Pentagon accuses Chinese vessels of harassing U.S. ship

Engineer said:

Jurisdiction is jurisdiction. You can call a glass half empty or half full, but it is still filled.

Click to expand...

I think what Jeff is saying is that they don't have jurisdiction in all circumstances, especially this sort of one. Just because you have a right to do x doesn't mean you can also do y.

EDIT: I see Jeff has responded anyway - never mind.

bigstick61 said:

Your are completely twisting everything, which just goes to show how far you have to stretch things to try to make your argument at least make some sense. The Impeccable did not say that it did not know what told to leave means, although just because it is told to leave does not mean it knows how the Chinese will actually act. The unknown intentions, though, were in relation to the vessels which got close enough that it seemed they could collide or be used for boarding. There was no way for Impeccable to know for sure, especially given the dangerous and threatening actions of the other ships during the incident.

Click to expand...

The Impeccable were told to leave, so obviously the Chinese has made their intention known. Whether the crew of the Impeccable agrees to that is another matter. The crux of the matter on hosing is this: the Impeccable claim that the Chinese's intention is unknown. If true, the crew shouldn't know that Chinese are asking the ship to leave. If the Impeccable knew it is being asked to leave, then that isn't "unknown intention".

bigstick61 said:

And you know your assertion about the sonobuoy is bollocks. The sonobuoy has nothing to do with being a navigational hazard on the high seas if all rules are respected, and this is common knowledge and the way things are done pretty much everywhere. Merchant ships would not even know anything about a sonobuoy or its deployment. You also know damn well that the Chinese weren't trying to avoid it; they were trying to part the cable. Also, if the ship is close enough where it can grab it with hooks, it would already be too late if it were a navigational hazard, or it would clearly be in the clear. The sonobuoy has nothing to do with safety. Ships manoeuvering dangerously close, close enough for there to be collision potential, is a safety issue, and is illegal.

Click to expand...

Your used of the word "stretch" fits perfectly here though: to claim that the thin rod the man holding would cut the thick towing cable, or be able to lift the passive sonar out of the water is a real stretch. It goes to show how far you would go to incriminate the Chinese and justify US's action.

bigstick61 said:

Also, the captain did what he could to avoid collision, and if he had done so poorly or not tried, I think a collision would have definitely occurred. However, the onus is primarily on the Chinese, mostly on them in fact, since it was their actions which created the problem in the first place. The Impccable was not doing anything illegal or posing dangers at the time.

Click to expand...

Indeed the captain of the Impeccable did carry out his duties and stopped, and he stopped quite in advance of any collision. This shows that while stopping infront of the Impeccable did create problems, it is still far from being a hazard when stopped considerably far away, as the photographs a few pages before have shown.

Engineer said:

Indeed the captain of the Impeccable did carry out his duties and stopped, and he stopped quite in advance of any collision. This shows that while stopping infront of the Impeccable did create problems, it is still far from being a hazard when stopped considerably far away, as the photographs a few pages before have shown.

Click to expand...

The fact that the Impeccable had to stop to avoid a collission proves two very important points.

1st, free passage was impeded and halted. This is illetgal in an EEZ for anything not associated with natural resources, marine sciences, or environmental violations.

2nd, the fact that one ship was able to stop does not mean that there was not a navigation hazard. In fact, it tends to prove that there was one created by the other party because the captain of the Impeccable had to stop to avoid it. He wasn't stopping to avoid any natureal hazard or threat, rather to avoid one directly placed there by the other vessel.

Again, it may be in the power of the PRC to impeded, hazard, stop, board, etc. any vessel in that zone.

That does not make it legal.

There are very specific and restricted instances where it would be legal and the Impeccable was not involved in any of those.

We all know what the real issue here is on both sides.

Let's hope that it cools down now and that the tension lessens. I expect that both the PRC and the US will continue to use whatever means they can to observe the technology and platforms of the other.

As long as they remain outside of territorial waters, as long as they do not violate interntaional provisions, and as long as they do not overtly threaten one another...that is normal.

I also expect that both sides will try and use rational means to prevent this on both sides...again, the same criteria applies in terms of that provision.

I view this incident, as much as anything else, as both the PRC and the US coming to terms with these realities as the PRC grows in its major power status.

Jeff Head said:

The fact that the Impeccable had to stop to avoid a collission proves two very important points.

1st, free passage was impeded and halted. This is illetgal in an EEZ for anything not associated with natural resources, marine sciences, or environmental violations.

2nd, the fact that one ship was able to stop does not mean that there was not a navigation hazard. In fact, it tends to prove that there was one created by the other party because the captain of the Impeccable had to stop to avoid it. He wasn't stopping to avoid any natureal hazard or threat, rather to avoid one directly placed there by the other vessel.

Again, it may be in the power of the PRC to impeded, hazard, stop, board, etc. any vessel in that zone.

That does not make it legal.

There are very specific and restricted instances where it would be legal and the Impeccable was not involved in any of those.

Click to expand...

Second point first, the very intention was to stop the Impeccable. This is a rights granted by the Law of the Sea. Freedom of navigation is not the same as doing whatever you want, and keep on going wherever you please even after an authorative request has been made.

Now for the first point. What you, me, or anyone else interpet as to what is covered or not covered by the EEZ part in the law is pretty irrelevent. Also, The Law of the Sea does not include/exclude ship on an individual basis. The only thing that makes any difference is what China deems the ship was doing. To put it more bluntly, all China needs is to make sure there is enough relationship between Impeccable's mission and exploitation of resources, and that would be enough. If US wants to give even less reason for China to do these sort of things in the future, then one method would be to conduct survillance without carrying a sonar. This may sound unreasonable, but it is exactly what the US is doing -- exploiting gray area in the law.

As to what to do to prevent such incidents from happening in the future, China has only one choice: enlarge its naval capabilities. It hasn't build a single destroyer for the past couple of years. Now is the time to utilize capabilities of the ship yards.

Engineer said:

Second point first, the very intention was to stop the Impeccable. This is a rights granted by the Law of the Sea. Freedom of navigation is not the same as doing whatever you want, and keep on going wherever you please even after an authorative request has been made.

Now for the first point. What you, me, or anyone else interpet as to what is covered or not covered by the EEZ part in the law is pretty irrelevent. Also, The Law of the Sea does not include/exclude ship on an individual basis. The only thing that makes any difference is what China deems the ship was doing. To put it more bluntly, all China needs is to make sure there is enough relationship between Impeccable's mission and exploitation of resources, and that would be enough. If US wants to give even less reason for China to do these sort of things in the future, then one method would be to conduct survillance without carrying a sonar. This may sound unreasonable, but it is exactly what the US is doing -- exploiting gray area in the law.

As to what to do to prevent such incidents from happening in the future, China has only one choice: enlarge its naval capabilities. It hasn't build a single destroyer for the past couple of years. Now is the time to utilize capabilities of the ship yards.

Click to expand...

Like I said, the PRC has the power to stop, impede, and even board ships in the EEZ...and they can create any pretext to do so.

But that does not make it legal.

You seem to be advocating this, for the PRC to create a pretext (that doesn't exist) about the Impeccable violating one of those EEZ provisions to justify its actions.

Clearly it was not violating said provisions. It is what it is...a surveillance vessel specifically outfitted for submarine surveillance at long range.

As I said, everyone knows what the Impeccable was about, and everyone also knows that that mission is not associated with the exclusions in the EEZ.

The PRC has conducted similar missions in others EEZ.

Now, as a result of the efforts to halt, prevent, or stop free passage, the US has sent a warship into the EEZ to ensure its vessel's rights therein.

Despite whether you or I agree or not, on how this is interpreted, that is where it stands now. The Impeccable is continuing its mission under the watchful eye of a US DDG. I hope that's where it stops, and believe it will.

Jeff Head said:

But that does not make it legal.

You seem to be advocating this, for the PRC to create a pretext (that doesn't exist) about the Impeccable violating one of those EEZ provisions to justify its actions.

Click to expand...

Not as far as pretext. It's not like they can accuse a ship that's not designed for fishing and has no relevant equipments on board for fishing.

Whether it is legal or not, that's up to China and ISA to decide, as the incident took place in China's EEZ and ISA is the only authority that can overrule China's interpetation. I will hear US's interpetation of what ships can or cannot do in its EEZ when a Chinese surveillance ship is caught there.

Whether it is legal or not, that's up to China and ISA to decide, as the incident took place in China's EEZ and ISA is the only authority that can overrule China's interpetation. I will hear US's interpetation of what ships can or cannot do in its EEZ when a Chinese surveillance ship is caught there.

Click to expand...

Almost bang on the money. I think though this topic needs draging back to the wider picture that places this incident and its consequences firmly in relation to wider events in the region and the processes which are driving it.

The ultimate driver of which is the fact; which must slowly be dawning in Washington, that the "moment of Unipolarity" is over and that History has started itself up once again.

The key lesson to be learned from the EEZ arguement is that what constitues law in the Chinese controlled areas is now a matter for China to decide and nobody else. The dispatch of the destroyer is almost comical as very clearly any decision for it to use force against the Chinese just 75 miles from a major base would simply be suicide by proxy.

The original, unanswered and apparently forgotten question from the beginning of this affair was why all the fuss now? I think it would be extremely naive to look at this through any other light than that from the prism of the current North Korea crisis. I am amazed how the current tensions can be ignored especially on a Chinese Military forum!! The Japanese threat to try and intercept the missile is credible and obviously sanctioned by the US. The threats of North Korean full retaliation are also credible and to regard them as sabre rattling would be naive in the extreme.

The basic strategic realities of the region remain unchanged and a US presence in North Korea today is just as unacceptable to China and Russia as it was Fifty years ago.

Clearly unless China was prepared to see this eventuality pass, it would need to prepare its forces for possible interdiction and an early act of this preperation would be the dispatch of its entire available Submarine Fleet to take up advance patrol positions. It is this that the Impeccable and Victorious were listening so aggressively for and why the Chinese responded so strongly in kind.

Into all of this however has stepped Chinese Premier Wen Jia Bao and with the simple expression of "worry" Little old Grandpa Wen has caused more fear in DC than any military mobilisation would elicit. In a few simple words Wen has reminded the world of the last time that Global power shifted decisively from Great Britain to the US and how the US demonstrated it to remove any possible lingering doubt, by voicing first opposition to and then orchistrating a devastating run on Sterling during the Suez Crisis.

So what exactly is the Chinese message? that Unipolarity has passed and America must now decide whether it wants the world to realise this slowly, in a controlled way, over a respectable period of time, or in a very sudden and brutal fashion.

Weighing it all up with the whole situation, I have to say that I am glad its not a choice I have to make!

^ Well if Nth Korea implodes after the sudden death of its "Dear Leader", and/or do something rash like going to war, and China wants to intervene to shore up stability then it would definitely need the PLAN by North Korean shores. So it was probable the Impeccable was there to detect where the PLAN submarines were, and at the same time carry out mapping of the ocean floor to find likey submarine routes.

US has already made it clear it doesnt want any units of PLA across the Yalu if anything big happens in Nth Korea; China in turn, quietly ignored them on this issue.

SampanViking said:

The threats of North Korean full retaliation are also credible and to regard them as sabre rattling would be naive in the extreme.

Click to expand...

Please Sampan you seem to be a pretty intelligent guy you should remember that North Korea makes noises like this everytime the US and ROK have particularly large exercises. The increased volume is probably a result of some secret diplomatic dealings or something along those lines, plus the fact that the new South Korean president has been far more hardline with the North, and the North Koreans are trying their usual brinksmanship to put pressure on the US and ROK. Quite frankly they are like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, always threatening people with this or that. I'm reminded of nothing so much as a child demanding attention. They're a one trick pony.

Into all of this however has stepped Chinese Premier Wen Jia Bao and with the simple expression of "worry" Little old Grandpa Wen has caused more fear in DC than any military mobilisation would elicit. In a few simple words Wen has reminded the world of the last time that Global power shifted decisively from Great Britain to the US and how the US demonstrated it to remove any possible lingering doubt, by voicing first opposition to and then orchistrating a devastating run on Sterling during the Suez Crisis

Click to expand...

I had much the same thoughts. I read the article about this in the newspaper today and realized that it is one of those important moments that no one realizes when it happens. The Chinese are reminding the Americans who holds the pursestrings. I wouldn't quite say that the US-China relationship is quite like the US-Britain relationship in terms of power dynamics, but when the Chinese Premier can make a little noticed announcement on an issue of monetary policy, and that amounts to warning America that China has an effective veto of elements of American policy, that is quite a milestone.

Debate of wether which side is right or wrong has been largely baased on debated law. As has been demonstrated in the past by US, the rule of law is as good as the ability to enforce it. At this time, US got the biggest guns and the law must follow US law. Its fact and very irresponsible. Lets take Iraq for example, its an illegal invasion, but not for the US since no other country is willing to enforce the law at the cause of going to war with the US.

Therefore, I urge that discussing law is meaningless when the balance of military power is so weak. I rather see a stronger relationship between US and China based on mutual trust and respect. Its rather vague and laughable at this moment, but we have only one other alternative, military buildup that waste taxpayers money and potentially cause the loss of countless life. It is better for the US to seize this moment to establish mututal trust and respect while it is in the best position to do so. As the US monopoly on military power gets weaker in the future, other countries would not respond so kindly to what the US has done in the past, that is to use and abuse power unilaterally.