South China Sea Forum

[rott]

Wrong. Claim and counter claim doesn't make the area open to others, as the dispute is purely between the parties involved, just as any territorial dispute between neighbors won't make that territory open for third party acquisition. As a third party not involved in the dispute, you can either pick a side and comply with that state's regulation, or if you claim to be neutral, then you need to comply with the relevant laws of both claimants. Thus far, the US has claimed to be neutral.



You are going around in circle. South China Sea is not HIGH SEA, even if you argue for Philippine's EEZ, the restriction on "scientific research" still applies. Mind you, but Philippine has made their statement that they have no knowledge of the US operation, nor do they object to Chinese naval conduct there. Moreover, the drone operation were not only the very definition of exploration of natural resrouces in other's EEZ, but also a military operation that directly violated the very condition laid out by the article as exclusively for peaceful purposes. That single fact alone make the operation and the drone outside the framework allowed for by UNCLOS.

You're simply beating a dead horse. With him, you should only troll. Logic doesn't work.

 

[The SC]

China signed the UNCLOS agreement Dec 10, 1982 Jun 7, 1996 and ratified Jul 29, 1994. Subsequently, the "Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" amending the original Convention was signed by China Jul 29, 1994, and ratified Jun 7, 1996.

Both agreements are 100% applicable.

There was an agreement on the "One China policy" and it has been breached, that is why the law of the sea was breached..

 

[Place Of Space]

The People's Daily is the biggest newspaper group in China. The paper is an official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party

Hardly a source one would expect tro be critical in this case.


It was you that spoke of an armed warship, and this clearly it isn't. The rest of you post is not worthy of serious comment, as it is not serious to begin with. Have a nice day.

Official media is more responsible reporter specially referring to international issues. You know why the Charlie Hebdo accident happened? Because the private medias run off at the mouth. Seems now Charlie is much more calm and rational, lol.
I totally agree to this. "The Bowditch has long been associated with spying operations against China."

 

[gambit]

This is getting silly. Take example of the Kuril island. Can the USAF flies a jet into its airspace, it'll be shout out of the sky. Now tell the Russian that because Japan dispute the ownership of these islands, the airspace are now open for transit, and you'll be laugh out of the room. And even with Russian consent, without Japanese agreement, Japan will protest your intrusion. A neutral party needs to get clearance from both states. Is that too hard to understand?

YOU are silly.

The Kuril Islands are currently under Russian jurisdiction. Further, the islands have a history of being occupied by one side or the other. There is no valid comparison between the Kuril Islands and the SCS.

If you throw something on the ground in a public area, is the next guy picking it up stealing?

More silliness.

If I make it clear that I DISCARD that object, then there is no theft if someone picked it up. We did not throw away that UUV.

And if you leave your car unattended on the road, does the police not have the power to tow it away?

No, the police do not have that power. Go to any shopping center and you will see plenty of unattended parked cars.

But seriously, the open sea is not the road. The open sea is more like public land where I can park my SUV anywhere I like and leave it unattended while I go target shooting out of sight.

During the theft, the Bowditch was only a few hundred meters away from the UUV. Continuing with your police analogy, if the officer sees me approaching my car with my keys obviously in plain sight, he will do nothing and let me tend to my car. China have been stalking the Bowditch for quite some time all the way into the Philippines' EEZ, so China is fully aware of who is the owner of that UUV.

Face it, pal. Your China was simply a thief.

China is exercising its administrative right in the water it claims, and an unmanned drone would not enjoy the same immunity a flagged warship does.

And China is in the wrong.

There we go. US is arguing the drone as a "warship or other government ships" that has sovereign immunity for seizure. There is however no customary international law defining a drone to be one.

More wrong. The lawyers already done the homework for you.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/chinas-capture-us-underwater-drone-violates-law-sea

The variation between manned systems and unmanned systems, such as size of the means of propulsion, type of platform, capability, endurance, human versus autonomous control and mission set, has not been a defining character of what constitutes a “vessel” or “ship.”

 

[BuddhaPalm]

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-confronted-us-navy-came-out-on-top-2016-12

China’s Anschluss in the South China Sea

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/443209/print

We came. We saw. We spanked. Who is next in line?

 

[qwerrty]

unless those manned made islands dismantled, china will always come out on top by default

 

[Huan]

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-confronted-us-navy-came-out-on-top-2016-12

China’s Anschluss in the South China Sea

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/443209/print

We came. We saw. We spanked. Who is next in line?

How long before China's navy confronts a US carrier group directly?

 

[gambit]

China bullied a civilian ship, and it looked like China came out on top.

 

[Globenim]

YOU are silly.

The Kuril Islands are currently under Russian jurisdiction. Further, the islands have a history of being occupied by one side or the other. There is no valid comparison between the Kuril Islands and the SCS.


More silliness.

If I make it clear that I DISCARD that object, then there is no theft if someone picked it up. We did not throw away that UUV.


No, the police do not have that power. Go to any shopping center and you will see plenty of unattended parked cars.

But seriously, the open sea is not the road. The open sea is more like public land where I can park my SUV anywhere I like and leave it unattended while I go target shooting out of sight.

During the theft, the Bowditch was only a few hundred meters away from the UUV. Continuing with your police analogy, if the officer sees me approaching my car with my keys obviously in plain sight, he will do nothing and let me tend to my car. China have been stalking the Bowditch for quite some time all the way into the Philippines' EEZ, so China is fully aware of who is the owner of that UUV.

Face it, pal. Your China was simply a thief.


And China is in the wrong.


More wrong. The lawyers already done the homework for you.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/chinas-capture-us-underwater-drone-violates-law-sea

Now its getting silly. At the request of the parking lot owner any private car can be removed by public and private services and Im pretty sure the U.S. is no exception in that case. For highly trafficed places its NORMAL to tow away cars if they violate the houserules even if they are not actually abonded by the owner. Do you even have a car licence yet or is that also just fantasy? The only reason the police wont do it as because its hard to keep track, a waste of time and it would only annoy people when no one complained yet. Private owners have the same issue, unless parking lots ar taken up that harm their business they have no reason to complain. And you can be sure abonded cars that fall apart in public space and may cause harm or stand in the way of a parade and ignore public orders by mere absence will be simply towed away. You can cry "freedomland" all you want. No one will take your infantile ignorance and hobby lawyer act serious and just laugh it off dismissing every complaint and lawsuit of yours.

Now no mater how many deliberately ignorant and dishonest spins you invent or quote from U.S. regime loyal "lawyers" their spins and lies are not the authority of truth. Its just the daily product of dishonest trolls like you who call islands rocks, deny history and drop every work ethic in they way to come up with whatever "expert conclusions" they want. Their lot have less integrity and credibility than the plumber next door.

The referenced section actually starts out with explicit exceptions those "lawyers" deliberately ommitted and just glossed over, which apply exactly in this case and have been unquestionably violated this time and in great numbers before by the U.S.. Aviolation is a violation wether you disrespect Chinese laws and customs or not. And anyways it would be a mindnumbing dumb statue no one would ever agree to if it protected your government vessels unconditionally from being seized, like your "lawyers" just tried to pass it off, but thats exactly the audience of those spin doctors public work. Not those naggy "PDF Chinaman" who question or worse understand what they are talking about, but dumb "free thinking" sheep who gobble up whatever most prominent lie they are told by selfproclaimed "authorities" and other disingenious people like you. We all know the superficial interpretation from a 3rd party of U.S. aligned "experts" serves no other purpose than to fabricate your own narrative and unsubstantial propaganda by ommission, spin and lies, where the facts contradict you. Thanks for proving and adding nothing of substance as usual. I rather stick to the facts and whats written in the real documents and they clearly protect Chinas rights.

As it stands the U.S. was simply in the wrong. Those UNCLOS documents lay it out very clearly and its hard to come up with a false interpretation that blames China without grossly ignoring half of the related passages and just reading every second half of a senctence. But good luck the U.S pirates are not respecting UNCLOS anyways!

Don't pretend you can judge and teach from a position of an ignorant boy

 

[BuddhaPalm]

How long before China's navy confronts a US carrier group directly?

We already confronted them with Song submarine during their exercises many years ago. Probably a shooting war will be before 2020 when we move to liberate Taiwan.

China bullied a civilian ship, and it looked like China came out on top.

LOL just like White House is occupied by civilians

 

[Penguin]

There was an agreement on the "One China policy" and it has been breached, that is why the law of the sea was breached..

You do understand the qualitative difference between an agreement on policy and a signed and ratified treaty?
Also, if so, why not withdraw from / reject UNCLOS.

Official media is more responsible reporter specially referring to international issues. You know why the Charlie Hebdo accident happened? Because the private medias run off at the mouth. Seems now Charlie is much more calm and rational, lol.
I totally agree to this. "The Bowditch has long been associated with spying operations against China."

Sure, a lot more responsible. But still, very unlikely to be critical of the way China has handle this (or any) situation.
The whole idea behind / point of having private media is that there are (and should be) a variety of avenues for a variety of perspectives, perceptions and points of view to be available. The whole choice of wording ("private media run off at the mouth") says enough in relation to that basic principle.

There is no comparison with Charlie Hebdo (unless you equal the Chinese actions with those of the terrorists, which I am sure you have no intention to do). Have you visited / followed Charlie Hebdo recently? I see very little change. I sincerely hope what you say above about that terrorist attack is not veiled justification or approval of said attack....

 

[Zsari]

Now its getting silly. At the request of the parking lot owner any private car can be removed by public and private services and Im pretty sure the U.S. is no exception in that case. For highly trafficed places its NORMAL to tow away cars if they violate the houserules even if they are not actually abonded by the owner. Do you even have a car licence yet or is that also just fantasy? The only reason the police wont do it as because its hard to keep track, a waste of time and it would only annoy people when no one complained yet. Private owners have the same issue, unless parking lots ar taken up that harm their business they have no reason to complain. And you can be sure abonded cars that fall apart in public space and may cause harm or stand in the way of a parade and ignore public orders by mere absence will be simply towed away. You can cry "freedomland" all you want. No one will take your infantile ignorance and hobby lawyer act serious and just laugh it off dismissing every complaint and lawsuit of yours.

Now no mater how many deliberately ignorant and dishonest spins you invent or quote from U.S. regime loyal "lawyers" their spins and lies are not the authority of truth. Its just the daily product of dishonest trolls like you who call islands rocks, deny history and drop every work ethic in they way to come up with whatever "expert conclusions" they want. Their lot have less integrity and credibility than the plumber next door.

The referenced section actually starts out with explicit exceptions those "lawyers" deliberately ommitted and just glossed over, which apply exactly in this case and have been unquestionably violated this time and in great numbers before by the U.S.. Aviolation is a violation wether you disrespect Chinese laws and customs or not. And anyways it would be a mindnumbing dumb statue no one would ever agree to if it protected your government vessels unconditionally from being seized, like your "lawyers" just tried to pass it off, but thats exactly the audience of those spin doctors public work. Not those naggy "PDF Chinaman" who question or worse understand what they are talking about, but dumb "free thinking" sheep who gobble up whatever most prominent lie they are told by selfproclaimed "authorities" and other disingenious people like you. We all know the superficial interpretation from a 3rd party of U.S. aligned "experts" serves no other purpose than to fabricate your own narrative and unsubstantial propaganda by ommission, spin and lies, where the facts contradict you. Thanks for proving and adding nothing of substance as usual. I rather stick to the facts and whats written in the real documents and they clearly protect Chinas rights.

As it stands the U.S. was simply in the wrong. Those UNCLOS documents lay it out very clearly and its hard to come up with a false interpretation that blames China without grossly ignoring half of the related passages and just reading every second half of a senctence. But good luck the U.S pirates are not respecting UNCLOS anyways!

Don't pretend you can judge and teach from a position of an ignorant boy

Aye. Notice the following passage. The "lawyers" cites the London Dumping convention for the definition on "vessel". But the problem is the UNCLOS has no "vessel" in its article for immunity. So what happened? Create a passage themselves to draw a parallel, and put quotation mark as if it comes out of the text of the convention.

The variation between manned systems and unmanned systems, such as size of the means of propulsion, type of platform, capability, endurance, human versus autonomous control and mission set, has not been a defining character of what constitutes a “vessel” or “ship.”

 

[oprih]

To the American cheerleaders, go troll somewhere else, you are just embarrassing yourselves here.

 

[BoQ77]

I totally agree to this. "The Bowditch has long been associated with spying operations against China."

The world saw that China ship shadowed the Bowditch and steal its UUV marked US Property in international water.

China said "We just take and check an unidentified object for safety reason and return it immediately to US" mean they pretend that they don't know it belongs to the Bowditch.

Could we link your comment on this into "China lied, they captured Bowditch's UUV as punishment for its operations in the past" ?

 

[JSCh]

Regular charter flights start at Yongxing airport
Source: Xinhua 2016-12-22 17:48:23

HAIKOU, Dec. 22 (Xinhua) -- Charter business flights started at Yongxing airport in Sansha City, Hainan Province, on Thursday.

A passenger plane took off at Meilan Airport in Haikou, the provincial capital, and landed at the airport on Yongxing Island, one of the Xisha islands and the city's administrative base, at 10:20 a.m. Thursday.

The plane is scheduled to fly back to Haikou Thursday afternoon.

Starting Thursday, Yongxing airport will have a daily return charter business flight from Haikou to improve the work and living conditions of the city's public servants and stationed soldiers.

The expansion of Yongxing airport was completed in May. It obtained a certificate for civilian use in December and now serves both military and civilian purposes.

Sansha City was officially established in 2012 to administer the Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha islands, and their surrounding waters in the South China Sea.