Pentagon accuses Chinese vessels of harassing U.S. ship

SampanViking · Mar 10, 2009

Surely their silence could indicate that they don't back either side. It's not as if China is surrounded by hostile nations - who is springing to its defence?

Well lets put it this way, when you get involved in a bit of late night argy-bargy outside the pub, you can usually expect your mates to help or at the very least shout encouragement. When they go quiet, you know something is seriously wrong!

All nations in the region guard their EEZ's jealously espcially the Oil and Gas reserves. Anything that might challange the legal basis of the EEZ's and therefore allow outsiders to come to the region and exploit these reserves themselves is always going to cause very considerable concern.

joshuatree · Mar 10, 2009

bigstick61 said:
The Chinese are clearly in the wrong on this one. You just don't do the sort of stuff they did to other sailors; it puts them all at risk of inury or death. And this incident is of course not the only one.

The PRC can claim that its EEZ is territorial water as much as it wants to, but it remains just that: a claim. The world does not recognize such a claim on their part. Under the LOST, the EEZ grants exclusive economic rights to the possessing nation, i.e. the right to exploit natural resources. The possessing nation does have the right to stop activities which go against this, such as unauthorized foreign fishing vessels conducting fishing operations in such waters (the Cod Wars come to mind). However, all rightful claims to authority end there. Ships can travel freely in such waters and can conduct any activities that are not those previously mentioned, and are not otherwise illegal under applicable international laws (international laws, btw, cannot lawfully be applied to non-signatory nations). Observing other vessels, on or below the surface, is not illegal in international waters, regardless of whether it's done visually, using radar, sonar, or other instruments. That the PRC does not like it is rather irrelevant. Such observations are passive, and thus cannot be considered an act of war. PLAN and other Chinese maritime vessels' actions are wholly unjustified and unlawful.

Unless China wants to go to war over the issue, it cannot legally do anything, even if they percieve the actions of the USN ship, potential or actual, to be a threat to their security. For those playing the national security card, they should keep in mind that the U.S. military also views the PRC as a potential threat in and of itself, which is partly why it is engaged in these activities.

I don't believe the US has ratified the UNCLOS. If that is the case, how would the US argue the Chinese action as unlawful when it refuses to ratify what would supposedly be the law?

Engineer · Mar 10, 2009

bigstick61 said:
The PRC can claim that its EEZ is territorial water as much as it wants to, but it remains just that: a claim.

China has not made such claim.

It's amazing how people can simply conjure up facts.

xywdx · Mar 10, 2009

joshuatree said:
I don't believe the US has ratified the UNCLOS. If that is the case, how would the US argue the Chinese action as unlawful when it refuses to ratify what would supposedly be the law?

Actually the US didn't ratify the part about EEZ, that's why they are technically able to consider all water outside territorial water to be international.

Well lets put it this way, when you get involved in a bit of late night argy-bargy outside the pub, you can usually expect your mates to help or at the very least shout encouragement. When they go quiet, you know something is seriously wrong!

All nations in the region guard their EEZ's jealously espcially the Oil and Gas reserves. Anything that might challange the legal basis of the EEZ's and therefore allow outsiders to come to the region and exploit these reserves themselves is always going to cause very considerable concern.

Exactly, China fighting the US for EEZ rights isn't detrimental to any of the coastal nations.
In fact, if China actually comes on top, then that will make it clear the USN operate in the region is at the good will of the local nations, not because they have the right to do so.

Edit:
Random afterthought, this could be an effort from the anti-ratification group to provide further support to block ratification.

Engineer · Mar 10, 2009

xywdx said:
Actually the US didn't ratify the part about EEZ, that's why they are technically able to consider all water outside territorial water to be international.

It isn't EEZ that they have problems with, rather it is the rights to exploit minerals outside of EEZ. Thus it is an entirely different issue.

Impeccable being remained outside of territorial water is not an excuse, as it was still inside the China's EEZ and is therefore subjected to regulation by China.

FriedRiceNSpice · Mar 10, 2009

The Chinese are clearly in the wrong on this one. You just don't do the sort of stuff they did to other sailors; it puts them all at risk of inury or death. And this incident is of course not the only one.

Since when is it against the law to maneuver in whatever way you please on the open seas? No shots were fired and no overt hostile actions such as boarding were conducted. When has it been illegal to overly ships, either civilian or military in international waters, let alone a nation's own EEZ?

bigstick61 · Mar 10, 2009

joshuatree said:
I don't believe the US has ratified the UNCLOS. If that is the case, how would the US argue the Chinese action as unlawful when it refuses to ratify what would supposedly be the law?

No, the U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS, due to certain provisions that negatively affect the U.S. should they be adopted. However, the PRC has ratified UNCLOS, and thus it applies to them. Treaties only apply to the signatories. The U.S. also has a policy of recognizing all claims made under UNCLOS, and even respecting claims up to the UNCLOS limits by countries which have not ratified it. The U.S. also claims the same zones as it would have under UNCLOS.

The Chinese action was unlawful. By any standard, these waters are not territorial waters, where they would indeed have such rights.

Engineer said:
China has not made such claim.

It's amazing how people can simply conjure up facts.

It is not cnjured. They are in effect making that claim by stating that the U.S. can't angage in activities only regulated within territorial waters due to the U.S. being in what they call their "special economic zone." They are basically treating the EEZ as if they were territorial waters, as if the same rules applied to them, when this is most certainly not the case.

Engineer said:
It isn't EEZ that they have problems with, rather it is the rights to exploit minerals outside of EEZ. Thus it is an entirely different issue.

Impeccable being remained outside of territorial water is not an excuse, as it was still inside the China's EEZ and is therefore subjected to regulation by China.

The U.S. does not have to excuse itself for anything. The ship was not subject to Chinese laws, since the waters are for most intents and purposes considered to be international waters. All China can regulates is economic activity, i.e. the exploitation of the natural resources in the EEZ. The USNS Impeccable has nothing to do with that. Unless the Impeccable was firing on the Chinese or engaging in the sort of activities the Chinese were in fact engaging in, it cannot be touched by them legally, undeer the circumstances (which are that economic resources were not being exploited by the ship).

FriedRiceNSpice said:
Since when is it against the law to maneuver in whatever way you please on the open seas? No shots were fired and no overt hostile actions such as boarding were conducted. When has it been illegal to overly ships, either civilian or military in international waters, let alone a nation's own EEZ?

They were engaged in activities which endangered the USNS Impeccable and posed navgational hazards, and had the potential to harm the crew and damage the ship. That is not lawful activity. How about we put this on the other foot? When is it against the law for the U.S. ship to freely navigate in international waters? It was not engaged in dangeous or illegal activities, or activities which fell under Chinese regulation (exploiting natural resource).

pla101prc · Mar 10, 2009

okay bigstick there is no need to get passionate about this, you are starting to sound off like a pentagon spokesperson

anyways i have a stupid question here. if the ship was civilian, why was it the pentagon that issued the statement not the state department? anyone familiar with the operation of US government plz enlighten me on this.

bigstick61 · Mar 10, 2009

pla101prc said:
okay bigstick there is no need to get passionate about this, you are starting to sound off like a pentagon spokesperson

anyways i have a stupid question here. if the ship was civilian, why was it the pentagon that issued the statement not the state department? anyone familiar with the operation of US government plz enlighten me on this.

Well, as a sailor and an American I do have strong feelings on the issue.

The ship is not civilian. It is a non-commissioned U.S. Navy ship with a crew composed of civilians and U.S. Navy sailors (about half and half), and armament that is no more extensive than small arms and possibly a couple of heavy machineguns.

bd popeye · Mar 10, 2009

pla101prc said:
okay bigstick there is no need to get passionate about this, you are starting to sound off like a pentagon spokesperson

anyways i have a stupid question here. if the ship was civilian, why was it the pentagon that issued the statement not the state department? anyone familiar with the operation of US government plz enlighten me on this.

mods note >> easy pla101prc..you are not a mod. I feel this discussion is very civil.

I will only answer your question and remain out of the rest of the discussion. The ship in question is operated by the Military Sealift Command. It is under the US Department of Defense. Please read below;

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Worldwide Locations

Military Sealift Command is headquartered at the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., and operates six subordinate commands worldwide. The Military Sealift Fleet Support Command in Norfolk, Va., crews, trains, equips and maintains MSC's government-owned, government-operated ships across the globe. In addition, five operational commands called Sealift Logistics Commands, or SEALOGs, operate in the Atlantic, Pacific, Europe, Central and Far East areas.

Funding
Money

MSC's worldwide operations are financed through two working capital funds. The Navy Working Capital Fund is used by MSC to support Navy fleet commanders and other Department of Defense entities. The Transportation Working Capital Fund is used to support sealift services.

Working capital funds are reimbursed by direct appropriations or by funds transferred into the working capital fund by various MSC customers. MSC receives no direct funding appropriations to support command operations; rather, MSC customers transfer funding for any service they request from MSC into the appropriate working capital fund, and MSC draws funds from the fund to pay for command operations.

Unlike private industry that budgets to make a profit, working capital funds budget to break even. MSC has an annual operating budget of approximately $3 billion.

Mission

MSC's mission is to support our nation by delivering supplies and conducting specialized missions across the world's oceans.

Vision

MSC's vision is to be the leader in innovative and cost-effective maritime solutions.

Strategic Priorities

* Assist in winning the Global War on Terrorism
* Help customers efficiently meet their objectives
* Develop and care for our workforce
* Use smart business practices to provide quality services at the best value
* Ensure that MSC has the right ships and people to conduct future missions

We Value

* Our ultimate customers: Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines
* Our people
* Innovation, responsiveness and efficiency
* Openness and measurement-based decision making
* A challenging and professional work environment

MSC has a workforce of more than 9,000 people worldwide, about 80 percent of whom serve at sea. More than half of MSC's workforce is made up of civil service mariners who are federal employees. The remainder includes commercial mariners, civil service personnel ashore and active-duty and reserve military members.
Seabees

All MSC ships, unlike other U.S. Navy ships, are crewed by civilians, and some ships also have small military departments assigned to carry out communication and supply functions.

Oceanographic Survey Ships

MSC operates seven oceanographic survey ships. Six of these ships are multipurpose and perform acoustic, biological, physical and geophysical surveys, providing much of the U.S. military's information on the ocean environment. These ships use multi-beam, wide-angle, precision sonar systems that make it possible to continuously chart a broad section of ocean floor. Another oceanographic survey ship, USNS John Mcdonnell, collects data in coastal regions around the world. The data collected helps improve technology in undersea warfare, enemy ship detection and charting the world's coastlines.

Five ocean surveillance ships directly support the Navy by using both passive and active low frequency sonar arrays to detect and track undersea threats.

Pentagon accuses Chinese vessels of harassing U.S. ship

SampanViking

The Capitalist

joshuatree

Captain

Engineer

Major

xywdx

Junior Member

Engineer

Major

FriedRiceNSpice

Captain

bigstick61

Junior Member

pla101prc

Senior Member

bigstick61

Junior Member

bd popeye

The Last Jedi