PDA

View Full Version : SOUTH CHINA SEA WATCH: US angers China as UN ruling looms



Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
05-16-2016, 08:19 AM
SOUTH CHINA SEA WATCH: US angers China as UN ruling looms
[Associated Press]
The Associated Press
May 16, 2016



A look at some recent key developments in the South China Sea, where China is pitted against smaller neighbors in territorial disputes over islands, coral reefs and lagoons in waters rich in fish and potential gas and oil reserves:

___

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is a weekly look at the latest key developments in the South China Sea, home to several territorial conflicts that have raised tensions in the region.

___

US RILES CHINA WITH 3RD SAIL-BY

A U.S. destroyer last week sailed by China's largest man-made island, the third freedom of navigation operation in seven months that challenges Beijing's vast claims in the South China Sea.

The USS William P. Lawrence made "innocent passage" within 12 nautical miles (22 kilometers) of Fiery Cross Reef, the limit of what international law regards as an island's territorial sea. The reef, which used to be submerged at high tide for all but two rocks, is now an artificial island with a long airstrip, harbor and burgeoning above-ground infrastructure. It dwarfs all other features in the disputed area, was recently visited by China's second-highest military officer and became prominent in the Chinese media when a famous singer of patriotic anthems entertained troops there recently.

China's Defense Ministry said it deployed two navy fighter jets, one early warning aircraft and three ships to track and warn off the vessel.

In response, it said that it will increase the scope of sea and air patrols and "boost all categories of military capacity building."

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Russel said during a visit to Vietnam — which also claims Fiery Cross Reef, as does the Philippines — that the U.S. considers the area as international waters.

"If the world's most powerful navy cannot sail where international law permits, then what happens to the ships of smaller countries?" he told reporters.

The sail-by came as President Barack Obama prepares to visit Vietnam and Japan, the latter for a Group of Seven summit.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said that freedom of navigation should apply to commercial, not military ships. Such interpretation of international maritime law is controversial because the U.S. and most other nations consider innocent passage applicable to all vessels. It doesn't require prior notice, but also prohibits any hostile action or a stop by a ship unless it breaks down.

Critics in the U.S. Congress have demanded more assertive action from the Obama administration and called on the Navy to conduct helicopter flights and intelligence gathering within the territorial waters of China's man-made islands — a move that would sharply escalate tensions

This bears close watching. A GREAT tragedy if we end up in a shooting war with China while the cowardly asshat obama is CiC..
IF THEY SCORED EVEN ONE MINOR VICTORY AGAINST US , HE'D ORDER OUR SURRENDER...--TYR

Gunny
05-16-2016, 12:04 PM
This bears close watching. A GREAT tragedy if we end up in a shooting war with China while the cowardly asshat obama is CiC..
IF THEY SCORED EVEN ONE MINOR VICTORY AGAINST US , HE'D ORDER OUR SURRENDER...--TYR

They know they can shake their fists at us because Obama will do nothing about it. He's ignoring the international incidents while probably planning his next outrage against the civil rights of the American people. He's got one screwed up view if he thinks his so-called legacy is going to be good.

Black Diamond
05-16-2016, 12:15 PM
They know they can shake their fists at us because Obama will do nothing about it. He's ignoring the international incidents while probably planning his next outrage against the civil rights of the American people. He's got one screwed up view if he thinks his so-called legacy is going to be good.

I think a major event is on the horizon. But will probably happen after Obama leaves.

Gunny
05-16-2016, 01:55 PM
I think a major event is on the horizon. But will probably happen after Obama leaves.

There may be a skirmish in the South China Sea. However, the major event is going to be if and when someone stands up to Iran. If Trump is elected, with HIS mouth, that'll be coming.

China is smart. They sit back and watch us kill each other off.

aboutime
05-17-2016, 01:36 PM
Freedom of the Seas

Armin Rappaport and

William Earl Weeks

Freedom of the seas is one of the original and most important principles in the history of American foreign policy. American statesmen have, in essence, defined it as the right of all peoples to travel unmolested in international waters in both war and peace. Historically, it has been one of the chief means by which the United States has influenced international affairs; the vigorous assertion of the principle of freedom of the seas has been a major cause of four armed conflicts: the Quasi-War with France in 1798, the Barbary Wars, the War of 1812, and World War I.

Origins of the concept of freedom of the seas

Affirming freedom of the seas in the early national period

Reversing course in the civil war

Expanding the freedom of the seas: 1865–1914

World war i: a critical turning point

Freedom of the seas in the american century

The united nations law of the sea treaty

Defending freedom of the seas into the twenty-first century

If you are interested in becoming Informed. Simply type or copy any of the lines above into GOOGLE.

Gunny
05-17-2016, 01:40 PM
Freedom of the Seas

Armin Rappaport and

William Earl Weeks

Freedom of the seas is one of the original and most important principles in the history of American foreign policy. American statesmen have, in essence, defined it as the right of all peoples to travel unmolested in international waters in both war and peace. Historically, it has been one of the chief means by which the United States has influenced international affairs; the vigorous assertion of the principle of freedom of the seas has been a major cause of four armed conflicts: the Quasi-War with France in 1798, the Barbary Wars, the War of 1812, and World War I.

Origins of the concept of freedom of the seas

Affirming freedom of the seas in the early national period

Reversing course in the civil war

Expanding the freedom of the seas: 1865–1914

World war i: a critical turning point

Freedom of the seas in the american century

The united nations law of the sea treaty

Defending freedom of the seas into the twenty-first century

If you are interested in becoming Informed. Simply type or copy any of the lines above into GOOGLE.


I have a one-sided view here. You know how many US servicemen lost their lives to keep that place free? Just another Obama folly where we're going to look like p*ssies in the end.

Elessar
05-17-2016, 01:56 PM
Interesting topic.

By International Treaty, Territorial Sea is defined exactly as what Tyr's
article says: 12 nautical miles seaward from the baseline (mean low waterline).

But again in the very same Treaty, "Innocent Passage" and "Force Majeure"
are also defined.

None of these terms apply strictly to commercial vessels or pleasure carft.

To enter that territorial sea by a military vessel would require permission
going through State Department channels, unless in the case of "Force Majeure":

Force Majeure
Force majeure is a French phrase meaning "superior force". A force majeure clause is commonly found in maritime contracts. It relieves the parties to the contract of their obligations and liabilities when circumstances beyond their control prevent them from performing under the contract. Examples of circumstances that might constitute a force majeure are war, strike, riot and Act of God. A force majeure clause does not, however, excuse a party from its negligence or failure to perform under conditions that are ordinary or expected, such as a storm that is forecast.

Gunny
05-17-2016, 02:03 PM
Interesting topic.

By International Treaty, Territorial Sea is defined exactly as what Tyr's
article says: 12 nautical miles seaward from the baseline (mean low waterline).

But again in the very same Treaty, "Innocent Passage" and "Force Majeure"
are also defined.

None of these terms apply strictly to commercial vessels or pleasure carft.

To enter that territorial sea by a military vessel would require permission
going through State Department channels, unless in the case of "Force Majeure":

Force Majeure
Force majeure is a French phrase meaning "superior force". A force majeure clause is commonly found in maritime contracts. It relieves the parties to the contract of their obligations and liabilities when circumstances beyond their control prevent them from performing under the contract. Examples of circumstances that might constitute a force majeure are war, strike, riot and Act of God. A force majeure clause does not, however, excuse a party from its negligence or failure to perform under conditions that are ordinary or expected, such as a storm that is forecast.

I don't disagree with either of you. Remember? I ride on the boats. Y'all drive them. I trust you to get me where I'm going. But I was prepared at all times to relieve the squid on Ma Deuce because the ones I was around couldn't have hit the freakin' water with the damned thing. I know I act like a dumbass at times, but you can bet I knew every position on that ship, the passageways and ladderwells. I didn't want to be swimming as a necessity. :laugh:

Elessar
05-17-2016, 02:07 PM
It is just mind boggling how complex some of these International
Treaties can be.

Most 'civilized' maritime nations will recognize them. Some, like
Libya under Khadaffi, did not.

Gunny
05-17-2016, 02:09 PM
It is just mind boggling how complex some of these International
Treaties can be.

Most 'civilized' maritime nations will recognize them. Some, like
Libya under Khadaffi, did not.

It's the same as any law. Matter of convenience for what that nation wants. I'm just not getting the point here. What is China actually gaining?

fj1200
05-17-2016, 05:16 PM
It is just mind boggling how complex some of these International
Treaties can be.

Most 'civilized' maritime nations will recognize them. Some, like
Libya under Khadaffi, did not.

IIRC Libya did but thought that they were entitled to draw a straight line across the Bay of Something-or-other. I believe that's the line the US tested back in the 80's.

Black Diamond
05-17-2016, 05:18 PM
IIRC Libya did but thought that they were entitled to draw a straight line across the Bay of Something-or-other. I believe that's the line the US tested back in the 80's.

Without looking, the Gulf of Sidra ??

fj1200
05-17-2016, 05:20 PM
It's the same as any law. Matter of convenience for what that nation wants. I'm just not getting the point here. What is China actually gaining?

Control over the South China Sea, access to resources under the ocean floor, tick of the Filipinos. Similar rationale over some disputed islands with Japan as well.

fj1200
05-17-2016, 05:21 PM
Without looking, the Gulf of Sidra ??

I believe you're correct. (with looking) :whistling2:

Elessar
05-17-2016, 07:08 PM
IIRC Libya did but thought that they were entitled to draw a straight line across the Bay of Something-or-other. I believe that's the line the US tested back in the 80's.

That is correct, yet they did not recognize what the treaty at that time
was giving.

They tried to extend their Territorial Sea against the treaty. No signatory
nations to that treaty recognized their claim. Khadaffi was a loon!

Atticus Finch
05-18-2016, 04:29 AM
The Gulf of Sidra,isn't that where Gadaffi drew his imaginary line of death? Right before we fired a couple of rockets in their cave and killed his son?I could look it up just going off memory.