Pentagon accuses Chinese vessels of harassing U.S. ship

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?

Well, you have to give the US some credit. Image what would have happened if the Kitty Hawk Group had just blown the crap out of that Chinese sub =\ And just because the US broke some laws doesn't give China the right to. China does not exactly want the image of being a arrogant bully as it continues its peaceful rise.
 

flyzies

Junior Member
It seems no side is willing to back down over this.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China navy officers harangue U.S. over ocean spat

BEIJING, March 11 (Reuters) - Senior Chinese navy officers poured scorn on the United States in the wake of a weekend naval confrontation, with one saying the "Americans are villains crying foul" as fallout between the two giants simmered.

In comments carried by the official China News Service, Chinese officers repeated their government's view that a U.S. naval vessel had violated the country's sovereignty during an encounter with Chinese boats in the South China Sea on Sunday.

Five Chinese boats jostled with the U.S. Navy survey vessel in waters off China's southern Hainan island, a major base for Beijing's expanding navy.

A senior U.S. intelligence official said the confrontation showed China's increasingly aggressive military stance in the South China Sea.

But Beijing pressed its claim the U.S. vessel was in the wrong.

"The Americans are villains crying foul first," said Zhang Deshun, a Chinese navy deputy chief of staff, the China News Service reported late on Tuesday.

"The U.S. side has twisted the facts. The U.S. survey ship was operating in China's exclusive economic zone on its continental shelf. Our vessels were just going about normal business ... This was itself harming China's sovereignty."

Chinese newspapers and websites played down the spat, apparently to avoid any diplomatic fallout.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry reissued on its website on Wednesday a statement by spokesman Ma Zhaoxu at a briefing on Tuesday, but dropped a phrase about the Americans "confusing black and white".

A Communist Party commissar in the navy, Wu Huayang, told the news agency the incident had been "stirred up by the U.S.".

There have been no signs the fracas will derail broader political and economic negotiations while Washington and Beijing are preoccupied with the global financial crisis.

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi is visiting Washington to lay the groundwork for a meeting between Chinese President Hu Jintao and President Barack Obama at the G20 summit next month.

But the tough comments from China's navy suggest Beijing is hardening its stance on claims to stretches of the South China Sea.

"According to international sea laws and rules, in this (exclusive economic) zone the ships of various countries can merely pass through freely," said Wu, the commissar.

Chinese officials have said the U.S. vessel was carrying out illegal surveying activities.

U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told Congress the Chinese had become more assertive in staking claims to international waters around economic zones and were "more military, aggressive, forward-looking than we saw a couple years before" in Southeast Asia and the South China Sea.

The United States accused China of harassing the U.S. ship, the Impeccable, in international waters off Hainan, site of a Chinese submarine base and other naval installations.

The Pentagon has said the American ship, an unarmed ocean surveillance vessel, was conducting routine operations in the South China Sea 75 miles (120 km) south of Hainan.

But China insists the Impeccable's operations were neither routine nor legal.

The Impeccable was specifically designed to deploy two underwater listening devices to augment the Navy's anti-submarine warfare capability, according to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

"If people are loitering outside your bamboo fence and the owner goes out to check on things, and then they say you've violated their rights, what's the sense in that?" said Jin Mao, a Chinese vice admiral, according to the news agency.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Well, you have to give the US some credit. Image what would have happened if the Kitty Hawk Group had just blown the crap out of that Chinese sub =\ And just because the US broke some laws doesn't give China the right to. China does not exactly want the image of being a arrogant bully as it continues its peaceful rise.

And the US doesn't come across as some arrogant bully?
 

UCSDAE

New Member
analogy,
if I point a gun at you, would you consider it a friendly and safe gesture?
Locking on is the same thing. You can jam all you want, but never a lock.
the J-8s in the EP-3 incident were armed with missiles, they used aggressive maneuvers, but not a lock on.
 

Pointblank

Senior Member
Again, as it is EEZ, regulations of the coastal state apply. Whether the ship is civilian or not does not matter. Whether the ship claimed it was/was not conducting certain activites is irrelevent. If it is deemed necessary to enforce the regulations, then it is well within the rights of the coastal state to carry out the enforcement as stated in UNCLOS. Being a US vessel does not make it immuned.

No it doesn't. Even more so, the laws regarding the EEZ don't apply here; the South China Sea is in total dispute between all coastal nations (China, Vietnam, and Taiwan). Therefore, if the zone is disputed, unless the dispute can be resolved, the Chinese don't have total rights to the area until final borders and delimitation lines are set. Only in territorial waters are nations free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource, up to 12 nautical miles from the coast. Beyond that, the contiguous zone allows nations to to enforce laws in four specific areas: pollution, taxation, customs, and immigration, up by another 12 nautical miles.

In EEZ's, foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to some regulation of the coastal nation, namely in the area of natural resource conservation. Since the USNS Impeccable was not engaged in activity that would cause problems for natural resource conservation, Chinese actions are therefore illegal, as stated in Article 73 of the UNCLOS.

Furthermore, under Article 73, coastal nations are allowed take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention. What the Chinese did was not any of the above, and therefore in contravention of Article 73.


Furthermore, again under Article 73, as stated, in cases of arrest or detention of foreign vessels the coastal State shall promptly notify the flag State, through appropriate channels, of the action taken and of any penalties subsequently imposed. There was none of that from the Chinese.

Part of UNCLOS also states that the coastal states' laws apply when not in conflict with UNCLOS.
I didn't see military operations as supported by UNCLOS, and I also don't think it's allowed by the PRC. :coffee:

Nope, see above. Foreign nations have freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the coastal nation's laws regarding natural resource conservation.
 

Engineer

Major
"If people are loitering outside your bamboo fence and the owner goes out to check on things, and then they say you've violated their rights, what's the sense in that?" said Jin Mao, a Chinese vice admiral, according to the news agency.
That has been the point I have been trying to make over the past few pages.

If you are not allowed to enforce EEZ regulations on certain ships just because of claims that the US has made, then it is non-sensical.
 

bigstick61

Junior Member
No strawman arguments were intended.


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.


Nonetheless, strawman arguments were made.

Anyhow, China is limited in the types of regulations it can enforce. It has a very narrow jurisdiction. Anything beyond that they have no power over. It is very clear without even considering statements that the u.S. ship was not doing anything that would fall under Chinese jurisdiction. It was a military surveillance ship. It was not engaged in exploiting natural resources (it would have been pretty obvious if they were, and the ship is not in any way equipeed for this anyways), they had nothing to do with artificial islands, they were not dumping or something like that (it would have been pretty easy to ascertain given where the Chinese ships were), and the Chinese make no claims about research. In fact, the Chinese refuted your argument for you, by stating their issue was not with anything that applied to the EEZ laws, but that it was that the ship was engaged in surveillance activities, something which the ship has the right to engage in and does not fall under Chinese jurisdiction.

And again, I am not claiming the ship being American gives it immunity from anything. That is what a strawman is; arguing against an argument that I did not make.
 
Furthermore, under Article 73, coastal nations are allowed take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention. What the Chinese did was not any of the above, and therefore in contravention of Article 73.

Are you trying to say that the Chinese should've have boarded and inspected the US vessel? If they did that, I can assure you this would have been a much bigger incident. Since when is sending a few a patrol boats to play mind games with a ships crew such a big deal?
 

bigstick61

Junior Member
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.



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.

Taking actions which could result in a collision or putting objects in the path of the ship is a navigational hazard which poses a danger to the ship and therefore its crew. There is a different between such actions and more passive ones which don't pose a safety threat, like jamming, making noise, etc.
 
Top