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

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

What I'm saying is that you wish to uphold ideas which were the norm a long time ago, simply because it supports the PRC's goals. The way the world works is that such norms change. This is sometimes, but not always, coupled with actions aimed at undoing certain circumstances. As far as I'm aware the US does not routinely block maritime commercial traffic as you alleged.

 

The PRC did not  "allow" anything. It is nor recognized that it possess the right to grant or withhold free passage in them waters. What the US would or would not have done isn't determined by your words. On previous topics, you have already admitted that ships were stopped - why go through all them denials again?

 

What the PRC does now is one thing. And that's while trying to establish it's claim. There's no reason to believe that if the PRC does solidify its claim, it will act in a more assertive, and aggressive, manner. Can you please stop putting words in my mouth?

[tonbridgebrit]

10 hours ago, SABloke said:

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. 

Yes, America is not claiming that the ocean between America and American Samoa belongs to America. What about China ? Is Beijing claiming that the water from China to these 'islands' should be under Chinese control ?

Both America and China are not interested in blocking trade ships sailing pass Guam and the Chinese islands. Beijing might be claiming ownership of the water, but Beijing is not stopping any trade ships.

And if they ever discover oil near Guam, yes, the oil belongs to America. Beijing has no problems with that.

[tonbridgebrit]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What I'm saying is that you wish to uphold ideas which were the norm a long time ago, simply because it supports the PRC's goals. The way the world works is that such norms change. This is sometimes, but not always, coupled with actions aimed at undoing certain circumstances. As far as I'm aware the US does not routinely block maritime commercial traffic as you alleged.

 

The PRC did not  "allow" anything. It is nor recognized that it possess the right to grant or withhold free passage in them waters. What the US would or would not have done isn't determined by your words. On previous topics, you have already admitted that ships were stopped - why go through all them denials again?

 

What the PRC does now is one thing. And that's while trying to establish it's claim. There's no reason to believe that if the PRC does solidify its claim, it will act in a more assertive, and aggressive, manner. Can you please stop putting words in my mouth?

I'm certainly not claiming that the US has blocked trade ships. I'm claiming that Beijing has not stopped any trade ships.

I'm saying that Washington wants to see all trade ships being allowed to sail freely across the South China Sea. And indeed, Washington is actually seeing this. If Washington was not seeing this, Washington would be taking serious action. And Beijing has no problems with the present situation of trade ships passing freely. Both Washington and Beijing are okay with the issue of trade ships passing freely right now. Trade ships passing freely across and through the South China Sea.

The problem we've got, is, is that Washington wants to sail military ships within 12 nautical miles of the Chinese-built islands. Beijing does not want this. That's the dispute.

Edited August 12, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[tomwct]

18 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

 

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

 

And God Bless our President Trump!

[Morch]

Just now, tonbridgebrit said:

I'm certainly not claiming that the US has blocked trade ships. I'm claiming that Beijing has not stopped any trade ships.

I'm saying that Washington wants to see all trade ships being allowed to sail freely across the South China Sea. And indeed, Washington is actually seeing this. If Washington was not seeing this, Washington would be taking serious action. And Beijing has no problems with the present situation of trade ships passing freely. Both Washington and Beijing are okay with the issue of trade ships right now.

The problem we've got, is, is that Washington wants to sail military ships within 12 nautcal miles of the Chinese-built islands. Beijing does not want this. That's the dispute.

 

May want to revisit your previous post - "Ships with goods are allowed to sail pass Guam, but not within 12 nautical miles.".

 

The US policy relating to this is not solely fixated on a single issue. Similarly, the attempts to "prove" the point by claiming that it must be so, because the US does this or that, are bogus. US policy and actions take a whole lot of other factors into consideration. Making them usual simplistic assertions notwithstanding.

 

No one but the PRC recognizes the 12 nautical miles zone off them PRC'-built military bases as legitimate.

[tonbridgebrit]

55 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

May want to revisit your previous post - "Ships with goods are allowed to sail pass Guam, but not within 12 nautical miles.".

 

The US policy relating to this is not solely fixated on a single issue. Similarly, the attempts to "prove" the point by claiming that it must be so, because the US does this or that, are bogus. US policy and actions take a whole lot of other factors into consideration. Making them usual simplistic assertions notwithstanding.

 

No one but the PRC recognizes the 12 nautical miles zone off them PRC'-built military bases as legitimate.

Morch, stop being ridiculous. Washington does not allow military ships (from countries like China, Russia, Iran, etc) to sail within 12 nautical miles of Guam. And Washington is perfectly entitled to do this. Guam, after all, belongs to Washington. That's because Washington beat Spain in a war and took over Guam, back in 1898. If North Korea was to send a miltary ship to within 12 nautical miles of Guam, Washington will probably attack it, nobody has a problem with Washington doing this.

Beijing has not attacked Washington's ships on these 'freedom of navigation' exercises. Note that Washington has done this three times (as in, sail a military ship within 12 nautical miles of whatever Chinese-built island, three times) since Donald Trump got elected. Beijing has simply got annoyed and antagonised by this.

Edited August 12, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[Morch]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, stop being ridiculous. Washington does not allow military ships (from countries like China, Russia, Iran, etc) to sail within 12 nautical miles of Guam. And Washington is perfectly entitled to do this. Guam, after all, belongs to Washington. That's because Washington beat Spain in a war and took over Guam, back in 1898. If North Korea was to send a miltary ship to within 12 nautical miles of Guam, Washington will probably attack it, nobody has a problem with Washington doing this.

Beijing has not attacked Washington's ships on these 'freedom of navigation' exercises. Note that Washington has done this three times (as in, sail a military ship within 12 nautical miles of whatever Chinese-built island, three times) since Donald Trump got elected. Beijing has simply got annoyed and antagonised by this.

 

Tony, stop trolling.

I was quoting your post, which said - "Ships with goods are allowed to sail pass Guam, but not within 12 nautical miles". Would you mind not putting words in my mouth, again? US presence in Guam is not contested, the PRC's new South China Sea bases are. Not quite the same situation. Whether the PRC is antagonized or antagonizing, can be debated - obviously, you'll insist on seeing it from one angle only.

 

As explained on previous topics, under the current US administration, there was a change as to how operations in the South China Sea are authorized. This will probably result in more frequent instances of US ships sailing within international waters claimed by the PRC.

 

[masuk]

On 8/11/2017 at 1:27 PM, 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.  

They might be American citizens, but they still cannot vote.

[tonbridgebrit]

"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. "

Actually, the United Nations did not exist prior to 1945. So, of all the islands in the Pacific that America has got, how many of them did America take prior to 1945 ? 

Let's be real here, nations fight wars or get involved in disputes, and the winner takes the land or island. America took Guam after beating Spain in a war, back in 1898.

Edited August 13, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[Scott]

Get back on topic or face a suspension.   The topic is about China and the US in the South China Sea, not about Guam, America Samoa or the Spanish American war.  

[RobFord]

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 ?

This is but a small example of what it is all about and it is going to happen with much more frequency in the future.

"According to the industry source, Repsol executives were told last week by the government in Hanoi that China had threatened to attack Vietnamese bases in the Spratly Islands if the drilling did not stop."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40701121


And the best part is this.

"Two of the directors of Brightoil are senior members of the Chinese Communist Party."


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40493277


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, RobFord said:

 

This is but a small example of what it is all about and it is going to happen with much more frequency in the future.

"According to the industry source, Repsol executives were told last week by the government in Hanoi that China had threatened to attack Vietnamese bases in the Spratly Islands if the drilling did not stop."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40701121


And the best part is this.

"Two of the directors of Brightoil are senior members of the Chinese Communist Party."


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40493277


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Hello there.

Yes, the issue of drilling for oil in the South China Sea. It might be a big issue. Now, Vietnam (and Vietnam only) is allowed to drill for oil in parts of the South China Sea that belong to Vietnam. And, China (and China only) is allowed to drill for oil in parts of the South China Sea that belong to China. Hence, we see a dispute as to who is allowed to set up oil rigs in whatever part of the South China Sea. After all, both Vietnam and China claim the same areas.

Now then, very important this, Washington is not involved in who owns what bits of the South China Sea. As in, Washington has never said "look, this island/shoal in the South China Sea belongs to Vietnam, because it's closer to Vietnam". And Washington has never said "and that lump of rock over there, it belongs to the Philippines, because it's closer to the Philippines". And Washington has never said "and that bit belongs to Malaysia, because Malaysia did claim it at some point in time".  So, Washington is neutral on the issue of who owns what. Washington is not involved in who is allowed, and who is not allowed, to put up whatever oil rig in whatever part of the South China Sea.

And so, Washington sailing a warship within 12 nautical miles of any Chinese-built island is not connected to "does Vietnam, or does China, own this bit here".  Washington is only interested in "five trillion dollars of ship-borne trade passes through the South China Sea per year, we want that trade to pass freely, without being stopped or blocked".  Washington does not want Beijing blocking, or partially blocking, the ship-borne trade. And indeed, Washington can see that, there is no partial blockage.

So, sailing a warship to whatever Chinese-built island is not to do with "should that Chinese oil rig be there or not".


And yes, a basic question. Why is Washington refusing to say "look, that part of the South China Sea is closer to Vietnam than China, well, why on earth is China claiming owneship ?".  Washington has a few good reasons as to why it will not say/declare this. Washington will look ridiculous if it was to say "that bit belongs to Vietnam, because it's closer to Vietnam".

Edited August 14, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[Srikcir]

47 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

So, sailing a warship to whatever Chinese-built island is not to do with "should that Chinese oil rig be there or not".

It does. Chinese oil rigs and Chinese developed atolls are part of the whole Chinese sovereignty claim. One which the US disputes as well as its Asian-Pacific partners (allies & "associates") and the International Court.

 

The US itself makes no legitimate claim of sovereignty in the China South Sea. Nor does it claim so other than freedom of navigation in international waters and airspace.

 

But it is in the US political interest that it support nations that are either allies or potential sympathetic powers (Japan, Philippines, Vietnam) who are intimidated individually by Chinese projection of military power to limit or neutralize Chinese imperialism reminiscent of the WW2 Japanese empire. Thus, the US seeks to empower unity of smaller nations to negotiate as equals with China on equal basis for division of the CCS resources with an agreed code of conduct in traversing its waters and airspace.

[Dave67]

On 14/08/2017 at 8:34 AM, RobFord said:

 

This is but a small example of what it is all about and it is going to happen with much more frequency in the future.

"According to the industry source, Repsol executives were told last week by the government in Hanoi that China had threatened to attack Vietnamese bases in the Spratly Islands if the drilling did not stop."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40701121


And the best part is this.

"Two of the directors of Brightoil are senior members of the Chinese Communist Party."


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40493277


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

No one in China gets a decent job without being a member of the Communist party its like The Freemasons on steroids