SamuraiBlue
Captain
US Coast Guard's job specification is not to maintain FON in the open sea. That job falls into US Navy's jurisdiction. The US Coast Guard is as the name suggests is to Guard US Coasts in which SCS is not part of.
US Navy & PLAN - South China Sea Situation News (Closed)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
US Coast Guard's job specification is not to maintain FON in the open sea. That job falls into US Navy's jurisdiction. The US Coast Guard is as the name suggests is to Guard US Coasts in which SCS is not part of.
Okay but I do not see how that is relevant to my post as China's Coast guard in this context is carrying out different missions to the chinese navy, us navy and us coast guard
This isn't about 'the West' or 'the USA' and China.
This is about China, and their attitude towards the other 82.5% of humanity. They act like this with all of their neighbours in the SCS region. Their behaviour is completely congruent and predictable. They ram the fishing vessels of other nations as policy.
Here is another quote:
"...flex U.S. muscles at China's doormat..."?
Such as when China sailed 5 vessels past the Aleutians when Obama was visiting that state?
Such as trailing RimPac vessels off the coast of Hawaii in July of 2014?
China invokes rules and laws only when in its favour. Here they claim international law under UNCLOS when it suits them:
Chinese vessel monitors RimPac
21 July 2014
They also invoked international law when it suited them in early September during the Aleutians transit with 5 PLAN vessels.
But when the matter is of reclaimed land, covered under international law as *not* territorial land, they ignore international law because...they don't get their way?
Since international law does not recognize reclaimed reefs as sovereign territory, and China recognizes international law only when it resolves in their favour, China's attitude is clear.
They will only obey law when they get their way and when the law is contrary to their aims they will simply ignore it and do as they please.
How they believe that the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand are going to tolerate such an attitude is a mystery.
This is about China, and their attitude towards the other 82.5% of humanity. They act like this with all of their neighbours in the SCS region. Their behaviour is completely congruent and predictable. They ram the fishing vessels of other nations as policy.
Here is another quote:
"...flex U.S. muscles at China's doormat..."?
Such as when China sailed 5 vessels past the Aleutians when Obama was visiting that state?
Such as trailing RimPac vessels off the coast of Hawaii in July of 2014?
China invokes rules and laws only when in its favour. Here they claim international law under UNCLOS when it suits them:
Chinese vessel monitors RimPac
21 July 2014
They also invoked international law when it suited them in early September during the Aleutians transit with 5 PLAN vessels.
But when the matter is of reclaimed land, covered under international law as *not* territorial land, they ignore international law because...they don't get their way?
Since international law does not recognize reclaimed reefs as sovereign territory, and China recognizes international law only when it resolves in their favour, China's attitude is clear.
They will only obey law when they get their way and when the law is contrary to their aims they will simply ignore it and do as they please.
How they believe that the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand are going to tolerate such an attitude is a mystery.
Well, China's vessels in that case were expedient in their transit though those waters and did not linger or loiter. More importantly, China has not surrounded the US with a host of naval and air power deployed a few hundred to a thousand km from major US population and economic centres in the way that the US has around China, so the situations aren't quite similar.
The US aren't exactly threatened by a small force of five Chinese naval ships that briefly entered Alaskan territorial waters, but china could perceive a threat if a US vessel with supporting air power, deployed as part of a larger strategic air and naval force around China's periphery, loiters in claimed EEZ waters around a piece of territory under dispute.
The case of the surveillance ship in Hawaii's EEZ has been discussed before, and it could be quite easily be seen as a bargaining chip in China's overall policy towards spying in its own EEZ.
It seems like what you're most pissed about is that china has the gall to do something that it sees as justified, and then criticise other countries when they do it themselves. The problem is that in geopolitical competitions this is constant. Both sides in a competition would quite happily arm themselves claiming to be peaceful and then criticise the other for disrupting the peace and the balance of power.
Which China did not comply with last July when monitoring RimPac. well within the EEZ of Hawaii.
China has developed a fairly 'complicated reading' of maritime law that allows it to transit and surveil foreign waters while denying similar rights to others.
This constant theme of lack of reciprocity will cause all local nations to take note with alarm.
Constant lack of reciprocity results in a conclusion of hypocrisy.
"and then criticise other countries when they do it themselves."
China is not criticising, they are openly calling for (word that violates the TOS of this forum).
Their reaction is completely out of proportion. Multiple quotes from PRC news sources that act as official party policy spokesmen, call for this.
This is the problem and it is never going to be resolved.
You, and China, think that 5 vessels is not a threat but one ship and one aircraft is a threat.
This is an irrational response. 5>1. You cannot see this. China cannot see this. This is an impossible perception gap to bridge.
If 5 is not a threat, but 1 *is* a threat, then from your pov and the Chinese pov, the only response that is acceptable is obsequious obedience and 0 vessels, ever.
Ignore that this is the US Navy. Imagine what every other nation in the region will conclude.
They will conclude that the only response that China does not respond to as a threat, provocation, or attack, is one of complete non-presence and 100% compliance with Chinese demands. Any independence is a provocation.
The Chinese have a massive 'chip on their shoulder' that they are completely unaware of. Anything other than compliance is equated with an act of (word that violates the TOS of this forum), a source of shame, the re-opening of a grievance, or a provocation.
I see no resolution to this other than all regional nations must submit to Chinese suzerainty.
Yes, and as I described, it could be reasonable if China is using that action as a bargaining chip for its own position on the EEZ surveillance issue.
Calling for war?
Give me a break. No one who has been a spokesman of the foreign ministry or anyone speaking on behalf of the Chinese government has called for war.
It is not 5 vs 1, because the US has the entire 7th fleet parked on China's doorstep as well as multiple airbases as well, which are a permanent force deployed on China's immediate periphery.
It's more like 5 vs 1001 (or however big the US forward deployed air and naval forces are)
If the US did not deploy as much of its military on China's doorstep China would likely have reacted in a far lesser way and feel far less threatened to a single destroyer and a P-8.
Last edited:
I think in my simple mind, just to make it easy, US did not complain when China entered US EEZ, that is US problem. So when China complained US entered China EEZ, that is China's problem.
Does China or US have the right to complain when ship enter their EEZ? I believe the answer is Yes. Based on what reason? Well, many countries do complain when other countries entered their EEZ. Just look at what happened when China entered Japan EEZ, did Japan complain? I think yes, they did.
Yes, Yes, I know. The EEZ is still disputed, that's why China wants to negotiate bilaterally with the countries that have disputes with China.
But just let's consider that if we think Taiwan is part of China, then Taiping Island is part of China too.
Let's see the argument here:
And also based on what I read:
So, ships do need to have permission depend on what their intention is.
Does China or US have the right to complain when ship enter their EEZ? I believe the answer is Yes. Based on what reason? Well, many countries do complain when other countries entered their EEZ. Just look at what happened when China entered Japan EEZ, did Japan complain? I think yes, they did.
Yes, Yes, I know. The EEZ is still disputed, that's why China wants to negotiate bilaterally with the countries that have disputes with China.
But just let's consider that if we think Taiwan is part of China, then Taiping Island is part of China too.
Let's see the argument here:
And also based on what I read:
So, ships do need to have permission depend on what their intention is.
Ah, the mythical law of the seas. Can you please tell me which parliament passed the law? Can you please tell me if any representatives from Asia, Middle East, Africa, South America voted on it? You know and I know it was established by might. Empires used their mights to force everyone to follow the "law" established for their benefits and Uncle Sam continues to this day to use her might to enforce the "law". Judge, jury and executioner.
- Status