PLAN patrols USA waters intimdating Washington

[gambit]

Oh boy, today must be a special day!

An American agreeing with international/UN and Chinese position.

Or is it that you have not bother to read what you post. Highlighted in Red. Judging by your past behavior, I would think this is more likely. If it is not, I salute your honesty and support for the underdog against the big US bully.

The US obviously want to use the broader interpretation of innocent passage in blatant disregard of international norm. The US has a global military presence and can stick it up close to the nose of anyone that she please. "International law" be damn when it suit US interest.

That of course does not stop the US from brandishing and preaching "international law" to other nation. What hypocrisy.

Unlike the Chinese members here, I do read my sources to the fullest. I also read opposing sides as well.

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

Intelligence gathering are either active or passive. UNCLOS Part II Article 19 point 2(c) is vague as to which method is 'prejudicial' to peace or towards disqualification to the principle of innocent passage. If a foreign warship is claiming innocent passage thru an EEZ and such claim is usually is granted, how do you know if its PASSIVE intelligence apparatus is not in operation?

If you examine all other sub-points under 2, you will see that those other activities are ACTIVE measures or actions, such as...

(a)any threat or use of force...

(b)any exercise or practice...

(g)the loading or unloading...

And so on...

Sub-point 2(c) states: any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;

Turning on a radio is technically an action. How else am I going to listen to Lady Gaga if I do nothing? So the context of the word 'act' here is beyond the human ability to perform a physical motion but to include a moral justification as well.

If a foreign vessel merely sits inside an EEZ and do nothing, like how Soviet 'fishing trawlers' often used to do, there is no doubt as to what the vessel is doing or 'acting', which is intelligence gathering. Its non-movement or non-motion is necessary towards its mission. Therefore, its 'act' is obviously -- 'prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State.' The vessel may not be actively transmitting anything to its owner state but precisely because it is not moving, its intention cannot be anything else, like mechanical failure that stranded it, but that of intelligence gathering.

But if a warship is moving thru an EEZ as demanded by UNCLOS, and if there is no credible way for the coastal sovereign state to definitively ascertain that this is an intelligence gathering mission, then legally speaking, there is nothing this coastal sovereign state can do.

The context of the word 'act' in 2(c) is hinting at real actions such as communication with an agent inside the coastal sovereign state, or picking up people, or deploying/discarding intelligence gathering devices.

 

[navtrek]

Hiii Hongwu..how are you buddy..you know what,the link you've posted is asking for registration,and we don't like to register..if you'd be kind enough to post the news here..it'd be a great help..

check this link

Chinese navy begins US economic zone patrols - FT.com

 

[JSCh]

Unlike the Chinese members here, I do read my sources to the fullest. I also read opposing sides as well.

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

Intelligence gathering are either active or passive. UNCLOS Part II Article 19 point 2(c) is vague as to which method is 'prejudicial' to peace or towards disqualification to the principle of innocent passage. If a foreign warship is claiming innocent passage thru an EEZ and such claim is usually is granted, how do you know if its PASSIVE intelligence apparatus is not in operation?

If you examine all other sub-points under 2, you will see that those other activities are ACTIVE measures or actions, such as...


And so on...

Sub-point 2(c) states: any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;

Turning on a radio is technically an action. How else am I going to listen to Lady Gaga if I do nothing? So the context of the word 'act' here is beyond the human ability to perform a physical motion but to include a moral justification as well.

If a foreign vessel merely sits inside an EEZ and do nothing, like how Soviet 'fishing trawlers' often used to do, there is no doubt as to what the vessel is doing or 'acting', which is intelligence gathering. Its non-movement or non-motion is necessary towards its mission. Therefore, its 'act' is obviously -- 'prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State.' The vessel may not be actively transmitting anything to its owner state but precisely because it is not moving, its intention cannot be anything else, like mechanical failure that stranded it, but that of intelligence gathering.

But if a warship is moving thru an EEZ as demanded by UNCLOS, and if there is no credible way for the coastal sovereign state to definitively ascertain that this is an intelligence gathering mission, then legally speaking, there is nothing this coastal sovereign state can do.

The context of the word 'act' in 2(c) is hinting at real actions such as communication with an agent inside the coastal sovereign state, or picking up people, or deploying/discarding intelligence gathering devices.

You edited you previous post.

I can see that at least US gov is more honest that you. US did not deny that US is spying with excuse of technicality of the law. US is not signatory to UNCLOS, so screw "international law"

What the FT article trying to do is to make China look like doing as bad as what US is doing, so it is ok for US to be bad. Although China is signatory to UNCLOS and clearly supported UNCLOS definition of innocent passage (Easiest access to the pacific for PLAN is through Japanese EEZ). And it provide no evidence that PLAN is doing anything other than innocent passage in US EEZ.

The following paragraph from the article is dishonest and trying to manipulate the reader,

The US and most other countries interpret international law to allow a right of free passage for military vessels through the EEZ, but China disagrees and has long chided the US practice of frequent surveillance missions along the Chinese coast.

 

[gambit]

You edited you previous post.

I can see that at least US gov is more honest that you. US did not deny that US is spying with excuse of technicality of the law. US is not signatory to UNCLOS, so screw "international law"

What the FT article trying to do is to make China look like doing as bad as what US is doing, so it is ok for US to be bad. Although China is signatory to UNCLOS and clearly supported UNCLOS definition of innocent passage (Easiest access to the pacific for PLAN is through Japanese EEZ). And it provide no evidence that PLAN is doing anything other than innocent passage in US EEZ.

The following paragraph from the article is dishonest and trying to manipulate the reader,

You seems to have a reading comprehension problem. We will look at that article's particular paragraph again...

===
The US and most other countries interpret international law to allow a right of free passage for military vessels through the EEZ, but China disagrees and has long chided the US practice of frequent surveillance missions along the Chinese coast.
===

Note the highlighted, which is about MILITARY VESSELS. Not about civilian vessels. The US and most countries interpreted UNCLOS to allow ALL vessels, including military, to have the right of innocent passage. China disagrees. China's contention seems to be only to military vessels, which could include intelligence gathering capabilities.

So how am I being dishonest here? I never denied the US conduct intelligence gathering missions, in air or on sea. If anything, in past discussions with others I explained that I have been a member of that community when I was active duty.

Read the necessary documents and arguments again. S-l-o-w-l-y if needed.

 

[JSCh]

You seems to have a reading comprehension problem. We will look at that article's particular paragraph again...

===
The US and most other countries interpret international law to allow a right of free passage for military vessels through the EEZ, but China disagrees and has long chided the US practice of frequent surveillance missions along the Chinese coast.
===

Note the highlighted, which is about MILITARY VESSELS. Not about civilian vessels. The US and most countries interpreted UNCLOS to allow ALL vessels, including military, to have the right of innocent passage. China disagrees. China's contention seems to be only to military vessels, which could include intelligence gathering capabilities.

So how am I being dishonest here? I never denied the US conduct intelligence gathering missions, in air or on sea. If anything, in past discussions with others I explained that I have been a member of that community when I was active duty.

Read the necessary documents and arguments again. S-l-o-w-l-y if needed.

China is a signatory to UNCLOS so naturally she agree with the terms of UNCLOS which allow all ship for innocent passage including military vessel.

China disagree/disallow non-innocent passage(defined by UNCLOS) which is also disallowed in UNCLOS.

That is why I said the passage is dishonest, it make it sound like China disagree with innocent passage of military vessels.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

Chinese navy begins US economic zone patrols - FT.com

The Chinese military has started operating within the US’s exclusive economic zone, a move that could transform the dynamic between the dominant Pacific naval power and its main challenger.

Haha
An eye for an eye my friend

 

[Battle of Kursk]

China is a signatory to UNCLOS so naturally she agree with the terms of UNCLOS which allow all ship for innocent passage including military vessel.

The fact that China signed the UNCLOS does not mean that she agrees with every single written word of the document, just that China saw it to her benefit to sign it as a whole.

 

[isro2222]

Look at the military strength of top 10 countries (comparing only military strength).... Good to see india at 4th. While china 3rd, and russia 2nd. American military power miles ahead than other top 10 countries....
Global Firepower - 2013 World Military Strength Ranking

 

[Riz]

China is the New Nazi Germany and is about to destroy itself

But after distroying India like Nazi did to French

 

[isro2222]

@HongWu china very smart country.... They know if they war than other mighty powers will chew chinese navy.... The sad thing for china is that junk ships or fishing boats (claimed as destroyers by china) are sitting ducks for even indian navy.... Let alone american navy who got the best navy in world.... Before and recently indian navy detected chinese ships and subs like a hawk zooms in on its innocent food which running away to save life.... Few years ago indian kilo sub chased chinese ships for 2 days without them knowing. When indian sub came up than chinese navy ships knew their death was chasing them. in war time indian sub wont chase for two days.... recently near shri lanka indian ships detected chinese subs for 31 times. Jeez.... Thats too much and big shame that chinese subs are obsolete.... Piece of junk....
China's Noisy Nuclear Submarines - FAS Strategic Security Blog
Indian sub stalked China warships? - Times Of India
Relax: China's First Aircraft Carrier is a Piece of Junk | Danger Room | Wired.com
Indian submarine says an unfriendly hello to Chinese destroyers | The Acorn

 

[somebozo]

American Navy will be impressed by some Chinese toys.
Seriously compared to American navy, PLAN is just toys.

 

[Riz]

@HongWu china very smart country.... They know if they war than other mighty powers will chew chinese navy.... The sad thing for china is that junk ships or fishing boats (claimed as destroyers by china) are sitting ducks for even indian navy.... Let alone american navy who got the best navy in world.... Before and recently indian navy detected chinese ships and subs like a hawk zooms in on its innocent food which running away to save life.... Few years ago indian kilo sub chased chinese ships for 2 days without them knowing. When indian sub came up than chinese navy ships knew their death was chasing them. in war time indian sub wont chase for two days.... recently near shri lanka indian ships detected chinese subs for 31 times. Jeez.... Thats too much and big shame that chinese subs are obsolete.... Piece of junk....
China's Noisy Nuclear Submarines - FAS Strategic Security Blog
Indian sub stalked China warships? - Times Of India
Relax: China's First Aircraft Carrier is a Piece of Junk | Danger Room | Wired.com
Indian submarine says an unfriendly hello to Chinese destroyers | The Acorn

who are you? American PET? get lost and bark.this crap on bharat Bak bak forum.

 

[rott]

who are you? American PET? get lost and bark.this crap on bharat Bak bak forum.

Bharat Bak Bak Forum...

 

[anon45]

Only US would debate a law that they have not ratify to its own advantage.

Well then why are you trying to hold the US to a law that hasn't been ratified by it? Doesn't seem like a legal position that benefits your point

China has ratified the UNCLOS, according to this article and your definition that would mean that China is breaking UNCLOS, shouldn't you be glad the US doesn't hold to that strict interpretation?

The fact of the matter is that even if the US hasn't ratified UNCLOS, it follows its laws in practice. As gambit has shown, it is not defined what intelligence activities constitute a detriment to the security or defense of a coastal state, so like i said, debatable.

 

[HongWu]

Look at all the Indians yelping in pain and fear and jumping to their Anglo master's defense

USA is too afraid of China to stop us from bullying our neighbors like Japan, India, Vietnam and Philippines. We attack them without any consequence whatsoever.

USA can't even stop us from patrolling their waters!