Chinese Navy sails through US waters

[BridgeTroll]

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...

[Tacachale]

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.

[Adam White]

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).

[finehoe]

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 [exclusive economic zones]. China disagrees. Several times it has harassed American ships and planes engaged in what it sees as spying.

[BridgeTroll]

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/

[Adam White]

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.

[Tacachale]

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.

[Adam White]

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.

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.

[Tacachale]

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.

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.

[finehoe]

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.

[Adam White]

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.

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.

[Adam White]

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.

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.

[finehoe]

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.

[BridgeTroll]

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.

[Adam White]

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.