Only civilian ships, military vessels need permit to pass through the EEZ.
Pentagon accuses Chinese vessels of harassing U.S. ship
- Thread starter Asymptote
- Start date
But Americans will tell you that it's civilian, regardless how military that ship looks , or manned by marines, or doing technically military "surveys" or "sea bed mapping" for subs.. (homework in the event of war)... that's not even peacefully transit in my books.
BTW, I don't think USA is a signatory of the United Nation Convention On Law Of The Seas. They still only recognised 3 miles instead of 12 (when it suits them). Correct me.
the more we complicate the matter, the bigger a smile we'll see on pentagon's face.
this stuff is plain and simple, an US ship, which claims to be civilian but everyone knows its military, is gathering Chinese intelligence for military purposes. so, in order to protect their own military assets and national security the Chinese sent ships to interrupt the american's activity.you spy on me, i stop you, plain and simple.
also i think pentagon is working too hard to make this thing seem big, remember the hormutz incident where the Iranian vessels "threatened" to blow up a american ship? they made it seem like such a big deal but in the end it was revealed that it was the neocons in the US that made up the part about blowing things up. the real exchange was Iran:coastguard XX hello to USS XX. American: this is USS XX we are in international water....and some american politician who;s got nothin better to do made it into such a big deal. honestly these ppl gotta smarten up and get a hold of themselves. i wouldnt be surprised if this incident was simply a reflection of some internal debates about how the new administration should deal with China so they decide to make this matter go public.
this stuff is plain and simple, an US ship, which claims to be civilian but everyone knows its military, is gathering Chinese intelligence for military purposes. so, in order to protect their own military assets and national security the Chinese sent ships to interrupt the american's activity.you spy on me, i stop you, plain and simple.
also i think pentagon is working too hard to make this thing seem big, remember the hormutz incident where the Iranian vessels "threatened" to blow up a american ship? they made it seem like such a big deal but in the end it was revealed that it was the neocons in the US that made up the part about blowing things up. the real exchange was Iran:coastguard XX hello to USS XX. American: this is USS XX we are in international water....and some american politician who;s got nothin better to do made it into such a big deal. honestly these ppl gotta smarten up and get a hold of themselves. i wouldnt be surprised if this incident was simply a reflection of some internal debates about how the new administration should deal with China so they decide to make this matter go public.
I think this is the nub and a very good intelligence/Propaganda success for Beijing. Why? Because the US has tried to present this as Chinese obstruction of Shipping Lanes, while China has presented it as a US attempt to undermine the legal foundation of the EEZ's. The striking thing here is the total silence coming from every other maritime nation with EEZ' in the East or South China Seas, even those "friends and allies" of the US that never miss an opportunity to get a dig in.
Somebody new to the job perhapse?
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
But the Chinese never complained when their ships were escorted or when their sub was forced to surface so I do not see your point....
Are you telling me the Soviets and the US never bothered each others ships, made each other's subs suspiciously, "vanish," or rammed each others ships? On at least one occasion US and Soviet subs, "accidentally," rammed each other. It's not like China boarded, fired across the bow, or did anything remotely provocative to this ship.
Last edited:
Mr T
Senior Member
Submarines are hidden, whereas this ship was clearly visible - there can be no allegation that it was trying to hide. Also the Chinese submarine involved was a military one (i.e. armed) - the US ship itself presented no such threat.
As for Chinese ships being escorted, I don't think the Americans are complaining Chinese ships were anywhere near them. They were arguing that they were trying to impede their vessel's progress and even bring it into danger.
Besides, why is any of that relevant? China decided to make the complaint, so it can be argued to be hypocritical.
I don't agree. I think it's a case of one side accusing the other of being in the wrong and neither coming off terribly well.
Surely their silence could indicate that they don't back either side. It's not as if China is surrounded by hostile nations - who is springing to its defence?
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
International law really means nothing. Like I mentioned before the US Navy illeagally boarded a Chinese vessel in international waters headed to Iran on the suspicion that it was carrying equipment with the intention of making chemical weapons. They found a ship loaded with farming tools. Excuses ranged from threat to US national security to the Chinese orchestrating false intelligence to embarrass the US. China can use the same excuses. The US was mapping the ocean floor around Hainan so they can sneak in submarines to surveil the Hainan base. A threat to Chinese national security. That whole idea about how that ship was there to collect electronic intelligence on Chinese subs coming and going is most likely not true. Not that it can't happen but the Impeccable was so easily spotted days before... like the Chinese can't stop their subs to and from Hainan while the ship was there? Then there's the "coincidence" this incident coincides with all the Tibet protests. Makes you believe that the CIA is still funding anti-China insurgencies with Tibetans despite promising not to do so back when China allied with the US against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Since most of the major powers of the world are US allies, of course they're going to win the PR war on this one.
Where's the law that says China can't build an aircraft carrier? Where's the law that says Iran can't build a nuclear power plant? Where's the law that says Iran and North Korea can't send a satellite into space?
Where's the law that says China can't build an aircraft carrier? Where's the law that says Iran can't build a nuclear power plant? Where's the law that says Iran and North Korea can't send a satellite into space?
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
China's complaint was a response to the Pentagon's complaint. The news aired in the US first. Chinese fishing vessels have been rammed and boarded in Japan's EEZ before. Chinese surveillance aircraft are frequently escorted by Japanese interceptors. With the exception of a few ramming of civilian fishing ships, no one has made a big deal or complained of such incidents before.
bigstick61
Junior Member
The Chinese are clearly in the wrong on this one. You just don't do the sort of stuff they did to other sailors; it puts them all at risk of inury or death. And this incident is of course not the only one.
The PRC can claim that its EEZ is territorial water as much as it wants to, but it remains just that: a claim. The world does not recognize such a claim on their part. Under the LOST, the EEZ grants exclusive economic rights to the possessing nation, i.e. the right to exploit natural resources. The possessing nation does have the right to stop activities which go against this, such as unauthorized foreign fishing vessels conducting fishing operations in such waters (the Cod Wars come to mind). However, all rightful claims to authority end there. Ships can travel freely in such waters and can conduct any activities that are not those previously mentioned, and are not otherwise illegal under applicable international laws (international laws, btw, cannot lawfully be applied to non-signatory nations). Observing other vessels, on or below the surface, is not illegal in international waters, regardless of whether it's done visually, using radar, sonar, or other instruments. That the PRC does not like it is rather irrelevant. Such observations are passive, and thus cannot be considered an act of war. PLAN and other Chinese maritime vessels' actions are wholly unjustified and unlawful.
Unless China wants to go to war over the issue, it cannot legally do anything, even if they percieve the actions of the USN ship, potential or actual, to be a threat to their security. For those playing the national security card, they should keep in mind that the U.S. military also views the PRC as a potential threat in and of itself, which is partly why it is engaged in these activities.
The PRC can claim that its EEZ is territorial water as much as it wants to, but it remains just that: a claim. The world does not recognize such a claim on their part. Under the LOST, the EEZ grants exclusive economic rights to the possessing nation, i.e. the right to exploit natural resources. The possessing nation does have the right to stop activities which go against this, such as unauthorized foreign fishing vessels conducting fishing operations in such waters (the Cod Wars come to mind). However, all rightful claims to authority end there. Ships can travel freely in such waters and can conduct any activities that are not those previously mentioned, and are not otherwise illegal under applicable international laws (international laws, btw, cannot lawfully be applied to non-signatory nations). Observing other vessels, on or below the surface, is not illegal in international waters, regardless of whether it's done visually, using radar, sonar, or other instruments. That the PRC does not like it is rather irrelevant. Such observations are passive, and thus cannot be considered an act of war. PLAN and other Chinese maritime vessels' actions are wholly unjustified and unlawful.
Unless China wants to go to war over the issue, it cannot legally do anything, even if they percieve the actions of the USN ship, potential or actual, to be a threat to their security. For those playing the national security card, they should keep in mind that the U.S. military also views the PRC as a potential threat in and of itself, which is partly why it is engaged in these activities.