China naval drills in East China Sea

rhino123 said:

Now you are making things up. It is the US who complained about being haress by 5 chinese ships. They are the one who complained. As far as China is concern, the water in which the US impeccable was sailing in is CHinese water. And they have the right to chase out any intruder. Obviously US do not agree on this... and that is about it.

But this is way out of topic.

In the future, if you have something against this forum, please take it out with the moderators and not start shooting in otherwise fine threads and insulting all the 'senior' members of this forum.

Reference:

1)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

it was in the eonomic zone not really territory water. as for chinese chopper near japan ship i think was 90m away 30m high. the harassing of foreign ship can be a dangerous game.

jantxv said:

In my book, that's definitely over my warship. In yours, you need it even closer. I'm sure if someone has the time they can look up the law and see what it says. The Japanese have a valid point.

Click to expand...

In your book, the Japanese would be just as guilty for flying their P3's "over" Chinese ships. In my book, you are making up meanings on the spot for the word "over". In any case, the Japanese does not have valid reasons to complain, as they have been using the P3's to do what they accused the Chinese of doing with a helicopter. Nor does the Japanese have valid reasons to complain about the Chinese's transit and exercise, as both are legitimate.

jantxv said:

The Chinese get angry when a US warship goes into the South China Sea, an entire sea for crying out loud.

Click to expand...

You are again making s*** up. The area of dispute is in the EEZ around Hanian island, not the "entire (South China) Sea". Please, if you are not educated about something, then you should find out more about it before actually saying anything about it.

jantxv said:

There is definitely a double standard on this forum. Apparently, if a poster disagrees with the "motherland/fatherland/whatever" you are instantly labeled a "anti china/westerner/imperialist/white/etc" and ganged up on.

Click to expand...

If you are referring to my post with regards to bladerunner, he has a long history and reputation for criticizing China at every possible instance and turns every single thread he touches into some political debate. I am simply making an observation.

s002wjh said:

it was in the eonomic zone not really territory water. as for chinese chopper near japan ship i think was 90m away 30m high. the harassing of foreign ship can be a dangerous game.

Click to expand...

Even if it economic zone . The littoral state has jurisdiction over the EEC and "innocent passage" and "oceanography research" is allowed under the treaty of UNCLOS but snooping around submarine pen can hardly be classified as innocent passage or oceanography research

Another thing is US has not even ratified the UNCLOS agreement as of to date. So how can you derive benefit when you are not even member yet!

As to buzzing the Japanese destroyer, I believe Japan attitude can be called arrogant and self serving This kind of game has been going on all along . They do the same thing to Chinese ship or Drilling rig in East China sea.

Plus why the need to shadow the fleet?. If all they want is to observe the fleet, Japan has 100 P3C Orion plane. They can easily use it to check on Chinese fleet.

Here is the official Chinese rebuttal of Japanese whinning

China defends naval fly-bys near Japan Source: Global Times [01:33 April 28 2010] Comments By Li Jing
Beijing's new ambassador to Tokyo rejected a Japanese protest Tuesday over Chinese military helicopters twice making fly-bys near Japanese naval destroyers, blaming Japan for the row, AFP reported Tuesday.
The helicopter fly-bys took place near Japan's Okinawa island this month - on April 9 and 21 - when Japanese naval ships spotted and followed the largest Chinese flotilla of warships so far to sail between Japanese islands.
Cheng Yonghua, the new ambassador, said China's naval drills in the waters off Japan are conducted "in accordance with international rules," adding that China is devoted to boosting transparency regarding its military buildup by releasing a defense white paper and through other means, according to the Kyodo News Agency.
"How would the Japanese people feel if there was a Japanese drill and the Japanese left port and were then annoyingly chased by Chinese destroyers? That breaches the spirit of mutual understanding and mutual trust," AFP quoted Cheng as saying at the Japan National Press Club.
Tokyo has lodged a protest through diplomatic channels over what it considered "dangerous" approaches by Chinese vessel-borne helicopters toward Japanese destroyers, which were said to be deployed for surveillance of Chinese vessels.
According to Kyodo, though China has explained to Japan that the approaches were a "necessary defense measure" in response to Japanese surveillance activities, Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said Friday that he was "not convinced" by the explanation.
"Japan is overreacting on this issue," Peng Guangqian, an expert at the PLA Academy of Military Science, told the Global Times. "Those Chinese Navy vessels were carrying out normal military drills on the high seas rather than other locations. Japan needs to maintain a proper stance toward other countries' normal military exercises held there."
"This incident also indicates that China and Japan have not set up firm mutual trust. Both sides need to be devoted to strengthening the bilateral relationship further in a bid to decrease unnecessary misunderstandings and conflicts," Peng added.
Cheng was also asked to comment on an ongoing row between the US and Japan over where to relocate an unpopular US airbase on Okinawa.
"China is not in a position to comment, but the military arrangement between Japan and the US should not be aimed against a third country. … I mean China," the ambassador said, according to AFP.

It's hilarious watching Bladerunner up to his usual antics, and seeing jantxv reveal his true colors.

FYI, 90m away is not "over". "Over something" means "on top" means 0m away.

I don't see what the big deal is, anyway. 8 destroyers and 2 submarines isn't all that impressive.

solarz said:

It's hilarious watching Bladerunner up to his usual antics, and seeing jantxv reveal his true colors.

Click to expand...

If by true colors you mean being honorable and fair handed, it is a complement.

What I find most interesting is the Japanese accusation of the breakdown of discipline within the PLAN. Apparently the Japanese were withholding that information until the Chinese ambassador to Japan no less, back-handed the incident as the fault of the Japanese themselves.

So, is it common for Chinese officers that are piloting helicopters in the PLAN to repeatedly ignore commands from his superiors back on the Chinese ship? Apparently so, according to the Japanese who were monitoring and recording the conversations.

Why would Chinese officers ignore so blatantly the commands of his superiors? Perhaps the officers in question are favorite sons to high ranking politicians and know no one one that ship can touch him.

We have seen this Chinese insubordination before in the PLAN with the Hainan Island incident. Perhaps the breakdown in discipline in the Chinese armed forces is systemic and structural.

‘‘Chinese navy chopper approaches Japanese destroyer near Okinawa

Thursday 22nd April, 07:58 AM JST

JapanToday

It feels strange that the Chinese military has taken these provocative actions before and after a summit meeting between the Japanese and Chinese leaders in Washington on April 13,’’ a Japanese government source said, adding there is a question of ‘‘how much control Chinese President Hu Jintao has over the military.’‘

Click to expand...

The Yomiuri Shimbun

A Chinese Navy helicopter likely was ignoring orders from its own mother ship when it flew within 100 meters of a Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyer on April 8, according to Defense Ministry sources.

The pilot's actions suggest that orders may not be rigorously followed within the Chinese Navy, and Defense Ministry officials are concerned that such insubordination could increase the possibility of accidents.

Click to expand...

Hot-dogging in the Chinese fleet?

April 26th, 2010 | Aviation China Maritime operations The Pacific | Posted by Phil Ewing

Military Times
Navy Times
China's new found naval aggressiveness is all over the news these days, although its ships train regularly with their U.S. counterparts. The Chinese destroyer Qingdao sailed with the American destroyer Chung-Hoon. // MC3 Ben Gonzales / Navy

Back in the bad old days, Soviet pilots used to tease American carrier battle groups — that’s what we called ‘em — by edging close to their airspace, flying attack-style dives toward the carrier and trying other kinds of mischief. A generation of F-14 Tomcat pilots, in fact, spent kind of a lot of time staring out their canopies at the crews aboard Russian Tu-95 bombers, sometimes waving, sometimes shaking their fists, but always curious about the guys in the other plane. Those kinds of encounters still happen every once in awhile, but they’re much rarer now.

It might not stay that way if the Chinese become the new bad boys of the oceans. According to a story today out of Japan, a tense near-miss this month between a Chinese helicopter and a Japanese destroyer may have happened because the Chinese helo pilot wasn’t obeying orders to break off, and decided to put the fear into the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force:

On the morning of April 8, the [Chinese] helicopter approached an MSDF destroyer… in the central area of the East China Sea. When the helicopter took off from a guided missile destroyer, it was about 4,000 meters away from the MSDF destroyer Suzunami. As the chopper flew closer to the Suzunami, the destroyer ordered it several times by radio not to fly any closer to the Japanese destroyers. However, the helicopter ignored the orders and continued toward the Suzunami. Ultimately the helicopter was only about 90 meters away from the Suzunami at a height of about 30 meters, lower than the destroyer’s mast.

According to another report, the crew of the Suzunami spotted Chinese air crew aboard the helo with cameras, and wondered if they weren’t filming the ship’s sensors and weapons.

We all laughed when Maverick and Goose buzzed the tower at Naval Air Station Miramar, but the idea that this Chinese pilot refused orders to break off his run doesn’t seem that funny. How soon until this happens with an American ship?

Click to expand...

Very interesting indeed.

Hendrik_2000 said:

Even if it economic zone . The littoral state has jurisdiction over the EEC and "innocent passage" and "oceanography research" is allowed under the treaty of UNCLOS but snooping around submarine pen can hardly be classified as innocent passage or oceanography research

Another thing is US has not even ratified the UNCLOS agreement as of to date. So how can you derive benefit when you are not even member yet!

As to buzzing the Japanese destroyer, I believe Japan attitude can be called arrogant and self serving This kind of game has been going on all along . They do the same thing to Chinese ship or Drilling rig in East China sea.

Plus why the need to shadow the fleet?. If all they want is to observe the fleet, Japan has 100 P3C Orion plane. They can easily use it to check on Chinese fleet.

.

Click to expand...

pretty sure chinese navy shadow foreign navy when they are near chinese water, japan just doing the same. as for complaining, isn't chinese also complain when US snooping around seas near china? so i don't see whats the big deal when japan complain about it.

s002wjh said:

pretty sure chinese navy shadow foreign navy when they are near chinese water, japan just doing the same. as for complaining, isn't chinese also complain when US snooping around seas near china? so i don't see whats the big deal when japan complain about it.

Click to expand...

The difference is Chinese navy transit in International water which guarantee free passage. Impeccable snooping around in EEC Zone or Territorial water which China as littoral state has jurisdiction over and snooping is explicitly forbidden by UNCLOS as hostile act see my post on UNCLOs convention

Territorial water
Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not “prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security” of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not “innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security..

Exclusive Economic Zone
Extends from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. In casual use, the term may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf. The EEZs were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights, although oil was also becoming important. The success of an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 1947 was soon repeated elsewhere in the world, and by 1970 it was technically feasible to operate in waters 4000 metres deep. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and cables.

Hendrik_2000 said:

The difference is Chinese navy transit in International water which guarantee free passage. Impeccable snooping around in EEC Zone which China as littoral state has jurisdiction and snooping is explicitly forbidden by UNCLOS as hostile act see my post on UNCLOs convention

Click to expand...

so chinese sub never shadow a US carrier near japan before? what was it kitty hawk? was the carrier in chinese water?

the japan navy was also in international water following chinese navy.

jantxv said:

If by true colors you mean being honorable and fair handed, it is a complement.

Click to expand...

ROFL... sure.

What I find most interesting is the Japanese accusation of the breakdown of discipline within the PLAN. Apparently the Japanese were withholding that information until the Chinese ambassador to Japan no less, back-handed the incident as the fault of the Japanese themselves.

Click to expand...

Yes, because the Japanese would know what the orders for the Chinese pilot was.

oh, so long as we are quoting law, lets actually read it.

l. First Question: Does a State have a right under international law to conduct information collecting in the Exclusive Economic Zone?

I ) Introduction

The first of the five questions raised here is merely one of pure law, not real politik, which is dealt with in the other four questions.

Many authorities have opined on the legal uses of the EEZ, since the adoption of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention 1982(1). Reference has also been made to the Chicago Convention(2), and to the Presidential Proclamation of Ronald Reagan of 1983(3) concerning the EEZ. Finally the Charter of the United Nations(4) is very pertinent.

The opinions fall into three overlapping groups. First those who believe that military activities in the historic high seas, such as intelligence collection, have been preserved by article 58 UNCLOS in the EEZ.(5) Thus Bernard Oxman writes:

"o long as there is no unlawful use or threat of force and the warship acts with 'due regard' for the rights of the coastal State and other States to use the sea, the subjective question of whether the warship is a welcome visitor is outside the scope of legal inquiry...warships in principle enjoy freedom to carry out their military missions under the regime of the high seas subject to three basic obligations: (1) the duty to refrain from the unlawful threat or use of force; (2) the duty to have 'due regard' to the rights of others to use the seas; (3) the duty to observe applicable obligations under other treaties or rules in international law...with the addition of an obligation to have 'due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State' in the Exclusive Economic Zone."(6)

The second group of authorities doubts that information collection in the EEZ to the detriment of the security of the integrity and security of the coastal state is a right in law.(7)

A third group believes that UNCLOS is too ambiguous to give a definite opinion one way or another and that "ambiguities in the EEZ articles of [UNCLOS] provide ample raw material for dispute.(8) Franceso Francioni for his part has declared that,

"[a]part from spelling out freedom of navigation in the EEZ and in the upper adjacent air space, [UNCLOS] does not clarify which foreign naval military activities are lawful in the EEZ." (9)



2) UNCLOS

The territorial sea extends for 12 miles off the coast of every nation and it is clear that there is no right of passage (or overflight) there by virtue of articles 17 and 18 of UNCLOS, to which China is a party and the U.S. is not. (The U.S. accepts the convention, nevertheless, as "customary international law.")

"Warships of all nations can freely perform their assigned missions in the EEZ provided they observe the following rules: (1) Refrain from the unlawful threat or use of force; (2) exercise due regard for the rights of other nations in the sea, (3) exercise due regard for the rights of the coastal state in the EEZ; and (4) observe the rules of international law and obligations under other treaties."


3) United Nations Charter, 1945

Article 301, therefore, makes it clear that (UNCLOS excludes any act not for peaceful purposes(26), by its reference to the United Nations Charter (1945) and in particular to article 2(4) on which article 301 of UNCLOS is drawn, almost verbatim.(27) Article 2(4) of the UN Charter reads:

"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."(28)

Article 2(4) sets a very low threshold for the threat or use of force by its reference to the "Purposes of the United Nations," which are found in article 1 of the Charter. Articles 1(1) and 1(2) of the Charter read:

"The Purposes of the United Nations are:

(1 ) To maintain international peace and security. and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

(2) To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"(29)


4) Presidential Proclamation No. 5030, March 10, 1983

Very compelling to the debate is the Presidential Proclamation No 5030 of March 10, 1983 of Ronald Reagan, which declares:

"Without prejudice to the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States, the Exclusive Economic Zone remains an area beyond the territory and territorial sea of the United States in which all States enjoy the high seas freedoms of navigation, overflight, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines and other internationally lawful uses of the sea."(32)

President Reagan's Proclamation thus echoes the wording of art. 38(l) of UNCLOS.

Click to expand...