That sounds right on the money. These ships are not warships and have no weapons. We will continue operations in the area for some time. If the Chinese don't like it. TOUGH!
I noted this earlier but I think it bears repeating. The Soviets had surveillance flights and vessels of the US during the Cold War and vice versa. In fact in recent years Russia has restarted those. Even allies within NATO will surveil and ships and subs will shadow each other. The US reaction to other countries survielling them hasn't been all that different to what the PRC is doing with sending out US planes and vessels to shadow as close as possible. There have been several incidents of US subs crashing into ships and other subs over incidents like this.
That's because that WSJ reporter is either a dumbass or a tool. Yes we know, as stated in the report, it was 75 miles south of Hainan, China. By UNCLOS definition, a state's EEZ extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles (370 km) out from its coast. The only exception to the 200-mile EEZ rule is when there is a dispute between neighboring states. In that general region, it would involve Vietnam (a long shot at best) and China ONLY, not any third party. In that particular location -- 75 miles south of Hainan -- however, not even the most audacious Vietnamese can lay any claim to it. Your knowledge of geography needs some work. When the surveillance activities are directly linked to military purpose, they can no longer be characterized innocent passage protected by UNCLOS regulations.
LOL@wnes feverishly googling maritime treaties and becoming an overnight expert in Admiralty law. Patriotism has a price!
To add a bit more relevant information, the U.S. is a signatory to UNCLOS. Although it has not ratified the entire Convention due to Part XI which governs the mining, it agrees with the remaining provisions of the Convention and considers them as binding as customary international laws.
my friend, don't make the same mistake Liu Yan and his son Liu Hongcao made at the battle of Bạch Đằng in 938. Your fate will be the same as theirs.
You may want to give it try. I heard in recent days Tibetan mob fighters are in dire need of flesh [sic] meat.
And when a woman is raped it is the woman who makes it a public issue by reporting it to police. Does that make the rape her fault?
Mr Fisher, I'm very impressed with the way you spelled Bach Dang, Are you referring to a river in Vietnam? My Vietnamese friend told me about this famous river in Vietnam and how General Tran were able to dedeat the invading Mongols by trapping them in this river in 1288. Who are Liu Yan and his son Liu Hong Cao?
That is your own editorial comment but do you have any other source material that would support that the EEZ was an issue? In the original article it says the incident was in international waters. Actually its your knowledge of geography that needs some work. If you look at the map at the link you will see that that the southeastern corner of Hainan is within 200 miles of the Vietnamese coast. http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/lgcolor/vncolor.htm Now the article says only that the incident took place "75 miles south of Hainan", is that straight due south or is that to south to the east, or to the west? That could be a very important point regarding on where it is as there is an overlapping EEZ there. The issue though regarding a disputed EEZ is who enforces it. Yes the issue is between the PRC and Vietnam but it matters which one of them gets to enforce what happens there. The US is a third part but if the EEZ is Vietnam's then the PRC doesn't legally have the right to enforce it against a US ship. That would be Vietnam's responsibility. I didn't see that mentioned in the UN law regarding the EEZ and if it is there please cite it. Anyway from the facts that we have there is a presumption that this ship was there to surviel the PRC but not a proven fact. The original article says that this was a surveillance ship and it was doing underwater acoustic. It could be looking for Russian subs for all we know. My point though with all of this though isn't to say the PRC is in the wrong. In this incident I don't thing either side is wrong or right.
There were two battles of Bach Dang that used roughly the same strategy. The earlier one was in 938 AD and then the Vietnamese defeated an invading Chinese naval force sent by a Southern Chinese ruler named Liu Yan and led by his son Liu Hong Cao. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bạch_Đằng_River_(938)
wnes- The US is not breaking laws. There are measures taken to make sure we don't. Just because they don't like it, doesn't mean they can harm our ship or equipment. It may be an annoyance to them, but don't think the US is just going to cavalierly do what we want when it comes to China. On the other side, the Chinese would be dumb to actually attack us and think they'd be looked at in a favorable or sympathetic light. They're not dumb. Go ahead and learn everything you can, maybe you'll do well as a maritime lawyer. As someone who's been on the ship and knows first hand the issues, I'll politely disagree with you. Good day sir.
Holy out-of-the-blue analogy batman! Ottoman: China did this to divert attention US: Bring this incident to the media first China: Try to defend what it is doing after US has brought it up ??? How is China diverting attention by not bringing this up? How is yeo even arguing whose "fault" is it? Does not compute.
LOL @ Sammy run and hide all the way back into the 10th century because he doesn't know enough to argue the case at hand. Not much of a lawyer are you, or may be too much of a lawyer.
Thanks for the link dude! The Vietnamese people are smart and very courageous! I like this part the best : "The Bạch Đằng victory in 938 put an end to the period of Chinese imperial domination. In 939, Ngô Quyền proclaimed himself king of Vietnam, established his capital at Cổ Loa (previously a capital in the 3rd century BC) and set up a centralized government. Damn, if only the Tibetans can drive the invading Chinese out of their land like the Vietnamese did!
Sounds like you are an expert. A few questions? Can a war ship enter other country's EEZ without permission? Can a spy ship enter other country's EEZ without permission? Who set those rules? Are those rules followed by us (USA)?
