U.S. destroyer challenges China's claims in South China Sea

[webfact]

U.S. destroyer challenges China's claims in South China Sea

By Idrees Ali

 

FILE PHOTO: Chinese dredging vessels are purportedly seen in the waters around Mischief Reef in the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea in this still image from video taken by a P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft provided by the United States Navy May 21, 2015. U.S. Navy/Handout via Reuters/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Navy destroyer carried out a "freedom of navigation operation" on Thursday, coming within 12 nautical miles of an artificial island built up by China in the South China Sea, U.S. officials told Reuters.

 

The operation came as President Donald Trump's administration seeks Chinese cooperation in dealing with North Korea's missile and nuclear programs and could complicate efforts to secure a common stance.

 

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the USS John S. McCain travelled close to Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands, among a string of islets, reefs and shoals. China has territorial disputes with its neighbours over the area.

 

It was the third "freedom of navigation operation" during Trump's presidency.

 

Thursday's operation, first reported by Reuters, was the latest attempt to counter what Washington sees as Beijing's efforts to limit freedom of navigation in the strategic waters, and comes as Trump is seeking China's cooperation to rein in North Korea.

 

China's foreign ministry said the operation had violated international and Chinese law and seriously harmed Beijing's sovereignty and security.

 

"China is very displeased with this and will bring up the issue with the U.S. side," the ministry said in a statement.

 

The United States has criticized China's construction of islands and build-up of military facilities in the sea, and is concerned they could be used to restrict free nautical movement.

 

Twelve nautical miles marks the territorial limits recognised internationally. Sailing within those 12 miles is meant to show that the United States does not recognise territorial claims there.

 

The United States has said that it would like to see more international participation in freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea.

 

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

 

The Trump administration has vowed to conduct more robust South China Sea operations.

 

In July, a U.S. warship sailed near a disputed island in the South China Sea claimed by China, Taiwan, Vietnam.

 

Experts and officials have criticized former President Barack Obama for potentially reinforcing China's claims by sticking to innocent passage, in which a warship effectively recognised a territorial sea by crossing it speedily without stopping.

 

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.

 

The Pentagon declined to provide any details but said that all operations are conducted in accordance with international law.

 

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have risen recently after North Korea carried out two nuclear tests last year and two ICBM tests last month, prompting a strong round of U.N. sanctions. That angered Pyongyang which has threatened to teach the United States a "severe lesson".

 

Trump responded by warning North Korea it would face "fire and fury" if it further threatened the United States.

 

(Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in Beijing and Lee Chyen Yee in Singapore; Editing by Matthew Mpoke Bigg and Alistair Bell)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-08-11

[tonbridgebrit]

Washington, what are you trying to say ?
You've gone and sailed this warship within 12 nautical miles of whatever Chinese artificial island. Why go and antagonise Beijing right now ?  Those men in North Korea, they're thinking about nuking Guam. And you still want to make a big deal about whatever Chinese island ? How far away is Guam from America ? This Chinese island that you're sailing within 12 nautical miles, how far away is it from China ?

Washington, you've got your soldiers in Guam, that's because you beat Spain in a war in the late 1800s, actually, it was 1898. Stop highlighting the issue that countries have got whatever islands, because they got them after winning a war.

 

Edited August 11, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[simple1]

13 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Washington, what are you trying to say ?

 

From the OP which should give you a hint...

 

"the South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes each year" 

[Dave67]

Chinas claim for territorial waters in the South China Sea is ridiculous. 

[Saladin]

Compare this Chinese claim to the offshore territories that have been appropriated by the US, most of them thousands of miles from continental America.

Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Hawaii ,and lays claim to

Palmyra Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Bajo Nuevo Bank, Navassa Island, Serranilla Bank and Wake Island.

 

[attrayant]

A primer on why China is building islands in the South China Sea.

[212Roger]

2 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Washington, what are you trying to say ?
You've gone and sailed this warship within 12 nautical miles of whatever Chinese artificial island. Why go and antagonise Beijing right now ?  Those men in North Korea, they're thinking about nuking Guam. And you still want to make a big deal about whatever Chinese island ? How far away is Guam from America ? This Chinese island that you're sailing within 12 nautical miles, how far away is it from China ?

Washington, you've got your soldiers in Guam, that's because you beat Spain in a war in the late 1800s, actually, it was 1898. Stop highlighting the issue that countries have got whatever islands, because they got them after winning a war.

 

"How far away is Guam from America?"  Really?!?  Guam is America. I"m living in Tumon Village, Guam.

[BarnicaleBob]

35 minutes ago, 212Roger said:

"How far away is Guam from America?"  Really?!?  Guam is America. I"m living in Tumon Village, Guam.

In fact all the people of Guam are American citizens.  As for all the other islands that America control or possess in the Pacific, they were assigned to the custody of the U.S. by the United Nations, all legal and above board.  

[alanrchase]

They are second class Americans because the are not allowed to vote.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Saladin said:

Compare this Chinese claim to the offshore territories that have been appropriated by the US, most of them thousands of miles from continental America.

Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Hawaii ,and lays claim to

Palmyra Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Bajo Nuevo Bank, Navassa Island, Serranilla Bank and Wake Island.

 

That all occurred in a time when colonization was was widely considered a good thing.Times have changed.

[Rancid]

1 hour ago, Saladin said:

Compare this Chinese claim to the offshore territories that have been appropriated by the US, most of them thousands of miles from continental America.

Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Hawaii ,and lays claim to

Palmyra Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Bajo Nuevo Bank, Navassa Island, Serranilla Bank and Wake Island.

 

Colonial Empires traditionally do like their far flung territories, what they don't like is competing states also having them. There again hypocrisy is nothing new to politicians.

 

Notice the recent US Oz naval war games were about blocking the Malacca Straits, can't imagine why the Chinese are paranoid about their trade routes being cut, perhaps took note of Japan prior WW2. Today puppet PM Turnbull boasted that OZ fully supports the US attacking N Korea, wish my country would stop embarrassing me with its lackey stupidity.

[simple1]

4 minutes ago, Rancid said:

Colonial Empires traditionally do like their far flung territories, what they don't like is competing states also having them. There again hypocrisy is nothing new to politicians.

 

Notice the recent US Oz naval war games were about blocking the Malacca Straits, can't imagine why the Chinese are paranoid about their trade routes being cut, perhaps took note of Japan prior WW2. Today puppet PM Turnbull boasted that OZ fully supports the US attacking N Korea, wish my country would stop embarrassing me with its lackey stupidity.

Incorrect. Turnbull said Oz will meet it's Treaty obligations if the US is attacked, very different to what you're saying.

 

"So be very, very clear on that. If there's an attack on the US, the ANZUS Treaty would be invoked and Australia would come to the aid of the United States, as America would come to our aid if we were attacked."

[tonbridgebrit]

5 hours ago, 212Roger said:

"How far away is Guam from America?"  Really?!?  Guam is America. I"m living in Tumon Village, Guam.

 

5 hours ago, BarnicaleBob said:

In fact all the people of Guam are American citizens.  As for all the other islands that America control or possess in the Pacific, they were assigned to the custody of the U.S. by the United Nations, all legal and above board.  

Hello there. I have no problems with "America fighting a war against Spain prior to 1900, winning that war, and taking over a load of islands as part of the victory prize". And indeed, Washington has still got Guam, I certainly do not protest against Guam being part of America.

I'm only trying to say, we should show consistency, and consistency means that "all winners in wars/conflicts should be allowed to take over whatever islands". So, whats so wrong if Beijing fights a war with Vietnam, and takes over all the parts of the South China Sea that are closest to Vietnam, if Beijing does actually wins ?

[tonbridgebrit]

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

That all occurred in a time when colonization was was widely considered a good thing.Times have changed.

Yes. So, if you fought a war prior to 1900, and you won that war, and you took over whatever islands or land, that's okay.

But, if you fight a war, or get involved in a conflict in the modern era, after 1950, well, it's not okay for you to take over whatever islands.


That's what the Hague is saying, through that UN court. Is it surprising that Beijing threw that court ruling into the bin ?

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, alanrchase said:

They are second class Americans because the are not allowed to vote.

The US Constitution only gives the right to vote to citizens resident of a US state.

Guamans are allowed to freely move to any US state as American citizens, gain residency and vote.

It's their choice where they chose to live. It's their chose whether they want to vote.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 

Hello there. I have no problems with "America fighting a war against Spain prior to 1900, winning that war, and taking over a load of islands as part of the victory prize". And indeed, Washington has still got Guam, I certainly do not protest against Guam being part of America.

I'm only trying to say, we should show consistency, and consistency means that "all winners in wars/conflicts should be allowed to take over whatever islands". So, whats so wrong if Beijing fights a war with Vietnam, and takes over all the parts of the South China Sea that are closest to Vietnam, if Beijing does actually wins ?

 

This is 2017. You wish to apply 19th century convictions as norm? Does the US claim the entire pacific with Guam as pretext?

[Trouble]

As usual, l;udicrous arguments being made here having nothing to do with the current situation.  China is basically laying claim to territories not within their territorial waters and which are claimed by other countries as well.  They have taken over a number of atolls and placed military facilities on those atolls.  They are trying to stake a claim through possession rather than coming to some kind of terms with the neighboring countries.  Seems like the US Navy is making a point of saying those islands that China created are not in any way going to interfere with international shipping.  Let's face facts, China is expanding its territory to lay claim to fishing and mineral deposits in the future.  Rather than just letting the sea remain open to all, China has a strategy to secure rights to those waters.  The US seems like the only country with the balls to say no.

 

My answer to this is for Vietnam, Philippines, etc. to all build their own facilities on islands as well.  Wouldn't it be something if Vietnam and the USA, almost 50 years after the war, created a joint venture to put a military base on one of the islands?  That would sure balance things out some.

[alanrchase]

As usual, l;udicrous arguments being made here having nothing to do with the current situation.  China is basically laying claim to territories not within their territorial waters and which are claimed by other countries as well.  They have taken over a number of atolls and placed military facilities on those atolls.  They are trying to stake a claim through possession rather than coming to some kind of terms with the neighboring countries.  Seems like the US Navy is making a point of saying those islands that China created are not in any way going to interfere with international shipping.  Let's face facts, China is expanding its territory to lay claim to fishing and mineral deposits in the future.  Rather than just letting the sea remain open to all, China has a strategy to secure rights to those waters.  The US seems like the only country with the balls to say no.
 
My answer to this is for Vietnam, Philippines, etc. to all build their own facilities on islands as well.  Wouldn't it be something if Vietnam and the USA, almost 50 years after the war, created a joint venture to put a military base on one of the islands?  That would sure balance things out some.

South China Sea? Seems they have more say than the 200+ year old US of A.
God bless the Yanks for policing the world for their own interests. About five local nations contesting ownership. As usual the most powerful can take what they want. Trump will sort it all out with a few tweets and threats. He has a pen ready to sign anything presented to him.

[SABloke]

13 hours ago, Saladin said:

Compare this Chinese claim to the offshore territories that have been appropriated by the US, most of them thousands of miles from continental America.

Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Hawaii ,and lays claim to

Palmyra Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Bajo Nuevo Bank, Navassa Island, Serranilla Bank and Wake Island.

 

I think the difference is that China claims these Islands as the outer border of its sovereign territory and so all the water from mainland China to these "islands" should be under Chinese control - I've never seen the US claiming that the ocean between the North American continent and American Samoa belongs to the US. 

[tonbridgebrit]

15 hours ago, simple1 said:

From the OP which should give you a hint...

 

"the South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes each year" 

Okay, so $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes each year. How much of that is cheap Chinese goods heading towards Britain and Europe ? How much of that is oil and other natural resources heading from the Middle East (and Africa) to China ?

You do realise, right now as we speak, none of that $5 trillion in ship-borne trade is being stopped or blocked whilst in the South China Sea ? What's the point of sailing an American warship within 12 nautical miles of whatever Chinese-built island ? None of the Chinese-built islands are stopping any trade ships. It's pointless sailing American warships within 12 nautical miles of these islands. Apart from antagonising Beijing, there is no point. How about sail the warship about 50 nautical miles from any of the Chinese-built islands ?

[Jonmarleesco]

18 hours ago, webfact said:

China's foreign ministry said the operation had violated international ... law and seriously harmed Beijing's sovereignty...

International law? Sovereignty? Not according to the many contesting claims. And Beijing's sovereignty? That's akin to referring to London's sovereignty, Paris's sovereignty, etc.

[simple1]

6 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Okay, so $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes each year. How much of that is cheap Chinese goods heading towards Britain and Europe ? How much of that is oil and other natural resources heading from the Middle East (and Africa) to China ?

You do realise, right now as we speak, none of that $5 trillion in ship-borne trade is being stopped or blocked whilst in the South China Sea ? What's the point of sailing an American warship within 12 nautical miles of whatever Chinese-built island ? None of the Chinese-built islands are stopping any trade ships. It's pointless sailing American warships within 12 nautical miles of these islands. Apart from antagonising Beijing, there is no point. How about sail the warship about 50 nautical miles from any of the Chinese-built islands ?

Guess you're unaware of the vast amount of trade via the route of global supply chain supply for countries such as US, Japan, South Korea, Australia etc with the essential strategic security issues represented.

 

I really thought you would "get it", but not even the implication of recognised convention of twelve mile territorial waters jurisdiction - never mind...

[Morch]

8 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Okay, so $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes each year. How much of that is cheap Chinese goods heading towards Britain and Europe ? How much of that is oil and other natural resources heading from the Middle East (and Africa) to China ?

You do realise, right now as we speak, none of that $5 trillion in ship-borne trade is being stopped or blocked whilst in the South China Sea ? What's the point of sailing an American warship within 12 nautical miles of whatever Chinese-built island ? None of the Chinese-built islands are stopping any trade ships. It's pointless sailing American warships within 12 nautical miles of these islands. Apart from antagonising Beijing, there is no point. How about sail the warship about 50 nautical miles from any of the Chinese-built islands ?

 

The PRC already stopped ships belonging to other nations in these waters. And that's before cementing it's hold. This was discussed on previous topics, in which you participated. Them repetitive deflections make for nothing but a tedious rehashing all established points on each new topic.

 

The point of sailing a US military vessel withing 12 nautical miles of a PRC built military base in international waters is to demonstrate that it is not recognized as PRC territory. Not rocket science, and nothing which wasn't discussed over many a topic. Funny you should bring up "antagonizing" - as if the PRC actions in the region do not antagonize others.

[tonbridgebrit]

15 hours ago, Morch said:

 

This is 2017. You wish to apply 19th century convictions as norm? Does the US claim the entire pacific with Guam as pretext?

Morch, you're basically implying that it's "okay to have fought a war prior to 1900, and to have taken whatever islands after winning that war, but it's not okay to get involved in a dispute today, and do the same thing".

Washington took Guam after winning a war, back in 1898. Washington does not claim the entire Pacific, correct. Ships with goods are allowed to sail pass Guam, but not within 12 nautical miles.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The PRC already stopped ships belonging to other nations in these waters. And that's before cementing it's hold. This was discussed on previous topics, in which you participated. Them repetitive deflections make for nothing but a tedious rehashing all established points on each new topic.

 

The point of sailing a US military vessel withing 12 nautical miles of a PRC built military base in international waters is to demonstrate that it is not recognized as PRC territory. Not rocket science, and nothing which wasn't discussed over many a topic. Funny you should bring up "antagonizing" - as if the PRC actions in the region do not antagonize others.

 

Beijing has allowed the five trillion dollars of ship-borne trade to pass through the South China Sea without a problem. Washington would already have blown up whatever Chinese ships IF they was stopping trade ships.

Having a situation where ship-borne trade moves freely is actually taking place. That's Washington's goal, and Beijing has not got a problem with this. Can you please stop trying to say, that Washington is not seeing this goal.

Edited August 12, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[tonbridgebrit]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Guess you're unaware of the vast amount of trade via the route of global supply chain supply for countries such as US, Japan, South Korea, Australia etc with the essential strategic security issues represented.

 

I really thought you would "get it", but not even the implication of recognised convention of twelve mile territorial waters jurisdiction - never mind...

You're refusing to tackle the point about how none of the five trillion dollars of ship-borne trade is being blocked by Beijing.
So Washington, by sailing a military ship within 12 nautical miles of watever Chinese-built island means that Washington is not accepting that the territory belongs to Beijing. What difference does that make ? Not one island is going to be dismantled because of military ships sailing within 12 nautical miles of it.

[Srikcir]

9 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Okay, so $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes each year. How much of that is cheap Chinese goods heading towards Britain and Europe ? How much of that is oil and other natural resources heading from the Middle East (and Africa) to China ?

You do realise, right now as we speak, none of that $5 trillion in ship-borne trade is being stopped or blocked whilst in the South China Sea ? What's the point of sailing an American warship within 12 nautical miles of whatever Chinese-built island ? None of the Chinese-built islands are stopping any trade ships. It's pointless sailing American warships within 12 nautical miles of these islands. Apart from antagonising Beijing, there is no point. How about sail the warship about 50 nautical miles from any of the Chinese-built islands ?

There being no point?

 

It's not about blocking shipping as you point out. It's diplomatically about the right of nations to freedom of navigation through international areas. Specifically, it's about the right of nations to traverse the China South Sea unimpeded by any national sovereignty. China isn't claiming sovereignty over portions of the South China Sea for the sake of national pride or conquest.

 

It's about potential trillions of dollars of mineral wealth, and in particularly the energy resources, believed to be in the China South Sea that China holds key to its own economic growth. Resources that CHina does not want to share fairly.

 

To that end China wants unlimited access to where and when it chooses that can only come by claiming unilateral sovereignty over the China South Sea irrespective of any other bordering nation's claims. China backs such sovereignty by its unilateral occupation and development of CSS atolls as representatives of its sovereign lands and attempted control of all air and sea crossings by other nations. Such control isn't limited to areas immediate to its developed atolls but over broad expanses of the sea far from its developed atolls.

 

Thus, the US and other nations who overfly and sail the China South Sea and specifically in areas of Chinese illegal occupation (according to the International Court) without requesting Chinese permission are in effect refuting China's claim of unilateral sovereignty over the CSS. Nations such as the US use the diplomatic excuse of Freedom of Navigation but the reason is much more a challenge to China's claim of sovereignty over CSS resources.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremymaxie/2016/04/25/the-south-china-sea-dispute-isnt-about-oil-at-least-not-how-you-think/#435655ab5c69

That is the point.

 

 

[simple1]

9 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

You're refusing to tackle the point about how none of the five trillion dollars of ship-borne trade is being blocked by Beijing.
So Washington, by sailing a military ship within 12 nautical miles of watever Chinese-built island means that Washington is not accepting that the territory belongs to Beijing. What difference does that make ? Not one island is going to be dismantled because of military ships sailing within 12 nautical miles of it.

I'm talking to strategic risk - you're talking to appeasement. However, for me this topic conversation with you warrants no further reply

Edited August 12, 2017 by simple1

[tomwct]

Thank God we (Americans) finally have strong leadership in the White House, other than the weak Academics we have had in office over the last eight years. The American people have spoken and we do not need Progressive Socialism telling us they know better than we do on how we should live. They wanted to keep us in cages like a hamster going round in round with no escape from the cage. No more cages and we are looking forward to the election in 2018 and beyond. President Trump is going no where and hopefully continues to Drain the Swamp. Making America Strong (& Great) Again.

[simple1]

2 minutes ago, tomwct said:

Thank God we (Americans) finally have strong leadership in the White House, other than the weak Academics we have had in office over the last eight years. The American people have spoken and we do not need Progressive Socialism telling us they know better than we do on how we should live. They wanted to keep us in cages like a hamster going round in round with no escape from the cage. No more cages and we are looking forward to the election in 2018 and beyond. President Trump is going no where and hopefully continues to Drain the Swamp. Making America Strong (& Great) Again.

Yeah like Trump was the one to order the modernisation of the US nuclear arsenal and rights of navigation in the South China Sea - Zzzzzz

Edited August 12, 2017 by simple1

[alanrchase]

Thank God we (Americans) finally have strong leadership in the White House, other than the weak Academics we have had in office over the last eight years. The American people have spoken and we do not need Progressive Socialism telling us they know better than we do on how we should live. They wanted to keep us in cages like a hamster going round in round with no escape from the cage. No more cages and we are looking forward to the election in 2018 and beyond. President Trump is going no where and hopefully continues to Drain the Swamp. Making America Strong (& Great) Again.

You forgot the "God bless President Trump". Shame on you.