Pentagon accuses Chinese vessels of harassing U.S. ship

bd popeye said:

mods note >> easy prc101pla..you are not a mod. I feel this discussion is very civil.

I will only answer your question and remain out of the rest of the discussion. The ship in question is operated by the Military Sealift Command. It is under the US Department of Defense. Please read below;

Click to expand...

I actually work on a ship that used to just do the ocean-floor mapping part of the mission, the ex-USNS Maury. She's now the the TS Golden Bear out of Vallejo. Her hull-mounted sonar and computer system were huge. The spaces have been converted into a gym, storage compartments, and classrooms, and there are still some unused spaces left over. She still has her original prop, which is the same as those used on USN nuclear submarines.

I don't know if anyone realize, but on the bridge of the trawler, there is a chinese character "prosper" on it. This is a common tradition for fishing vessels.

Also, here's an interesting picture. Jeff, the USN doesn't let anyone snoop around them, so don't expect PLAN will let the USN do the same.
It doesn't matter who is manning it, it is the USNS Impeccable, not USS Impeccable. USNS designation in itself indicates that it is a military vessel, though a non-combatant.
beside, dummy knows what they are doing with the deployable towed acoustic arrays.

bigstick61 said:

The Chinese action was unlawful. By any standard, these waters are not territorial waters, where they would indeed have such rights.

Click to expand...

The water is China's EEZ, and activities there are regulated by China.

bigstick61 said:

It is not cnjured. They are in effect making that claim by stating that the U.S. can't angage in activities only regulated within territorial waters due to the U.S. being in what they call their "special economic zone." They are basically treating the EEZ as if they were territorial waters, as if the same rules applied to them, when this is most certainly not the case.

Click to expand...

First, that's not a claim. Second, China doesn't need to make any claim as it was exercising its rights in regulating the EEZ. If US vessels don't conform to the regulations, then it will be escorted/forced out of the area, plain and simple.

bigstick61 said:

The U.S. does not have to excuse itself for anything. The ship was not subject to Chinese laws, since the waters are for most intents and purposes considered to be international waters.

Click to expand...

It is either in international water, or isn't, and EEZ is NOT international water.

bigstick61 said:

All China can regulates is economic activity...

Click to expand...

It isn't about what China can or cannot do. It is about what the Impeccable can or cannot do since it was in China's EEZ:

Article 58 of UNCLOS said:

3. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

Click to expand...

bigstick61 said:

They were engaged in activities which endangered the USNS Impeccable and posed navgational hazards, and had the potential to harm the crew and damage the ship. That is not lawful activity. How about we put this on the other foot? When is it against the law for the U.S. ship to freely navigate in international waters? It was not engaged in dangeous or illegal activities, or activities which fell under Chinese regulation (exploiting natural resource).

Click to expand...

Except it is NOT in international water.

xywdx said:

Actually the US didn't ratify the part about EEZ, that's why they are technically able to consider all water outside territorial water to be international.

Click to expand...

Okay but because they did not ratify the UNCLOS, China technically has no legal framework with the US in regards to what is considered territorial waters or not. So in essence, it's an argument of perspective. Because the US is not binded to the UNCLOS, China does not have to uphold the rules of UNCLOS with the US.

bigstick61 said:

No, the U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS, due to certain provisions that negatively affect the U.S. should they be adopted. However, the PRC has ratified UNCLOS, and thus it applies to them. Treaties only apply to the signatories. The U.S. also has a policy of recognizing all claims made under UNCLOS, and even respecting claims up to the UNCLOS limits by countries which have not ratified it. The U.S. also claims the same zones as it would have under UNCLOS.

The Chinese action was unlawful. By any standard, these waters are not territorial waters, where they would indeed have such rights.

Click to expand...

Again, a matter of perspective. Like you said, treaties only apply to signatories, but more specifically, ones that actually ratify them. At times, the US seems to want its cake and eat it too. The ship clearly is a military ship as explained by others. It may not be armed but it's not on a mission of goodwill either. If you want to deem the Chinese action as unlawful, it's equally applicable that the US action was unlawful too. I would completely agree with you if the US had ratified the UNCLOS. Operating under a grey area does not make one right.

bd popeye said:

mods note >> easy pla101prc..you are not a mod. I feel this discussion is very civil.

I will only answer your question and remain out of the rest of the discussion. The ship in question is operated by the Military Sealift Command. It is under the US Department of Defense. Please read below;

Click to expand...

i have spent several years studying international relations, and of all the case studies i have looked at, there is no single incident or event where one side is completely right and one side is completely wrong. so i was simply trying to caution bigstick from jumping to those conclusions. any assertion of the Chinese being fully responsible or the US being fully responsible is in itself irresponisble.

The fact of the matter here is that this is an issue between the two navies more than it is an issue of international law. They will gather intelligence from each other, they will test each other's responses, and push each other's limits. This is all part of the high-seas game of harassment. Exactly where it took place doesn't really matter; this isn't a legal issue where someone can press charges. If the Chinese catch the Americans listening in on them any sensible commander would try to stop them, the question is what is within reason, to prevent conflict. For example, if a Y-8 were to fly by a US CBG, the US would be fully within their rights to intercept them, and even take "harassing" steps like obtaining a missle lock. Similarly this ship was engaged in intelligence gathering, the Chinese should be allowed to do what they can to stop that.

However this must take place within limits to prevent accidents. That is why a sort of tacit agreement, a code of conduct, like that shared with the Soviets, is necessary. Like any informal code it was somewhat fuzzy, and not comprehensive, but it served in the majority of incidents.

In any case I think in incidents like this both sides have a right to try to foil the other's intelligence gathering, but it must be responsible.

UCSDAE said:

Also, here's an interesting picture. Jeff, the USN doesn't let anyone snoop around them, so don't expect PLAN will let the USN do the same.
It doesn't matter who is manning it, it is the USNS Impeccable, not USS Impeccable. USNS designation in itself indicates that it is a military vessel, though a non-combatant.
beside, dummy knows what they are doing with the deployable towed acoustic arrays.

Click to expand...

However, the USN doesn't deliberately try to impede or endanger any snoopers. They let them snoop, but under watch.

Engineer said:

The water is China's EEZ, and activities there are regulated by China.


First, that's not a claim. Second, China doesn't need to make any claim as it was exercising its rights in regulating the EEZ. If US vessels don't conform to the regulations, then it will be escorted/forced out of the area, plain and simple.


It is either in international water, or isn't, and EEZ is NOT international water.


It isn't about what China can or cannot do. It is about what the Impeccable can or cannot do since it was in China's EEZ:



Except it is NOT in international water.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. A EEZ is a seazone over which a state has special rights over the exploration and use of marine resources. End story. It only allows the state to have control of any natural resource in that area, and does not allow the state to deliberately interfere with the safe operation of any ship passing through that zone, military or civilian. What the Chinese did was to interfere with a ship passing through that zone, and furthermore, endangered the safe operation of that vessel. This is in contravention of international law, the fact that the ship was in the Chinese claimed EEZ does not matter from an international law perspective.

Pointblank said:

However, the USN doesn't deliberately try to impede or endanger any snoopers. They let them snoop, but under watch.

Click to expand...

Thank you. That's what I was trying to say. They can snoop, but they should expect that they might get intercepted, pinged, jammed, locked on to, flown over, etc., but don't actually endanger the safe passage of the ship/aircraft/submarine.

Engineer said:

The water is China's EEZ, and activities there are regulated by China.


First, that's not a claim. Second, China doesn't need to make any claim as it was exercising its rights in regulating the EEZ. If US vessels don't conform to the regulations, then it will be escorted/forced out of the area, plain and simple.


It is either in international water, or isn't, and EEZ is NOT international water.


It isn't about what China can or cannot do. It is about what the Impeccable can or cannot do since it was in China's EEZ:



Except it is NOT in international water.

Click to expand...

The regulations can only by law extend to economic activities. I think you completely misunderstand what an EEZ is, and I have a feeling perhaps the Chinese are, too, intentionally or unintentionally.

The EEZ is the same as international water except when it comes to the exploitation of the natural resources contained within it. It is very much about what China can or cannot do. The U.S. ship was not being a danger to other ships, and it was not engaging in economic activities or piracy or anything that is illegal under international law. Therefore the Chinese cannot lawfully do anything to the ship.

joshuatree said:

Okay but because they did not ratify the UNCLOS, China technically has no legal framework with the US in regards to what is considered territorial waters or not. So in essence, it's an argument of perspective. Because the US is not binded to the UNCLOS, China does not have to uphold the rules of UNCLOS with the US.




Again, a matter of perspective. Like you said, treaties only apply to signatories, but more specifically, ones that actually ratify them. At times, the US seems to want its cake and eat it too. The ship clearly is a military ship as explained by others. It may not be armed but it's not on a mission of goodwill either. If you want to deem the Chinese action as unlawful, it's equally applicable that the US action was unlawful too. I would completely agree with you if the US had ratified the UNCLOS. Operating under a grey area does not make one right.

Click to expand...

China does have to uphold the rules of UNCLOS, since it is a signatory. It is bound by law to do so. The U.S. also must respect the legitimate claims of other nation-states, like China, when it comes to territorial waters at least, except when there is a conflict with the claims of the U.S., which I don't see happening because I don't think even U.S. territories in Asia have waters which overlap with China, although I could be wrong; I'd have to look at a map. However, such conflicts have nothing to do with the area in question.

Also, I have never argued that the ship was anything other than a naval vessel. Whether the U.S. ratified UNCLOS or not, it would be largely irrelevant in this area, since under UNCLOS (which China is bound to), this ship was within its legal rights to be where it was doing what it was. China on the other hand, did not have the legal right to do what it did, although it too of course had a right to be there.