South China Sea Forum

[Solomon2]

Yes China is exercising its right allowed for by the treaty in rejecting any of the procedures in Section 2.

Point to the conciliation commission.

And don't be lazy, please cite the articles in your argument.

Article 60 discusses artificial islands and installations.
Article 121 discusses uninhabitable (NOT uninhabited, sorry, my mistake) islands.

 

[Dungeness]

I can understand the rage of the US so it has to do something about it, anything, but I really don't understand why Japanese and viets are so excited here.

So far, China has never officially declared 12 nautical miles territory waters surrounding those islands, as those islands may not even have legitimate 12 nautical miles territory waters to begin with, based on International laws.

Now all of sudden, everybody is talking as if China has already owned 12 miles territory waters as a matter of fact. On top of it, China now has a perfect reason to militarize those islands. Don't know how more stupid they can be.

This is exactly what I was talking about. See below for Chinese Official reaction:

"If any country thinks that, through some gimmicks, they will be able to interfere with or even prevent China from engaging in reasonable, legitimate and legal activities in its own territories, I want to suggest those countries give up such fantasy," ministry spokesman Lu Kang said.

"In fact, if relevant parties insist on creating tensions in the region and making trouble out of nothing, it may force China to draw the conclusion that we need to strengthen and hasten the buildup of our relevant capabilities. I advise the U.S. not to create such a self-fulfilling prophecy."

China warns U.S. warship in South China Sea - CNN.com

 

[Zsari]

Point to the conciliation commission.

Article 60 discusses artificial islands and installations.
Article 121 discusses uninhabitable (NOT uninhabited, sorry, my mistake) islands.

Thank you. Article 60 is regarding to artificial islands and installations, but what we have here are artificial structures on existing reefs, all of which are above water during low tide. Citing Article 6, these islands are entitled to 12nm of territorial water.

Article 6. Reefs
In the case of islands situated on atolls or of islands having fringing reefs, the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the seaward low-water line of the reef, as shown by the appropriate symbol on charts officially recognized by the coastal State.

Article 121 is the regime of island where it specifies that uninhabited island are not entitled to 200nm of EEZ, and no one is claiming a 200nm EEZ from these islands anyway.

This is exactly what I was talking about. See below for Chinese Official reaction:

"If any country thinks that, through some gimmicks, they will be able to interfere with or even prevent China from engaging in reasonable, legitimate and legal activities in its own territories, I want to suggest those countries give up such fantasy," ministry spokesman Lu Kang said.

"In fact, if relevant parties insist on creating tensions in the region and making trouble out of nothing, it may force China to draw the conclusion that we need to strengthen and hasten the buildup of our relevant capabilities. I advise the U.S. not to create such a self-fulfilling prophecy."

China warns U.S. warship in South China Sea - CNN.com

Indeed, this would be a good justification for further construction and buildup.

 

[mike2000 is back]

To be honest, the U.S should also give some space to China at least in Chinas own immediate shores. The U.S is already the dominant naval power in Asia,nobody can contest that not anytime soon. So i dont think giving some little space to the Chinese will do much harm. Afterall, its rather bad for a big country not to even be able to assert its infleunce in its own immediate shores.
Think both countries should agree on some way to resolve this dispute that will be benefit both sides and the region as a whole. Afterall, last time i checked i was shocked to find out that even Vietnam controls more territory in the SCS/spratlys islands than the Chinese by farrrr. Lol

 

[Solomon2]

Thank you. Article 60 is regarding to artificial islands and installations, but what we have here are artificial structures on existing reefs, all of which are above water during low tide. Citing Article 6, these islands are entitled to 12nm of territorial water.

This is only for reefs attached to habitable islands, and installations upon them do not affect territorial claims.

To be honest, the U.S should also give some space to China at least in Chonas own immediate shores.

That brings up an additional issue, that China is claiming additional sea territory but refusing to define its limits. China's probable intent, then, is to keep the South China Sea warm until China wants it to go hot.

 

[Dungeness]

Well China can always deploy a Type 056 some 10 miles off the Virginia coast.

A tit for tat, or is it a tat for tit?

I think you are getting a little too high on the news, and trolling is not a "professional" like you would do . Why China wants to be that stupid?

 

[Zsari]

This is only for reefs attached to habitable islands, and installations upon them do not affect territorial claims.

The very definition of atoll is a coral formation that is not attached to any island as compare to a fringing reef. You are making assumptions that are not within the text especially regarding to the inhabitable part. Chinese argument has always been regarding the pre-existing territorial claim of the reefs, not the installation or land reclamation.

 

[jhungary]

There is a difference between transiting and conducting military operation while calling it navigation. The current rule was established by maritime powers that serve to facilitate their operation in other countries near shore. It is thus quiet natural for China to seek to change such rule that would serve to protect the security of continental powers instead.

Actually, according to UNCLOS, there are no different between transiting and conducting military operation. China can hold a military Drill in US EEZ as much *** the US having the same right to hold a Military Drill in China EEZ.

The definition of "Rules" is that it Applies to EVERYBODY and no one was in exception.

Even the US observe this "rules" even tho the US has not ratified the UNCLOS.

The problem with what you and most Chinese thinking is, since China wasn't "Around" when the rules was set, the China should not by all account respect and obey the rules and instead having their "Own" set of rules.

Well, I did not say China cannot do that, but you cannot do that and say China is not escalating anything. You can change the rules by having it heard internationally, and then when all other party agree to and ratified the amendment, then the rules can be change. You cannot unilaterally change the "rules" when you deem fits and call other aggressive. When you change the rules unilaterally, you are the party that act aggressively.

Baseline is, if you don't play nice, you automatically refused the right to call other foul.

 

[Solomon2]

Chinese argument has always been regarding the pre-existing territorial claim of the reefs, not the installation or land reclamation.

And China's claims to such on uninhabited islands and reefs is especially weak, not having been a seapower for some five hundred years and lacking archaeological or historical accounts of habiting or claiming such islands and atolls. Trying to establish them now, by force and occupation, infringes upon the archipelagic sovereign rights (Article IV) of the Philippines and Malaysia and maybe Japan - rights that China cannot claim, not being an archipelagic State.

 

[Beast]

from diplomat magazine
Alex McLean
@disqus_uL0Exuq1uG
@Nihonjin1051 @Chinese-Dragon @ChineseTiger1986 @Beast @ other Chinese and Japanese Vietnamese member who are fighting over south china sea

China will step up the patrol to Guam island.

 

[mike jones]

China - 1 USA - 1

Chinese navy ships entered U.S. waters off Alaska - CNNPolitics.com

lol, the guy said "people know the strength of the United States, know the strength of our military. We don't need to display a parade necessarily for people to understand what United States is capable of."

Best comment ever from USA!

 

[anon45]

As China have said many times, the Freedom of Navigation was never threaten by any islands on SCS. And the American's display this time will have no effect whatsoever on China's continuation of developing of their islands.

Then there is nothing for the Chinese to be angry about, and nothing for us to worry about.

The best response is keep quiet from our media stand point, meanwhile aggressively tracking their ship and lock on to them. Continue to build on our islands and install defense post in case of the worse.

sure continue installing defences, but these islands are of symbolic value only, in a serious conflict they would be quickly resurfaced. Think of them as stationary carriers. Useful against those without the means to retaliate.

 

[dichoi]

Keep it up and China will eventually militarize our islands and slap the Viets with our own Southern ADIZ

Useless kid, USA slapped on your face hardly, take it.

 

[Zero_wing]

Good luck screwing yourselves kung ano tinanim yun rin ng aanihin

 

[Zsari]

Actually, according to UNCLOS, there are no different between transiting and conducting military operation. China can hold a military Drill in US EEZ as much *** the US having the same right to hold a Military Drill in China EEZ.

The definition of "Rules" is that it Applies to EVERYBODY and no one was in exception.

Even the US observe this "rules" even tho the US has not ratified the UNCLOS.

The problem with what you and most Chinese thinking is, since China wasn't "Around" when the rules was set, the China should not by all account respect and obey the rules and instead having their "Own" set of rules.

Well, I did not say China cannot do that, but you cannot do that and say China is not escalating anything. You can change the rules by having it heard internationally, and then when all other party agree to and ratified the amendment, then the rules can be change. You cannot unilaterally change the "rules" when you deem fits and call other aggressive. When you change the rules unilaterally, you are the party that act aggressively.

Baseline is, if you don't play nice, you automatically refused the right to call other foul.

It has nothing to do with playing nice or naughty. There is no written rule defining the freedom of navigation. It is however used as a red herring by the US that any Chinese objection to its conducting military exercise and espionage mission in its near shore is branded as against the freedom of navigation.

And yes you can say everyone plays by the same rule, that if US can conduct military drills in China's EEZ, then China can as well vice versa, but China doesn't want to conduct military drill anywhere near the US, nor does it want the US to so so in its own backyard. So it naturally wants to better define the rule in its favor. And how is China going to convince the US to accept that? It can't. So the only thing it can do is to deter and disrupt US action that it deems unfavorable, so as to become the norm, or an unwritten rule, just like the current interpretation on the "freedom of navigation". Until it is the US interest to better define or change the rule, that's the best China can and will do.