If the destroyer's transit meets all conditions of UNCLOS article 19, then sure, it counts as innocent passage. Take a look for yourself to determine if it does.
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
If the destroyer's transit meets all conditions of UNCLOS article 19, then sure, it counts as innocent passage. Take a look for yourself to determine if it does.
Brumby
Major
You are the one making the assertion. There is nothing for me to look. If you have any facts to substantiate your assertion then please produce it.
US officials are quoted as saying that this incident took place south of Hong Kong. They didn't use Hainan or the Paracel Islands as a point of reference, which I'm sure the officials would have preferred to reference if the incident was at an equidistant point to either, so if you know your geography you can guess where the incident is likely to have taken place.
The intercept occurred in the northern part of the sea, south of Hong Kong, the Associated Press reported, citing an unidentified official. Hong Kong is less than 500 kilometers from China’s southern Hainan Island, a gateway to the South China Sea and home to naval and submarine bases.
Bloomberg Visual Data: The Face Off in the South China Sea
The encounter is reminiscent of an in August 2014, when a Chinese fighter jet flew within 20 feet of a U.S. P-8 Poseidon aircraft flying near Hainan. Since that encounter, there haven’t been any reports of Chinese pilots flying in what the U.S. calls an unsafe or unprofessional manner, a record hailed by U.S. officials as progress between the two air forces.
In the latest encounter, Chinese J-11 jets came within about 50 feet (15 meters) of the U.S. EP-3 Aries reconnaissance plane and the pilot was forced to descend a couple of hundred feet, the AP said.
Tension Rising
“If this happens again next week, and then the week after that, it would signal a return to a more tactically aggressive phase in China’s attempts to get the U.S. to back off,” said Ashley Townshend, a visiting fellow at the Asia-Pacific Center at Fudan University, Shanghai. Between 2009 and 2014 there were regular reports of reckless flying by Chinese pilots, with at least five in 2014, according to Townshend. “No one can tell at what level this behavior was sanctioned. We can’t read too much into one incident.”
between the U.S. and China are running high in the lead-up to a ruling expected by mid-year from an international tribunal over China’s claims to more than 80 percent of the South China Sea. The U.S. is not a claimant but has positioned itself as the champion of freedom of navigation in the area, which hosts more than $5 trillion of trade a year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei have competing claims.
Hainan Island is at least 1,000 kilometers from the Spratly Islands, where over the past two years China has dumped hundreds of thousands of tons of sand and corral on seven features to create artificial islands. China has already built an airstrip on one of the outposts and two others are under construction.
China Waters
The U.S. has conducted three operations since October, sending warships near the Chinese holdings to defend the right to fly and sail through what it considers international waters and airspace.
If a reckless flying incident “happened around the Spratlys, that would signal a step increase in China attempts to keep the U.S. navy and air force out,” said Townshend, who last month published a examining the behavior of China’s military in the South China Sea.
“The Chinese have never been unprofessional or reckless around the Spratlys,” he said. “If it did happen, it would signal what countries had been fearing -- that China wants to harass them out of these military alert zones and tell other countries that these are China’s sovereign waters.”
China has refused to participate in the arbitration case, which was brought by the Philippines in 2013, arguing that the United Nations-appointed tribunal has no jurisdiction, that the disputes should be solved bilaterally and that its sovereignty over the waters is indisputable. China on Wednesday added Togo to the list of countries it says support its South China position, joining others including Russia, Poland, Belarus and Gambia.
The Internet Debate Game:
"My position is natural and normal and yours requires extraordinary proof because I demand it."
What is missing is that the original position did not meet the same criteria - it is simply the editorial bias of this board. This stance places any critics in a no-win scenario of infinitely escalation proofs and arguments to meet the demands of the status quo. This is designed to wear down opposition through fatigue.
I have seen this hundred's of times in the past 20 years.
Also reminiscent of the Hainan Island incident of 2001 when a J-8 likely did the same barrel-roll over the cockpit intimidation tactic. The sheered nose cone of the EP-3 proves this collision.
This sort of passive-aggressive, play the victim, tactic is common with the PLA/N.
Note the tendency for CCG to ram vessels wherever they choose. No other CG or Navy does this.
Expect more of this as China's presence in the SCS grows.
Last edited:
joshuatree
Captain
A more objective assessment would note that the PCG would rather fire guns indiscriminately at a Taiwanese fishing boat, cripple it, and then leave it for dead without ever notifying Philippine or Taiwanese authorities.
Also, it's been noted in the past the Japanese CG would ram and water hose activists around Diaoyu. Happened in 2006 and 2012. So yes, other CGs do it as well.
Clearly a breach of sovereignty,
Article 19
Meaning of innocent passage
1.
Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good
order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in
conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.
2.
Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the
peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it
engages in any of the following activities:
(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial
integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any
other manner in violation of the principles of international law
embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the
defence or security of the coastal State;
(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security
of the coastal State;
(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military
device;
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person
contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and
regulations of the coastal State;
(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this
Convention;
(i) any fishing activities;
(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;
(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication
or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;
(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.
Last edited:
The last point, (l), "any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage" is also applicable in this case. Sending a political message = activity not having a direct bearing on passage. If they decide to screw around with Chinese reclamation efforts, point (k) also comes into play. China can try claiming point (a) to be violated as sailing one of the world's most heavily armed vessels so close to disputed territory is, in itself, a veiled threat; bit of a grey area though, still easier to spin that than the US trying to spin this as "innocent passage".
Regardless, I've spent enough time on Brumby. He's a snarky ball of unpleasantness and if he can't be bothered to google up a UNCLOS clause, hell if I believe he can be bothered to have a meaningful discussion.
Last edited:
Tick-tock.
More like calling people out on their BS when they came up with Case A Case B BS logic. That won't even cut for a court show, let alone real life.
How about your own bias nfgc? Are you aware of your own bias and your own presumptive victimhood card stuck on your forehead?
Tick-tock.
Tick-tock.
That's right. You cannot ignore the elephant in the room, that's China. Don't tread on it.
joshuatree gave you more than ample rebuttals at above to your bias, or rather ignorance. I'm sure which one it is, could as well be both.
Tick-tock. Tick-tock.
This is OT, but please indulge me on this for a moment.
Those of you who are puzzled by the tick-tocks , here is the funny underlying story.
This guy was sending me rather disturbing private messages detailing how bad China was, is and will forever be. Seeing no likely reconciliation nor making peace with his fossilized hatred toward China in his lifetime , I wished him that his soul may find peace when he dies. He came back and said he would live another 35 years till the very very old age. To get off to a good start, I'm just cheering him on his journey. Hence the Tick-tocks.
Tick-tock, tick-tock.
Those of you who are puzzled by the tick-tocks , here is the funny underlying story.
This guy was sending me rather disturbing private messages detailing how bad China was, is and will forever be. Seeing no likely reconciliation nor making peace with his fossilized hatred toward China in his lifetime , I wished him that his soul may find peace when he dies. He came back and said he would live another 35 years till the very very old age. To get off to a good start, I'm just cheering him on his journey. Hence the Tick-tocks.
Tick-tock, tick-tock.