US Navy & PLAN - South China Sea Situation News (Closed)

Bltizo said:

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.

Click to expand...

QED. You cannot comprehend that 5>1. You don't mention China's vast fleet in the area as well.
There is nothing to be done, this won't ever resolve.

As I have written many times. When the Chinese, or those arguing in favour of the Chinese position, react, it is always different, things are never the same. China is special, there is always a caveat, or an excuse to claim that 'it is different this time and thus China gets special dispensation'. There will never be a similar situation, as it does not benefit China to compare things on an equal footing and demand reciprocity. They will always want an excuse to justify their actions.

There will never be any common ground, because anything anyone does, ever, is perceived always by China as being unfair, or a source of shame, or humiliation, or loss of dignity, or a provocation, or an act of aggression.

The only solution is capitulation to all that China wants and agree with them 100%. That is the only thing that will not have them reply as they have in the press this week.

nfgc said:

QED. You cannot comprehend that 5>1. You don't mention China's vast fleet in the area as well.
There is nothing to be done, this won't ever resolve.

As I have written many times. When the Chinese, or those arguing in favour of the Chinese position, react, it is always different, things are never the same. China is special, there is always a caveat, or an excuse to claim that 'it is different this time and thus China gets special dispensation'. There will never be a similar situation, as it does not benefit China to compare things on an equal footing and demand reciprocity. They will always want an excuse to justify their actions.

There will never be any common ground, because anything anyone does, ever, is perceived always by China as being unfair, or a source of shame, or humiliation, or loss of dignity, or a provocation, or an act of aggression.

The only solution is capitulation to all that China wants and agree with them 100%. That is the only thing that will not have them reply as they have in the press this week.

Click to expand...

Same argument can be said about those who are against China or in disagreement with China's position. It's always "do as I say, not what I do" mantra because that's been the norm for so long therefore it's right. Therefore China can do no right by going against the status quo.

Cyclist said:

So, ships do need to have permission depend on what their intention is.

Click to expand...

It spells out the types of activities:

This means that other states must receive permission from the coastal state to engage in such economic or economically related activities as fishing, fishery surveys, resource exploration, or scientific research.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

It spells out the types of activities:

Click to expand...

No offense, but you should read from the first sentence, Jeff.

UNCLOS does not prohibit foreign ships from entering the EEZ; to the contrary, it guarantees the “right of innocent passage”—that is, navigation that is not prejudicial to the peace or security of the coastal state—through coastal waters. However, it does grant the coastal state economic sovereignty over the EEZ. This means that other states must receive permission from the coastal state to engage in such economic or economically related activities as fishing, fishery surveys, resource exploration, or scientific research. With respect to these activities, or any others that bear on the economic sovereignty of the coastal state, foreign ships must comply with the domestic laws of the coastal state within the EEZ and can be punished for violating those laws.

Click to expand...

What is the intention of US passage? Can we consider that US passage as:

..navigation that is not prejudicial to the peace or security of the coastal state..

Click to expand...

If China considers that China is threatened, why can't China complain?

I guess everything back to normal again? US already showed its strength and China already complained by words (summoned US ambassador) and action (shadowed the US military ship).

The Chinese and U.S. navies held high-level talks on Thursday after a U.S. warship challenged China's territorial assertions in the South China Sea, and a U.S. official said both sides agreed to maintain dialogue and follow protocols to avoid clashes.

After the talks between U.S. chief of naval operations Admiral John Richardson and his Chinese counterpart, Admiral Wu Shengli, scheduled port visits by U.S. and Chinese ships and planned visits to China by senior U.S. Navy officers remained on track, the official said.

"None of that is in jeopardy. Nothing has been cancelled," said the official.

Click to expand...

nfgc said:

QED. You cannot comprehend that 5>1. You don't mention China's vast fleet in the area as well.
There is nothing to be done, this won't ever resolve.

As I have written many times. When the Chinese, or those arguing in favour of the Chinese position, react, it is always different, things are never the same. China is special, there is always a caveat, or an excuse to claim that 'it is different this time and thus China gets special dispensation'. There will never be a similar situation, as it does not benefit China to compare things on an equal footing and demand reciprocity. They will always want an excuse to justify their actions.

There will never be any common ground, because anything anyone does, ever, is perceived always by China as being unfair, or a source of shame, or humiliation, or loss of dignity, or a provocation, or an act of aggression.

The only solution is capitulation to all that China wants and agree with them 100%. That is the only thing that will not have them reply as they have in the press this week.

Click to expand...

Proximity.

China's "vast fleet" is situated on its own doorstep, not on the doorstep of the United States. China has no forward deployed military assets within 8000km of the continental United States while the United States has the 7th fleet and almost a dozen major airbases within 2000km of the chinese mainland.

In other words, china sending five briefly through Alaskan waters presents no credible threat to the continental United States because china has not surrounded the US wth a forward deployed navy and Air Force. The US on the other hand has a forward deployed fleet with naval bases and air bases merely a few hours flight from China's mainland, therefore when the US sends a few spy planes or ships to probe China, china has to contend with the rest of the US military in the western pacific as well.
If the US did not have.a forward deployed military presence so close to the chinese mainland then china would not have reacted as it did, nor would china be acting as it does. If you truly cannot see how the difference in forward deployed military forces changes the situation between china and the US and the perceived threat each side may face, then I really don't know if you can understand reason.

Bltizo said:

China has no forward deployed military assets within 8000km of the continental United States while the United States has the 7th fleet and almost a dozen major airbases within 2000km of the chinese mainland.

Click to expand...

Wowo, a golden idea. China's fault is USA's fault. They can buy naval bases in Mexico/Canada. No one is taking that away from China. Why it isn't happening? Again - it's all USA fault...

Poor China...

Janiz said:

Wowo, a golden idea. China's fault is USA's fault. They can buy naval bases in Mexico/Canada. No one is taking that away from China. Why it isn't happening? Again - it's all USA fault...

Poor China...

Click to expand...

Sigh, I'm not sure why you are interpreting my post as if I were portraying china as a victim; nfgc and I were discussing the difference between chinese and US responses, and I was stating the differing geopolitical and strategic realities both nations face is a significant explanation for this difference.

I'm not saying the US has no right to have forward military assets close to china. In fact, I can appreciate geopolitics and the geopolitical interests of the US and the threats they face and how that determines US actions and words.

All I am saying is that we should also appreciate the geopolitical interests and threats which china faces when looking at their words and actions.

I do not think this is an unreasonable position, and I am concerned that you would view my position in that way.

Bltizo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your attempted explanation for China's inconsistent behaviour is hard to digest.

The quid pro quo reasoning is a false equivalence at best and is simply hypocrisy at worst.

The US position regarding surveillance within the EEZ is that it is within the provisions of UNCLOS. China disagrees with this view and considers it as illegal but then turns around and does the same thing.

The US in reaction considers such Chinese activities as within the law but in contrast China reacts with all the huff and puff. In other words, it is not the act but the reaction that is in question.