Pentagon accuses Chinese vessels of harassing U.S. ship

Kongo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your comparison is apples to oranges. Since you did not say specifically which neighbor, Japan comes to mind when you speak of EEZ violations. But in that scenario, there is dispute to the actual line of the EEZ based on historical claims as well as technical claims (continental shelf vs nm definition of EEZ). In fact, Japan has in the past used it's patrol boats to ram Chinese ships, where's the protest about threatening the safety there? I recall someone dying from one of those encounters. There are no EEZ disputes between China and the US.

I find it amusing that people insist China must afford rights outlined by the UNCLOS to countries who opted not to participate. However, I did attempt to view from that angle and when I did, I pointed out the US violated Article 88. So what is your stance to that? Have you ever noticed each time the US and China get into a confrontation, it's always in China's backyard? Who's the real aggressor here? Like I said before, I wonder how the US would react the day a Chinese surveillance ship towing a sonar idles 75 miles off Pearl Harbor monitoring the US Pacific fleet's main sub base or off of Norfolk. I guess locking on with a missile or gun is not threatening right?

Your original question, is China being hypocritical? Based on the pro-US argument, yes. But only because they are essentially copying what the US does in regards to its foreign policies and actions. Based on an objective viewpoint, no.

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...

Here is your answer:

Business
China's Wen worried over US assets



Wen Jiabao, China's prime minister, has voiced concern over the outlook of US government bonds, calling on Washington to ease worries about US assets.
Speaking at his annual news conference on Friday, Wen expressed concern that massive US deficit spending and near-zero interest rates could erode the value of China's bond holdings.

Click to expand...

Rest at the link.

And when Wen speaks, bond investors listen:

Treasurys fret about stock rally - and China, too
Bonds sink partly on Wen's concerns about U.S. debt, but investors say the market remains strong for the near term.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Treasurys fell back Friday as stocks rose abroad and U.S. stock futures were up in premarket trading, signaling a fourth day of the recent stock market rally.

But bond investors also reacted to a speech by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in which he expressed concern that the mammoth amounts of Treasury debt his country holds will deteriorate in value.

Click to expand...

Your comparison is apples to oranges. Since you did not say specifically which neighbor, Japan comes to mind when you speak of EEZ violations. But in that scenario, there is dispute to the actual line of the EEZ based on historical claims as well as technical claims (continental shelf vs nm definition of EEZ).

Click to expand...

China has intruded into Japan's EEZ zones which were clearly Japan's.

In May through June 2000, Haibing-723, a Chinese icebreaker/intelligence-gathering ship, circumnavigated Japan on a suspected intelligence-gathering mission. The ship, after carrying out a series of activities in the sea area near the Tsushima Strait, sailed north through the Sea of Japan, crossed the Tsugaru Strait three times back and forth, sailed south along the coast of Japan bordering on the Pacific, past the Boso Peninsular, Shikoku, and Amami Oshima. It was also verified that Dongtiao-232, a Chinese missile range instrumentation ship, had engaged in intelligence-gathering activities in July 2000 in sea areas off Irako-misaki, Aichi Prefecture, and in sea areas south of the Kii Peninsula.

In fact, Japan has in the past used it's patrol boats to ram Chinese ships, where's the protest about threatening the safety there? I recall someone dying from one of those encounters. There are no EEZ disputes between China and the US.

Click to expand...

The Japanese coast guard boats were preventing activists from landing on Japanese territory. Nothing to do with EEZ there.

I find it amusing that people insist China must afford rights outlined by the UNCLOS to countries who opted not to participate. However, I did attempt to view from that angle and when I did, I pointed out the US violated Article 88. So what is your stance to that?

Click to expand...

How could the US violate Article 88 when it hasn't ratified UNCLOS? The only violater of Article 88 is China.

Have you ever noticed each time the US and China get into a confrontation, it's always in China's backyard? Who's the real aggressor here?

Click to expand...

It's irrelevant. What matters is whether the US has the right to be there doing what it was doing. It has. And so China has no right to impose juridiction over it and obstruct it by endangering it.

Like I said before, I wonder how the US would react the day a Chinese surveillance ship towing a sonar idles 75 miles off Pearl Harbor monitoring the US Pacific fleet's main sub base or off of Norfolk.

Click to expand...

The Soviets did that all the time. They came closer, in fact, to US mainland even. They weren't harassed in such a manner. Just because China is too useless to be able to do something like that doesn't mean it can be a sourgrape and deny others their rights.

I guess locking on with a missile or gun is not threatening right?

Click to expand...

Such actions don't pose a navigational threat to the ships involved. If China wanted to it could lock on to the Impeccable and that's within the rights of China to do so.

Your original question, is China being hypocritical? Based on the pro-US argument, yes. But only because they are essentially copying what the US does in regards to its foreign policies and actions. Based on an objective viewpoint, no.

Click to expand...

SHow me an incident where the US tried to ram ships and drop wood in the path of ships based on the reason that said ship violated its EEZ? Please do show me. Otherwise, you are just fabricating justification for China's illegal actions.

Kongo said:

China has intruded into Japan's EEZ zones which were clearly Japan's.

In May through June 2000, Haibing-723, a Chinese icebreaker/intelligence-gathering ship, circumnavigated Japan on a suspected intelligence-gathering mission. The ship, after carrying out a series of activities in the sea area near the Tsushima Strait, sailed north through the Sea of Japan, crossed the Tsugaru Strait three times back and forth, sailed south along the coast of Japan bordering on the Pacific, past the Boso Peninsular, Shikoku, and Amami Oshima. It was also verified that Dongtiao-232, a Chinese missile range instrumentation ship, had engaged in intelligence-gathering activities in July 2000 in sea areas off Irako-misaki, Aichi Prefecture, and in sea areas south of the Kii Peninsula.

Click to expand...

Let us know when the PLAN announces that they will Routinely Patrol those waters.

Kongo said:

How could the US violate Article 88 when it hasn't ratified UNCLOS? The only violater of Article 88 is China.

Click to expand...

How could US claim other nation violated a law when it doesn't approve of that law?

Kongo said:

It's irrelevant. What matters is whether the US has the right to be there doing what it was doing. It has. And so China has no right to impose juridiction over it and obstruct it by endangering it.

The Soviets did that all the time. They came closer, in fact, to US mainland even. They weren't harassed in such a manner. Just because China is too useless to be able to do something like that doesn't mean it can be a sourgrape and deny others their rights.

Click to expand...

The point is, the Chinese don't wanted to play these Cat and Mouse games, they never wanted to be a replacement for the Soviets.
These games are unilaterally initiated by the US, and China only mildly responded in retaliation, and most of it occurred in or near Chinese EEZ.

Kongo said:

Such actions don't pose a navigational threat to the ships involved. If China wanted to it could lock on to the Impeccable and that's within the rights of China to do so.

Click to expand...

The act of locking on is itself enough of a threat.
What would the US soldiers in Iraq do if they found an Iraqi pointing a gun at them? I certainly don't think they will invite that man over for tea and cookies.

Kongo said:

SHow me an incident where the US tried to ram ships and drop wood in the path of ships based on the reason that said ship violated its EEZ? Please do show me. Otherwise, you are just fabricating justification for China's illegal actions.

Click to expand...

You can say all you want about what the US will do and it will not be proven false in the near future because China is not interested in bugging other nations in their respective EEZ.

It may seem to some people that the US is overreacting by sending a DDG, but IMHO it's quite understandable since this would likely set a new age precedent on the rights and freedoms of foreign military presence in EEZ.
I expect most coastal states, including US allies, would to hope for more jurisdiction in their EEZ even if they choose not to exercise it.

What I'm concerned is how far the DDG will go in carrying out it's role to escort the Implacable.
Shooting a local fishing boat is hard to justify, especially since it will be in Chinese EEZ.
Even if no conflicts occur, China can still complain with something like "US military presence is making local fishermen nervous and reducing their work efficiencies, harming the fisheries' economical interests in their own EEZ."

Has China intruded territorial waters or EEZ waters of Japan? If it's the latter, another hypocritical argument as people who view China in the wrong on the current situation argue that EEZ permits freedom of transit. If that's the case, what's your beef with the Chinese sailing through Japan's EEZ? If anything, they didn't complain about being caught spying and then sending out a warship to escalate saying it's their right to snoop.

When you get caught spying, you move on and try it again later. That's always been the cat and mouse game.

As for Japan Coast Guard defending "Japanese" territory, that's disputed as I already stated. I won't delve into this any further as it is a topic tangent but I bring this up to point out the apples to oranges comparison you make when identifying the current US-China confrontation as on par with China-neighbors.

Don't you see how ridiculous the argument becomes when one quotes international rules of the sea but then say it doesn't apply to the US. Haven't we learned there is no good outcome from "unequal treaties"? Spare me the Chinese signed, Americans didn't response. Treaties apply to the participants. The argument that somehow it extends to everyone falls flat when the US can easily be identified with breaking that logic as well - Gitmo/Geneva Convention.

You sure the Soviets weren't harassed when snooping around? Let's not kid ourselves with that one. Chinese too useless? In case you haven't noticed, they accomplished their mission which is to stop the spying. You're right, locking with missiles and guns don't pose a navigational threat, just merely a life or death threat. So much better and acceptable....

Now you're referring to the incident as the Chinese attempting to ram the US ship? You've just fabricated right there. By the way, international waters is still 200 nm and out. That's where there is truly no national jurisdiction.

Kongo said:

.......Such actions don't pose a navigational threat to the ships involved. If China wanted to it could lock on to the Impeccable and that's within the rights of China to do so.
.....

Click to expand...

Would have been better if China locked on ?? Are you sure the crew of the Impeccable would agree with you ? You're clutching at straws my friend.

Kongo said:

China has intruded into Japan's EEZ zones which were clearly Japan's.
In May through June 2000, Haibing-723, a Chinese icebreaker/intelligence-gathering ship, circumnavigated Japan on a suspected intelligence-gathering mission. The ship, after carrying out a series of activities in the sea area near the Tsushima Strait, sailed north through the Sea of Japan, crossed the Tsugaru Strait three times back and forth, sailed south along the coast of Japan bordering on the Pacific, past the Boso Peninsular, Shikoku, and Amami Oshima. It was also verified that Dongtiao-232, a Chinese missile range instrumentation ship, had engaged in intelligence-gathering activities in July 2000 in sea areas off Irako-misaki, Aichi Prefecture, and in sea areas south of the Kii Peninsula.
The Japanese coast guard boats were preventing activists from landing on Japanese territory. Nothing to do with EEZ there.
How could the US violate Article 88 when it hasn't ratified UNCLOS? The only violater of Article 88 is China.
It's irrelevant. What matters is whether the US has the right to be there doing what it was doing. It has. And so China has no right to impose juridiction over it and obstruct it by endangering it.
The Soviets did that all the time. They came closer, in fact, to US mainland even. They weren't harassed in such a manner. Just because China is too useless to be able to do something like that doesn't mean it can be a sourgrape and deny others their rights.
Such actions don't pose a navigational threat to the ships involved. If China wanted to it could lock on to the Impeccable and that's within the rights of China to do so.
SHow me an incident where the US tried to ram ships and drop wood in the path of ships based on the reason that said ship violated its EEZ? Please do show me. Otherwise, you are just fabricating justification for China's illegal actions.

Click to expand...

A point that isn´t debated, yet, is the question of how effective is China deterrence in its relations with USA.

I tend to think that China choose to have a limited deterrence in order to not get attracted in a supremacy arms race and to avoid a cold war with USA.

This limited deterrence policy of China "should" have worked as a message to USA that China don´t intended to challenge USA strategic military supremacy, without giving up their territorial integrity, nor to get blackmailed by USA superior conventional weapons in their own territory.

But that policy don´t envisaged USA having, actually, total supremacy to the point of nullifying China detterence.

The limited deterence was a strategic proposal that USA isn´t accepting now, in fact.
USA wants total strategic supremacy, and that, in my view, is the hidden source of this conflict.
If USA had accepted China limited deterrence, they would not have maded a show case of this spying dispute.

So, maybe, China would have to think about the viability of their limited deterrence, or to change from that to a total deterrence (Including hundreds of nuclear missiles and 12 SSBNs, more a hundred strategic bombers, as Russia has inherited from the Soviet Union.

If a limited deterrent don´t works for keeping peace or if it´s nullified by USA technology and strategic pressure, then China would have to rethink this.

Hahahahah, that guy fooled us. The convention only allows signatories freedom of movement in EEZs, at least that's the Chinese interpretation.

Has China intruded territorial waters or EEZ waters of Japan? If it's the latter, another hypocritical argument as people who view China in the wrong on the current situation argue that EEZ permits freedom of transit.

Click to expand...

Who said China was in the wrong when spying in Japan's EEZ? I'm just pointing out that China is being hypocritical when it accuses the Impeccable of carrying out illegal activities in its EEZ when China itself is doing what the US is doing, except this time in Japan's EEZ. I don't hear anyone coming out to condemn China's hypocritism in this case, or are you all a bunch of hypocrites?

If anything, they didn't complain about being caught spying and then sending out a warship to escalate saying it's their right to snoop.

Click to expand...

That's because Japan didn't try obstruct China's vessels by carrying out activities that puts Chinese vessels in danger, such as dropping wood in front of the vessel. If Japan did that it too would be in the wrong by trying to impose juridiction where it had had no right to do so.

As for Japan Coast Guard defending "Japanese" territory, that's disputed as I already stated.

Click to expand...

No, China sent its spy vessels into areas of Japan's EEZ which were not disputed and clearly Japan's EEZ. So where's your criticism of Chinese actions?

Don't you see how ridiculous the argument becomes when one quotes international rules of the sea but then say it doesn't apply to the US. Haven't we learned there is no good outcome from "unequal treaties"? Spare me the Chinese signed, Americans didn't response. Treaties apply to the participants. The argument that somehow it extends to everyone falls flat when the US can easily be identified with breaking that logic as well - Gitmo/Geneva Convention.

Click to expand...

You said it yourself. Treaties apply to the participants. They don't apply to the non-participants. America didn't participate. China did. If China was unhappy with America not participating, it could very well not ratify the treaty. But it did, and so it is expected to uphold it, even if in doing so it benefits parties who have not ratified the treaty. If America broke that logic in Gitmo, then it too should be condemned. But we are talking about this situation here, now. So is China being hypocritical the same way people here are accusing America of being hypocritical, or not? Or is it just a bunch of hypocrites accusing America of being a hypocrite?

You sure the Soviets weren't harassed when snooping around? Let's not kid ourselves with that one.

Click to expand...

Yes, Soviet AGIs could do what they wanted, so long as they were outside US territorial waters. After a couple of incidents where the Soviets acted very aggresively, the US protested and following that a code of conduct was drawn up which both sides agreed to follow, and largely did.

Now you're referring to the incident as the Chinese attempting to ram the US ship? You've just fabricated right there.

Click to expand...

Yes, that was an exaggeration, I admit.

By the way, international waters is still 200 nm and out. That's where there is truly no national jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

And EEZ only allows jurisdiction over actions which are concerned with economic exploitation of the designated EEZ. Otherwise they are equivalent to international waters. Understand that.

Would have been better if China locked on ?? Are you sure the crew of the Impeccable would agree with you ? You're clutching at straws my friend.

Click to expand...

If the Chinese did that they would have been perfectly within their rights and not have violated UNCLOS by posing danger to the Impeccable. Though of course China could still end violating article 88, as in the case now.

I'm sorry but I don't see how dropping wood in front of a ship would pose any threat to the ship unless its made like chopsticks.