The Wall Street Journal reports that the Chinese Navy while returning from joint exercises with the Russian Navy, transited through US waters as they passed through the Bering Strait and the Aleutian Islands.
US authorities said there was nothing illegal about the movement in that it fully obeyed the laws of open seas.
No communication with the ships were required per US DoD but they were being tracked they said.
A far contrast from the South China Sea.
Wow, a total non-story. Fear the yellow horde!
Quote from: Adam White on September 05, 2015, 11:54:35 AM
Wow, a total non-story. Fear the yellow horde!
In context to certain events in the South China Sea, it is a story.
We send a P8 Posiedon over the Spratly Islands in International waters and it was threatened repeatedly.
They send their navy through our territorial waters and we did.......nothing.
We send USAF Rivet Joints from Alaska to Kadena. The Russian Air Force harass it with repeated flybys within 100 meters.
Russian Air Force sends 2 Illyushin bombers from Vladivostok to Venuzuela transiting within Hawaii airspace. We did nothing.
The point is not fearing any "horde". The point is respecting the law of international waters.
In this case we showed them how it works, it seems they are still learning.
Quote from: spuwho on September 05, 2015, 08:16:55 PM
Quote from: Adam White on September 05, 2015, 11:54:35 AM
Wow, a total non-story. Fear the yellow horde!
In context to certain events in the South China Sea, it is a story.
We send a P8 Posiedon over the Spratly Islands in International waters and it was threatened repeatedly.
They send their navy through our territorial waters and we did.......nothing.
We send USAF Rivet Joints from Alaska to Kadena. The Russian Air Force harass it with repeated flybys within 100 meters.
Russian Air Force sends 2 Illyushin bombers from Vladivostok to Venuzuela transiting within Hawaii airspace. We did nothing.
The point is not fearing any "horde". The point is respecting the law of international waters.
In this case we showed them how it works, it seems they are still learning.
But the reason the Chinese have acted as they have is because there is a real issue in the Spratly islands and they are concerned about attempts by other nations to co-opt what they view (either rightly or wrongly) as their territory. The US has rarely sent a plane through that area just to get from point A to point B. Almost every flight has an intent.
It's also worth noting that every time the Russians fly a plane in international waters in close proximity to the USA or the UK, jets are scrambled and "escort" these planes, even though they are in international waters. And the media goes on and on about how the Russians are sabre-rattling, etc. But when the USA does it, it's simply them flying in international waters. The USA is a bully and does what it wants to enforce what it perceives as its "rights" or to enforce its particular view of how things ought to be. The USA is no different than Russia or China in this regard.
This is a non-story: "US authorities said there was nothing illegal about the movement in that it fully obeyed the laws of open seas." There was no reason this should have ever been reported in the first place - but it was, because the media is very concerned with whipping up anti-Chinese sentiment.
When I first read it, I too was like "so what...they sailed and nothing happened".
I would say the fact it was buried on page 3 or 4 in a corner dispels the media hype factor.
It was newsworthy in light of recent events in that absolutely nothing happened. That sounds contrary to what we expect from media, but the fact the event didnt follow a norm is what drove it.
When DoD mentioned they were tracking their fleet, they didnt say how. For all we know we had submarines in the area collecting data on their screws.
Perhaps they didnt have the space column inches to delve further, it would have been nice if they had said more on why it was reported.
Quote from: spuwho on September 06, 2015, 09:40:51 AM
When I first read it, I too was like "so what...they sailed and nothing happened".
I would say the fact it was buried on page 3 or 4 in a corner dispels the media hype factor.
It was newsworthy in light of recent events in that absolutely nothing happened. That sounds contrary to what we expect from media, but the fact the event didnt follow a norm is what drove it.
When DoD mentioned they were tracking their fleet, they didnt say how. For all we know we had submarines in the area collecting data on their screws.
Perhaps they didnt have the space column inches to delve further, it would have been nice if they had said more on why it was reported.
There seem to be a lot of stories about China in the news today - either stuff like this or weird videos of Chinese people doing stupid/dangerous/foolish/etc stuff. Rarely is there any positive coverage of China. I guess they're the pantomime villain (alongside Russia) these days.
The US Navy transited international waters in the Spratlys yesterday. Lots of noise from the Chinese.
We even telegraphed them that we were doing it. They even called in our Ambassador. Talk about making a show over essentially nothing. If filing protests is the new way of saving face culturally, then let em file a bunch.
Per the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-says-us-naval-destroyer-sailing-close-to-chinese-built-island-damages-peace-and-stability/2015/10/27/25b254b4-7c7a-11e5-beba-927fd8634498_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-says-us-naval-destroyer-sailing-close-to-chinese-built-island-damages-peace-and-stability/2015/10/27/25b254b4-7c7a-11e5-beba-927fd8634498_story.html)
China says U.S. naval destroyer sailing close to Chinese-built island damages peace and stability.
By Simon Denyer October 27 at 12:37 PM
BEIJING — China denounced what it called a "dangerous and provocative" act Tuesday after an American warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of a Chinese-built artificial island at a center of regional dispute over maritime territory and sea routes.
The incident reflects rising tensions between the United States and China over Beijing's aggressive program of land reclamation and construction on rocks and reefs in the Spratly archipelago in the South China Sea, whose shores include Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines.
The U.S. naval action — which followed months of debate in Washington — was intended to uphold the principle of freedom of navigation in international waters, U.S. officials said, and underscores that Washington does not accept China's claim to territorial waters around the man-made islands.
Experts said it was also aimed at reassuring nervous American allies that Washington would not allow Beijing to throw its weight around in the region unchallenged. But there is a risk it could raise military tensions.
ina said it viewed the move as an infringement on its sovereignty and claimed it would damage regional peace and stability.
The foreign ministry warned that Beijing might respond by speeding up its construction program. More ominously, the Chinese navy said further U.S. missions of this sort could "trigger eventualities" — without elaborating.
China said it had monitored, followed the USS Lassen as it passed close to the Subi reef, sending out a missile destroyer and a patrol boat of its own to deliver the warning.
But a U.S. defense official said the mission had been completed "without incident." The USS Lassen, a guided-missile destroyer, was accompanied by Navy surveillance planes, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The decision to go ahead followed months of deliberation in Washington, reflecting the fine balance between standing up to China and potentially provoking a spiral of further confrontation and regional militarization.
Navy told China in advance to expect ship
Last month, Beijing warned it would "never allow any country" to violate what it considers to be its territorial waters and airspace around the islands.
China said it viewed the move as an infringement on its sovereignty and claimed it would damage regional peace and stability.
The foreign ministry warned that Beijing might respond by speeding up its construction program. More ominously, the Chinese navy said further U.S. missions of this sort could "trigger eventualities" — without elaborating.
Good... hopefully this will be a regular occurrence.
Good.
I think you'll find that the USA sailed a ship through Chinese waters. If the shoe were on the other foot, the American media wouldn't paint these as "disputed" waters - they'd recognize the "validity" of American claims over the territory and make it look like the Chinese were being beligerent.
Quote from: Adam White on October 27, 2015, 05:28:26 PM
I think you'll find that the USA sailed a ship through Chinese waters. If the shoe were on the other foot, the American media wouldn't paint these as "disputed" waters - they'd recognize the "validity" of American claims over the territory and make it look like the Chinese were being beligerent.
Just because China (or some other country) claims something doesn't make it theirs. The waters are international and treating them as such is fine.
We already saw what happened when the shoe was on the other foot: nothing. Unlike Spratley, the Bering waters are indisputably American, and the US respected international consensus.
An American warship sails through disputed waters in the South China Sea
THE puzzle about the intrusion on October 27th by an American warship into what China regards as its waters in the South China Sea is not that it took place. Rather it is that the patrol, which the American navy keeps insisting is "routine" practice, had not happened much earlier.
The ship, USS Lassen, sailed closer than 12 nautical miles from Subi Reef, one of seven tiny specks in the Spratly archipelago where China has been engaged in frenetic construction over the past two years—in effect creating artificial islands. America fears they are military bases in the making, which would greatly extend China's military reach. It has called on China to halt all construction.
America called USS Lassen's sail-by a routine "freedom of navigation" operation (FONOP in the jargon), of a type it conducts all over the world "in accordance with international law". China reacted furiously, accusing America of having "illegally entered" its waters, threatening "China's sovereignty and security interests".
Each side's position is a bit odd. America insists it is upholding international law, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). But it has never ratified UNCLOS (though successive presidents and navy chiefs have unavailingly urged Congress to do so).
It also purports to be protecting the freedom of navigation for the whole world, in sea lanes vital for maritime trade. But no one is actually threatening that freedom using sovereignty as a pretext.
Before authorising USS Lassen's mission, the Obama administration waited until after President Xi Jinping's state visit to America earlier in the month, perhaps not wanting to sour the atmosphere. That Mr Xi was so dismissive of American concerns about China's island-building in the South China Sea seems to have prompted Barack Obama to agree to a FONOP the Pentagon had been urging for months.
By refraining for so long from entering these waters (the last such close sail-by of a feature claimed by China in the South China Sea was in 2012, the year Mr Xi took over as China's leader), America tacitly accepted that it would be very provocative to China. That has rather undermined its argument that it is no big deal.
America also maintains it takes no view on the sovereignty over disputed islands, rocks and reefs in the sea. Subi Reef, for example, is claimed not just by China but by the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. The limited point the navy has taken so long to make was that, whoever owns it, it would not be entitled under UNCLOS to its own "territorial waters".
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.
China for its part has ratified UNCLOS. Yet it has been reluctant to spell out how its claims in the South China Sea accord with it. Instead it resorts to vague and sweeping historical claims, as Mr Xi did in America: "The islands and reefs in the South China Sea are Chinese territory since ancient times. They are left to us by our ancestors." That is debatable and, in any event, UNCLOS does not recognise ancestral rights.
China has also produced a map that it says represents its claim, a vast U-shaped "nine-dashed line", encompassing virtually the entire sea. But it has left vague whether it is claiming the land features within the line, or all the waters as well, which is not how UNCLOS works.
China does appear to accept UNCLOS's article 17 on the "right of innocent passage", under which warships can pass freely even through territorial waters if they do so without any menacing behaviour. To no American protests at all, five Chinese naval ships sailed in American waters off Alaska in August—just as Mr Obama was visiting the state. Again, China seems unembarrassed by the inconsistency, and not interested in explaining it.
Part of the reason lies in China's and America's different interpretations of UNCLOS as it relates to what foreign navies can get up to. In the past disputes have focused on EEZs, not the 12nm-limit. America thinks it has the right to conduct military exercises and surveillance in EEZs. China disagrees. Several times it has harassed American ships and planes engaged in what it sees as spying. It now seems to hope it is powerful enough to enforce its interpretation. America is, at last, pushing back.
Its friends in South-East Asia will be cheered. But few, if any, will be keen to join in FONOPs themselves. They would rather hide behind America as it seeks to maintain an important component of the Pax Americana that has enabled Asia to thrive for decades.
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21676983-long-awaited-freedom-navigation-operation-sure-anger-china-american-navy-sails-through
Quote from: Tacachale on October 27, 2015, 07:51:44 PM
Quote from: Adam White on October 27, 2015, 05:28:26 PM
I think you'll find that the USA sailed a ship through Chinese waters. If the shoe were on the other foot, the American media wouldn't paint these as "disputed" waters - they'd recognize the "validity" of American claims over the territory and make it look like the Chinese were being beligerent.
Just because China (or some other country) claims something doesn't make it theirs. The waters are international and treating them as such is fine.
We already saw what happened when the shoe was on the other foot: nothing. Unlike Spratley, the Bering waters are indisputably American, and the US respected international consensus.
The Spratly islands are Chinese. They have claimed them, just as any other country can claim land. If the Chinese claims to the Spratly Islands are invalid, then pretty much all claims of any territory are invalid.
As far as the Bering waters are concerned - perhaps. But it was reported in the press, even though it was a total non-event. I would argue that the intent differs between the two incidents. The Chinese ships had to sail through US waters in order to get where they were going. The USA is sending ships through the Spratly waters to prove a point - a point the Chinese probably think is that the islands aren't theirs. Whether or not that is okay is a different issue. But I do see the USA being just as bad as the Chinese in this instance.
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 02:41:50 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on October 27, 2015, 07:51:44 PM
Quote from: Adam White on October 27, 2015, 05:28:26 PM
I think you'll find that the USA sailed a ship through Chinese waters. If the shoe were on the other foot, the American media wouldn't paint these as "disputed" waters - they'd recognize the "validity" of American claims over the territory and make it look like the Chinese were being beligerent.
Just because China (or some other country) claims something doesn't make it theirs. The waters are international and treating them as such is fine.
We already saw what happened when the shoe was on the other foot: nothing. Unlike Spratley, the Bering waters are indisputably American, and the US respected international consensus.
The Spratly islands are Chinese. They have claimed them, just as any other country can claim land. If the Chinese claims to the Spratly Islands are invalid, then pretty much all claims of any territory are invalid.
As far as the Bering waters are concerned - perhaps. But it was reported in the press, even though it was a total non-event. I would argue that the intent differs between the two incidents. The Chinese ships had to sail through US waters in order to get where they were going. The USA is sending ships through the Spratly waters to prove a point - a point the Chinese probably think is that the islands aren't theirs. Whether or not that is okay is a different issue. But I do see the USA being just as bad as the Chinese in this instance.
Thanks for clarifying Adam. Since your observation "any country can claim land" then these artificial islands belong to the Phillipines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei rather than China as these structures are actually within the 200 mile EEZ of these countries where China is as many as 800 miles away. Your observation also clarifies the disputed islands up north apparently are Japanese and not Chinese since... well... Japan has claimed them.
As for freedom of navigation missions... these are NOT rare as they happen every day. Missions are flown and ships sail in so called disputed waters and airspace daily to make clear that countries cannot simply claim chunks of land and water... a few famous examples include Qaddafi's claim of the Gulf of Sidra (line of Death), Iran's claim of most of the Persian Gulf, Sea of Japan(N Korea), arctic ocean (USSR/Russia).
I find it a bit odd that you support Chinese bullying of their weaker neighbors such as Vietnam and Phillippines. Do you also support the forcible reunification of Taiwan and the mainland?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 28, 2015, 06:56:23 AM
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 02:41:50 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on October 27, 2015, 07:51:44 PM
Quote from: Adam White on October 27, 2015, 05:28:26 PM
I think you'll find that the USA sailed a ship through Chinese waters. If the shoe were on the other foot, the American media wouldn't paint these as "disputed" waters - they'd recognize the "validity" of American claims over the territory and make it look like the Chinese were being beligerent.
Just because China (or some other country) claims something doesn't make it theirs. The waters are international and treating them as such is fine.
We already saw what happened when the shoe was on the other foot: nothing. Unlike Spratley, the Bering waters are indisputably American, and the US respected international consensus.
The Spratly islands are Chinese. They have claimed them, just as any other country can claim land. If the Chinese claims to the Spratly Islands are invalid, then pretty much all claims of any territory are invalid.
As far as the Bering waters are concerned - perhaps. But it was reported in the press, even though it was a total non-event. I would argue that the intent differs between the two incidents. The Chinese ships had to sail through US waters in order to get where they were going. The USA is sending ships through the Spratly waters to prove a point - a point the Chinese probably think is that the islands aren't theirs. Whether or not that is okay is a different issue. But I do see the USA being just as bad as the Chinese in this instance.
Thanks for clarifying Adam. Since your observation "any country can claim land" then these artificial islands belong to the Phillipines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei rather than China as these structures are actually within the 200 mile EEZ of these countries where China is as many as 800 miles away. Your observation also clarifies the disputed islands up north apparently are Japanese and not Chinese since... well... Japan has claimed them.
As for freedom of navigation missions... these are NOT rare as they happen every day. Missions are flown and ships sail in so called disputed waters and airspace daily to make clear that countries cannot simply claim chunks of land and water... a few famous examples include Qaddafi's claim of the Gulf of Sidra (line of Death), Iran's claim of most of the Persian Gulf, Sea of Japan(N Korea), arctic ocean (USSR/Russia).
I find it a bit odd that you support Chinese bullying of their weaker neighbors such as Vietnam and Phillippines. Do you also support the forcible reunification of Taiwan and the mainland?
Chinese claims to those islands stretch back hundreds of years. They are currently claimed by both the PRC and ROC. China has a presence in the islands and is making them habitable. I don't see the issue there. That's what I mean by "anyone can claim land". No land naturally belongs to anyone. Current national boundaries are decided by people who took land and enforced those claims. These lands have been claimed by China for hundreds of years and they are now being developed.
As far as Taiwan is concerned, I support the view that the territory belongs to the PRC. That said, they don't have possession of it and I support a peaceful resolution.
I think the US missions are being viewed as provocative by the Chinese - whether or not that is the intent. That helps explain the reaction. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's what it is. And I think trying to understand these things will possibly bring us closer to a resolution than vilifying the Chinese and trying to prove a "point" without thinking about how it appears to the other party. Or parties, as Taiwan is also unhappy about the US 'freedom of navigation' missions.
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 07:18:19 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 28, 2015, 06:56:23 AM
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 02:41:50 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on October 27, 2015, 07:51:44 PM
Quote from: Adam White on October 27, 2015, 05:28:26 PM
I think you'll find that the USA sailed a ship through Chinese waters. If the shoe were on the other foot, the American media wouldn't paint these as "disputed" waters - they'd recognize the "validity" of American claims over the territory and make it look like the Chinese were being beligerent.
Just because China (or some other country) claims something doesn't make it theirs. The waters are international and treating them as such is fine.
We already saw what happened when the shoe was on the other foot: nothing. Unlike Spratley, the Bering waters are indisputably American, and the US respected international consensus.
The Spratly islands are Chinese. They have claimed them, just as any other country can claim land. If the Chinese claims to the Spratly Islands are invalid, then pretty much all claims of any territory are invalid.
As far as the Bering waters are concerned - perhaps. But it was reported in the press, even though it was a total non-event. I would argue that the intent differs between the two incidents. The Chinese ships had to sail through US waters in order to get where they were going. The USA is sending ships through the Spratly waters to prove a point - a point the Chinese probably think is that the islands aren't theirs. Whether or not that is okay is a different issue. But I do see the USA being just as bad as the Chinese in this instance.
Thanks for clarifying Adam. Since your observation "any country can claim land" then these artificial islands belong to the Phillipines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei rather than China as these structures are actually within the 200 mile EEZ of these countries where China is as many as 800 miles away. Your observation also clarifies the disputed islands up north apparently are Japanese and not Chinese since... well... Japan has claimed them.
As for freedom of navigation missions... these are NOT rare as they happen every day. Missions are flown and ships sail in so called disputed waters and airspace daily to make clear that countries cannot simply claim chunks of land and water... a few famous examples include Qaddafi's claim of the Gulf of Sidra (line of Death), Iran's claim of most of the Persian Gulf, Sea of Japan(N Korea), arctic ocean (USSR/Russia).
I find it a bit odd that you support Chinese bullying of their weaker neighbors such as Vietnam and Phillippines. Do you also support the forcible reunification of Taiwan and the mainland?
Chinese claims to those islands stretch back hundreds of years. They are currently claimed by both the PRC and ROC. China has a presence in the islands and is making them habitable. I don't see the issue there. That's what I mean by "anyone can claim land". No land naturally belongs to anyone. Current national boundaries are decided by people who took land and enforced those claims. These lands have been claimed by China for hundreds of years and they are now being developed.
As far as Taiwan is concerned, I support the view that the territory belongs to the PRC. That said, they don't have possession of it and I support a peaceful resolution.
I think the US missions are being viewed as provocative by the Chinese - whether or not that is the intent. That helps explain the reaction. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's what it is. And I think trying to understand these things will possibly bring us closer to a resolution than vilifying the Chinese and trying to prove a "point" without thinking about how it appears to the other party. Or parties, as Taiwan is also unhappy about the US 'freedom of navigation' missions.
You appear to be ignoring the claims by Vietnam, P.I., Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei... who's claim are at least as legitimate as China's...
(http://namvietnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/25-nine-dashed-line-in-the-south-china-sea.jpg)
I believe what Adam is saying is that China's claims are legit because they're putting habitation on the island, whereas none of the other claimants have. It's an interesting point, but it definitely doesn't accord with international treaties. Especially considering that the Spratlys have seen sporadic habitation for hundreds of years. International law definitely recognizes the right of countries to claim uninhabited land, especially when they are used for fishing, mining, and commerce as the Spratlys are. In this sense, the islands have been "inhabited" for hundreds of years by people from various countries. As far as the claims go, the Vietnamese claim is as old or older than China's, as they're partially based on the same Chinese documents. And obviously any claim the PRC makes can be justifiably made by Taiwan as well. I doubt it would be a good policy for all these countries to go out and establish a presence there to one-up each other.
Beyond that, there's the fact that regardless of who owns the island, a country doesn't just get to keep foreign ships out of "their" waters. So, for instance, unthreatening Chinese warships can sail freely in (indisputably) American waters, just as unthreatening American, Japanese, Vietnamese, or any other ships can sail by the Spratlys regardless of who owns them.
Obviously the U.S. mission was intended to be provocative in that the Chinese government is currently fixated on viewing such a mission as provocative. But that's on them. Legally sailing ships through "innocent passage" is not in and of itself a provocation.
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).
QuotePart of the reason lies in China's and America's different interpretations of UNCLOS as it relates to what foreign navies can get up to. In the past disputes have focused on EEZs, not the 12nm-limit. America thinks it has the right to conduct military exercises and surveillance in EEZs [exclusive economic zones]. China disagrees. Several times it has harassed American ships and planes engaged in what it sees as spying.
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 10:48:57 AM
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/
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 28, 2015, 11:00:33 AM
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 10:48:57 AM
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/
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.
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 11:05:49 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 28, 2015, 11:00:33 AM
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 10:48:57 AM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 11:05:49 AM
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.
Quote from: Tacachale on October 28, 2015, 11:57:00 AM
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 11:05:49 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 28, 2015, 11:00:33 AM
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 10:48:57 AM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 11:05:49 AM
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.
No, China is bullying in its own way. But the other countries in the region are doing it, too. It's just that China is stronger and is also a massive worry for the USA - so they are painted out as being the "bad guys" in this. The articles don't ever really try to understand the Chinese perspective.
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 12:08:15 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on October 28, 2015, 11:57:00 AM
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 11:05:49 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 28, 2015, 11:00:33 AM
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 10:48:57 AM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 11:05:49 AM
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.
No, China is bullying in its own way. But the other countries in the region are doing it, too. It's just that China is stronger and is also a massive worry for the USA - so they are painted out as being the "bad guys" in this. The articles don't ever really try to understand the Chinese perspective.
I don't think they're necessarily the "bad guy" here (in this specifically; they are a repressive dictatorship and bad in various other ways). Countries have disputes over land, and imperial tinkering by Europe and Japan has complicated the issue. But they're definitely using force rather than diplomacy to get what they want, and that's not cool (I suspect you'd be decrying it if the US was doing it). But the worse issue isn't just them taking the islands, it's them using their claims to put "China Only" signs around most of the South China Sea.
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.
QuoteUnder 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.
Quote from: Tacachale on October 28, 2015, 12:19:35 PM
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 12:08:15 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on October 28, 2015, 11:57:00 AM
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 11:05:49 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 28, 2015, 11:00:33 AM
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 10:48:57 AM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 11:05:49 AM
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.
No, China is bullying in its own way. But the other countries in the region are doing it, too. It's just that China is stronger and is also a massive worry for the USA - so they are painted out as being the "bad guys" in this. The articles don't ever really try to understand the Chinese perspective.
I don't think they're necessarily the "bad guy" here (in this specifically; they are a repressive dictatorship and bad in various other ways). Countries have disputes over land, and imperial tinkering by Europe and Japan has complicated the issue. But they're definitely using force rather than diplomacy to get what they want, and that's not cool (I suspect you'd be decrying it if the US was doing it). But the worse issue isn't just them taking the islands, it's them using their claims to put "China Only" signs around most of the South China Sea.
I'm not cool with them using force - but I think a number of the parties in this disagreement have been using force in different ways. I think what the Chinese are doing is basically what everyone else is doing (in theory) but more extensive in practice because they have the resources to do it.
I only think the "China Only" signs are a result of their concerns about the US and other countries attempting to challenge their claims to the islands. If it were a settled issue, I wouldn't be surprised if they were more reasonable.
To be clear - I am not "pro China" on this. I don't really care. But I don't like the anti-China bias that is so prevalent in the media these days. If Japan or South Korea were doing this, not China, I guarantee it would be reported on differently. And the US would approach it differently.
Quote from: finehoe on October 28, 2015, 12:36:48 PM
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.
QuoteUnder 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.
I have no idea. But it's irrelevant to me. If China's claim to these islands is legitimate (matter for debate), then these islands are part of China. And mankind has been recovering land from the sea for eons or whatever.
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 12:43:22 PM
If China's claim to these islands is legitimate (matter for debate), then these islands are part of China. And mankind has been recovering land from the sea for eons or whatever.
China has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which apparently says "islands" such as these don't qualify for territorial waters status. So while it may be irrelevant to you, it isn't irrelevant to the debate.
Quote from: finehoe on October 28, 2015, 12:36:48 PM
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.
QuoteUnder 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.
Quote from: finehoe on October 28, 2015, 12:50:34 PM
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 12:43:22 PM
If China's claim to these islands is legitimate (matter for debate), then these islands are part of China. And mankind has been recovering land from the sea for eons or whatever.
China has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which apparently says "islands" such as these don't qualify for territorial waters status. So while it may be irrelevant to you, it isn't irrelevant to the debate.
Thanks, mom.
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 12:55:36 PM
Thanks, mom.
You're welcome.
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2201722!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_635/mom29n-1-web.jpg)
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
Quote from: Tacachale on October 28, 2015, 11:57:00 AM
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 11:05:49 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 28, 2015, 11:00:33 AM
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 10:48:57 AM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2015, 11:05:49 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: spuwho on October 28, 2015, 01:22:05 PM
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).
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 28, 2015, 12:51:13 PM
Quote from: finehoe on October 28, 2015, 12:36:48 PM
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.
QuoteUnder 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.
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
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/
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
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".
Quote from: spuwho on October 29, 2015, 12:08:27 PM
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.
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