|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Why is the Chinese Navy being confrontational? |
| They want to strut their (new) stuff, jingoistic style |
|
22% |
[ 4 ] |
| They want to see if they will push Obama's buttons |
|
27% |
[ 5 ] |
| They really believe the South China Sea is all theirs |
|
33% |
[ 6 ] |
| They don't want to be outdone by the North Koreans |
|
11% |
[ 2 ] |
| International waters is meaningless legal language to them |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
| Hainan isn't Hawaii, so the tourists need some sights |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 18 |
|
| Author |
Message |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| I thought the post being referred to was nationalistic in the worst sense. |
JMO...sigh...Don't read too much into things. |
I hit the nail on the head.
Thanks for your concern though. Your kind help keeps me on the right path. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
China needs submarines in that route to protect its oil supply.
If America blockaded the Straights of Malacca, preventing China's access to oil, it could shut down China. China doesn't have the naval supremacy to counter this.
Take these events as China's admission that its energy security is extremely vulnerable, not only to American intervention, but also potentially Indian and Japanese (each of which has a more developed navy than China's). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
RJjr imagined:
| Quote: |
| If it would've happened off the American coast, I would be pissed at the Chinese. Since it happened off the Chinese coast, I can see their point of view and am mostly upset about the wasted tax dollars of looking for subs in areas where they aren't a threat to our national security. |
Aside from the fact that you obviously haven't differentiated between coastal and international waters (the incident near Hainan occurred in the latter, but thanks for being informed) you're assuming China doesn't spy on the U.S. You assume wrong once again.
Lots of Chinese government apologists here. Are you the same crowd who lament the treatment of Tibetans? If so, how can you trust them one regard and not the other, unless of course your only aim is to criticize the U.S. at all costs?
We're also overlooking another wee bit of a concern, namely, that those subs could be part of an amphibian assault strategy against Taiwan, our ally, as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Take these events as China's admission that its energy security is extremely vulnerable, not only to American intervention, but also potentially Indian and Japanese (each of which has a more developed navy than China's). |
This is exactly why it is in Beijing's interest to drop these puerile tactics and concentrate on strengthening its American alliance. We, too, should be open to modifying this alliance to include more military cooperation while reducing if not eliminating entirely military rivalry amongst us.
If we had closer relations with Beijing, groom them as eventual equal partners in world affairs, and if this could in turn help Beijing chill on the hypernationalist outbursts and instead cooperate with us (and we with them), and if we could also develop closer relations with Moscow, we would be looking at an entirely different world tomorrow.
Where is R. Nixon when we need him...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
If we had closer relations with Beijing, groom them as eventual equal partners in world affairs, and if this could in turn help Beijing chill on the hypernationalist outbursts and instead cooperate with us (and we with them), and if we could also develop closer relations with Moscow, we would be looking at an entirely different world tomorrow. |
It might not even be Beijing spearheading this stupidity. It could be the military on its own. Not a few security analysts think that the military failed to get a go ahead when it shot down China's own satellite. This could be the same deal. Dunno for sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Right. Welcome to attempting to apprehend the Chinese govt, its influences, and workings. We are more in the dark than we were under Kremlinology... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Take these events as China's admission that its energy security is extremely vulnerable, not only to American intervention, but also potentially Indian and Japanese (each of which has a more developed navy than China's). |
This is exactly why it is in Beijing's interest to drop these puerile tactics and concentrate on strengthening its American alliance. We, too, should be open to modifying this alliance to include more military cooperation while reducing if not eliminating entirely military rivalry amongst us.
If we had closer relations with Beijing, groom them as eventual equal partners in world affairs, and if this could in turn help Beijing chill on the hypernationalist outbursts and instead cooperate with us (and we with them), and if we could also develop closer relations with Moscow, we would be looking at an entirely different world tomorrow.
Where is R. Nixon when we need him...? |
I really liked that film 30 Seconds Over Tokyo. "You're our kind of people." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
| I think the major problem in this thread is the lack of positional information... |
Maritime law generally recognizes a three-mile limit.
|
Wrong. 12 mile limit for terrotorial waters.
| Wikipedia: UN Convention on the Law of the Sea wrote: |
Territorial waters
Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of "innocent passage" through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as "transit passage", in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not �prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security� of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not �innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security. |
Here China is talking about its Exclusive Economic Zone
| Wikipedia: UN Convention on the Law of the Sea wrote: |
| Exclusive economic zones (EEZs) Extend 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. The EEZs were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights, although oil was also becoming important. The success of an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 1947 was soon repeated elsewhere in the world, and by 1970 it was technically feasible to operate in waters 4000 metres deep. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and cables. |
This is where they would like to keep the U.S. Navy from surveying.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Impeccable was sailing seventy miles south of Hainan. She can do whatever she wants that far out.. |
Wrong again. Freedom of navigation and overflight does not equal a free for all.
Still, dont let a few facts stop you from getting all het up about it.
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
| I think the major problem in this thread is the lack of positional information... |
Maritime law generally recognizes a three-mile limit.
|
Wrong. 12 mile limit for terrotorial waters.
| Wikipedia: UN Convention on the Law of the Sea wrote: |
Territorial waters
Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of "innocent passage" through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as "transit passage", in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not �prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security� of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not �innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security. |
Here China is talking about its Exclusive Economic Zone
| Wikipedia: UN Convention on the Law of the Sea wrote: |
| Exclusive economic zones (EEZs) Extend 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. The EEZs were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights, although oil was also becoming important. The success of an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 1947 was soon repeated elsewhere in the world, and by 1970 it was technically feasible to operate in waters 4000 metres deep. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and cables. |
This is where they would like to keep the U.S. Navy from surveying.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Impeccable was sailing seventy miles south of Hainan. She can do whatever she wants that far out.. |
Wrong again. Freedom of navigation and overflight does not equal a free for all.
Still, dont let a few facts stop you from getting all het up about it.
h |
Countries are allowed to conduct research well into EEZs. And the ship was more than 12 miles out. I'll post more authority when I return home in a few days.
Anyway, I notice you haven't given us any authority validating aggressive provocations on surveying craft within an EEZ. Good luck finding some. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Testing Obama. With NK threatening SK they see a chance to get in a free shot.
Different president , exactly the same world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mnhnhyouh: if all you know about this is what you get from Googling Wikipedia, a dubious source (one colleague posts the Wikipedia entry that celebrated 750 years of American independence on his office door), then we have little to discuss. Anyone can go to Google and Wikipedia, Mnhnhyouh. But what can you tell me about this incident? Further as do so many here, you seem to approach this discussion with a chip on your shoulder, with a determined point of view that makes you seem more like a prosecutor than a researcher in your "questions..."
| Gopher wrote: |
Maritime law generally recognizes a three-mile limit. Impeccable was sailing seventy miles south of Hainan. She can do whatever she wants that far out.
Beijing takes exception to this because Beijing wants to claim the entire area out there as its own. Be sure you understand clearly what Beijing is after here: a sphere-of-influence. There is no problem to decipher or competing claims to reconcile. Beijing aims to exclude the United States Navy and its allies from the South China Sea and possibly beyond, into the western Pacific. |
Looks reasonable to me, even if you want to cite Wikipedia to nitpick the three-mile limit. Very well, make it twelve. Impeccable was sailing several times that distance south of Hainan and may carry out any operations she wishes in those waters, as do our carrier groups near there and in other similar positions as well.
The entire issue remains open to interpretation, or more accurately, dependent upon actual power-projection capabilities here or there. Just ask the Iranians at Hormuz, just ask the Canadians and the Russians and others in the Arctic. And the fact of the matter in this particular case is as Kuros, I believe, has stated: Beijing lacks the naval power to enforce the sphere-of-influence it claims to dominate in the South China Sea. You may not like this reality. But c'est la vie.
Meanwhile, good luck in arguing your pro-Chinese, antiAmerican case. You will undoubtedly find support here, probably in the form of the all-too-predictable N. Chomsky-style clich� in the form of "How would you Americans like it if the Chinese Navy were running surveillance operations seventy miles off Norfolk?"
My answer to that, of course, is that (a) they lack the resources to get there. And (b) should they develop those resources, we shall cross that bridge when we come to it. But we did play games with Moscow in this regard for forty-five years once-upon-a-time. I seem to recall our playing it much better than they did, incidentally, Mnhnhyouh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think this blog entry has been introduced yet:
China tests Obama; US Ship Threatened
| Quote: |
�With typical brazen audacity, they did this just a few days after resumption of talks with us,� said the former Bush administration official. �This is beyond the pale, even for them.�
The Chinese actions were a clear signal to the United States from the senior political leadership of China, said the former naval official: �These guys do not freelance. They are not given letters of marque and told to act as they will on the high seas. This had to be approved at political levels well above the PLA leadership.�
A Pentagon statement said that the vessels �shadowed and aggressively maneuvered in dangerously close proximity to USNS Impeccable, in an apparent coordinated effort to harass the U.S. ocean surveillance ship while it was conducting routine operations in international waters.� |
Dude who knows a lot more than I do thinks this was approved by the highest level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The last serious test of an American administration by China was April 2001, when the Chinese forced down a P-3 surveillance plane, just a few months after George [W.] Bush took office. |
I like the "testing-the-administrations-to-see-how-they-react" thesis. Presents a plausible and even likely scenario. Seems to come during any given president's first year in office. Start with the Soviets in Berlin and JFK, for example...
By the way, Mnhnhyouh: how do you view the Tibetan situation? Beijing's political and economic zone of control, no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Respect the China-sphere (Sino-sphere) and we're solid. Asia (less Japan) is theirs. Good for them. Have fun. But international waters aren't their to bully. Obama needs to show those balls of steel Biden mentioned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The evil penguin wrote: |
| Maybe i've really lost my bearings here....... but maybe the chinese are simply sick of US forces strutting around the globe as if they own it. Sure it's technically international waters, but what the hell are american ships doing in that particular region in the first place? It's not illegal to sit in a car on the public street looking at houses. But how would you feel if known house-invaders were parked outside your house and were trying to peer with binoculars through your windows? |
Umm no. By executive order of Bush Sr, no US Naval surface ship has been armed with nuclear weapons since 1991.
Furthermore our Naval presence in the area keeps China from making a move on Taiwan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
