Pentagon accuses Chinese vessels of harassing U.S. ship

[bigstick61]

A missile lock is considered an extremely hostile gesture, whether you actually fire the missile or not.



I think I somewhat miscommunicated my point in my last post. Has anyone entertain the thought that these trawlers could actually be a bunch of nationalistic fishermen? If they were govt property, I don't think they would put the character "prosper" on the bridge. This has precedent before between China and Japan in East China Sea, where trawlers and other ships collided with Japanese Coast Guards, as the trawlers were trying to make it ashore on Diaoyu Tai.

It would be a valid theory (although the actions would still be considered illegal) except for the fact that three of the ships involved were government owned, one being a PLAN intelligence vessel, another being a Bureau of Maritime Fisheries patrol vessel, and the other being a State Oceanographic Administration vessel. The previous incident in which a Chinese ship posed a navigational hazard (intentionally) to a U.S. ship involved a PLAN frigate.

 

[Engineer]

As has been posted here time and again, and mentioned time and again, the jurisdiction over EEZs is very limited, extending only to artificial islands, exploitation of natural resources, the environment, and scientific research. None of those apply to this situation. China has no other exclusive rights or jurisdiction within the EEZ, plain and simple. That is the law that China passed by ratifying UNCLOS.

Also, I never argued that the ship was immune because it was a U.S. ship.

Your logic is that whatever US claimed is the truth, and if the vessel claimed it is not violating regulations in EEZ then it isn't violating regulations in EEZ.

The coastal nation, in this case China, doesn't need to operate around those words. Nor does any nation. Words alone are not credible and should not be taken at face value.

As long as it is deemed necessary to enforce regulations, then it is well within the rights of coastal nation to carry out whatever enforcements necessary. That's not to say that China could simply sink the ship or forcibily impound it, but in this case it is perfectly within the limit of International Law to enforce those regulations.

 

[Finn McCool]

A missile lock is considered an extremely hostile gesture, whether you actually fire the missile or not.



I think I somewhat miscommunicated my point in my last post. Has anyone entertain the thought that these trawlers could actually be a bunch of nationalistic fishermen? If they were govt property, I don't think they would put the character "prosper" on the bridge. This has precedent before between China and Japan in East China Sea, where trawlers and other ships collided with Japanese Coast Guards, as the trawlers were trying to make it ashore on Diaoyu Tai.

Missle locks have happened many times before. I realize it is quite hostile and I do not believe it is done in a routine interception. But it has happened before. In US-Soviet confrontations, in Greek-Turkish confrontations, just to name specific incidents I can remember right now. It's a tool in the toolkit of harassing snoopers.

Have you considered the possibility that the trawlers were surveillence ships themselves, disguised to look like trawlers? The "prosper" character would be most appropriate if that were the case. The Soviets used that trick. I don't think that this incident was quite like the Daioyutai incident, because the fishermen would have to go out of their way to find the US ship, and wouldn't have known what it was doing (since they are not naval professionals), rather than like at the Daioyutais where the Japanese intercepted them. Also fishermen had a direct interest in the resolution of the Daioyutai dispute in China's interest; they wanted to fish there. No such economic self interest in this case.

 

[bigstick61]

Well, if that is the case then all the other incidents could be excusable. A frigate escorting the vessel for a short distance, possibly trying to collect data on the sonar arrays and aircraft surveying the ship and possibly picking up some of its electronic signals are not overtly hostile. However, its hard to imagine a group of fisherman trying to toss a grappling hook at hidden underwater sonar arrays. That seems to be the single most illegal thing the Chinese did if they indeed tried to steal the sonar array.

Yeah, the trying to cut off the towed sonar array thing is another thing I forgot to mention which makes this seem like more than just the acts of some random Chinese fishermen.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The previous incident in which a Chinese ship posed a navigational hazard (intentionally) to a U.S. ship involved a PLAN frigate.

The navigational hazard was primarily rendered by the smaller craft cutting in front of the American vessel and dropping debris into water. The distances at which the frigate passed by the vessel are by all means safe by a reasonable margin.

But it has happened before. In US-Soviet confrontations, in Greek-Turkish confrontations, just to name specific incidents I can remember right now. It's a tool in the toolkit of harassing snoopers.

Not to mention on an almost daily basis in the Taiwan strait.

 

[bigstick61]

You are arguing that whatever US claimed is the truth, and if the vessel claimed it is not violating regulations in EEZ then it isn't violating regulations in EEZ.

The coastal nation, in this case China, doesn't need to operate around those words. Nor does any nation. Words alone are not credible and should not be taken at face value.

As long as it is deemed necessary to enforce regulations, then it is well within the rights of coastal nation to carry out whatever enforcements necessary. That's not to say that China could simply sink the ship or forcibily impound it, but in this case it is absolutely within the limit of International Law to enforce those regulations.

What's with all the strawman arguments? The ship is not a sicentific research vessel conducting such research, and the Chinese are not in fact accusing it of doing this or anything else, like polluting the environment, doing something on or to an artificial island or ocean structure, pr fishing or exploiting other natural resources. These are the only things the law, effectively Chinese law, allows, since the Chinese did ratify UNCLOS and this is the only authority UNCLOS itself gives them in EEZs. They have no jursiddiction over military operations, intelligence gathering, etc. This has nothing to do with words. It has to do with actions and laws the Chinese are bound to.

 

[bigstick61]

The navigational hazard was primarily rendered by the smaller craft cutting in front of the American vessel and dropping debris into water. The distances at which the frigate passed by the vessel are by all means safe by a reasonable margin.



Not to mention on an almost daily basis in the Taiwan strait.

Crossing the bow at 100 feet is not a safe act at all. A miscalculation could have resulted in a collision. In that incident, I'm pretty sure the frigate was the sole Chinese ship involved.

 

[Engineer]

What's with all the strawman arguments?

No strawman arguments were intended.

The ship is not a sicentific research vessel conducting such research...

It can claim whatever it wants to, it is irrelevent. China has the rights to enforce regulations in its EEZ. If the ship has not violated any regulations, it would be released. If the ship is found to have violated regulations, then further measures can be taken.

Again, being a US vessel, whether civilian or military, does not equate immunity.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

It has to do with actions and laws the Chinese are bound to.

Then again, the wording in such laws and actions are subject to interpretation. Exactly what is constituted by creating navigational hazards? Many would argue as long as you are not firing of shots and dropping off mines, you are not creating a hazard. As Finn stated so well, any military has the right to try to deter other military from gathering intelligence on its operations. Harassment, spooking, pinging, missile-locking, escorting, and other hostile activities are simply part of the job description. The boundary between what is accepted and what is not is often hard to delineate. Obviously, neither administration does not think this incident is a big deal since no statements have been released from the higher administrative offices of either government.

In that incident, I'm pretty sure the frigate was the sole Chinese ship involved.

Yes, it was. From some Chinese reports it seems as if the frigate passed by the American vessel rather than crossing the T meaning the Chinese ship was moving at a much faster speed than the American ship which render chances of collision rather low.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Shall we get into how many international laws the US has broken especially in the last eight years alone? So abiding by "international law" means nothing. What is the US going to do when China continues to "monitor" US vessels? Go to war?