did you actually bother to read the article or just quoting the headline when it seems fit you??
Pentagon says Chinese vessels harassed U.S. ship - CNN.com - You quote an 2009 article. LOL, how does the US bitch about the SCS
CURRENTLY, while you at it, why don't you quote one in 1980s or even 1950 when China are hostile to the US?
Pentagon: China jet made 'unsafe' move near U.S. plane - CNNPolitics.com - The US protest about Chinese jet being unsafe, would you lodge a complaint if some stuntman start flying loop-de-loop over your home at low altitude?
U.S., Chinese warships come dangerously close - CNNPolitics.com - Again, old article, in 2013, the situation is esculated in 2015 in case if you haven't noticed
Chinese Warships Made ‘Innocent Passage’ Through U.S. Territorial Waters off Alaska - That's an article quote a normal procedure, US cannot protest something that is covered under international law. So if you want to access Panama Canal, how you can do it without entering Panama territorial water? Same thing to Chinese ship in Bering Strait.
at the end of the day, all Chinese can do is protest, maybe you should intercept the US fleet entering your so-called 12nm limit, let's see what will happen?
Navigation is defined as passage of ship. Is conducting military mission considered navigation? China obviously disagrees.
Yes, that's my point. Most of the media points to the keyword of "artificial island" as the basis for legality of US patrol, which is completely false. It is Chinese ownership of the island that US disputes, not the construction.
Wait a minute. Where does it say building island on the high sea is not permitted? Per freedom of the high seas in article 87 specifically states the freedom to construct artificial islands in the same status as the freedom of navigation. Moreover, China is not even building artificial island on the high sea, but conducting land reclamation on the existing island that it claims sovereign over.
Article87
Freedom of the high seas
1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States:
(a) freedom of navigation;
(b) freedom of overflight;
(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI;
(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI;
(e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2;
(f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.
2. These freedoms shall be exercised by all States with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas, and also with due regard for the rights under this Convention with respect to activities in the Area.
Maybe you need to check my post again, I had
NEVER said Article 87 forbid building Island.
I forgot which one but the article that define "International Waterway" in UNCLOS had explicitly defined any international waterway must be permanently neutral and there could not be any established Military Structure on any international waterway. Hence all international waterway must be demilitarized. It's like Panama Government trying to reclaim island for military use on Panama Canal. It's a violation of international law of the sea.
The Chinese are currently Militarizing the island by reclaiming the land and put military structure in it, the act would have been totally fine if SCS is actually agree upon to be inside China territorial water, but since the island is disputed, and basically only China itself recognize the area is in Chinese territorial water the act itself would be considered a violation to the so called "High Sea" law under UNCLOS.
As I said, either China break away from UNCLOS and start its own law, and then you lose the right to be protected by UNCLOS and the right to protest a la dog eat dog world. Or China comply to what UNCLOS set forth and protest against US aggression, again, you cannot have both.
All right, 3 years younger. I don't care how long has been, US itself just started since 1776. When China travelled through SCS, find, manage their islands, into the Indian ocean. There is nobody America.
lol, in that case, the country "China, People Republic of" had not existed until 1949. Before that is the Republic of China, Before that is Qing Dynasty and before that is another dynasty and all the way to Xie Dynasty in 1600BC. If you count Xie as an extension of modern China, then the "US History" is not simply started from 1776. They started at first American Indian settle in American continent during 16,000 BC.
So if you want to count the 5,000 years history, then the US Native Indian,
WHICH IS PART OF US CITIZENS NOW, would have 19,000 years of history.
