China naval drills in East China Sea

bladerunner said:

@ Hendrick



So thats it Huh? Chinas to big and important to even bother to observe the common rules of diplomacy or courtesy?

I hope thats not a true reflection in the attitude of the Chinese military

Click to expand...

Here is what Asahi Shinbum take on this incident


Ten Chinese navy warships, including two submarines, passed between Okinawa's main island and Miyakojima island Saturday while heading from the East China Sea to the Pacific Ocean, Japan's Defense Ministry said Tuesday.

The vessels continued training exercises Tuesday, Japanese officials said. Chinese warships have previously moved through the same waters, but rarely has a fleet as large as 10 vessels done so. The area is open sea.

Under international law, training in open seas or passing through international waters presents no problem.

But Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa said, "This is an unprecedented case."

According to Joint Staff officials of the Self-Defense Forces, the Maritime SDF confirmed 10 Chinese warships had passed about 140 kilometers west-southwest of Okinawa's main island and were heading southeast at around 8 p.m. Saturday.

The group included two diesel-electric Improved Kilo-class submarines and two missile-loaded destroyers.

As Troika said before China did indeed follow the convention of sea by surfacing the Submarine and show "non hostile intent of the fleet"

Please read the UNCLOS convention on "free passage in international water" Article 8 section 2

SECTION 2. TRANSIT PASSAGE



Article37

Scope of this section

This section applies to straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.


Article38

Right of transit passage

1. In straits referred to in article 37, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded; except that, if the strait is formed by an island of a State bordering the strait and its mainland, transit passage shall not apply if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics.

2. Transit passage means the exercise in accordance with this Part of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a State bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that State.

3. Any activity which is not an exercise of the right of transit passage through a strait remains subject to the other applicable provisions of this Convention.

Article on INNOCENT PASSAGE

Meaning of innocent passage1.

Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;

(i) any fishing activities;

(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;

(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;

(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.


Article20

Submarines and other underwater vehicles

In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag.

bladerunner said:

So thats it Huh? Chinas to big and important to even bother to observe the common rules of diplomacy or courtesy?

Click to expand...

First, China does not need to observe rules that certain individual (you) made up on the spot. Secondly, there is no "rule of diplomacy" or "courtesy" that stipulates China cannot travel to and perform exercise in International water.

It seems to me that the Japanese were shocked not because PLA Navy traveled the said route, but because the size of the fleet. I guess the only thing the PLA can do to comfort the Japanese would be to down-size the Navy and convert all their destroyers and subs to little fishing boats. This way, Japanese will be happy and Chinese will be seen as a good observer of international laws...

Seriously, this is blown way of proportion. It seems that, before the whole truth comes out, many people like to jump to the conclusion which always puts China on the wrong side of things. Like in this case, some people immediately blamed China for breaking some non-existent international laws before learning the facts.

vesicles said:

It seems to me that the Japanese were shocked not because PLA Navy traveled the said route, but because the size of the fleet. I guess the only thing the PLA can do to comfort the Japanese would be to down-size the Navy and convert all their destroyers and subs to little fishing boats. This way, Japanese will be happy and Chinese will be seen as a good observer of international laws...

Seriously, this is blown way of proportion. It seems that, before the whole truth comes out, many people like to jump to the conclusion which always puts China on the wrong side of things. Like in this case, some people immediately blamed China for breaking some non-existent international laws before learning the facts.

Click to expand...

I agree. China broke no rules. Japan and the USA are used to a weak china. Its just a question of Japan getting used to a more powerful china.

kroko said:

I agree. China broke no rules. Japan and the USA are used to a weak china. Its just a question of Japan getting used to a more powerful china.

Click to expand...

well china have to get used to it. like i said before there is bound to be friction when a rising power disturbs the long established order. china will have to deal with these kind of paranoid behavior more in the future because the other option of placating their rivals by keeping her ships in the harbor all the time, is obviously not feasible.

@yehe

United States have always insisted on the right of transit passage in those straits "used for international navigation" by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. So, if the US and Aussies doesnt follow this rule, neither should China be confined by it, dont you think so?
Last edited by yehe; 10 Hours Ago at 01:08 PM.

Click to expand...

Fair enough


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was merely using using rules of courtesy and diplomacy as a figure of speech, rather than suggesting they exist as hard and fast defacto laws of the sea regarding transit. Perhaps I should have omitted "rules" and just said "common courtesy/ diplomacy"

Ok many members have given examples have ignored such courtesy and transited waters close to China without as much as a " by your leave", but in the case of the Australian ships, it was deliberately done at a time of tension.


Im merely asking, at the time of the Kitty Hawk Incident the US had clearly announced its intentions and the route it was taking and the area where it was going to conduct its exercise, out of courtesy to interested parties, when there was no requirement on her to do so, so why is it so hard for China to do the same?

I really think had it chose to do so, all this ballyhoo could have been prevented. Considering China is going to a lot of trouble to allay the concerns of nearby countries with its military growth, perhaps iin this situation it was merely a case of oversight.

bladerunner said:

Im merely asking, at the time of the Kitty Hawk Incident the US had clearly announced its intentions and the route it was taking out of courtesy to interested parties, when there was no requirement on her to do so, so why is it so hard for China to do the same?

I really think had it chose to do so, all this ballyhoo could have been prevented.

Click to expand...

We never why the Kitty Hawk announced its intention to begin with. One can assume it wanted to be courteous, but it is also possible that they did it for some other reason. It might be political. It is also possible that they did it as a way of intimidation, a show of force. Letting people know they were there and there is nothing any one can do about it. In this sense, it is even more rude than not announcing their presence.

vesicles said:

We never why the Kitty Hawk announced its intention to begin with. One can assume it wanted to be courteous, but it is also possible that they did it for some other reason. It might be political. It is also possible that they did it as a way of intimidation, a show of force. Letting people know they were there and there is nothing any one can do about it. In this sense, it is even more rude than not announcing their presence.

Click to expand...

Unless I mistunderstood, the article I read, it is procedure for the US to announce fleet transit routes on the way to exercises. However theres pluses and minuses in whatever one chooses to do and equally you have the right to be a "doubting thomas" on US intentions.

bladerunner said:

I
Im merely asking, at the time of the Kitty Hawk Incident the US had clearly announced its intentions and the route it was taking and the area where it was going to conduct its exercise, out of courtesy to interested parties, when there was no requirement on her to do so, so why is it so hard for China to do the same?

I really think had it chose to do so, all this ballyhoo could have been prevented. Considering China is going to a lot of trouble to allay the concerns of nearby countries with its military growth, perhaps iin this situation it was merely a case of oversight.

Click to expand...

If I correctly remember Kitty Hawk is not on exercise or inroute to somewhere . She is merely station around Okinawa water . So there is no such thing as informing proposed route. So in order to avoid embarrasing themselves, various theory was advanced such as, the Navy know all along there is submarine in there. or They must know the route so it is easy to just wait until the Kitty hawk have passed

From Washitngton Times

The Kitty Hawk and several other warships were deployed in ocean waters near Okinawa at the time, as part of a routine fall deployment program. The officials said Chinese submarines rarely have operated in deep water far from Chinese shores or shadowed U.S. vessels.

Another article

Hendrik_2000 said:

If I correctly remember Kitty Hawk is not on exercise or inroute to somewhere . She is merely station around Okinawa water . So there is no such thing as informing proposed route. So in order to avoid embarrasing themselves,

From Washitngton Times

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Kitty Hawk and several other warships were deployed in ocean waters near Okinawa at the time, as part of a routine fall deployment program. The officials said Chinese submarines rarely have operated in deep water far from Chinese shores or shadowed U.S. vessels.

Another article

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

We are both wrong: The Daily Mail whose link you posted said the Kitty Hawk had just completed her exercises and was on route to Okinawa. I still maintain however that I read on an American forum, that routes US navy fleet takes on way to exercise etc were published The poster had given the time and links to where a published copy of the notice could be found.