U.S. warship sails near disputed South China Sea islands amid trade tensions

[webfact]

U.S. warship sails near disputed South China Sea islands amid trade tensions

By Idrees Ali

 

FILE PHOTO: The U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Wayne E. Meyer sails alongside South Korean multirole guided-missile destroyer Wang Geon during a bilateral exercise in the western Pacific Ocean April 25, 2017. U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kelsey L. Adams/Handout via REUTERS

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Navy destroyer sailed near islands claimed by China in the South China Sea on Wednesday, the U.S. military said, a move likely to anger Beijing at a time of rising tensions between the world's two largest economies.

 

The busy waterway is one of a growing number of flashpoints in the U.S.-Chinese relationship, which include an escalating trade war, American sanctions on China's military and U.S. relations with Taiwan. Reuters reported on Tuesday that China had denied a request for a U.S. Navy warship to visit the Chinese port city of Qingdao.

 

The U.S. Navy vessel Wayne E. Meyer, an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, carried out the operation, travelling within 12 nautical miles (14 miles/22 km) of Fiery Cross and Mischief Reefs, Commander Reann Mommsen, a spokeswoman for the Japan-based U.S. Navy's Seventh Fleet, said.

 

The operation was conducted "to challenge excessive maritime claims and preserve access to the waterways as governed by international law," Mommsen said.

 

The U.S. military operation comes amid an increasingly bitter trade war between China and the United States that sharply escalated on Friday, with both sides levelling more tariffs on each other's exports.

 

The U.S. military has a long-standing position that its operations are carried out worldwide, including areas claimed by allies, and are separate from political considerations.

 

A U.S. Navy destroyer sailed near islands claimed by China in the South China Sea on Wednesday, the U.S. military said, a move likely to anger Beijing at a time of rising tensions between the world's two largest economies. Roger Fortuna reports.

 

Chinese military spokesman Li Huamin said in a statement early on Thursday the U.S. vessel had encroached upon Chinese territorial waters near the Nansha Islands without the government's permission and had been warned to leave.

 

"The facts prove that the United States' so-called 'freedom of navigation' is actually an assertion of maritime hegemony that ignores international law, seriously harms China's sovereignty and security interests, and seriously harms peace and stability in the South China Sea region," Li said.

 

China and the United States have traded barbs in the past over what Washington has said is Beijing's militarization of the South China Sea by building military installations on artificial islands and reefs.

 

China's claims in the South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes each year, are contested by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

 

Beijing says its construction is necessary for self-defence and that the United States is responsible for ratcheting up tensions by sending warships and military planes close to islands that Beijing claims.

 

China's 2019 defence spending will rise 7.5 percent from 2018, according to a budget report. Its military build-up has raised concerns among neighbours and Western allies, particularly with China becoming more assertive in territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas and over Taiwan, a self-ruled territory Beijing claims as its own.

 

The U.S. military last year put countering China, along with Russia, at the centre of a new national defence strategy, shifting priorities after more than a decade-and-a-half of focusing on the fight against Islamist militants.

 

Vice President Mike Pence, in a visit to Iceland next week, will also have talks about "incursions" into the Arctic Circle by China and Russia, a senior Trump administration official said on Wednesday.

 

(Reporting by Idrees Ali; Additional reporting by David Stanway in SHANGHAI; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-08-29

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

Good I’m behind that 100%free navagation for all countries 

[Guitarzan]

One shot fired and America will instantly seize all Chinese assets in the USA and cancel all debt owed to China.  

[spidermike007]

6 hours ago, Guitarzan said:

One shot fired and America will instantly seize all Chinese assets in the USA and cancel all debt owed to China.  

And if they cancel all debt owed to China, that will result in a world depression, and a complete and total collapse of both Wall Street, and the US dollar. The US is declining on its own. No need to precipitate a decline by doing something so profoundly dumb, ignorant, and reckless. 

 

On the other hand, China could call in it's US debt, and cripple the US economy overnight. Who has more leverage in this game? The country with 32 trillion in debt (including the Iraq and Afghanistan debt, which is approaching $10 trillion, and is completely off the books) and little cash, and an accumulated debt of over 100% of GDP, not including local, or state debt, or a nation with trillions in cash, and a debt load of 46%, including all local, state and national debt? Think about it, before uttering such conservative babble. 

 

Having said all that, I love the US patrolling the South China Seas. It is perfectly legal, and a legitimate thing to do. Whether or not it pisses off the Chicoms, is not our issue, on any level. Go ahead. Antagonize them. Some pushback to their worldwide, long term imperial ambitions are required. The whole Chinese territorial waters thing is such a load of nonsense. Yes, they have territorial waters. And they extend 12 miles from their coastline. 

 

A more comprehensive Law of the Sea treaty was signed by 117 nations in 1982. According to the 1982 convention, each country’s sovereign territorial waters extend to a maximum of 12 nautical miles (22 km) beyond its coast, but foreign vessels are granted the right of innocent passage through this zone.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Law-of-the-Sea

 

 

Edited August 29, 2019 by spidermike007

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

6 hours ago, Guitarzan said:

One shot fired and America will instantly seize all Chinese assets in the USA and cancel all debt owed to China.  

And if they cancel all debt owed to China, that will result in a world depression, and a complete and total collapse of both Wall Street, and the US dollar. The US is declining on its own. No need to precipitate a decline by doing something so profoundly dumb, ignorant, and reckless. 

 

On the other hand, China could call in it's US debt, and cripple the US economy overnight. Who has more leverage in this game? The country with 32 trillion in debt (including the Iraq and Afghanistan debt, which is approaching $10 trillion, and is completely off the books) and little cash, and an accumulated debt of over 100% of GDP, not including local, or state debt, or a nation with trillions in cash, and a debt load of 46%, including all local, state and national debt? Think about it, before uttering such conservative babble. 

You're right about the effect of the US canceling its debts to China. But you're wrong about the disastrous effect of China cashing in its T-bonds. Right now China holds about 5 percent of the USA's outstanding debts. Rates are very low and the demand is strong. The dollar might dip a bit but that's all. And of course, that would make chinese goods more expensive to import.

 

[spidermike007]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You're right about the effect of the US canceling its debts to China. But you're wrong about the disastrous effect of China cashing in its T-bonds. Right now China holds about 5 percent of the USA's outstanding debts. Rates are very low and the demand is strong. The dollar might dip a bit but that's all. And of course, that would make chinese goods more expensive to import.

 

And you are right about the five percent. I thought it was higher. However, China has alot of weapons they could use to punish the US, should they choose to do so. If it were me, I would counsel a less combative approach to trade with China. I think the WWF style of diplomacy has shown itself to be a repeated failure, over the past 30 months. 

 

 

[zydeco]

Should sail a flotilla through there and then have them go on and drop anchor right off one of those fake islands the Chinese built.

[malibukid]

lets just build our own island next to theirs

[Isaan sailor]

China thinks they own the South China Sea.  And China thinks they control the Mekong.  And China thinks they will own Cambodia and Laos and Thailand.  Chuck communist Fina.

[GreasyFingers]

3 hours ago, zydeco said:

Should sail a flotilla through there and then have them go on and drop anchor right off one of those fake islands the Chinese built.

You could not even beat North Vietnam. Do you think you could beat China.

[Pedrogaz]

"A more comprehensive Law of the Sea treaty was signed by 117 nations in 1982. According to the 1982 convention, each country’s sovereign territorial waters extend to a maximum of 12 nautical miles (22 km) beyond its coast, but foreign vessels are granted the right of innocent passage through this zone."

 

I don't think this is correct. Passage through territorial waters is not a right. Can you imagine a Chinese warship passing within US territorial waters? Foreign vessels need permission to enter territorial waters unless their is a specific treaty. Generally in narrow waters where the passage is less that 24 nautical miles and where the sea is split 50:50, ships are given passage with limits without requesting permission....like the Bosphorus or the parts of English Channel.

[wwest5829]

1 hour ago, Pedrogaz said:

"A more comprehensive Law of the Sea treaty was signed by 117 nations in 1982. According to the 1982 convention, each country’s sovereign territorial waters extend to a maximum of 12 nautical miles (22 km) beyond its coast, but foreign vessels are granted the right of innocent passage through this zone."

 

I don't think this is correct. Passage through territorial waters is not a right. Can you imagine a Chinese warship passing within US territorial waters? Foreign vessels need permission to enter territorial waters unless their is a specific treaty. Generally in narrow waters where the passage is less that 24 nautical miles and where the sea is split 50:50, ships are given passage with limits without requesting permission....like the Bosphorus or the parts of English Channel.

You are assuming that the recent unilateral claim to the South China Sea is somehow valid? The International Court in the Hague has already ruled that this claim is without merit. All nations have the right of passage at sea and in the air no matter the recent unilateral claims of China that the entire South China sea is Chinese sovereign territory. Does not wash ...

[wwest5829]

I oppose the unilateral claims of either Russia (Crimea) or China (South China Sea). That said, we have the wrong leadership in the USA right now to deal with this type of challenge. I favor the USA only being part of a steady international sailing through the recognized international waters. If all nations using these international waterway are not interested, only then do I favor the USA solely looking out for its own interests.

 

[Longcut]

2 hours ago, GreasyFingers said:

You could not even beat North Vietnam. Do you think you could beat China.

If the U.S. really had a mind to. They could defeat Vietnam in less than a minute. It was the politicians that did not want to win the war. Too much money was being made. 

[Guitarzan]

6 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

And if they cancel all debt owed to China, that will result in a world depression, and a complete and total collapse of both Wall Street, and the US dollar. The US is declining on its own. No need to precipitate a decline by doing something so profoundly dumb, ignorant, and reckless. 

 

On the other hand, China could call in it's US debt, and cripple the US economy overnight. Who has more leverage in this game? The country with 32 trillion in debt (including the Iraq and Afghanistan debt, which is approaching $10 trillion, and is completely off the books) and little cash, and an accumulated debt of over 100% of GDP, not including local, or state debt, or a nation with trillions in cash, and a debt load of 46%, including all local, state and national debt? Think about it, before uttering such conservative babble. 

 

Having said all that, I love the US patrolling the South China Seas. It is perfectly legal, and a legitimate thing to do. Whether or not it pisses off the Chicoms, is not our issue, on any level. Go ahead. Antagonize them. Some pushback to their worldwide, long term imperial ambitions are required. The whole Chinese territorial waters thing is such a load of nonsense. Yes, they have territorial waters. And they extend 12 miles from their coastline. 

 

A more comprehensive Law of the Sea treaty was signed by 117 nations in 1982. According to the 1982 convention, each country’s sovereign territorial waters extend to a maximum of 12 nautical miles (22 km) beyond its coast, but foreign vessels are granted the right of innocent passage through this zone.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Law-of-the-Sea

 

 

It has nothing to do with “conservative babble”. In a hot war any country would seize assets. Are you proposing the US conduct normalized trade while at the same time blowing Chinese and American ships out of the water?  Chinese generals have made statements about sinking US aircraft carriers in the South China Sea before. Oh and yes your right, WWIII with China would be bad for the world economy...duh!

 

China calling in its debt, is less than a <deleted> hole in the snow. 

[Guitarzan]

2 hours ago, GreasyFingers said:

You could not even beat North Vietnam. Do you think you could beat China.

Loosing the Vietnam war was due to disasterious policy decisions, not military strength, that said, a-semetrical warfare is a beeatch. 

 

 Rosevelt should have helped Ho Chi Men when he asked for it. In his liberation decree Ho Chi Men recited the noble words of Thomas Jefferson. In the end he felt betrayed by the US and went running into the hands of the Russians and Mao. Who could blame him. 

[NanLaew]

6 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

On the other hand, China could call in it's US debt, and cripple the US economy overnight.

Maybe more than 5 or 8 years ago yes, but the US debt isn't anything like the hypothetical China ace card it used to be.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, GreasyFingers said:

You could not even beat North Vietnam. Do you think you could beat China.

Not really a conventional war, was it? With China it would be. 

[Baerboxer]

14 hours ago, Tug said:

Good I’m behind that 100%free navagation for all countries 

 

Yep. China or any other nation can't just claim tranches of international waters where ever and when ever it likes. 

 

The reality is only the US has the capability to challenge them.

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, GreasyFingers said:

You could not even beat North Vietnam. Do you think you could beat China.

 

The US could have wiped NV off the face of the earth if they'd wanted to. 

 

 

[SpaceKadet]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The US could have wiped NV off the face of the earth if they'd wanted to. 

 

 

But they got badly beaten by the Chinese army in the Korean war.

[Solinvictus]

23 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

But they got badly beaten by the Chinese army in the Korean war.

I suppose they could have used aircraft to bomb it to oblivion if they wanted to. Is that to far of a stretch?

[Solinvictus]

Although, I am not one to be proud nor advocate for US foreign policy, actually, my views are quite negative towards them. However, there is something about standing up to China, I really enjoy. ????

Edited August 29, 2019 by Solinvictus

[lannarebirth]

You can't "call in" US Treasuries, but you can sell them. US Bomds are clearly in a bull market and there is high demand. It would barely make a ripple in the markets.

 

[NCC1701A]

10 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

China has alot of weapons they could use to punish the US,

spidermike, china can't do anything.

[the guest]

16 hours ago, Guitarzan said:

One shot fired and America will instantly seize all Chinese assets in the USA and cancel all debt owed to China.  

 You don't want to screw with China, they are holding all the cards ATM.

[Cryingdick]

10 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

And if they cancel all debt owed to China, that will result in a world depression, and a complete and total collapse of both Wall Street, and the US dollar. The US is declining on its own. No need to precipitate a decline by doing something so profoundly dumb, ignorant, and reckless. 

 

On the other hand, China could call in it's US debt, and cripple the US economy overnight. Who has more leverage in this game? The country with 32 trillion in debt (including the Iraq and Afghanistan debt, which is approaching $10 trillion, and is completely off the books) and little cash, and an accumulated debt of over 100% of GDP, not including local, or state debt, or a nation with trillions in cash, and a debt load of 46%, including all local, state and national debt? Think about it, before uttering such conservative babble. 

 

Having said all that, I love the US patrolling the South China Seas. It is perfectly legal, and a legitimate thing to do. Whether or not it pisses off the Chicoms, is not our issue, on any level. Go ahead. Antagonize them. Some pushback to their worldwide, long term imperial ambitions are required. The whole Chinese territorial waters thing is such a load of nonsense. Yes, they have territorial waters. And they extend 12 miles from their coastline. 

 

A more comprehensive Law of the Sea treaty was signed by 117 nations in 1982. According to the 1982 convention, each country’s sovereign territorial waters extend to a maximum of 12 nautical miles (22 km) beyond its coast, but foreign vessels are granted the right of innocent passage through this zone.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Law-of-the-Sea

 

 

 

Well a worldwide depression and total collapse of the world as we know it is all worthwhile if it means Trump doesn't win the election. I don't see the problem.

[NCC1701A]

15 minutes ago, the guest said:

 You don't want to screw with China, they are holding all the cards ATM.

there will not be any ATMs in China.

all the Chinese will be dead. their economy completely destroyed.  the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States of America is not going to take any <deleted> from them.

 

imagine a nuke on each of these:

 

 

Edited August 29, 2019 by NCC1701A

[RoadWarrior371]

7 hours ago, GreasyFingers said:

You could not even beat North Vietnam. Do you think you could beat China.

Beat it like a stepchild, and any backwater country you may be from just for kicks..... ????

[GreasyFingers]

5 hours ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

Beat it like a stepchild, and any backwater country you may be from just for kicks..... ????

Now you need to help me as my memory is not as good these days. I seem to have heard these type of words before but not sure if it was Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. Or maybe it goes back further to the Romans and the barbarians.