I don't believe the area (75 miles south of that island) is contested. I believe the contested area is around Paracel island and Spratly island. Besides, your analogy is horrible. Let's assuming if US and Mexico has contested claim between their territory out to Gulf of Mexico, does that mean it allows Russia to park a warship 1 mile outside of Brownsville? ps. not saying who is right in this case, just saying your analogy is faulty.
By the way, I don't think USA is complaining in Chinese ships shadowing our ship. I think we are complaining that China had upped the ante by being "more" agressive in their shadowing techniques. I think there are probably un-written rules of how we will spy and how China will interfere with our spying. It is possible that we are complaining that China just step over these rules.
As I reported in a previous post, these sorts of things happen all the time, and this is not the most aggressive the Chinese have acted. In 2002, a Chinese "fishing boat" actually rammed a US spy ship and damaged its towing sonar. So the real question is, why is the US, specifically the Pentagon, making such a big deal over a "no harm no foul" incident? I already gave my speculation, someone is unhappy over the direction of Obama's China policy.
The only reason Vietnam was brought up is because of its closest proximity to Hainan, compared to U.S. which is half of a world away. It's ONLY relevant when there is a dispute between China and Vietnam in that particular region. In case where the conventional 200-mile EEZs of the two neighboring states overlap, any point within the overlapping area defaults to the most proximate state per UNCLOS. I don't think I need to explain to you that any point that is 75 miles off the coast Hainan is much closer to China than to Vietnam, not to mention there is actually no issue between the two countries with regard to the location of this scuffle. Under no circumstance that particular location is in international waters as falsely claimed by the U.S. media. Here is a map of international waters in the entire world, go ahead and find the only blue spot in South China Sea and decide for yourself how far away it is from Hainan, China: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/Internationalwaters.png The meaning of innocent passage defined in the UNCLOS notes that engaging of research or survey activities by a foreign state is prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. Any wriggle room the U.S. finds would disappear fast if the situation is reversed, since it is a signatory to the convention and expects others to honor the same obligation. How cute, but let's just say the benefit of the doubt is not favoring your claim.
First off I'm not making an analogy. Wnes brought up the EEZ, which wasn't brought up on in the original article or has been cited by someone else. His argument is that within 200 miles of the PRC coast that is the EEZ. That isn't exactly true especially since Vietnam is roughly 200 miles from Hainan. The demarcation of the EEZ there isn't fully clear. Now you are using an analogy in your case but I would say that is an incorrect analogy. First off the US vessel in this incident as noted by earlier posters isn't a warship. Second, 1 mile off of Brownsville would put it in US, or Mexican territorial waters which is a far different case than the EEZ. Leaving aside whether the ship is in a disputed EEZ 75 miles out is clearly beyond the 12 mile territorial waters boundary. The citation that I had to the UN law of the EEZ doesn't mention surveillance so it is questionable whether that is a violation of the UN EEZ law.
No, CHINA brought up the EEZ and made it the basis for their actions in their official statement, not Wnes. Of course, it's not surprising you are not aware of this. The US media usually don't spend much time reporting on China's side of the story. Personally, I think the whole EEZ issue is hazy and open to interpretation. EEZs have been the sources of disputes all over the world. My stand on this issue remains the same, if you can run the other guy over, good for you; if you cann't, tough! Quit whining! And in this case, it's the US who is whining. If you insist on sticking your nose up China's backside, you gotta expect a little rough play.
If they hadn't taken actions far more provocative and aggressive than any that they have done in the past, then there would have been nothing to report. For instance, when the entire USS Kitty Hawk Carrier Battle Group sailed through the Chinese Exclusive Economic Zone for several hundred miles through the Taiwan Strait in 2007, the entirety of the response by China was that it was 'regrettable'. Especially after all the incidents that happened in the Persian Gulf with Iranian speedboat drive-bys making the news in the last couple of years, do you really think that they didn't know that this would be all over the news? I guess maybe I just give the Chinese military credit for quite a bit more intelligence than you do. Why do you think they aren’t smart enough to foresee responses? BTW, I was at another board where I spend time with quite a few old USN cold warriors. Apparently, the Soviet Union used to set up ships 75 miles off the US Coast near the Norfolk Naval Station and near the Groton Submarine Pens pretty much nonstop for decades. All that resulted was that US ships shadowed them from a respectful distance until they left.
I am using a much stronger analogy to drive home the point. "Disputed" territory comes into play by which party shall do the enforcing. From your way of thinking, if Russia park a warship 1 mile outside of Brownsville, and we objects. Russia can claim that this territory is under dispute, it shall really be Mexico who do the objecting. Yes, I know it was a spy ship and in EEZ. If it really bothers you that I use stronger case to drive home the point, change my above statements to the following: If Russia do spying activities 13 miles outside of Brownsvile, we can't object to it since the territory is under dispute. By the way, the territory between Mexico and USA is really not in dispute, I just want to make a point.
If my neighbors across the street have a dispute regarding where their property line is and I stand in the disputed area who tells me to get off their property? Looking at the map you provided it shows that Vietnamese EEZ waters extend between the Vietnamese coast and Hainan. There is no scale on your map so we can't determine how close it comes to Hainan. I'm willing to accept that it is roughly halfway which would bring Vietnamese EEZ waters to about 100 miles out from Hainan and will concede that likely this incident is in PRC EEZ, but without a scale and more precise information on the location we don't for sure. I'm rereading the text of the UN regulation on the EEZ and don't see that. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm Can you cite the passage relating to that and in regard if that refers to territorial waters, EEZ wates or international waters? I'm not claiming it just pointing out though that there is the possibility of a different interpretation. Can you presents evidence that would rule that out?
It would help if Wnes or you would provide a citation and link. Again I'm not claiming one party is right and the other is wrong. As I stated the US acts roughly the same to foreign planes and aircrafts suspected of surveilling the US. I'm arguing against a presumption of rightness by one side be that PRC or US.
OK, I am out on this one, because I think this is all a lot of hot air. You lawyerly gents can continue to rack your brains over this one. A parting thought: the world isn't run by lawyers, despite what the lawyers may think.
True you are using an analogy but I wasn't in my initial response to Wnes as for strength of analogy I would disagree. No because 1 mile is territorial waters and there is no territorial waters dispute between the US and Mexico near Brownsville. If there is please cite it. Also as noted earlier the Impeccable isn't a warship. If you are making an analogy you have to be careful what you are comparing. There is a strong difference between territorial waters, EEZ, and international waters. We can object and respond whether it is EEZ or not. Incidents happen in international waters all the time. I'm not arguing that the PRC can't respond. I'm arguing the location of where this incident took place, which we don't know specifically, and that just because it is EEZ the PRC Is in the right and the US is wrong. Technically both sides can be right. Which is why your analogy is weak since you acknowledge it is flawed.
Judoka, looking at the high sea map, do you find "international waters" that's 75 miles off the coast of Hainan? Or was Michael Finley out of bounds?
The above is your reply to wnes. The above analogy you cited is based on imaginary case just as my analogy uses. I really doubt that your neighbors has dispute and you stand in the disputed area and one of your neighbor tell you to get off. My analogy is based on the imaginary case that there are dispute between Mexico and USA. It would be awfully nice if you can cut off the word play. Using your analogy, if two of my neighbors has dispute and I stand on the disputed area and conduct activities that make one or both of them uncomfortable, I bet the uncomfortable one (or both) will come out and challenge me. Whether the property is in dispute is really not that important, is it? Using your analogy, You really think it is ok to spy on one neighbor as long as you are staying on the disputed area.
By the way, we are getting way off tangent here. I don't think USA is claiming she can spy because the area is in dispute (between China and Vietnam). I believe US claim that they have the right to conduct surveying/spying activities in EEZ while China says otherwise. Did I make the correct summation?
You could say China's ships challenged the US to a game of "Hainan Chicken" BOOM Esteban - thank you for your kind words, I take pride in using the proper lettering format of tiếng Việt whenever possible. The spirit of Bạch Đằng will not be forgotten around these parts.
Yes, thats basically what happened. The ship in question is not a warship, it has limits to where it can go, but stuck to them. If a warship were to conduct ops in those waters it would be a bigger deal. The Chinese don't like what we are doing, but don't have a solid case either so they just give us a hard time and keep their eye on us without crossing the line. Also like Ottoman said there have been instances when the Russians got near our coast to keep any eye on us. We respond with ships shadowing them as well. You guys have to understand this is all the nature of the business. Don't think the Chinese are not attempting to learn our capabilities.
You are right so no one is the "good" guy here. But the US media make it sounds like it is the commies are doing all this to us but we were blame less.
Yeah and the Chinese act like we're commiting this great travesty. It is what it is. I wish the guys out there could see how big a deal this is being made out to be.
