SCS Arbitration Case Involving Philippines and China This appendix provides background information on the July 2016 tribunal award in the SCS arbitration case involving the Philippines and China  Overview In 2013, the Philippines sought arbitration under UNCLOS over the role of historic rights and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, the status of certain maritime features and the maritime entitlements they are capable of generating, and the lawfulness of certain actions by China that were alleged by the Philippines to violate UNCLOS  A tribunal was constituted under UNCLOS to hear the case  China stated repeatedly that it would not accept or participate in the arbitration and that, in its view, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction in this matter  China's nonparticipation did not prevent the case from moving forward, and the tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction over various matters covered under the case  On July 12, 2016, the tribunal issued its award (i e , ruling) in the case  The award was strongly in favor of the Philippines—more so than even some observers had anticipated  The tribunal ruled, among other things, that China's nine-dash line claim had no legal basis; that none of the land features in the Spratlys is entitled to any more than a 12-nm territorial sea; that three of the Spratlys features that China occupies generate no entitlement to maritime zones; and that China violated the Philippines' sovereign rights by interfering with Philippine vessels and by damaging the maritime environment and engaging in reclamation work on a feature in the Philippines' EEZ  Under UNCLOS, the award is binding on both the Philippines and China (China's nonparticipation in the arbitration does not change this)  There is, however, no mechanism for enforcing the tribunal's award  The United States has urged China and the Philippines to abide by the award  China, however, has declared the ruling null and void  Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who took office just before the tribunal's ruling, has not sought to enforce it  The tribunal's press release summarizing its award states the following in part: The Award is final and binding, as set out in Article 296 of the Convention [i e , UNCLOS] and Article 11 of Annex VII [of UNCLOS]  Historic Rights and the 'Nine-Dash Line':     On the merits, the Tribunal concluded that the Convention comprehensively allocates rights to maritime areas and that protections for pre-existing rights to resources were considered, but not adopted in the Convention  Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention  The Tribunal also noted that, although Chinese navigators and fishermen, as well as those of other States, had historically made use of the islands in the South China Sea, there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or their resources  The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the 'nine-dash line'  Status of Features:     Features that are above water at high tide generate an entitlement to at least a 12 nautical mile territorial sea, whereas features that are submerged at high tide do not  The Tribunal noted that the reefs have been heavily modified by land reclamation and construction, recalled that the Convention classifies features on their natural condition, and relied on historical materials in evaluating the features  The Tribunal then considered whether any of the features claimed by China could generate maritime zones beyond 12 nautical miles  Under the Convention, islands generate an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and a continental shelf, but "[r]ocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf "     the Tribunal concluded that none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones  The Tribunal also held that the Spratly Islands cannot generate maritime zones collectively as a unit  Having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it could—without delimiting a boundary—declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China  Lawfulness of Chinese Actions:     Having found that certain areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, the Tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines' sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone by (a) interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, (b) constructing artificial islands and (c) failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone  The Tribunal also held that fishermen from the Philippines (like those from China) had traditional fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal and that China had interfered with these rights in restricting access  The Tribunal further held that Chinese law enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels  Harm to Marine Environment: The Tribunal considered the effect on the marine environment of China's recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands and found that China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species  The Tribunal also found that Chinese authorities were aware that Chinese fishermen have harvested endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams on a substantial scale in the South China Sea (using methods that inflict severe damage on the coral reef environment) and had not fulfilled their obligations to stop such activities  Aggravation of Dispute: Finally, the Tribunal considered whether China's actions since the commencement of the arbitration had aggravated the dispute between the Parties  The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the implications of a stand-off between Philippine marines and Chinese naval and law enforcement vessels at Second Thomas Shoal, holding that this dispute involved military activities and was therefore excluded from compulsory settlement  The Tribunal found, however, that China's recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on a State during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has inflicted irreparable harm to the marine environment, built a large artificial island in the Philippines' exclusive economic zone, and destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features in the South China Sea that formed part of the Parties' dispute  Assessments of Impact of Arbitral Award One Year Later In July 2017, a year after the arbitral panel's award, some observers assessed the impact to date of the award  For example, one observer stated the following: One year ago, China suffered a massive legal defeat when an international tribunal based in The Hague ruled that the vast majority of Beijing's extensive claims to maritime rights and resources in the South China Sea were not compatible with international law  Beijing was furious  At an official briefing immediately after the ruling, Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin twice called it "nothing more than a piece of waste paper," and one that "will not be enforced by anyone " And yet, one year on, China is, in many ways, abiding by it     China is not fully complying with the ruling—far from it  On May 1, China imposed a three-and-a-half-month ban on fishing across the northern part of the South China Sea, as it has done each year since 1995  While the ban may help conserve fish stocks, its unilateral imposition in wide areas of the sea violates the ruling  Further south, China's occupation of Mischief Reef, a feature that is submerged at high tide and the tribunal ruled was part of the Philippines' continental shelf, endures  Having built a vast naval base and runway here, China looks like it will remain in violation of that part of the ruling for the foreseeable future  But there is evidence that the Chinese authorities, despite their rhetoric, have already changed their behavior  In October 2016, three months after the ruling, Beijing allowed Philippine and Vietnamese boats to resume fishing at Scarborough Shoal, west of the Philippines  A China Coast Guard ship still blocks the entrance to the lagoon, but boats can still fish the rich waters around it  The situation is not perfect but neither is China flaunting its defiance     Much more significantly, China has avoided drilling for oil and gas on the wrong side of the invisible lines prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)         the ruling means China has no claim to the fish, oil or gas more than 12 nautical miles from any of the Spratlys or Scarborough Shoal  The Chinese authorities appear not to accept this     There are clear signs from both China's words and deeds that Beijing has quietly modified its overall legal position in the South China Sea  Australian researcher Andrew Chubb noted a significant article in the Chinese press in July last year outlining the new view         China's new position seems to represent a major step towards compliance with UNCLOS and, therefore, the ruling  Most significantly, it removes the grounds for Chinese objections to other countries fishing and drilling in wide areas of the South China Sea     Overall, the picture is of a China attempting to bring its vision of the rightful regional order (as the legitimate owner of every rock and reef inside the U-shaped line) within commonly understood international rules  Far from being "waste paper," China is taking the tribunal ruling very seriously  It is still some way from total compliance but it is clearly not deliberately flouting the ruling  Another observer stated the following: A year ago today, an arbitral tribunal formed pursuant to the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea issued a blockbuster award finding much of China's conduct in the South China Sea in violation of international law  As I detailed that day on this blog and elsewhere, the Philippines won about as big a legal victory as it could have expected  But as many of us also warned that day, a legal victory is not the same as an actual victory  In fact, over the past year China has succeeded in transforming its legal defeat into a policy victory by maintaining its aggressive South China Sea policies while escaping sanction for its non-compliance  While the election of a new pro-China Philippines government is a key factor, much of the blame for China's victory must also be placed on the Obama Administration     International law seldom enforces itself, and even the reputational costs of violating international law do not arise unless other states impose those costs on the law-breaker  Both the Philippines and the U S  had policy options that would have raised the costs of China's non-compliance with the award  But neither country's government chose to press China on the arbitral award     Looking back after one year, we cannot say (yet) that U S  policy in the South China Sea is a failure  But we can say that the U S  under President Obama missed a huge opportunity to change the dynamics in the region in its favor, and it is hard to know whether or when another such opportunity will arise in the future  Reported Chinese Characterization of Arbitral Award as "Waste Paper" When the arbitral panel's award was announced, China stated that "China does not accept or recognize it," and that the award "is invalid and has no binding force " The first of the two passages quoted above states that "at an official briefing immediately after the ruling, Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin twice called it 'nothing more than a piece of waste paper,' and one that 'will not be enforced by anyone '" A November 22, 2017, press report states the following: An eight-page essay pumped through social media and Chinese state newspapers in recent days extolled the virtues of president Xi Jinping  Among his achievements, in the Chinese language version, was that he had turned the South China Sea Arbitration at The Hague—which found against China—into "waste paper"  It was an achievement that state news agency Xinhua's lengthy hymn, entitled "Xi and His Era", did not include in the English version for foreign consumption  Assessments and Events Two Years Later Another observer writes in a May 10, 2018, commentary piece that Two years after an international tribunal rejected expansive Chinese claims to the South China Sea, Beijing is consolidating control over the area and its resources  While the U S  defends the right to freedom of navigation, it has failed to support the rights of neighboring countries under the tribunal's ruling  As a result, Southeast Asian countries are bowing to Beijing's demands…  While Beijing's dramatic military buildup in the South China Sea has received much attention, its attempts at "lawfare" are largely overlooked  In May, the Chinese Society of International Law published a "critical study" on the South China Sea arbitration case  It rehashed old arguments but also developed a newer one, namely that China is entitled to claim maritime zones based on groups of features rather than from individual features  Even if China is not entitled to historic rights within the area it claims, this argument goes, it is entitled to resources in a wide expanse of sea on the basis of an exclusive economic zone generated from outlying archipelagoes  But the Convention on the Law of the Sea makes clear that only archipelagic states such as the Philippines and Indonesia may draw straight archipelagic baselines from which maritime zones may be claimed  The tribunal also explicitly found that there was "no evidence" that any deviations from this rule have amounted to the formation of a new rule of customary international law  China's arguments are unlikely to sway lawyers, but that is not their intended audience  Rather Beijing is offering a legal fig leaf to political and business elites in Southeast Asia who are already predisposed to accept Beijing's claims in the South China Sea  They fear China's threat of coercive economic measures and eye promises of development through offerings such as the Belt and Road Initiative  Why did Washington go quiet on the 2016 tribunal decision? One reason is Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's turn toward China and offer to set aside the ruling  The U S  is also worried about the decision's implications for its own claims to exclusive economic zones from small, uninhabited land features in the Pacific  The Trump administration's failure to press Beijing to abide by the tribunal's ruling is a serious mistake  It undermines international law and upsets the balance of power in the region  Countries have taken note that the tide in the South China Sea is in China's favor, and they are making their strategic calculations accordingly  This hurts U S  interests in the region  A July 12, 2018, press report stated the following: The Philippines is celebrating today the second anniversary of its landmark arbitration award against China's territorial claims in the South China Sea handed down by an arbitral tribunal in The Hague…  Until now, the Philippines remains sharply divided on how to leverage its arbitration award  Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte has repeatedly downplayed the relevance of the ruling by questioning its enforceability amid China's vociferous opposition  Soon after taking office in mid-2016, Duterte declared that he would "set aside" the arbitration award in order to pursue a "soft landing" in bilateral relations with China  In exchange, he has hoped for large-scale Chinese investments as well as resource-sharing in the South China Sea…  Other major leaders in the Philippines, however, have taken a tougher stance and continue to try to leverage the award to resist China's expanding footprint in the area  The Stratbase-Albert Del Rosario Institute, an influential think tank co-founded by former Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario, hosted today a high-level forum on the topic at the prestigious Manila Polo Club  Del Rosario oversaw the arbitration proceedings against China under Duterte's predecessor, Benigno Aquino  He opened the event attended by dignitaries from major Western and Asian countries with a strident speech which accused China of trying to "dominate the South China Sea through force and coercion " He defended the arbitration award as an "overwhelming victory" to resist "China's unlawful expansion agenda " The ex-top diplomat also accused the Duterte administration of acquiescence to China by acting as an "abettor" and "willing victim" by soft-pedaling the Philippines' claims in the South China Sea and refusing to raise the arbitration award in multilateral fora  The keynote speaker of the event was Vice President Leni Robredo, who has recently emerged as the de facto leader of the opposition against Duterte  Though falling short of directly naming Duterte, her spirited speech served as a comprehensive indictment of the administration's policy in the South China Sea…  Her keynote address, widely covered by the local media, was followed by an even more spirited speech by interim Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonio Carpio, another leading critic of Duterte's foreign policy  The chief magistrate, who also oversaw the Philippines' arbitration proceedings against China, lashed out at Duterte for placing the landmark award in a "deep freeze " He called on the Duterte administration to leverage the award by negotiating maritime delimitation agreements with other Southeast Asian claimant states such as Malaysia and Vietnam which welcomed the arbitral tribunal's nullification of China's nine-dashed-line map  He also called on the Philippines to expand its maritime entitlement claims in the area, in accordance to the arbitration award, by applying for an extended continental shelf in the South China Sea at the UN  Another July 12, 2018, press report stated the following: Tarpaulins bearing the words "Welcome to the Philippines, province of China" were seen hanging from several footbridges in Metro Manila Thursday, two years after the country won its arbitration case against China  The red banners bore the Chinese flag and Chinese characters  It is unclear who installed the tarpaulins, which are possible reference to a "joke" by President Rodrigo Duterte that the country can be a province of the Asian giant  "He (Xi Jinping) is a man of honor  They can even make us 'Philippines, province of China,' we will even avail of services for free," Duterte said in apparent jest before an audience of Chinese-Filipino business leaders earlier in 2018  "If China were a woman, I'd woo her "… In a Palace briefing, presidential spokesperson Harry Roque said enemies of the government are behind the tarpaulins  A report on ANC said that the Metro Manila Development Authority already took the banners down  The tarpaulins sparked outrage among social media users  A July 17, 2018, press report stated the following: Protesters held a rally in front of the Chinese Consulate [in San Francisco] before proceeding to the Philippine Consulate downtown, demanding that China "get out of Philippine territory in the West Philippine Sea " The protest was timed with others in Los Angeles and Vancouver on the second anniversary of the UN's Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling that China had no right to the territory it was claiming  Filipino American Human Rights Advocates (FAHRA) in a statement celebrated the court's finding that "China's historical claim of the "nine-dash line" [is] illegal and without basis " "China continues to violate the UN's decision with the backing of its puppet Philippine government headed by President Duterte, who is deceived by the 'build, build, build' economic push while China establishes a 'steal, steal, steal' approach to islands and territories belonging to the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Philippines as determined by UN," the statement lamented  FAHRA also found it unacceptable that Filipino fishermen must now ask permission to fish in the Philippine waters from "a Chinese master " "Duterte is beholden to the $15-billion loan with monstrous interest rate and China's investments in Boracay and Marawi, at the expense of Philippine sovereignty," FAHRA claimed  "This is not to mention that China remains to be the premier supplier of illegal drugs to the country through traders that include the son, Paolo Duterte, with his P6 billion shabu shipment to Davao," it further charged  The group demanded that "China abide by the UN International Tribunal Court's decision two years ago, to honor the full sovereignty of the Philippines over all territories at the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) including the West Philippine Sea and the dismantling of the nuclear missiles and all military facilities installed by the Chinese government at the Spratly islands meant to coerce the Filipinos and all peace-loving people of Southeast Asia who clamor for equal respect and equal sovereignty in the area" among others  Appendix E  Additional Elements of China's Approach to Maritime Disputes This appendix presents background information on additional elements of China's approach to the maritime disputes in the SCS and ECS  Map of Nine-Dash Line China depicts its claims in the SCS using the so-called map of the nine-dash line—a Chinese map of the SCS showing nine line segments that, if connected, would enclose an area covering roughly 90% (earlier estimates said about 80%) of the SCS ( Figure E-1 )  The area inside the nine line segments far exceeds what is claimable as territorial waters under customary international law of the sea as reflected in UNCLOS, and, as shown in Figure E-2 , includes waters that are within the claimable EEZs (and in some places are quite near the coasts) of the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Vietnam  The map of the nine-dash line, also called the U-shaped line or the cow tongue, predates the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949  The map has been maintained by the PRC government, and maps published in Taiwan also show the nine line segments  In a document submitted to the United Nations on May 7, 2009, which included the map shown in Figure E-1 as an attachment, China stated the following: China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof (see attached map [of the nine-dash line])  The above position is consistently held by the Chinese Government, and is widely known by the international community  The map does not always have exactly nine dashes  Early versions of the map had as many as 11 dashes, and a map of China published by the Chinese government in June 2014 includes 10 dashes  The exact positions of the dashes have also varied a bit over time  China has maintained ambiguity over whether it is using the map of the nine-dash line to claim full sovereignty over the entire sea area enclosed by the nine-dash line, or something less than that  Maintaining this ambiguity can be viewed as an approach that preserves flexibility for China in pursuing its maritime claims in the SCS while making it more difficult for other parties to define specific objections or pursue legal challenges to those claims  It does appear clear, however, that China at a minimum claims sovereignty over the island groups inside the nine line segments—China's domestic Law on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, enacted in 1992, specifies that China claims sovereignty over all the island groups inside the nine line segments  China's implementation on January 1, 2014, of a series of fishing regulations covering much of the SCS suggests that China claims at least some degree of administrative control over much of the SCS  An April 30, 2018, blog post states the following: In what is likely a new bid to reinforce and even expand China's sweeping territorial claims in the South China Sea, a group of Chinese scholars recently published a "New Map of the People's Republic of China " The alleged political national map, reportedly first published in April 1951 but only "discovered" through a recent national archival investigation, could give new clarity to the precise extent of China's official claims in the disputed waters  Instead of dotted lines, as reflected in China's U-shaped Nine-Dash Line claim to nearly all of the South China Sea, the newly discovered map provides a solid "continuous national boundary line and administrative region line " The Chinese researchers claim that through analysis of historical maps, the 1951 solid-line map "proves" beyond dispute that the "U-boundary line is the border of China's territorial sea" in the South China Sea  They also claim that the solid administrative line overlaying the U-boundary "definitely indicated that the sovereignty of the sea" enclosed within the U-boundary "belonged to China " The study, edited by the Guanghua and Geosciences Club and published by SDX Joint Publishing Company, has not been formally endorsed by the Chinese government  April 2018 Press Report of Proposal for Continuous Boundary Line in SCS An April 22, 2018, press report states the following: Researchers are proposing a new boundary in the South China Sea that they say will help the study of natural science while potentially adding weight to China's claims over the disputed waters, according to a senior scientist involved in the government-funded project  The new boundary will help to define more clearly China's claims in the contested region, but it is not clear whether or when it will be officially adopted by Beijing, the scientist said  A precise continuous line will split the Gulf of Tonkin between China and Vietnam, go south into waters claimed by Malaysia, take a U-turn to the north along the west coast of the Philippines and finish at the southeast of Taiwan  For decades, China's sovereign claim in the South China Sea has been murky, in large part because of the use of a segmented, vaguely located borderline known as the 'nine-dash line'  A United Nations tribunal ruled in July 2016 that China had no legal basis to claim the area within the dash lines  One reason for China losing the case was that it could not define the territory precisely  However, analysts said Beijing was unlikely to officially change the nine-dash line any time soon, in the face of potential international opposition     The vast area of blue outlined by the new boundary, hanging on a map like a Christmas stocking under South China, overlaps the dashes and fills in the gaps  It includes all contested waters, such as the Paracel Islands, the Spratly Islands, James Shoal and Scarborough Shoal  The boundary would determine for the first time the exact area that China claimed to own with historic rights in the South China Sea, according to the researcher  Its purpose was partly the study of natural science and partly driven by a political motivation "to strengthen China's claims" over the waters to prepare for possible changes in its South China Sea policy in the future, the researcher said  Within the boundary, China would claim the right to activities ranging from fishing, prospecting and mining for energy or mineral resources to the construction of military bases with deep water ports or airports  Other countries' access to these rights would, however, be open for discussion, as is the case at Scarborough Shoal, which China controls but allows Philippine fishing boats to access  While Beijing would consider the area within the boundary its territory, other countries would still have freedom of navigation, the researcher said     "Soon we will have a clear idea of what belongs to us in the South China Sea and what does not," said the researcher  "This will allow us to better plan and coordinate the efforts to protect our national interest in the region while reducing the risk of conflict with other countries caused by the absence of a border over the ocean "    "More often, when we are sending vessels out to the sea or looking down at an area via satellite, we are not sure whether it was our water," said the researcher in the boundary-drawing project  "The nine-dash line can no longer meet the demands of increasing Chinese activities in the South China Sea "    The continuous boundary was generated not only by curve-extending, gap-filling algorithms on computer  It was also based on a solid piece of historic evidence, according to the project team  In 1951, an official map approved by the central government of China marked the China-claimed area in the South China Sea with a pair of non-stopping lines  There was an inner black line indicating the sovereign boundary and an outer red line representing where China could exercise administrative power  "We were thrilled when we found the map," the researcher said  "It is something we can show the world " A detailed description of the map was published by the project team in a paper in domestic academic journal China Science Bulletin in March this year  Its authors recommended using the continuous U-shape boundary line as a replacement for the nine-dash line  The "U-boundary is the border of China's sea in the South China Sea, and its sovereignty belongs to China", the authors wrote in the paper  It "can further express the certainty of the integrity, continuity and border of China's seas in the South China Sea", they wrote, adding that it was "more vivid, accurate, complete and scientific"  Professor Yu Minyou, director of the China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies at Wuhan University, said that if the old map was published with government approval, which was usually the case in China, "it surely will add legal weight to China's claim" in the region     But other countries should bear in mind that it did not represent the Chinese government's position as long as the dash lines stayed on official maps, Yu said, adding that China's strategy for the South China Sea was "open and clear"  "China wants to achieve peace, stability, harmony and prosperity in the region," he said  "We are willing to share natural resources with other countries and leave the disputes to be solved in the future  "What we are doing now is creating a suitable environment for the final settlement of the issue " A government expert at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies in Haikou, Hainan, said the continuous boundary would serve as a useful tool for some studies of natural science  But it was highly unlikely to be printed on an official map, said the expert, who requested not to be named because he was not allowed to speak to overseas media about sensitive issues  "To my knowledge, the Chinese government currently has no plan to change the dash lines," he said  "Most diplomats and ocean law experts will oppose joining the dashes " The tension in the South China Sea has eased significantly in recent times, with neighbouring countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam no longer seeking direct confrontation with China over disputed areas  "Things are moving towards the right direction," the government expert said  "It is not the best time to cut a boundary " September 2017 Press Report of Potential New "Four-Sha" Legal Claim A September 21, 2017, press report states the following: The Chinese government recently unveiled a new legal tactic to promote Beijing's aggressive claim to own most of the strategic South China Sea  The new narrative that critics are calling "lawfare," or legal warfare, involves a shift from China's so-called "9-Dash Line" ownership covering most of the sea  The new lawfare narrative is called the "Four Sha"—Chinese for sand—and was revealed by Ma Xinmin, deputy director general in the Foreign Ministry's department of treaty and law, during a closed-door meeting with State Department officials last month  China has claimed three of the island chains in the past and recently added a fourth zone in the northern part of the sea called the Pratas Islands near Hong Kong  The other locations are the disputed Paracels in the northwestern part and the Spratlys in the southern sea  The fourth island group is located in the central zone and includes Macclesfield Bank, a series of underwater reefs and shoals  China calls the island groups Dongsha, Xisha, Nansha, and Zhongsha, respectively  Ma, the Foreign Ministry official, announced during the meetings in Boston on Aug  28 and 29 that China is asserting sovereignty over the Four Sha through several legal claims  He stated the area is China's historical territorial waters and also part of China's 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone that defines adjacent zones as sovereign territory  Beijing also claims ownership by asserting the Four Sha are part of China's extended continental shelf  U S  officials attending the session expressed surprise at the new Chinese ploy to seek control over the sea as something not discussed before     A State Department notice at the end of what was billed as an annual U S -China Dialogue on the Law of the Sea and Polar Issues made no mention of the new Chinese lawfare tactic  The statement said only that officials from foreign affairs and maritime agencies "exchanged views on a wide range of issues related to oceans, the law of the sea, and the polar regions " A September 25, 2017, blog post about the claim states the following: While dropping or even de-emphasizing China's Nine-Dash Line claim in favor of the Four Shas has important diplomatic and political implications, the legal significance of such a shift is harder to assess  The constituent parts of China's Four Sha claims have long been set forth publicly in Chinese domestic law and official statements  Based on what we know so far, these new Chinese legal justifications are no more lawful than China's Nine-Dash Line claim  The challenge for critics of Chinese claims in the South China Sea, however, will be effectively explaining and articulating why this shift does not actually strengthen China's legal claims in the South China Sea  The Four Sha claim has a long pedigree in Chinese law and practice  China's 1992 law on the territorial sea and contiguous zone, for example, declared that China's land territory included the "Dongsha island group, Xisha island group, Zhongsha island group, [and] Nansha island group " A 2016 white paper disputing the Philippines' claims in the South China Sea arbitral process similarly claimed that: China's Nanhai Zhudao (the South China Sea Islands) consist of Dongsha Qundao (the Dongsha Islands), Xisha Qundao (the Xisha Islands), Zhongsha Qundao (the Zhongsha Islands) and Nansha Qundao (the Nansha Islands)  These Islands include, among others, islands, reefs, shoals and cays of various numbers and sizes     In a 2016 white paper, Beijing stated that, "China has, based on Nanhai Zhudao [the "Four Sha"], internal waters, territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf " Neither the white paper nor the Beacon's report explain how China derives these maritime zones from the four island groups     Because China is not constituted "wholly by one or more archipelagos" (think Indonesia or the Philippines), the U S  and most countries would view straight baselines around an island group as contrary to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)     For this reason, this new Chinese legal strategy is even weaker than the Nine-Dash Line given that it clearly violates UNCLOS (e g , Articles 46 and 47)  Most Chinese defenses of the Nine Dash Line argued that the claim predated China's accession to UNCLOS and therefore not governed by it  Despite the legal weaknesses of its possible new strategy, China may still reap some benefits from trading the Nine-Dash Line for the Four Shas  First, the Chinese leadership may have realized that the Nine Dash Line has become too much of a diplomatic liability  The Nine-Dash Line is completely sui generis and no other state has made a historic maritime claim anything like it  For this reason, the Nine-Dash Line makes China an easy target for foreign criticism in a way that straight baselines around island groups probably will not  Second, by adopting language more similar to that found in UNCLOS, China may be betting that it can tamp down criticism, and win potential partners in the region     Third, and most intriguingly, China may have concluded that it can better shape (or undermine, depending on your point of view) the law of the sea by adopting UNCLOS terminology     So while we might be encouraged to see the Nine-Dash Line pass into the (legal) dustbins of history, we should be skeptical about whether the Four Shas herald a new more modest Chinese role in the South China Sea  China's legal justification for the Four Shas is just as weak, if not weaker, than its Nine-Dash Line claim  But explaining why the Four Shas is weak and lawless will require sophisticated legal analysis married with effective public messaging  Comparison with U S  Actions Toward Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Some observers have compared China's approach toward its near-seas region with the U S  approach toward the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico in the age of the Monroe Doctrine  It can be noted, however, that there are significant differences between China's approach to its near-seas region and the U S  approach—both in the 19 th and 20 th centuries and today—to the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico  Unlike China in its approach to its near-seas region, the United States has not asserted any form of sovereignty or historical rights over the broad waters of the Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico (or other sea areas beyond the 12-mile limit of U S  territorial waters), has not published anything akin to the nine-dash line for these waters (or other sea areas beyond the 12-mile limit), and does not contest the right of foreign naval forces to operate and engage in various activities in waters beyond the 12-mile limit  Appendix F  U S  Position on Operational Rights in EEZs This appendix presents additional background information on the U S  position on the issue of operational rights of military ships in the EEZs of other countries  Operational Rights in EEZs Regarding a coastal state's rights within its EEZ, Scot Marciel, then-Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, stated the following as part of his prepared statement for a July 15, 2009, hearing before the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: I would now like to discuss recent incidents involving China and the activities of U S  vessels in international waters within that country's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)  In March 2009, the survey ship USNS Impeccable was conducting routine operations, consistent with international law, in international waters in the South China Sea  Actions taken by Chinese fishing vessels to harass the Impeccable put ships of both sides at risk, interfered with freedom of navigation, and were inconsistent with the obligation for ships at sea to show due regard for the safety of other ships  We immediately protested those actions to the Chinese government, and urged that our differences be resolved through established mechanisms for dialogue—not through ship-to-ship confrontations that put sailors and vessels at risk  Our concern over that incident centered on China's conception of its legal authority over other countries' vessels operating in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the unsafe way China sought to assert what it considers its maritime rights  China's view of its rights on this specific point is not supported by international law  We have made that point clearly in discussions with the Chinese and underscored that U S  vessels will continue to operate lawfully in international waters as they have done in the past  As part of his prepared statement for the same hearing, Robert Scher, then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, Office of the Secretary of Defense, stated that we reject any nation's attempt to place limits on the exercise of high seas freedoms within an exclusive economic zones [sic] (EEZ)  Customary international law, as reflected in articles 58 and 87 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, guarantees to all nations the right to exercise within the EEZ, high seas freedoms of navigation and overflight, as well as the traditional uses of the ocean related to those freedoms  It has been the position of the United States since 1982 when the Convention was established, that the navigational rights and freedoms applicable within the EEZ are qualitatively and quantitatively the same as those rights and freedoms applicable on the high seas  We note that almost 40% of the world's oceans lie within the 200 nautical miles EEZs, and it is essential to the global economy and international peace and security that navigational rights and freedoms within the EEZ be vigorously asserted and preserved  As previously noted, our military activity in this region is routine and in accordance with customary international law as reflected in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention  As mentioned earlier in the report, if China's position on whether coastal states have a right under UNCLOS to regulate the activities of foreign military forces in their EEZs were to gain greater international acceptance under international law, it could substantially affect U S  naval operations not only in the SCS and ECS (see Figure F-1 for EEZs in the SCS and ECS), but around the world, which in turn could substantially affect the ability of the United States to use its military forces to defend various U S  interests overseas  As shown in Figure F-2 , significant portions of the world's oceans are claimable as EEZs, including high-priority U S  Navy operating areas in the Western Pacific, the Persian Gulf, and the Mediterranean Sea  Some observers, in commenting on China's resistance to U S  military survey and surveillance operations in China's EEZ, have argued that the United States would similarly dislike it if China or some other country were to conduct military survey or surveillance operations within the U S  EEZ  Skeptics of this view argue that U S  policy accepts the right of other countries to operate their military forces freely in waters outside the 12-mile U S  territorial waters limit, and that the United States during the Cold War acted in accordance with this position by not interfering with either Soviet ships (including intelligence-gathering vessels known as AGIs) that operated close to the United States or with Soviet bombers and surveillance aircraft that periodically flew close to U S  airspace  The U S  Navy states that When the commonly recognized outer limit of the territorial sea under international law was three nautical miles, the United States recognized the right of other states, including the Soviet Union, to exercise high seas freedoms, including surveillance and other military operations, beyond that limit  The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention moved the outer limit of the territorial sea to twelve nautical miles  In 1983, President Reagan declared that the United States would accept the balance of the interests relating to the traditional uses of the oceans reflected in the 1982 Convention and would act in accordance with those provisions in exercising its navigational and overflight rights as long as other states did likewise  He further proclaimed that all nations will continue to enjoy the high seas rights and freedoms that are not resource related, including the freedoms of navigation and overflight, in the Exclusive Economic Zone he established for the United States consistent with the 1982 Convention  DOD states that the PLA Navy has begun to conduct military activities within the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of other nations, without the permission of those coastal states  Of note, the United States has observed over the past year several instances of Chinese naval activities in the EEZ around Guam and Hawaii  One of those instances was during the execution of the annual Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise in July/August 2012  While the United States considers the PLA Navy activities in its EEZ to be lawful, the activity undercuts China's decades-old position that similar foreign military activities in China's EEZ are unlawful  In July 2014, China participated, for the first time, in the biennial U S -led Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercise, the world's largest multilateral naval exercise  In addition to the four ships that China sent to participate in RIMPAC, China sent an uninvited intelligence-gathering ship to observe the exercise without participating in it  The ship conducted operations inside U S  EEZ off Hawaii, where the exercise was located  A July 29, 2014, press report stated that The high profile story of a Chinese surveillance ship off the cost of Hawaii could have a positive aspect for U S  operations in the Pacific, the head of U S  Pacific Command (PACOM) said in a Tuesday [July 29] afternoon briefing with reporters at the Pentagon  "The good news about this is that it's a recognition, I think, or acceptance by the Chinese for what we've been saying to them for sometime," PACOM commander Adm  Samuel Locklear told reporters  "Military operations and survey operations in another country's [Exclusive Economic Zone]—where you have your own national security interest—are within international law and are acceptable  This is a fundamental right nations have " One observer stated the following: The unprecedented decision [by China] to send a surveillance vessel while also participating in the RIMPAC exercises calls China's proclaimed stance on international navigation rights [in EEZ waters] into question    During the Cold War, the U S  and Soviets were known for spying on each other's exercises  More recently, Beijing sent what U S  Pacific Fleet spokesman Captain Darryn James called "a similar AGI ship" to Hawaii to monitor RIMPAC 2012—though that year, China was not an official participant in the exercises         the spy ship's presence appears inconsistent with China's stance on military activities in Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)     That Beijing's AGI [intelligence-gathering ship] is currently stationed off the coast of Hawaii suggests either a double standard that could complicate military relations between the United States and China, or that some such surveillance activities are indeed legitimate—and that China should clarify its position on them to avoid perceptions that it is trying to have things both ways     In its response to the Chinese vessel's presence, the USN has shown characteristic restraint  Official American policy permits surveillance operations within a nation's EEZ, provided they remain outside of that nation's 12-nautical mile territorial sea (an EEZ extends from 12 to 200 nautical miles unless this would overlap with another nations' EEZ)  U S  military statements reflect that position unambiguously     That consistent policy stance and accompanying restraint have characterized the U S  attitude toward foreign surveillance activity since the Cold War  Then, the Soviets were known for sending converted fishing ships equipped with surveillance equipment to the U S  coast, as well as foreign bases, maritime choke points, and testing sites  The U S  was similarly restrained in 2012, when China first sent an AGI to observe RIMPAC     China has, then, sent a surveillance ship to observe RIMPAC in what appears to be a decidedly intentional, coordinated move—and in a gesture that appears to contradict previous Chinese policy regarding surveillance and research operations (SROs)  The U S  supports universal freedom of navigation and the right to conduct SROs in international waters, including EEZs, hence its restraint when responding to the current presence of the Chinese AGI  But the PRC opposes such activities, particularly on the part of the U S , in its own EEZ     How then to reconcile the RIMPAC AGI with China's stand on surveillance activities? China maintains that its current actions are fully legal, and that there is a distinct difference between its operations off Hawaii and those of foreign powers in its EEZ  The PLAN's designated point of contact declined to provide information and directed inquiries to China's Defense Ministry  In a faxed statement to Reuters, the Defense Ministry stated that Chinese vessels had the right to operate "in waters outside of other country's territorial waters," and that "China respects the rights granted under international law to relevant littoral states, and hopes that relevant countries can respect the legal rights Chinese ships have " It did not elaborate  As a recent Global Times article hinted—China's position on military activities in EEZs is based on a legal reading that stresses the importance of domestic laws  According to China maritime legal specialist Isaac Kardon, China interprets the EEZ articles in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as granting a coastal state jurisdiction to enforce its domestic laws prohibiting certain military activities—e g , those that it interprets to threaten national security, economic rights, or environmental protection—in its EEZ  China's domestic laws include such provisions, while those of the United States do not  Those rules would allow China to justify its seemingly contradictory approach to AGI operations—or, as Kardon put it, "to have their cake and eat it too " Therefore, under the Chinese interpretation of UNCLOS, its actions are neither hypocritical nor illegal—yet do not justify similar surveillance against China  Here, noted legal scholar Jerome Cohen emphasizes, the U S  position remains the globally dominant view—"since most nations believe the coastal state has no right to forbid surveillance in its EEZ, they do not have domestic laws that do so " This renders China's attempted constraints legally problematic, since "international law is based on reciprocity " To explain his interpretation of Beijing's likely approach, Cohen invokes the observation that a French commentator made several decades ago in the context of discussing China's international law policy regarding domestic legal issues: "I demand freedom from you in the name of your principles  I deny it to you in the name of mine " Based on his personal experience interacting with Chinese officials and legal experts, Kardon adds, "China is increasingly confident that its interpretation of some key rules and—most critically—its practices reinforcing that interpretation can over time shape the Law of the Sea regime to suit its preferences " But China is not putting all its eggs in that basket  There are increasing indications that it is attempting to promote its EEZ approach vis-à-vis the U S  not legally but politically  "Beijing is shifting from rules- to relations-based objections," Naval War College China Maritime Studies Institute Director Peter Dutton observes  "In this context, its surveillance operations in undisputed U S  EEZs portend an important shift, but that does not mean that China will be more flexible in the East or South China Seas " The quasi-authoritative Chinese commentary that has emerged thus far supports this interpretation     [A recent statement from a Chinese official] suggests that Beijing will increasingly oppose U S  SROs on the grounds that they are incompatible with the stable, cooperative Sino-American relationship that Beijing and Washington have committed to cultivating  The Obama Administration must ensure that the "new-type Navy-to-Navy relations" that Chinese Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Wu Shengli has advocated to his U S  counterpart does not contain expectations that U S  SROs will be reduced in nature, scope, or frequency     China's conducting military activities in a foreign EEZ implies that, under its interpretation, some such operations are indeed legal  It therefore falls to China now to clarify its stance—to explain why its operations are consistent with international law, and what sets them apart from apparently similar American activities  If China does not explain away the apparent contradiction in a convincing fashion, it risks stirring up increased international resentment—and undermining its relationship with the U S  Beijing is currently engaging in activities very much like those it has vociferously opposed  That suggests the promotion of a double standard untenable in the international system, and very much at odds with the relationships based on reciprocity, respect, and cooperation that China purports to promote     If, however, China chooses to remain silent, it will likely have to accept—at least tacitly, without harassing—U S  surveillance missions in its claimed EEZ  So, as we watch for clarification on Beijing's legal interpretation, it will also be important to watch for indications regarding the next SROs in China's EEZ  In September 2014, a Chinese surveillance ship operated in U S  EEZ waters near Guam as it observed a joint-service U S  military exercise called Valiant Shield  A U S  spokesperson for the exercise stated the following: "We'd like to reinforce that military operations in international commons and outside of territorial waters and airspace is a fundamental right that all nations have     The Chinese were following international norms, which is completely acceptable " Appendix G  Options Suggested by Observers for Strengthening U S  Actions This appendix presents a bibliography of some recent writings by observers who have suggested options (or are reporting on options suggested by others) for strengthening U S  actions for responding to China's actions in the SCS and ECS, organized by date, beginning with the most-recent item  Andrew S  Erickson, "Maritime Numbers Game, Understanding and Responding to China's Three Sea Forces," Indo-Pacific Defense Forum , January 28, 2019  James R  Holmes, "Use It or Lose It: Seagoing Nations Must Defend Embattled Waterways," The Hill , January 27, 2019  Gregory Poling and Eric Sayers, "Time to Make Good on the U S -Philippine Alliance," War on the Rocks , January 21, 2019  Gregory Poling and Bonnie S  Glaser, "How the U S  Can Step Up in the South China Sea," Foreign Affairs , January 16, 2019  Zack Cooper and Gregory Poling, "America's Freedom of Navigation Operations Are Lost at Sea, Far Wider Measures Are Needed to Challenge Beijing's Maritime Aggression," Foreign Policy , January 8, 2019  Andrew S  Erickson, "Shining a Spotlight: Revealing China's Maritime Militia to Deter its Use," National Interest , November 25, 2018  Eric Sayers, "Assessing America's Indo-Pacific Budget Shortfall," War on the Rocks , November 15, 2018  Patrick N  Cronin and Richard Javad Heydarian, "This Is How America and the Philippines Can Upgrade Their Alliance," National Interest , November 12, 2018  John Lee, Freedom of Navigation and East Asian Stability: Countering Beijing's Campaign of Historical Revisionism ," Hudson Institute, November 2018, 8 pp  Ryan Martinson and Peter Dutton, "Chinese Scientists Want to Conduct Research in U S  Waters—Should Washington Let Them?" National Interest , November 4, 2018  Hunter Stires, "Understanding and Defeating China's Maritime Insurgency in the South china Sea," National Interest , November 1, 2018  Robert D  Kaplan, "How President Trump Is Helping Beijing Win in the South China Sea," Washington Post , October 9, 2018  Tuan Pham, "China's Worth Nightmare: RIMPAC 2020 in the South China Sea?" National Interest , September 29, 2018  Patrick M  Cronin, "China is Waging a Maritime Insurgency in the South China Sea  It's Time for the Unitd States to Counter It " National Interest , August 6, 2018  Shigeki Sakamoto, "China's South China Sea Project Must Not Succeed; The International Community Shouldn't Quietly Let China Ignore the 2016 [Arbitral Tribunal] Decision " Diplomat , August 6, 2018  James Amedeo, "America Needs a Clear Strategy to Counter China's Expansion in the South China Sea," National Interest , August 1, 2018  Lynn Kuok, "Countering China's Actions in the South China Sea," Lawfare , August 1, 2018  Timothy Perry, "Use Maritime-Law Trends to Offset Beijing's Gains in the South China Sea," Defense One , July 24, 2018  J  Michael Cole, "It's Time to Stop China's Seaward Expansion," National Interest , July 21, 2018  Lindsey W  Ford, "Was China's RIMPAC Exclusion An Opening or a Wasted Shot?" East Asia Forum , July 20, 2018  Lynn Kuok, "China Is Winning in the South China Sea," Wall Street Journal , July 17, 2018  "Washington and Its Allies Need to Contain Beijing," Financial Times , July 1, 2018  Patrick M  Cronin and Melodiw Ha, "Toward a New maritime Strategy in the South China Sea," The Diplomat , June 22, 2018  (A similar version was posted as: Patrick M  Cronin and Melodie Ha, "Toward a New Maritime Strategy in the South China Sea," CSIS, June 21, 2018 (PacNet #42)  Paul J  Leaf, "Taiwan and the South China Sea Must Be Taken Off the Back Burner," National Interest , June 18, 2018  Robert E  McCoy, "A Better Way to Repel China in the South China Sea," Asia Times , June 8, 2018  Robert Farley, "The South China Sea Conundrum for the United States," The Diplomat , June 5 2018  Joel Gehrke, "Marco Rubio: US Must Develop Plan to 'Destroy' Chinese Assets in South China Sea," Washington Examiner , June 4, 2018  Duncan DeAeth, "Taiwan Should Invite US to Open Military Base on Taiping Island, Says DPP Think-Tank," Taiwan News , June 4, 2018  Julian Ku, "It's Time for South China Sea Economic Sanctions," Lawfare , June 1, 2018  Eric Sayers, "Time to Launch a Combined Maritime Task Force for the Pacific," War on the Rocks , June 1, 2018  Matthew Krull, "America's Annual Naval Patrol Report and How to Fix It," National Interest , May 29, 2018  Tuan N  Pham, "A Sign of the Times: China's Recent Actions and the Undermining of Global Rules, Pt  3," CIMSEC (Center for International Maritime Security), May 24, 2018  Ryan D  Martinson and Andrew Erickson, "Re-Orienting American Seapower for the China Challenge," War on the Rocks , May 10, 2018  Ben Cipperley, "In the Era of Great Power Competition, the US Needs to Step Up Its Game," The Diplomat , May 8, 2018  Stephen Bryen, "How to Counter China's Fortified Islands in South China Sea," Asia Times , May 5, 2018  Ely Ratner, "Exposing China's Actions in the South China Sea," Council on Foreign Relations, April 6, 2018  Shawn Lansing, "A White Hull Approach to Taming the Dragon: Using the Coast Guard to Counter China," War on the Rocks , February 22, 2018  Dean Cheng, "Wanted: A Strategy to Limit China's Grand Plans for the South China Sea," National Interest , January 30, 2018  Hal Brands, "China Hasn't Won the Pacific (Unless You Think It Has)," Bloomberg , January 5, 2018 

ground_truth: The Trump Administration submitted to Congress its FY2019 budget request on February 12, 2018. The proposal included $41.86 billion for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS). Of that amount, $13.26 billion was for State Department operations, international broadcasting, and related agencies, and $28.60 billion for foreign operations. With the enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA; P.L. 115-123, February 9, 2018), which raised discretionary spending limits set by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25), the Administration's FY2019 foreign affairs funding request was entirely within enduring (base) funds; no Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding was included the SFOPS request for the first time since FY2012. The FY2019 request would have represented a 23.3% decrease in SFOPS funding compared with FY2018 actual funding levels. The proposed State and related agency funding would have been 18.7% below FY2018 funding and the foreign operations funding would have been reduced by 25.2%. In the State and related programs budget, cuts were proposed for several accounts, including the diplomatic security accounts, contributions to international organizations, and contributions for international peacekeeping activities. In the foreign operations budget, cuts would have been applied across all accounts, with disproportionately large cuts proposed for humanitarian assistance, multilateral assistance, and funding for bilateral development programs focused on agriculture, education, and democracy promotion. Both the House and Senate appropriations committees approved FY2019 SFOPS bills that included funding at higher levels than the Administration requested and closer to FY2018 funding. H.R. 6385, approved by the House appropriations committee on June 20, 2018, would have funded SFOPS accounts at $54.177 billion. S. 3108, approved by the Senate appropriations committee on June 21, 2018, would have provided $54.602 billion for SFOPS accounts. FY2019 began with seven appropriations bills, including SFOPS, unfinished. Congress and the President approved continuing resolutions to fund the affected federal agencies through December 21, 2018 at the FY2018 level (P.L. 115-245, Division C and P.L. 115-298). After December 21, a partial shutdown of the government, including SFOPS funded agencies, occurred. On January 25, 2019, an agreement was reached to continue funding for SFOPS and other appropriations that had lapsed through February 15, at the FY2018 level (P.L. 116-5). On February 14, Congress passed, and the President later signed into law, a full year omnibus appropriation that included SFOPS funding (P.L. 116-6, Division F). P.L. 116-6 included a total of $54.377 billion for SFOPS accounts in FY2019, a 0.3% decrease from the FY2018 funding level and about 30% more than the Administration's request. Of that enacted total, $8.0 billion, or 14.7%, was designated as OCO. This report provides an account-by-account comparison of the FY2019 SFOPS request, House and Senate SFOPS legislation and the final FY2019 SFOPS appropriation to FY2018 funding in Appendix A. The International Affairs (function 150) budget in Appendix B provides a similar comparison. This report will not be further updated unless there is further congressional activity on FY2019 appropriations.