Exclusive - British Navy warship sails near Beijing-claimed South China Sea islands: sources

[webfact]

Exclusive - British Navy warship sails near Beijing-claimed South China Sea islands: sources

By Tim Kelly

 

FILE PHOTO: Military vehicles are seen in the loading dock of the HMS Albion, the British Royal Navy flagship amphibious assault ship, after the ship's arrival at Harumi Pier in Tokyo, Japan August 3, 2018. REUTERS/Toru Hanai/File Photo

 

(Reuters) - A British Royal Navy warship sailed close to islands claimed by China in the South China Sea as it headed towards Vietnam, asserting "freedom of navigation" rights and challenging Beijing's "excessive claims" in the region, two sources said.

 

The HMS Albion, a 22,000 ton amphibious warship carrying a contingent of Royal Marines, passed by the Paracel Islands in recent days, said the sources, who were familiar with the matter but who asked not to be identified.

 

The Albion was on its way to Hanoi, where it docked on Monday following a deployment in and around Japan.

 

One of the sources said Beijing dispatched a frigate and two helicopters to challenge the British vessel, but both sides remained calm during the encounter.

 

The other source the Albion did not enter the territorial seas around any features in the hotly disputed region but demonstrated that Britain does not recognise excessive maritime claims around the Paracel Islands. Twelve nautical miles is an internationally recognised territorial limit.

 

The Paracels are occupied entirely by China but also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan.

 

A spokesman for the Royal Navy said: “HMS Albion exercised her rights for freedom of navigation in full compliance with international law and norms.”

 

Neither China’s Foreign nor Defence Ministries immediately responded to a request for comment.

 

FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION

China’s claims in the South China Sea, through which some $3 trillion of shipborne trade passes each year, are contested by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. Britain does not have any territorial claims in the area.

 

While the U.S. Navy has conducted Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in the same area in the past, this British challenge to China's growing control of the strategic waterway comes after the United States has said it would like to see more international participation in such actions.

 

Both Britain and the United States say they conduct FONOP operations throughout the world, including in areas claimed by allies.

The British Navy has previously sailed close to the disputed Spratly Islands, further south in the South China Sea, but not within the 12 nautical mile limit, diplomatic sources have said.

 

FONOPs, which are largely symbolic, have so far not persuaded Beijing to curtail its South China Sea activities, which have included extensive reclamation of reefs and islands and the construction of runways, hangars and missile systems.

 

Beijing says it is entitled to build on its territories and says the facilities are for civilian use and necessary self-defence purposes. China blames Washington for militarising the region with its freedom of navigation patrols.

 

Foreign aircraft and vessels in the region are routinely challenged by Chinese naval ships and monitoring stations on the fortified islands, sources have said previously.

 

In April, warships from Australia - which like Britain is a close U.S. ally - had what Canberra described as a close "encounter" with Chinese naval vessels in the contested sea.

 

(Reporting by Tim Kelly. Additional reporting by Kylie MacLellan in LONDON, Ben Blanchard in BEIJING and Greg Torode in HONG KONG. Editing by Lincoln Feast.)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-09-06

[tonbridgebrit]

"Therea May, what on earth are you doing ?  Why was a British warship ordered to sail close to the Paracel Islands ? Bearing in mind that Beijing claims ownership of the islands.  All you've done is annoyed Beijing. Did Washington say that they would be giving Britain a better trade deal if this provocative act was carried out ? I hope so. If Washington does not give a more favourable trade deal because of this act, then this means you have been silly and ridiculous."


Britain needs a decent trade deal with China, especially after Brexit. Antagonising Beijing by sailing ships near any disputed islands claimed by Beijing, will not help the situation.

Edited September 6, 2018 by tonbridgebrit

[car720]

3 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"Therea May, what on earth are you doing ?  Why was a British warship ordered to sail close to the Paracel Islands ? Bearing in mind that Beijing claims ownership of the islands.  All you've done is annoyed Beijing. Did Washington say that they would be giving Britain a better trade deal if this provocative act was carried out ? I hope so. If Washington does not give a more favourable trade deal because of this act, then this means you have been silly and ridiculous."


Britain needs a decent trade deal with China, especially after Brexit. Antagonising Beijing by sailing ships near any disputed islands claimed by Beijing, will not help the situation.

Precisely.  I hope they are not thinking of sending another gunboat up the yangtze.  The last time was disaster enough.

[Chomper Higgot]

The UK Tory government looking for a distraction to their own Brexit shambles.

 

Perhaps this will end up reminding the UK of its actual place on the world stage.

[wwest5829]

4 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"Therea May, what on earth are you doing ?  Why was a British warship ordered to sail close to the Paracel Islands ? Bearing in mind that Beijing claims ownership of the islands.  All you've done is annoyed Beijing. Did Washington say that they would be giving Britain a better trade deal if this provocative act was carried out ? I hope so. If Washington does not give a more favourable trade deal because of this act, then this means you have been silly and ridiculous."


Britain needs a decent trade deal with China, especially after Brexit. Antagonising Beijing by sailing ships near any disputed islands claimed by Beijing, will not help the situation.

Sure, in the tradition of Chamberlain, “ peace in our times”. Encouraging the unilateral seizing of territory either having contested claims or sovereign territory and we do nothing? I am not looking for a war but I want all nations shipping through the South China Sea to demonstrate that China’s action is not recognized as legit. 

[AsiaHand]

Good  for The UK Navy showing some balls

[natway09]

Good on ya . As long as they stay outside the 12 mile zone they should do it every day.

As to trade with China it is a completely different issue.

China will trade with GB if they want to.No amount of buttering them up will make any difference

[TPI]

7 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"Therea May, what on earth are you doing ?  Why was a British warship ordered to sail close to the Paracel Islands ? Bearing in mind that Beijing claims ownership of the islands.  All you've done is annoyed Beijing. Did Washington say that they would be giving Britain a better trade deal if this provocative act was carried out ? I hope so. If Washington does not give a more favourable trade deal because of this act, then this means you have been silly and ridiculous."


Britain needs a decent trade deal with China, especially after Brexit. Antagonising Beijing by sailing ships near any disputed islands claimed by Beijing, will not help the situation.

Maybe the PM has a little hair on her chest? Casper Milktoasts' are always in a tizzy around sailors, perhaps, trade deals aside, some countries need to see that the UK still has some pride? 

[tonbridgebrit]

2 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

Sure, in the tradition of Chamberlain, “ peace in our times”. Encouraging the unilateral seizing of territory either having contested claims or sovereign territory and we do nothing? I am not looking for a war but I want all nations shipping through the South China Sea to demonstrate that China’s action is not recognized as legit. 

Hello there. Interesting to see your comment, and thanks as well.

Yes, the Paracel Islands, both Vietnam and China are claiming the Paracel Islands. Okay, to me, the important thing is this. Washington is backing neither side in this dispute of ownership. Washington has certainly not declared "we are Washington, and we support and back Vietnam's claim of ownership of the Paracel Islands".

Now, none of us wants to see a war. Washington will simply not be backing Vietnam in the event of a war between Vietnam and China, over the Paracel Islands.  And if Washington does not get involved in such a war, well, certainly or surely, Britain will also not be involved in this future war ? So, I reckon, "why take action to raise an issue over Beijing's claim to the Paracel Islands" ?  I mean, how about let the Chinese and Vietnamese sort this out, and if they have a war, well, let them fight it ? Everybody else stays out of the conflict. And, winner takes the Paracel Islands.


Please, let me add some humour to the issue of "all nations shipping through the South China must be allowed". Britain and Europe are importing a huge amount of Chinese goods from China. The goods are being transported by ships, via the South China Sea. Yes, the sea lanes must be kept open, so that Chinese goods can be transported to Europe. So, Britain is making sure the sea lanes are open ? Who, is a threat to the sea lanes being open ? Is China threatening to partially block the sea lanes, the sea lanes that are being used to transport Chinee goods to Europe ?
?


 

[tonbridgebrit]

32 minutes ago, TPI said:

Maybe the PM has a little hair on her chest? Casper Milktoasts' are always in a tizzy around sailors, perhaps, trade deals aside, some countries need to see that the UK still has some pride? 

The Chinese and the Vietnamese are involved in a dispute as to who has ownership of the Paracel Islands. Washington is backing neither side, and Britain is also backing neither side, in this dispute over ownership.

Surely, there is no need for Britain to "show pride" by getting involved in this dispute ? A bunch of foreigners wanting to catch fish or whatever seafood that is in Britain's waters, yes, there is a case for telling them foreigners to not catch fish in our waters. But this dispute is very far away from Britain. It's actually got nothing to do with Britain.

Why get involved ?  ?

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, natway09 said:

Good on ya . As long as they stay outside the 12 mile zone they should do it every day.

As to trade with China it is a completely different issue.

China will trade with GB if they want to.No amount of buttering them up will make any difference

Well, we might feel that by annoying Beijing by sailing a warship near one of these islands, is "no big beal". We might feel that it's got nothing to do with trade talks between Britain and Beijing.

But what about Beijing ?  We know what people are like. If they are are antagonised and aggravated because of this incident, well, they're probably not going to forget it.  They will probably show that they are not happy, by offerring less favourable trade deals in the future.  You can call them childish and silly, you can say to them "so what, so we annoyed you by sailing a military ship near some islands, islands that you claim are yours, that's got nothing to do with trade talks between us and you, now, forget the incident, and let's talk trade". But what do you think is going to be their response ?


We all know that all trade deals done by Beijing are "politically motivated", or , politics is involved. Go and antagonise Beijing by making whatever comments about Taiwan or Tibet, well, Beijing will respond. We know that.

[Retiredandhappyhere]

9 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"Therea May, what on earth are you doing ?  Why was a British warship ordered to sail close to the Paracel Islands ? Bearing in mind that Beijing claims ownership of the islands.  All you've done is annoyed Beijing. Did Washington say that they would be giving Britain a better trade deal if this provocative act was carried out ? I hope so. If Washington does not give a more favourable trade deal because of this act, then this means you have been silly and ridiculous."


Britain needs a decent trade deal with China, especially after Brexit. Antagonising Beijing by sailing ships near any disputed islands claimed by Beijing, will not help the situation.

So, just let China control the whole of the China Sea and eventually charge countries for passing through? Appeasement never works.  If it was possible, you should have a chat with Neville Chamberlain.

[Retiredandhappyhere]

19 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Well, we might feel that by annoying Beijing by sailing a warship near one of these islands, is "no big beal". We might feel that it's got nothing to do with trade talks between Britain and Beijing.

But what about Beijing ?  We know what people are like. If they are are antagonised and aggravated because of this incident, well, they're probably not going to forget it.  They will probably show that they are not happy, by offerring less favourable trade deals in the future.  You can call them childish and silly, you can say to them "so what, so we annoyed you by sailing a military ship near some islands, islands that you claim are yours, that's got nothing to do with trade talks between us and you, now, forget the incident, and let's talk trade". But what do you think is going to be their response ?


We all know that all trade deals done by Beijing are "politically motivated", or , politics is involved. Go and antagonise Beijing by making whatever comments about Taiwan or Tibet, well, Beijing will respond. We know that.

My comments in the above post apply here too.

[Odysseus123]

Wow..HMS..Victory,Royal Sovereign,Temeraire..Agamemnon, and many others at sea again!

 

Off to biff the froggies..or the boche..or whomsoever..

[pattayadgw]

It's all part of the 'master plan'..... wait n see

 

[jgarbo]

6 hours ago, car720 said:

Precisely.  I hope they are not thinking of sending another gunboat up the yangtze.  The last time was disaster enough.

Mad Tessie is off her trolley? Has she forgot British ships don't work in warm water? Smile, ask China for a tow to Honkers. Enjoy the Dim Sum, me tars.

[Nice Boyd]

"Therea May, what on earth are you doing ?  Why was a British warship ordered to sail close to the Paracel Islands ? Bearing in mind that Beijing claims ownership of the islands.  All you've done is annoyed Beijing. Did Washington say that they would be giving Britain a better trade deal if this provocative act was carried out ? I hope so. If Washington does not give a more favourable trade deal because of this act, then this means you have been silly and ridiculous."


Britain needs a decent trade deal with China, especially after Brexit. Antagonising Beijing by sailing ships near any disputed islands claimed by Beijing, will not help the situation.

Ridiculous, are you Chinese, it’s not their Islands, Don’t let the Chins get away with it


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[ratcatcher]

4 hours ago, AsiaHand said:

Good  for The UK Navy showing some balls

   " Perfidious Albion"?

Edited September 6, 2018 by ratcatcher

[Morch]

10 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"Therea May, what on earth are you doing ?  Why was a British warship ordered to sail close to the Paracel Islands ? Bearing in mind that Beijing claims ownership of the islands.  All you've done is annoyed Beijing. Did Washington say that they would be giving Britain a better trade deal if this provocative act was carried out ? I hope so. If Washington does not give a more favourable trade deal because of this act, then this means you have been silly and ridiculous."


Britain needs a decent trade deal with China, especially after Brexit. Antagonising Beijing by sailing ships near any disputed islands claimed by Beijing, will not help the situation.

 

Seems like the UK government does not fully share your views regarding China's actions in SE Asia. Shocking surprise there.

 

And, of course, no one should "annoy" the Chinese. Can't have that. Only Chinese can annoy other countries, and even then, you'll probably explain why it's nothing of the sort, actually.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The UK Tory government looking for a distraction to their own Brexit shambles.

 

Perhaps this will end up reminding the UK of its actual place on the world stage.

 

Of course they are. Because this will now turn to be a major issue distracting attention from Brexit issues for a couple of hours, and it is well known the UK public got an extremely short attention span.

 

No other plausible reason, obviously. Smart boys for the win again.

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Hello there. Interesting to see your comment, and thanks as well.

Yes, the Paracel Islands, both Vietnam and China are claiming the Paracel Islands. Okay, to me, the important thing is this. Washington is backing neither side in this dispute of ownership. Washington has certainly not declared "we are Washington, and we support and back Vietnam's claim of ownership of the Paracel Islands".

Now, none of us wants to see a war. Washington will simply not be backing Vietnam in the event of a war between Vietnam and China, over the Paracel Islands.  And if Washington does not get involved in such a war, well, certainly or surely, Britain will also not be involved in this future war ? So, I reckon, "why take action to raise an issue over Beijing's claim to the Paracel Islands" ?  I mean, how about let the Chinese and Vietnamese sort this out, and if they have a war, well, let them fight it ? Everybody else stays out of the conflict. And, winner takes the Paracel Islands.


Please, let me add some humour to the issue of "all nations shipping through the South China must be allowed". Britain and Europe are importing a huge amount of Chinese goods from China. The goods are being transported by ships, via the South China Sea. Yes, the sea lanes must be kept open, so that Chinese goods can be transported to Europe. So, Britain is making sure the sea lanes are open ? Who, is a threat to the sea lanes being open ? Is China threatening to partially block the sea lanes, the sea lanes that are being used to transport Chinee goods to Europe ?
?


 

 

Same old nonsense.

 

To me, the important thing is that most involved countries positions aren't really what you're trying to spin them as.

 

There is no war, and it is unlikely that there will be a full blown war. Your scaremongering notwithstanding. 

 

What you "reckon" is that it is better for Chinese interests that other countries do not get involved, and that China be given a free rein to bully its smaller neighbors.

 

Despite your repeated efforts to deny this, China already took action against commercial maritime activities by neighboring countries in the area. Your assertions as to China abiding by international norms on these matters are not supported by China's conduct on this, nor a whole range of related issues.

 

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Well, we might feel that by annoying Beijing by sailing a warship near one of these islands, is "no big beal". We might feel that it's got nothing to do with trade talks between Britain and Beijing.

But what about Beijing ?  We know what people are like. If they are are antagonised and aggravated because of this incident, well, they're probably not going to forget it.  They will probably show that they are not happy, by offerring less favourable trade deals in the future.  You can call them childish and silly, you can say to them "so what, so we annoyed you by sailing a military ship near some islands, islands that you claim are yours, that's got nothing to do with trade talks between us and you, now, forget the incident, and let's talk trade". But what do you think is going to be their response ?


We all know that all trade deals done by Beijing are "politically motivated", or , politics is involved. Go and antagonise Beijing by making whatever comments about Taiwan or Tibet, well, Beijing will respond. We know that.

 

Yeah....so we shouldn't say anything or do anything which might "antagonize" China. Or else they'll send them "cheap goods" you endlessly go on about somewhere else. Oh wait....

 

Trade and diplomacy are two way streets, other than in your pro-Chinese nonsense posts.

[metisdead]

A troll post has been removed. 

[Nyezhov]

Good to see the country most responsible for the modern world is ready to take its place next to its big brother again. Ah Winston, Maggie, where are you.....

 

Rule, Britannia!

Britannia, rule the waves

And Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Rule, Britannia!

Britannia, rule the waves.

And Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

 

Gawd Save the Queen! Pip pip cheerio! Go you Spurs! Pint!

 

Don't let the South China Sea become like Cambo...owned by the Chinese. Tourists today, governors tomorrow.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Of course they are. Because this will now turn to be a major issue distracting attention from Brexit issues for a couple of hours, and it is well known the UK public got an extremely short attention span.

 

No other plausible reason, obviously. Smart boys for the win again.

 

What because the British Government would never create a distraction to their domestic troubles?

[baboon]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Good to see the country most responsible for the modern world is ready to take its place next to its big brother again. Ah Winston, Maggie, where are you.....

 

Dead, thank God.

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What because the British Government would never create a distraction to their domestic troubles?

 

Hardly, and nothing said to this effect.

The point made was that the "distraction value" of the OP makes your assertion dubious. Going the extra mile, so to say, would have (perhaps) generated such an effect. As it is...not so much.

 

I think it is more to do with the UK trying to keep on good terms with the US, Trump and all. Unless mistaken, Mattis brought the issue of wider international participation a few times. And Mattis is one of the "adults in the room" on Trump's administration - certainly when it comes to issues like NATO and international cooperation (more specifically on security issues).

 

 

[Nyezhov]

57 minutes ago, baboon said:

Dead, thank God.

Wow. Lloyd George and Harold Wilson then?

[baboon]

17 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Wow. Lloyd George and Harold Wilson then?

Let me... Yes, dead too.

[baboon]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

Hardly, and nothing said to this effect

Rubbish.