Blackstone
Brigadier
Empirical evidence show PLA generals, mostly retired but not exclusively so, haven't shied away from similar statements, so it's entirely credible NBC got the story right, for a change.
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
I think that in the case of the US statement, it was not nearly as unequivocal. The US statement, "urged," China to stop.
The actual wording was:
US Statement said:
This wording is not nearly as strong or inflexible as what is being reported from the Chinese General.
It seems to me that when he uses the terms "unacceptable," or "not welcome," that it is more in the form of a demand and is far less flexible. To state that any Japanese patrols are "unacceptable," and that the Japanese are "unwelcome," implies that the Chinese will not allow it.
Either way, it is not up to China to tell other sovereign nations who is or is not in international waters, and more than it would be for the US to "tell," China to cease its improvements.
But, IMHO, that is not what the US did. The US did not say that it was unacceptable, it simply urged China to consider stopping, and to open up more dialog instead.
Had the Chinese made a similar plea...urging Japan not to patrol, and wanting to open up a dialog, I believe that would have been easier to consider..
Perhaps there is an improper interpretation or translation of what was actually said.
Maybe, Engineer, but when NBC goes to the following length to identify him:
NBC said:
...somehow I do not think it is "conjured up."...we will have to wait and see how the PRC responds.
Clearly, if such clear and specific identification is "conjured up," the PRC will be quick to tell us so.
Brumby
Major
IMHO, I would not even consider both issues on the same page. FON in high seas is guaranteed under international law and UNCLOS. In contrast, the issues over the rocks/islands is under dispute.
Brumby
Major
You are forgetting that the issue of FON is with military and not non military vessels as some posters are trying to articulate as the issue. Unfortunately, I am still waiting (patiently) for a coherent explanation regarding this distinction in connection with FON.
I am not going to get into or further that argument.
FON is FON and it applies to all ships as long as they are legal, and in international waters.
A point could be made for announced exclusion zones dealing with specific, at sea military exercises...but, IMHO, that is an unrelated issue.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Explanation is simple, might is right. US used its might after WWII to establish current the FON right, and even though plenty of large of small nations disagree, American might wins. The flip side of the coin is there may come a day when might is the instrument of someone else, and then things will get interesting. Realpolitik is still king.
Brumby
Major
I don't believe your view accords with history on law of the seas and the deliberations that preceded UNCLOS.
Blackstone
Brigadier
What laws of the sea history are you talking about? The one imposed by WWII victors through might is right? Oh, you say it wasn't victors' justice? Okay, then pray tell who were invited to make the rules? Who voted for them? Who represented the dissenters? Facts are, until the Second Coming, might is right trumps the meek shall inherit the Earth. Don't get me wrong, I like most of the current rules, because my country is top dog and it gets to break rules it doesn't like, but let's see the world the way it really is and not through fantasy-colored glasses.
Last edited:
Brumby
Major
There are many books on the law of the sea. The origin of the concept and its development preceded the US. It is no doubt that the US was instrumental in maintaining the rules post WW2 as belligerent states attempt to territorialize the seas. The US did not make up the rules. Please point to historical studies that support your assertion that the US made up the rules.