Pentagon accuses Chinese vessels of harassing U.S. ship

According to the United States, "Virginia to the Herald" reported March 12, Wednesday sent a U.S. Navy destroyer, in order to continue the implementation of the South China Sea in China, "monitoring mission" of the country's "perfect" to monitor its escort vessels.

Reported that a United States Defense Department officials confirmed Wednesday, the U.S. Navy, "Chung-Hoon" destroyer set sail on the same day to the South China Sea in order to continue to monitor the activities of the "perfect" to monitor its escort vessels. The official said, "Chung-Hoon" are closely watching the number of "perfect" number.

At the same time, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton □ just with visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi held talks. Hillary told reporters after the meeting said that the United States will work with China to avoid the recurrence of similar incidents.

In addition, the United States Capitol Hill stressed that the Chinese military threat groups "Chinese Connection", Co-Chair □ Randy Forbes said he hoped the United States strongly condemn China's "harassment" of the United States to monitor the ship act. He said that Sun's case is just a series of events, the Chinese vessels close to "a deliberate action."

Forbes praised the act of the U.S. Navy sent a destroyer. He also added that the U.S. Congress must give a "clear, strong signal" that the United States will protect its ships in "international waters" activities.

Union of Concerned Scientists United States nuclear weapons analyst Hans Kristensen at the organization's website Tuesday, said the recent case would be "a broader and more dangerous cat and mouse game between China and the United States as part of."

Hans said that China and the United States occurred in the past may have been more similar incidents, but both did not say.

"Yun" is the history of the United States Navy, named after a Chinese warship. DDG93 boat destroyers are to commemorate the World War II defeat the Japanese kamikaze suicide squad of the Chinese Rear Admiral Chung-Hoon (Gordon Paie'a Chung-Hoon) is named after, with the "Aegis" combat system, costing 1.3 billion U.S. dollars, are currently the world's most advanced naval destroyers one. (Global Times special correspondent reported TANG Xiang)

Click to expand...

I just wonder what the U.S navy going to do, I think they just want to ask Obama for money.

We all know the law here is vague and can be interpreted differently by either side to advantage themselves. If China was hoping to gain respect in regards to protecting its territory with this incident, the US just spat it back in their faces by deploying the destroyer. Its kind of like saying "we can do this because we can." Might is right after all. This mirrors the 2001 EP-3 accident, where a few days after it made the emegency landing on Hainan and the intercepting fighter crashed, US sent another plane to finish the original mission...which China did not intercept. Question this time is, will China bite the bullet and swallow its pride again?

Having failed to agree which laws are relevant, lets look at the situation through moral and human relationship point of view:

Sam and Qin are living in two separate house in the same community. They do regular business together and have expressed great interest to be real friends.

One day, Sam, being suspicious of Qin's rescent construction activity on Qin's backyard, decided to temporarily install state of the art monitoring equipment in the community sidewalk that allows him to monitor Qin's every movement such as going to the bathroom or even having sex. Knowing this, Qin storm out of the house and demand explanation on Sam's action. Sam said: "why are you harrassing me, I am only watching the birds in your beautiful backyard. I am not violating anylaw."

Now, if you are Qin, do you think that Sam truly want to be friends with you? Would you suspect alterior motives?

In China, many dealings business or personal are conducted without real contracts. Chinese would rather rely on trust. with trust any conflict can be solved, but without trust anything, even under a strong contract, can go wrong. You may agree or disagree with this dealing systems but it is a fact and custom in China.

Puting international law aside, if US truly wants to enhance relationship with China, then the US should not deliberately have malicious intent towards China. Its mutual respect and fair. The US actions, even if it does not violate any law, is disrespectful. Of course on the other hand, China have also violate mutual trust by spying or stealing US tech. Both countries are guilty of untrustworthy actions before, but in this case, its the US that ought to be blamed more.

So this incident can be legal (depending on which law you abide to), but it is definitely not morally right and damaging to relationship.

lets read this : Union of Concerned Scientists United States nuclear weapons analyst Hans Kristensen at the organization's website Tuesday, said the recent case would be "a broader and more dangerous cat and mouse game between China and the United States as part of."
Hans said that China and the United States occurred in the past may have been more similar incidents, but both did not say.

above article confirmed that this time is not the " accident " , especially unlike 2001 EP-3 and J-8 carsh accident,this time is USN exaggerated this one of many similar incidents and made a big deal, they want the whole world knows this is a crisis like 2001 EP-3 accident.
but Obama real has no money,all he can do is to make protest,and order U.S destroyer to south China sea,to reveal U.S strong reaction.
but I think U.S and China can talk,nothing will happen any more.

Autumn Child said:

Puting international law aside, if US truly wants to enhance relationship with China, then the US should not deliberately have malicious intent towards China. Its mutual respect and fair. The US actions, even if it does not violate any law, is disrespectful. Of course on the other hand, China have also violate mutual trust by spying or stealing US tech. Both countries are guilty of untrustworthy actions before, but in this case, its the US that ought to be blamed more.

So this incident can be legal (depending on which law you abide to), but it is definitely not morally right and damaging to relationship.

Click to expand...

Youre right on the money here. Deep down both countries know better military-to-military relations requires improvement in areas of mutual trust and respect...which right now is seriously lacking.

From China's point of view, US keeps interefering with their domestic affairs (Taiwan, Tibet etc), have been labelled on the record as the biggest military threat to US global dominance and have seen US military bases put up on their left, right and centre. If youre a PLA decision maker, how could you possibly trust US intentions?

IMO, the ball is in US's court to prove that theyre not a threat to China's sovereignty militarily and politically and that they have no intentions of impeding China's economic rise.
If US can win over China on these issues then we're in for a much smoother ride this century.

Sending the destroyer to further agrevate the situation also implicitly justify the double digit spending growth of the PLA and all other major developing nations. Very bad role model and disturbing message which may lead to further instability in the region if this continues.

Knowing secret chinese naval base and submarines does not directly benefit american citizen especially during recession, but having a good relationship and mutual trust with china and the rest of the world will definitely benefit american citizen as well as the world. Showing restraint and respect is the best action america can do if it wants to be a leader and a good role model.

The right and better path lies ahead, but arrogance and paranoia blocks the way.

flyzies said:

We all know the law here is vague and can be interpreted differently by either side to advantage themselves. If China was hoping to gain respect in regards to protecting its territory with this incident, the US just spat it back in their faces by deploying the destroyer. Its kind of like saying "we can do this because we can." Might is right after all. This mirrors the 2001 EP-3 accident, where a few days after it made the emegency landing on Hainan and the intercepting fighter crashed, US sent another plane to finish the original mission...which China did not intercept. Question this time is, will China bite the bullet and swallow its pride again?

Click to expand...

:roll::roll::roll:
If U.S. want to be humiliated again, China is more than happy to do it. After the spy plane incident, Bush has to apologize to the Chinese people and government three times on the national television, to be exact "I am sorry...". His administration has to pay Chinese government close to 2 million dollars for letting the spy plane use China airbase on the island and housing the 24 crew for 11 days. After that, the spy plane has to be taken apart and shipped home instead of flying home from Hai Nan air base. History tends to repeat itself because some people will never learn from it.

You've just summed up the issue with the US and it's foreign relations. On one hand, you expect China to obey UNCLOS rules with a country that actively chose not to be a part of (not ratifying). Then, when there is a rule in the UNCLOS that negatively affects the US, you call it bunk and say since the US did not sign it, they don't need to obey it. Article 88 has simply identified the US as the aggressor with their non-peaceful activity. If you deem it unrealistic, it's just the same to deem expecting a non-UNCLOS participant to be given UNCLOS treatment as unrealistic too.

Click to expand...

There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about that. China ratified the UNCLOS, so it is bound by what's stated in UNCLOS. America didn't, so it isn't bound by it, though it voluntarily abides by the parts which it agrees to, which is the majority of UNCLOS. If China didn't agree to be bound by UNCLOS, it could very well have chosen not to ratify it. But ratify it it did, and so it must follow what it signed up to or be accused of breaking maritime law. If anything China here is being hypocritical, when it is doing exactly the same thing in the EEZ and even territorial waters of her neighbours. So China's position is that everybody else's EEZ is open for surveillance activities except her own. What does anybody here have to say to that? Please, answer me. Is China being hypocritical here, or are the people here going to exhibit some hypocritism of their own?

China had every right to have fishing boats in the area. They could disrupt the Impeccable all they wanted, and the USN had no right to object, so long as their actions did not threaten the safety of the Impeccable. Once they started doing so, they have violated UNCLOS by attempting to impose juridiction over their EEZ, which has been repeated time and again is equivalent to international waters except for matters relating to economic activity.

:china::china::china:

Pentagon reaction to row 'inappropriate'By Cui Xiaohuo and Li Xiaokun (China Daily)
Updated: 2009-03-13 07:46

Naval officers of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) yesterday criticized the Pentagon for what they described as an "inappropriate reaction" after a confrontation between a US spy ship and five Chinese vessels in the South China Sea on Sunday.

They were responding to a media report that the US Navy on Wednesday assigned one of the world's most advanced destroyers to the area to escort the USNS Impeccable, which continues to be in the vicinity.

The Virginian-Pilot report quoted a US defense official as saying that the destroyer Chung-Hoon "is going to keep a close eye on the Impeccable".

A Chinese naval source, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the PLA has taken note of the US latest move and was watching developments closely.

Another navy source said the deployment of the destroyer reflects the Pentagon's intention to "keep on pressing" China in the South China Sea.

But "the timing and the extent have gone beyond what you could call proportionate," he said, without elaborating.

Shi Yinhong, a professor in American studies at Renmin University of China, said the US' latest move is aimed at "maintaining its 'right' to spy in other countries' exclusive economic zones".

March 9, 2009: The Pentagon says five Chinese ships, including a naval vessel, harassed USNS Impeccable in international waters off Hainan. China says the US ship was carrying out an illegal survey. [China Daily]

"The Pentagon has been doing this for decades. It will by no means stop in the South China Sea, especially against the backdrop of China's military modernization drive," he said.

But he said China will never back off on issues concerning national security.

Fu Mengzi, assistant president of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, said the incident should be interpreted separately from US President Barack Obama's China policy.

"Obama seeks cooperation with China. But some hawkish US military officers don't like it, which led to the spat over the sea confrontation," he said.

He urged decision-makers in Washington to be "calm and cautious" when dealing with the incident, as direct confrontation will cast a shadow over the two nations' joint efforts to combat the global economic downturn.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters on Wednesday that Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, who is in Washington on a visit, will meet Obama (early today Beijing time), and that US National Security Advisor James Jones will join the meeting. They are expected to discuss the standoff in the South China Sea among other issues.

"I don't think it (the standoff) will overshadow the meeting," Jones said.

On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said after meeting Yang: "The important point of agreement coming out of my discussions with Minister Yang is that we must work hard in the future to avoid such incidents and to avoid this particular incident having consequences that are unforeseen."

On the same day, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said "from time to time, there are going to be elements that come up that cause some tension".

"But the most important thing is that the US and China need to work together to solve a whole host of issues that the international community confronts."

On Capitol Hill, Republican Randy Forbes, who is co-chairman of the Congressional China Caucus, said he expects to introduce a resolution condemning the Chinese "harassment" of US forces.

He added that Congress must send "a clear, loud message" that the United States will protect the "right of its ships to operate in international waters".

Kongo said:

So China's position is that everybody else's EEZ is open for surveillance activities except her own. What does anybody here have to say to that? Please, answer me. Is China being hypocritical here, or are the people here going to exhibit some hypocritism of their own?

Click to expand...

On one hand, you have a country which is extremely anal about its EEZ, which had rammed and sunk ships, and when China ship is in the EEZ you will hear no end of it for months. On another hand, you have a country which spies right at someone's else doorstep. It is entirely justified and not hypocritical for China to copy what two democratic countries are doing. Neither is people being hypocritical for support China's current position.