Chinese Navy sails through US waters

[finehoe]

Thanks, mom.

You're welcome.

[BridgeTroll]

Actions against fishermen... including water cannon... stealing fish and fuel...

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/506538/news/nation/pinoy-fishermen-tell-of-aggressive-chinese-navy-in-west-phl-sea-magdalo-urges-phl-ship-patrols

https://www.youtube.com/v/Ikys7xh_xC4

[spuwho]

Argentina claims the Falkland islands, but I support the UK's claim. When it comes down to it, the UK's claim is the only one that matters, because they inhabit the islands.

Competing claims always exist. These somehow have to be resolved. But it's usually resolved when someone does something about it - like settling the islands, for example. A number of the countries in this dispute seem to recognize this approach as valid, as they are doing it. It's not just the Chinese - it's just that the Chinese are doing it better (and are much more creative in their approach).

I support UKs claims also... however in SCS I support the claims of the smaller nations in the region who are geographically closer to the disputed shoals than China... Here is an interesting article on other less known disputes in Asia...

http://amti.csis.org/maritime-disputes/

Again, people from various countries have had a presence in the island for hundreds of years. For instance, the Vietnamese have apparently been there seasonally for 300 years. And again, the greater issue than China's claim to the island is their (baseless) claim that it means they get to keep foreign ships out of the island's waters, even as they enter other countries' indisputable waters in the exact same fashion. It's good that we're not rising to it.

So, why would it be okay for the UK to inhabit and claim islands a few hundred miles from Argentina yet not okay for China to inhabit and claim islands that are closer to the Philippines?

I'm not saying you have to be 100% consistent, but it seems like your position is based more on anti-Chinese bias than it is on anything else. It would make more sense to just say that none of the claimants has more or less right to the islands and leave it at that.

I can't speak for Bridge, but the difference I see is that British subjects were living there for 150 years before Argentina pressed the issue (and started a stupid war). Honestly I've never thought the British really had a good legal claim to the Falklands, other than the fact that the people most directly involved (the inhabitants themselves) apparently very much prefer being under British sovereignty than Argentine.

Earlier you said the U.S. was a "bully", but you don't seem to see China's actions here as bullying.

Falklands is a different animal altogether.

If ancestral rights were legal here, the islands would belong to the Fuego Tribe of Patagonia, which doesnt exist anymore.

The British were the first organized government to land on the Falklands, (no one was there) but in its early years the island sat empty and was later shared between the Spanish and the British.

Argentina's beef is that they base their claim on Argentine independence from Spain, and have make a legal claim to what was then considered part of the Spanish Crown. (West Malvinas)

But the British evicted the Spanish subjects upon Argentinas claim because they never recognized the Spanish claim to begin with. The Spanish were on West Falkland, British on East Falkland. While British had claimed the entire island group, they left it unoccupied for several time periods and the Spanish took advantage of it.

Oddly, the South Sandwich Islands are in the same archipelago as the Falklands but no one gripes over them.

[Jason]

Isn't the issue with China's claim over the islands more to do with the manner in which they are using it?  If they were claiming it for farming, fishing, research etc, there would likely be no issue.  However, they appear to be using it for military purposes which is the problem.

[Adam White]

Oddly, the South Sandwich Islands are in the same archipelago as the Falklands but no one gripes over them.

Actually, the Argies claim the South Sandwich Islands and the Brits turfed them out of there during the Falklands war (they had set up a base, unknown to the UK).

[Tacachale]

So which islands did the US ships actually pass? Seems to me it matters if we are talking about real islands that, as has been noted, various groups have claimed for hundreds of years, or the newly-created ones that are a result of Chinese dredging activity.

Under UNCLOS, habitable islands are entitled to territorial waters extending 12 nautical miles around their periphery, as well as a 200-nautical-mile "exclusive economic zone" (EEZ). Uninhabitable rocks get the territorial waters but not the EEZ. "Low-tide elevations"—ie, reefs like Subi and two others where China has been filling in the sea that are wholly submerged at high tide—get neither.

They sailed within the 12 mile "limit" of one of the new artificial islands... formerly known as Subi Reef.  This Q and A is quite helpful...

http://amti.csis.org/the-u-s-asserts-freedom-of-navigation-in-the-south-china-sea/

Another reason to side with the other countries is that foe centuries these reefs were the traditional fishing grounds of the peoples living around them.  The dredging operations have destroyed the reefs and the Chinese actively expel fishermen in the area.

Yes, it was the artificial islands built over Subi and Mischief reefs. Even if artificial islands on disputed reefs can be said to have territorial waters, it doesn't mean that they can keep ships from other countries from legally sailing in their waters.

[finehoe]

China's artificial islands in before-and-after photos :  http://www.marketwatch.com/story/chinas-artificial-islands-in-before-and-after-photos-2015-10-27

[BridgeTroll]

A much more comprehensive before... dredging ops... after for all reefs.  This shows the complete destruction of the reefs...

http://amti.csis.org/island-tracker/

[finehoe]

Interesting post at the LawFareBlog on the fine points of the dispute. It's by Adam Klein and Mira Rapp-Hooper, and it carefully delineates the differing claims that China, the United States, and other countries are making about the rocks/islands/reefs/airstrips in the South China Sea — and the differing ways in which U.S. Navy ships passing through this area can establish freedom-of-navigation principles.

Freedom of Navigation Operations in the South China Sea: What to Watch For

Complicating Factor #1: Diverging Views on the Law of the Sea
Complicating Factor #2: Determining the Maritime Entitlements of Reclaimed Features
Complicating Factor #3: Contesting Maritime Claims but not Sovereignty

https://www.lawfareblog.com/freedom-navigation-operations-south-china-sea-what-watch

[spuwho]

Press is reporting that a 1 hour video conference has been setup between the US Navy Chief of Operations and his Chinese counterpart.

Navy Admiral Harry Harris, who runs all Pacific forces will be going to Beijing next week. Interesting in that he calls Chinas presence in the Spratlys the "Great Wall of Sand".

[Tacachale]

Press is reporting that a 1 hour video conference has been setup between the US Navy Chief of Operations and his Chinese counterpart.

Navy Admiral Harry Harris, who runs all Pacific forces will be going to Beijing next week. Interesting in that he calls Chinas presence in the Spratlys the "Great Wall of Sand".

Sounds like a positive outcome.

[BridgeTroll]

yes it does... during the height of the Cold War... the US and USSR operated ships and aircraft under INCSEA to prevent or resolve "issues".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Soviet_Incidents_at_Sea_agreement