The international-law Irony of U.S. Provocations in South China Sea

[Place Of Space]

do you think if you can make exemptions from the rules, others can´t?
if you require prior notification and permission, why can´t we demand the same or, for example, we charge foreign ships as follows:

US, Japan, Philippines: all warships are free of charge.

China: depending on kind of warship we demand:
- corvette: $1,000
- frigate: $5,000
- destroyer: $10,000
- ship carrying pdf clowns: $100,000

According to freedom of navigation rules, Vietnam has 0 rights of charging any foreign warships. About freedom of navigation of commercial rights, most members of UNCLOS actually have come to agreements, but referring to warships' freedom of navigation, nations have different attitudes. The vote in UNCLOS conferences indicated it. Maritime powers agree to it, most developing nations oppose it.

Well, first of all, you assume everybody in China care about SCS, that's your first assumption.

Second of all, you assume everybody in China is willing to die for a clause. That's your second assumption.

Problem is, for a conventional war. China cannot bring the fight to America while America will use it's asset in Asia, as well as proxies to make Chinese pays. You can destroy Guam, or South Korea or even Japan for that matter, but it will not damage US continental strength and thus, it does not do as much damage as you may think. On the other scale, China will be bombed both in the mainland and on the island, and while US have enough firepower now or in the future to turn at least the Chinese Eastern Seaboard into Iraq. It would take years for China to recover.

The only way China can hit back at US is by ICBM and nuclear mission, then it would be a lose-lose for the world, so again, the question remain, would China escalate the war for just merely a few thousand people?



War with China will not give birth to a New World Order, unless China can reach to continental US conventionally, which is not possible at this stage. US will use existing asset to go to war, as with any other war they have fought, while the battleground will be SCS and China, you would have to consider what it would have done to Chinese coastal region before you fly the war flag.

From where it is going, we can see US will keep sending ship over to SCS to Chinese island and China will keep on giving warning, a war on SCS will done nothing or next to nothing to the US,but will do a lot more harm to China.



UN approved the invasion as per Resolution 678. You are just too thick to understand what it said, maybe simply your understanding of English is not up to the par?



LOL at your logic, you are literally saying since 1+1=2, then 2 must come from 1+1

FON ops are to ensure ships pass thru INTERNATIONAL WATER or AIRSPACE despite all other claimant and their view, in effect, it's a US view to say "You can think whatever the hell you want, but we think it is an international water or airway" end of story.

FON ops does not admit that this action are conduct under foreign sovereign, on the contrary, it is the opposite that's true. It is illogical to say since US Challenge the sovereignty of a given nation, they must first accept that nation hold the sovereignty right of the location where FON Ops are conduct. Simply because if US did accepted that nation's sovereignty right, then there would not be a FON ops in the first place.

Yes, yes, you finally point out it: American navy is very mighty. We are clear the situation, I don't need you to boast again and again. But it's not free to deploy most navy in Asia, how much and how long can America last the expenditures when the American navy has no actual work here? 30 years, 50 years or 100 years?
Can you help to answer one of my puzzle/query: what is America's interests in SCS?

Once signed up to Unclos, you must follow the rules and not restrict it by domestic laws. If all others follow your example, we all can scrap Unclos.

Vietnam signed up to UNCLOS, but it usually enter into Indonesia and Thailand's water to catch fish, you really follow the rules?

 

[jhungary]

Yes, yes, you finally point out it: American navy is very mighty. We are clear the situation, I don't need you to boast again and again. But it's not free to deploy most navy in Asia, how much and how long can America last the expenditures when the American navy has no actual work here? 30 years, 50 years or 100 years?
Can you help to answer one of my puzzle/query: what is America's interests in SCS

What make you think the US have any interest in SCS?

 

[Place Of Space]

What make you think the US have any interest in SCS?

I don't know, so I ask you to solve my query.

What make you think the US have any interest in SCS?

For example, the other day US destroyer entered into Zhongjian islands within 12 nm. What interests or benefits the US can get from the action?

 

[ahtan_china]

Well, first of all, you assume everybody in China care about SCS, that's your first assumption.

Second of all, you assume everybody in China is willing to die for a clause. That's your second assumption.

Problem is, for a conventional war. China cannot bring the fight to America while America will use it's asset in Asia, as well as proxies to make Chinese pays. You can destroy Guam, or South Korea or even Japan for that matter, but it will not damage US continental strength and thus, it does not do as much damage as you may think. On the other scale, China will be bombed both in the mainland and on the island, and while US have enough firepower now or in the future to turn at least the Chinese Eastern Seaboard into Iraq. It would take years for China to recover.

The only way China can hit back at US is by ICBM and nuclear mission, then it would be a lose-lose for the world, so again, the question remain, would China escalate the war for just merely a few thousand people?



War with China will not give birth to a New World Order, unless China can reach to continental US conventionally, which is not possible at this stage. US will use existing asset to go to war, as with any other war they have fought, while the battleground will be SCS and China, you would have to consider what it would have done to Chinese coastal region before you fly the war flag.

From where it is going, we can see US will keep sending ship over to SCS to Chinese island and China will keep on giving warning, a war on SCS will done nothing or next to nothing to the US,but will do a lot more harm to China.



UN approved the invasion as per Resolution 678. You are just too thick to understand what it said, maybe simply your understanding of English is not up to the par?



LOL at your logic, you are literally saying since 1+1=2, then 2 must come from 1+1

FON ops are to ensure ships pass thru INTERNATIONAL WATER or AIRSPACE despite all other claimant and their view, in effect, it's a US view to say "You can think whatever the hell you want, but we think it is an international water or airway" end of story.

FON ops does not admit that this action are conduct under foreign sovereign, on the contrary, it is the opposite that's true. It is illogical to say since US Challenge the sovereignty of a given nation, they must first accept that nation hold the sovereignty right of the location where FON Ops are conduct. Simply because if US did accepted that nation's sovereignty right, then there would not be a FON ops in the first place.

Do you also mean UN resolution 678 approve the USA soliders kill so many people in Iraq? Is the life of Iraq people is nothing?

 

[jhungary]

Do you also mean UN resolution 678 approve the USA soliders kill so many people in Iraq? Is the life of Iraq people is nothing?

yeah, China authorized the use of force to invade and kill Iraqi by passing resolution 678, they have the power to VETO, but choose not to. It's all Chinese blood on Iraq war.

China also responsible for the killing in Libya by passing resolution 1441, again, they have the power to veto, but they did not. So every bomb drop on Libya have Chinese blood on it.

 

[ahtan_china]

yeah, China authorized the use of force to invade and kill Iraqi by passing resolution 678, they have the power to VETO, but choose not to. It's all Chinese blood on Iraq war.

China also responsible for the killing in Libya by passing resolution 1441, again, they have the power to veto, but they did not. So every bomb drop on Libya have Chinese blood on it.

For the solution 678, China abstained of voting. So I know USA eagerly came to Iraq to kill people, test new weapon. It was show time for USA as unique superpower on the earth. well done.

 

[Solomon2]

As ironic as it is, Washington has always defended its arbitrary move by referring to international law, but it has so far not approved the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which establishes legal order and regulations on international waters.

Well, no, UNCLOS is part of the body of international law on sea matters but not the exclusive source of such. Just because the U.S. didn't sign UNCLOS doesn't mean it has to ignore the existing body of relevant international law.

Another irony is that US asserts that it maintains freedom of navigation in the South China Sea on the legal basis of international law, but it applies standards unilaterally defined by itself.

That criticism can be applied to China, not the U.S., as China itself states in its addendum letters to UNCLOS, that China's sea boundaries are those set by the Party and China won't have anything to do with UNCLOS' dispute-resolving procedures.

The Law of the Sea Treaty stipulates that any resort to the threat or use of force against coastal sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence, or any resort to the threat or use of force that violates purposes and principles of the UN Charter, are all regarded as actions destabilizing the peace, order or security in coastal states.

Except that China has refused to follow the procedures of the treaty it signed regarding peaceful resolutions of such disputes. Essentially, has China repudiated this part of the UNCLOS treaty.

It is strongly desired that Washington abandon its own standards to observe international laws and act as a responsible power, rather than stirring up trouble in the South China Sea and then making a false countercharge against others.

Maybe we are supposed to read this article by substituting the word "China" for "Washington" and "the U.S."

One cannot exercise freedom of navigation within other's territorial water, which Washington does not dispute -

The dispute is over what constitutes China's territorial waters. The Chinese deal with this by denying such a dispute exists at all. The purpose, it seems to me, is to maintain a "hot spot" where China can initiate a war at will, for the purpose of strengthening the Party at times it may feel threatened by Chinese citizens' concerns of domestic issues.

 

[gambit]

FON ops are to ensure ships pass thru INTERNATIONAL WATER or AIRSPACE despite all other claimant and their view, in effect, it's a US view to say "You can think whatever the hell you want, but we think it is an international water or airway" end of story.

FON ops does not admit that this action are conduct under foreign sovereign, on the contrary, it is the opposite that's true. It is illogical to say since US Challenge the sovereignty of a given nation, they must first accept that nation hold the sovereignty right of the location where FON Ops are conduct. Simply because if US did accepted that nation's sovereignty right, then there would not be a FON ops in the first place.

Here is what the US Department Of Defense official statement on FONOPS said in Mar 2015...

http://policy.defense.gov/Portals/1...oD FON Program -- Fact Sheet (March 2015).pdf

The Program is principle-based, in that it is administered with regard to the excessive nature of maritime claims, rather than the identity of the coastal nations asserting those claims. As a result, U.S. forces challenge excessive claims asserted not only by potential adversaries and competitors, but also by allies, partners, and other nations.

If we do not care about the identity of the claimant -- or identities of claimants -- it means sovereignty, whether established or under contest, is minimized.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

You cannot reason with the unreasonable.

The only language they understand is force.

We should become more fluent at their language in order to more effectively send our message.

 

[gambit]

You cannot reason with the unreasonable.

The only language they understand is force.

We should become more fluent at their language in order to more effectively send our message.

Claiming the entirety of the SCS based on flimsy historical records is 'reasonable' ?

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Claiming the entirety of the SCS based on flimsy historical records is 'reasonable' ?

Historical records are a good source as any, since territory is not defined by proximity.

The other way is control.

 

[ahtan_china]

You cannot reason with the unreasonable.

The only language they understand is force.

We should become more fluent at their language in order to more effectively send our message.

Come on, buddy. China was able to faced USA in hard conditions during Korea war. What's more, there were so many followers in Korea war. Now the show looks boring becase of only USA. Ask you little brother to join the game together.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

The shear speed and scale of your island genesis project(s) is commendable, to be honest. There really is nothing the US can do in regards to staving Chinese island genesis, which will soon function as impermeable aircraft carriers.I suppose Japan has recently decided to take up a strategic ambigious position in regards to this -- as we seen the ineffectiveness in such protestations. I suppose we should all develop strategies to co-exist peacefully and share responsibilities in this vital sea lane.

Interesting development.

US is so desperately want to provoke China and hope to get ASEAN countries and Japan to be on it side but most the time it was frustrate to get not expected results. To add insult to injury not only it get nothing but gave China a legitimate justification to continue "pacifically" reclaimed these islands and each time the American warships pass by these islands , they only see its bigger and better . I think Japan is not stupid, be neutral is much more advantageous than chose a provocative path, China has no mean to contains Japan as US is trying to do with fist and second islands chains. But if Japan want to play a nasty game with China by taking US side, I believe China will definitely reinforce and militarized SCS to serve as tilt for tat containment...don't forget all Japan oil cargo and export to middle east are passing through SCS, China can set up some military puzzle for Japan to solve. I hope Abe and Japanese planner are wise as you...we can have peace and share prosperity by not play the zero sum game.

 

[TaiShang]

US intrusions disturb peaceful waters
Source:Xinhua
Published: 2016-2-2 19:38:01


The intrusive US move to send a navy vessel without China's authorization into waters adjacent to China-owned islands shows that Washington is threatening the sovereignty of other countries and challenging the international order.

A US Navy guided-missile destroyer, the USS Curtis Wilbur, on Saturday sailed within 12 nautical miles of Zhongjian Dao in the Xisha Islands, which, according to the US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter's office, was "innocent passage" and "consistent with international law."

However, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), innocent passage has its conditions - it should not be "prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State."

Besides, the UN law also stipulates that foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea should comply with the related laws and regulations the coastal State may adopt.

According to China's law on the territorial sea and contiguous zone enacted in 1992, foreign warships entering China's territorial waters should obtain prior approval from the Chinese government.

Obviously, the US warship's incursion into China's territorial sea without authorization violated both Chinese and international law.

And this is not the first instance of the US infringement on international law.

Just 95 days ago, the US Navy sailed the USS Lassen within 12 nautical miles of the Zhubi Reef, part of China's Nansha Islands in the South China Sea.

The repeated US moves have not only threatened China's sovereignty and security interests, but also undermined regional peace and stability.

Ironically, Washington unreasonably pointed its fingers at China, accusing Beijing of posing a threat to the "freedom of navigation" in the South China Sea and taking measures of "challenging the international order."

Washington's unfounded accusation obviously goes against common sense as the international order should not be unilaterally defined by any single country.

The current international order was jointly established by the international community with the United Nations at its core, on the basis of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

The fundamental principle regarding international order is based on mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, equal treatment and non-interference in each other's internal affairs.

Just as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has said, China has long played an active role in and made remarkable contribution to promoting world peace and development and properly resolving international and regional issues.

Backed by resolutions of the UN Security Council, China launched the task of carrying out anti-piracy escort missions in the Gulf of Aden off the waters of Somalia in late 2008.

In addition, China has also escorted the shipping of chemical weapons out of Syria for destruction and helped many countries deal with natural disasters.

The Chinese navy's pragmatic exchanges and cooperation with other countries have ensured the safety of some strategic maritime passages in the world.

In fact, China, as a signatory to UNCLOS, has been committed to preserving the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and to safeguarding peace and stability in the region.

As most of the region's flow of commerce in foreign trade passes through the sea lanes in the South China Sea, it is in the fundamental interest of all coastal countries, including China, to preserve the freedom of navigation in the area.

In order to make the South China Sea a sea of peace, friendship and cooperation, China and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations have been endeavoring to implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, and striving for the signing of a full code of conduct in the waters as soon as possible.

Moreover, a lot of countries in the region and the Asia-Pacific as a whole will benefit from the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative, a development strategy promoting openness, inclusiveness and win-win results.

Facts have proved that China, instead of doing any harm to the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, has provided public services to ensure the safety of all vessels sailing in the waters.

At a time when the whole world is pursuing peace, development, cooperation and win-win results, China will firmly stick to its path of peaceful development, which serves its fundamental interests and meets the common aspiration of all countries and people in the region.

It is advisable for Washington to contribute more to regional peace and cooperation, rather than making waves in the South China Sea and then pointing a finger at others on trumped-up charges.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

How many more pages are you guys going to make on this?