The international-law Irony of U.S. Provocations in South China Sea

[gambit]

Why would I bet my money on your guess, which might not even be educated?

Are yours any more 'educated' ? From what I have seen so far, you guys have not even done basic research on what this article said.

For example...This comment I pointed out...

As ironic as it is, Washington has always defended its arbitrary move by referring to international law, but it has so far not approved the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which establishes legal order and regulations on international waters.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/the-inte...ions-in-south-china-sea.420183/#ixzz3ywrTII00

The insinuation and question is: How can the US 'enforce' laws inside a treaty when we have not approved said treaty ?

The Chinese article pretty much said that UNCLOS 'establishes legal order and regulations on international waters.'

NOT TRUE.

The reality is that provisions regarding the freedom of navigation existed BEFORE the creation of UNCLOS, therefore no country needs UNCLOS in order to exercise that freedom of navigation. Any exercise of a freedom/right is a tacit enforcement of that freedom/right and the US is the most powerful enforcer of the freedom/right of navigation in the SCS. Other than China, no one in Asia objected to what we HAVE BEEN doing, are doing, and will continue to do.

Like the other Asian countries, China know that UNCLOS is not needed for US to challenge China. If the Chinese government is smart enough to use historical documents and legal language to try to justify a legal conquest of the SCS, the Chinese government is smart enough to know that UNCLOS is not needed for US to challenge China.

That comment alone is enough to render the entire Chinese article as worthless. Not only that, it is deliberately dishonest and misleading. The article was designed for the gullible Chinese audience, not those who are willing to do basic research.

 

[jhungary]

Choices means China have options or ability, I didn't say China must do this or that. Nuclear is ability. When a country decide to declear war against China, nuclear may help it to think about war twice.

"And how much and how long can China endure a war with 2 nations? They don't really need to do anything, just have you jumping around and hopping around SCS and you burn money everyday. That is the biggest damage of all. Forget about being hit by cruise missile, forget about being hit by bomb."
I don't know how much and how long China can endure a war. There is no "rational war" in history. Where we started the discussion? Filipines attack Chinese islands. If they have started an irrational war, Chinese have no responsibility of helping them to cool their brain down.

Not too understand what you mean at all.

War does not fought because they are rational or irrational, gone with the days you fight under the banner of good versus evil. Today war are more about how you can sustain a war. Ie. How many people you are willing to lose and how much resources you are planning to use?

1) China will not use nuke because of a few rocks. But attacking our military installations and thousands of personnels that are stationed on our outposts then this becomes plausible.

So worry not my friend. Unless our adversaries memories resemble that of a goldfish and they have forgotten history. No one wants to see a repeat of Pearl Harbour, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

2) Everyone suffers in a war, it is just a case of how much they have and are willing to lose.

1.) That means you will potentially willing to lose 13 billions of people for a few thousand of personnel??? And Pearl Harbor is not exactly a nuke attack....

2.) That is the main point.

A territory under dispute doesn't mean the territory doesn't have ownership, nor does it mean that the rights of the ownership doesn't exist, especially to a third party. Just like two people disputing the ownership of a house doen't mean any outsider can freely come in to live there. By US own statement, the US does not dispute any party's claim over the islands in the South China Sea, nor is the patrol aimed at challenging the soverignty of the claimants. Your argument is not one that even the US government is attempting.

I think you have a serious misunderstanding on the current situation in the SCS.

The US official position is they are neutral in any dispute, given the reason the US see the whole SCS is a combination of International Water with Exclusive Economic Zone. Therefore the official slogan for the US is to upheld the Freedom of passage within the SCS, as this is, in US eyes, NOT BELONG TO ANYONE. Not China, not Vietnam, not Philippine.

Chinese Stance is 80% of SCS is the extend of Chinese territories. Where Vietnam claim about 50% in the West and Philippine claim is about 40% in the South.

To use your analogy, it's like a big house where the Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino contest the ownership. And US run in and believing the house DOES NOT BELONG TO ANYONE. And while I did not see Vietnamese or Filipino object to the US Stance, China, on the other hand is the one protesting what US have been doing.

Along with most International organisation, US view on SCS is inline with them, which is SCS should be a free ocean, not territories of any parties.

So, who is the aggressor? I don't know, depending on where you stand? in Chinese case, the US, Filipino, and the Vietnamese are the aggressor, in Vietnam eyes, Chinese are the aggressor, and in Philippine Eyes, Chinese is the aggressor.

 

[ahtan_china]

Well, what you said have zero strategically sense.

I just want to ask you two question.

1.) Would China use nuclear weapon just because these few rocks?
2.) You really do think in case of a war, China will not suffer any huge damage?

I am not going to discuss the first question, honestly quite dumb thing to say anyone is willing to unleash an Armageddon on a few island, however, on the second point. Running a war itself is a damage done to a country. You lose money by every day, you lose man everyday and even if your mainland was unharmed, you lose your production capability everyday,

Everyday in a war is a day that damage your country's economic might. Because everyday in war, you stop producing TVs, Refrigerator, Cars and you started to make bomb, bullet and guns. And how much and how long can China endure a war with 2 nations? They don't really need to do anything, just have you jumping around and hopping around SCS and you burn money everyday. That is the biggest damage of all. Forget about being hit by cruise missile, forget about being hit by bomb.



Oh my god, first of all, resolution 678 is NOT ABOUT PROOF that WMD did exist, it's about Iraq allowing UN inspector to inspect their WMD storage site. Which Iraq denied.

The US and UK uses force to enforce 678, which is to SEARCH FOR WMD. Not whether or not they find it matters. Again, please do read resolution 678 for more detail.

Beside, US did find Chemical Weapon in Iraq in 2008, As with many other poster, yes they are over their used by day but they pose a threat no less, or I will have to ask you to tour those "Expired" Chemical weapon without a mask and a NBC suit if you claim those "Expired" nerve agent is harmless.

And were you in Iraq? I was, I can personally attested to that the Iraq is better off today, I still receiving cards from people I help during my tour in Iraq, you have no idea how Iraqi hated Saddam Hussein. So, Are Iraq is better today than in 2003? OF COURSE.

I love how people talk about something they have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA ABOUT. That's where the gold is in this forum, looking at dude trying to pass on as they know everything. LOL great fun.



Didn't I answered this already?

Sh!t.. for the USA/UK invade Iraq.
Who are you?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2015-10/25/content_22279040.htm
Tony Blair apologizes for Iraq War 'mistakes'
LONDON - Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has apologized for "mistakes" in the planning of the Iraq war, admitting that "the intelligence we received was wrong," British media reported Sunday.

Blair conceded that there were "elements of truth" in the view that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the "principle cause" of the rise of the Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS, British Sky News reported.

"I apologies for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong," the report quoted Blair as saying in an interview with CNN.

"I also apologies for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime," he added.

However, Blair also said: "I find it hard to apologize for removing Saddam. I think, even from today in 2015, it is better that he's not there than that he is there."

In the interview, Blair acknowledged the link between the Iraq war and the rise of the Islamic State.

"Of course, you can't say that those of us who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015," he said.

"But it's important also to realize, one, that the 'Arab Spring' which began in 2011 would also have had its impact on Iraq today, and two, ISIS actually came to prominence from a base in Syria and not in Iraq," he added.

In 2009, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown established an inquiry, led by John Chilcot, into the Britain's involvement in the Iraq War, but the finally conclusions of the inquiry have not been published yet.

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has described Blair's apology as a "spin operation."

"The Blair spin operation begins but the country still awaits the truth. The delay to Chilcot report is a scandal," she said on her Twitter account.

 

[jhungary]

Sh!t.. for the USA/UK invade Iraq.
Who are you?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2015-10/25/content_22279040.htm
Tony Blair apologizes for Iraq War 'mistakes'
LONDON - Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has apologized for "mistakes" in the planning of the Iraq war, admitting that "the intelligence we received was wrong," British media reported Sunday.

Blair conceded that there were "elements of truth" in the view that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the "principle cause" of the rise of the Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS, British Sky News reported.

"I apologies for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong," the report quoted Blair as saying in an interview with CNN.

"I also apologies for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime," he added.

However, Blair also said: "I find it hard to apologize for removing Saddam. I think, even from today in 2015, it is better that he's not there than that he is there."

In the interview, Blair acknowledged the link between the Iraq war and the rise of the Islamic State.

"Of course, you can't say that those of us who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015," he said.

"But it's important also to realize, one, that the 'Arab Spring' which began in 2011 would also have had its impact on Iraq today, and two, ISIS actually came to prominence from a base in Syria and not in Iraq," he added.

In 2009, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown established an inquiry, led by John Chilcot, into the Britain's involvement in the Iraq War, but the finally conclusions of the inquiry have not been published yet.

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has described Blair's apology as a "spin operation."

"The Blair spin operation begins but the country still awaits the truth. The delay to Chilcot report is a scandal," she said on her Twitter account.

Did the above article mention any legality of the war?

This is what he said in the article you provided

"I apologies for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong," the report quoted Blair as saying in an interview with CNN.

"I also apologies for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime," he added.

he did not apologise for "Illegally" invading Iraq, he apologise on how they failed after removing the saddam regime, and in fact, it is one of the main blunder of the whole Iraq war, you remove an active regime without proper nominee, what do you expect? Civil war.

He apologise the mishandling for the war and hence drag on for 9 years, not for invading Iraq illegally. You probably need to read what you provided before using it.

 

[xunzi]

LOL, I don't even know how you get to this from my post, either you intentionally twisted my word for it, or you have a problem with basic English understanding.

I said, you need other people respect your border to make it legit, it's not just something you claim, one of the way is the ability to enforce your own border. if you cannot enforce matter within your border, then whatever you claim is a moot point. Another point is that you argue your case in court and comes out as a winner. Then and only then you have your border count. Not just I claim this and I claim that.

And yeah, US is the one provoking, when US was not even one of the claimant on SCS, that's some kind of logic you got there. Then am I expected to see the disputed party to united and stand against the US provocation?? So when will China, Vietnam, Philippine joint hand and push the evil US out of the way??

I'm actually surprise that you got the ball to reply to me with this nonsense. LOL What you are insinuating is making all dispute maritime territories in the world become INTERNATIONAL WATER for the US and THAT is NOT what the international communities will obligate. I can guarantee you that. The matter of the sovereignty (regardless of whom actually own it), the land is entitle to 12nm under UNCLOS in which your US daddy didn't ratified. It is a fact that the US wants to play the international law game WITHOUT abiding by it and maneuver itself to gain an advantage.

I hate to break this news to you but what the US did is very clever by using the "innocent passage" wording, they escape being force to explain their 12nm intrusion.

Well, what you said have zero strategically sense.

I just want to ask you two question.

1.) Would China use nuclear weapon just because these few rocks?
2.) You really do think in case of a war, China will not suffer any huge damage?

I am not going to discuss the first question, honestly quite dumb thing to say anyone is willing to unleash an Armageddon on a few island, however, on the second point. Running a war itself is a damage done to a country. You lose money by every day, you lose man everyday and even if your mainland was unharmed, you lose your production capability everyday,

Everyday in a war is a day that damage your country's economic might. Because everyday in war, you stop producing TVs, Refrigerator, Cars and you started to make bomb, bullet and guns. And how much and how long can China endure a war with 2 nations? They don't really need to do anything, just have you jumping around and hopping around SCS and you burn money everyday. That is the biggest damage of all. Forget about being hit by cruise missile, forget about being hit by bomb.

Please allow me to answer for you..my friend. LOOL

1. WHO is going to have the ball and attack our islands first?
2. Of course with war, everybody will suffer. But the question again is, who have the ball to attack our islands and not facing the consequences for it? Give me an answer, my friend. LOL

From a strategic point of views, these islands will form 3 major chains in SCS. The first is a massive base in Hainan. The 2nd is the Paracel base. The 3rd is the 7 new islands. It will form a network of gathering intelligence as well as maintaining a civilian safety nest. That alone, make it worth wide to build.

 

[jhungary]

I'm actually surprise that you got the ball to reply to me with this nonsense. LOL What you are insinuating is making all dispute maritime territories in the world become INTERNATIONAL WATER for the US and THAT is NOT what the international communities will obligate. I can guarantee you that. The matter of the sovereignty (regardless of whom actually own it), the land is entitle to 12nm under UNCLOS in which your US daddy didn't ratified. It is a fact that the US wants to play the international law game WITHOUT abiding by it and maneuver itself to gain an advantage.

I hate to break this news to you but what the US did is very clever by using the "innocent passage" wording, they escape being force to explain their 12nm intrusion.

That all I can say is your whole post, and your point in nothing but some Bullshit.

Why would US have to obliged to the UNCLOS when US is NOT A PART OF CLAIMANT OF SCS? The US principally agree on UNCLOS but that was another matter, what matter is how the World see this as it is.

Would the world see SCS as Chinese territories as Chinese claim? Or would the world see the SCS as EEZ+ international water as US claim?

For what you said is provoking, it would have to mean US encroach Chinese Territories by declaring it International water, that is what Chinese pointing at the US and said it was provoking. However, just because the Chinese said it was their territorial water does not make it so. Unless the world also did see the SCS is Chinese territorial water, then world will not regonize US action as Provoking like the Chinese does.

On the other hand, what you claim is what you claim, you cannot say since US (Which is not a claimant) does not obliged to UNCLOS so your claim should not be obliged to UNCLOS too, because of one simple reason, you sign the UNCLOS. Hence in this dispute, there are only two thing left for China to do, either take it up to UNCLOS (Which you signed) and fought it out in court. Or you drop out of UNCLOS and try to enforce it like the US does, but you cannot hide behind UNCLOS and said the US is provoking while yourselves ignore the proceeding headed by UNCLOS.

There, I cannot dumb it down further for you

 

[xunzi]

That all I can say is your whole post, and your point in nothing but some Bullshit.

Why would US have to obliged to the UNCLOS when US is NOT A PART OF CLAIMANT OF SCS? The US principally agree on UNCLOS but that was another matter, what matter is how the World see this as it is.

Would the world see SCS as Chinese territories as Chinese claim? Or would the world see the SCS as EEZ+ international water as US claim?

For what you said is provoking, it would have to mean US encroach Chinese Territories by declaring it International water, that is what Chinese pointing at the US and said it was provoking. However, just because the Chinese said it was their territorial water does not make it so. Unless the world also did see the SCS is Chinese territorial water, then world will not regonize US action as Provoking like the Chinese does.

On the other hand, what you claim is what you claim, you cannot say since US (Which is not a claimant) does not obliged to UNCLOS so your claim should not be obliged to UNCLOS too, because of one simple reason, you sign the UNCLOS. Hence in this dispute, there are only two thing left for China to do, either take it up to UNCLOS (Which you signed) and fought it out in court. Or you drop out of UNCLOS and try to enforce it like the US does, but you cannot hide behind UNCLOS and said the US is provoking while yourselves ignore the proceeding headed by UNCLOS.

There, I cannot dumb it down further for you

THEN DON"T BRING UP THE INTERNATIONAL LAW bullshit in our face.

It doesn't matter what the world think or see SCS as our sea or not. I want to REMIND you that no ships nor airplanes, military or civilian, have been impeded, stopped, or blocked from trespassing in the SCS for yearsss. What we are contesting is foreign ships intruding the our 12nm zone, in which we called all parties to respect each other territorial rights and its adjacent water. That is our official position and we mention NOTHING of the 9-dash line. We'll let you decide what the 9-dash line means. We are only concern with the territories under our possession and its adjacent water. What you did is a passive-aggressive tactic of provocation. It is an AGGRESSION because you strategically TARGET our islands under our control and put the world at risk of a war had we respond aggressively. The PASSIVE is that you continue to use the "innocent passage" excuse, thus allow to maneuver and reduce the tension.

Are we all clear on this?

 

[jhungary]

I'm actually surprise that you got the ball to reply to me with this nonsense. LOL What you are insinuating is making all dispute maritime territories in the world become INTERNATIONAL WATER for the US and THAT is NOT what the international communities will obligate. I can guarantee you that. The matter of the sovereignty (regardless of whom actually own it), the land is entitle to 12nm under UNCLOS in which your US daddy didn't ratified. It is a fact that the US wants to play the international law game WITHOUT abiding by it and maneuver itself to gain an advantage.

I hate to break this news to you but what the US did is very clever by using the "innocent passage" wording, they escape being force to explain their 12nm intrusion.


Please allow me to answer for you..my friend. LOOL

1. WHO is going to have the ball and attack our islands first?
2. Of course with war, everybody will suffer. But the question again is, who have the ball to attack our islands and not facing the consequences for it? Give me an answer, my friend. LOL

From a strategic point of views, these islands will form 3 major chains in SCS. The first is a massive base in Hainan. The 2nd is the Paracel base. The 3rd is the 7 new islands. It will form a network of gathering intelligence as well as maintaining a civilian safety nest. That alone, make it worth wide to build.

1.) Did I say other people WILL attack Chinese island first? Consider Chinese affluence in SCS is quite small, (Own less than 20% of island in SCS) IT would be quite stupid for other higher stake to attack the Chinese as a minor stake?

2.) That did not answer my question, my question is simple. How many man and material you are willing to lost in a war defending these island?? If there was a war, that mean somebody is willing to lose something, the question is and always is, HOW MUCH CHINA WILLING TO LOSE?

And LOL at your strategic point of view.

Strategical point of view mean how those island act or what did they give or get for the defence of China in general. In term of Strategical Value, the island offer nothing to the overall defence of China in general. Nor does those island give any tactical advantage to China, the only thing I can think of is those island may offer some operational advantage by providing a standby or runs-off airfield for aircraft in trouble in the area.

Strategically, those island are too close to China to have any effect on main Chinese defences. Those island, with the furthest one being Fiery Cross Reef are only 630 miles from China, That mean it add 630 miles to the defence buffer if and when you count the furthest point, However, 630 miles may look like a large number, in fact, it is shorter than the distance between Sydney and Brisbane, which mean 30 minutes flight range, and 8 hours drive range. Which mean all you gain, even if you can hold Fiery Cross reef, is 30 mintues of early warning time.

Another reason they have no value at all in Strategical sort of sense is you do not need to pass thru any of those island to attack China, which give them no advantage at all if the attacker decided to attack near Taiwan or Japan.

Tactically, those island are too far apart and too small to defend, hence they did not give out any tactical advantage for forming a continuous line of defend and simply they will fall one by one if they were to pick it off one by one.

Next time, it's probably wiser for you to understand something before you say it out loud, otherwise it will indeed look like a twat when you got caught not knowing what you are talking about.

THEN DON"T BRING UP THE INTERNATIONAL LAW bullshit in our face.

Did I? I seems to remember I did not use international law to bash the US, look at who started this post first?

Mate, you are literally speaking of my point. I don't care what Chinese think or do, you can think Hawai'i is yours for all I care, but without the will to act on what you claim, it's simply and plainly, USELESS. Either talk or fight, but keep using media as your friend, the more you push out these type of BS article, the more you look guilty. It's that simple

Are we clear?

 

[ahtan_china]

Did the above article mention any legality of the war?

This is what he said in the article you provided



he did not apologise for "Illegally" invading Iraq, he apologise on how they failed after removing the saddam regime, and in fact, it is one of the main blunder of the whole Iraq war, you remove an active regime without proper nominee, what do you expect? Civil war.

He apologise the mishandling for the war and hence drag on for 9 years, not for invading Iraq illegally. You probably need to read what you provided before using it.

As your logic, it is not invasion. Who are approve the action which UK/USA invade Iraq? UN, Iraq people even Saddam himself invite UK/USA to come into Iraq for killing so many people including Saddam.

 

[Ewok6102]

1.) That means you will potentially willing to lose 13 billions of people for a few thousand of personnel??? And Pearl Harbor is not exactly a nuke attack....

2.) That is the main point.

1) Losing a few thousand people and doing nothing will also lose the hearts of the people.
We have witnessed the attack on Pearl Harbour, and the result of Iraq and Afghanistan after 911.
Patriotism is a powerful tool my friend. China's population is four times that of America, it is not something to bat an eyelid on. Especially when the possible arena is only a stone throw away.

Who wants to unite and turn 1.3 billion Chinese against them and see what China is truely capable are free to try. But which one has the balls to? Quite possibly Non.

America understands what is at stake for them if they get involved, and knows what to expect should push comes to shove. Let alone those that are in dispute. They are in no shape or form ready for a direct confrontation with China. Not now, not anytime soon.

2) Everyone knows what is to expect. Hence there will be no direct confrontations with China. That is unless they want to lose their economy, power projection capabilities and see sharp reductions in population.

War with China may give birth to new powers, reshape the region and quite possibly the world. Russia and major powers in Europe will take over, Japan will be freed from its shackles, North Korea will steamroll the south. India, with comparable population will substitute China. Only they will benefit from this war (unless we go all out nuclear, then everybody loses).

We can expect further warnings, political joustings or, perhaps, minor skirmishes. Just not war.

 

[Viet]

actually thing is clear. international law as UNCLOS stipulates freedom of navigation at sea, including territorial waters. China can´t forbid it by domestic law. it is a funny attempt to sign UNCLOS and exclude parts of the treaty. it is not going to function. China has the option to quit the treaty. Oh...even if China steps out, chinese must respect other ships travelling thru their territorial waters. no matter what chinese laws says.

if chinese nationalists think, the red line is crossed, they may sink US warships.

threatening a nuclear war because US warship travels thru chinese waters as international law allows? if you want to end up as nuclear ashes, why not, go to Xi Jinping and tell him activating the weapons!

 

[gambit]

1) Losing a few thousand people and doing nothing will also lose the hearts of the people.
We have witnessed the attack on Pearl Harbour, and the result of Iraq and Afghanistan after 911.

Bad analogies. These islands are not on Chinese soil and they are not economic contributors to China.

 

[Viet]

Chinese nationalists, trollers and others fail to understand one basic thing: America respects Unclos even she isn't a member of the treaty. Chinese warships are welcome to sail thru US territorial waters.

 

[sweetgrape]

Chinese nationalists, trollers and others fail to understand one basic thing: America respects Unclos even she isn't a member of the treaty. Chinese warships are welcome to sail thru US territorial waters.

Your flattering USA make me goose bumps, US respects Unclos? hehe, so what do USA invading Vietnam respect?

 

[Viet]

Your flattering USA make me goose bumps, US respects Unclos? hehe, so what do USA invading Vietnam respect?

trolling again?

Vietnam never accepts your illegal occupation of Paracels. Nor the international community. We respect the freedom of navigation, and as such, US warships can move thru OUR territorial waters. it is not up to you to decide.