Posted on Apr 26, 2016
1
1
0
So it isn't ONLY the Chinese who are claiming "ownership" (actually "control") over parts of the oceans that the US government doesn't agree with.
Hmmm? I wonder if the US government is claiming "ownership" (actually "control") over parts of the oceans that OTHER governments don't agree with? I seem to recall something about a "North-West Passage" and "Arctic Mineral Rights" being bounced around a while ago.
Hmmm? I wonder if the US government is claiming "ownership" (actually "control") over parts of the oceans that OTHER governments don't agree with? I seem to recall something about a "North-West Passage" and "Arctic Mineral Rights" being bounced around a while ago.
U.S. challenged China, 12 others on navigation rights last year
Posted from reuters.com
Politics
Law
Geopolitics / International Relations
China
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
Here's the map you have to study. International trade, trillions of dollars worth, travels these sea lanes every year. Control these and you can make a fortune. Give away Gitmo and Cuba can set up a toll both on the lanes passing through the Panama Canal. Allow China to control the South China Sea and they'll be the ones collecting tolls there. The distinction between International Waters and territorial waters is almost a joke these days. It used to be set by the distance a muzzle-loading canon could fire. Any ship that sailed closer was a threat to a nation. Now we can stand off and fire across oceans. What now is International waters by that measure? And we haven't even begun to consider mineral and other valuable resource rights. Nothing is beyond the reach of modern mining technology, not even the abysmal depths of the deepest ocean...
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
COL Ted Mc - Right you are. But that was then and this is now. You're referring to a time when the empires were attempting to protect their own commerce, transporting goods between themselves and their colonies. The U.S. came into being and rose to prominence on international trade and the whole world has benefited from our insistence on freedom of navigation. I believe that China's actions these days have more to do with mining than navigation. Their territory is severely depleted having supported a vast population over a long period of time. Personally, I see no problem with them mining the abysmal depths so long as they do it in a manner that does not encroach on navigation in those seaways.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Jack Durish - Captain; If you honestly believe that the US was the first nation to "insist on freedom of navigation" or that the US was "insisting on freedom of navigation out of a desire to benefit anyone other than the US" I can sell you passage on the NCC-1701 (which I have just finished converting to a commercial passenger liner) for a very modest sum.
So far there has been absolutely NO evidence that the actions of the PRC (or the PLAN) have "interfered with freedom of navigation" any more than the activities of the US government in establishing the bona fides of vessels within the US "Exclusive Economic Zone" have or the Australian government's actions in Australia's Marine Identification Zone have.
So far there has been absolutely NO evidence that the actions of the PRC (or the PLAN) have "interfered with freedom of navigation" any more than the activities of the US government in establishing the bona fides of vessels within the US "Exclusive Economic Zone" have or the Australian government's actions in Australia's Marine Identification Zone have.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
COL Ted Mc - This is turning into a theme with you today: Taking pot shots without aiming. Are you following my posts just so you can make a fool of yourself. Nowhere have I ever commented that "the US was the first nation to 'insist on freedom of natigation'..." You just love to make the strawman argument. Why not go off into a corner and argue with yourself. I'm sure there are some who will follow to be entertained. I won't...
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Jack Durish - Captain; I really do try to get through all of the dozens of message notifications which I get daily (sometimes I run a couple of days late), so I'm NOT following you around - I just get notifications when you address a comment to me.
Your position was "The U.S. came into being and rose to prominence on international trade and the whole world has benefited from our insistence on freedom of navigation." in opposition to everyone else's "empires were attempting to protect their own commerce, transporting goods between themselves and their colonies". If you can't see how "empires were attempting to protect their own commerce, transporting goods between themselves and their colonies" easily translates into "were NOT in favor of freedom of navigation" while " the whole world has benefited from our insistence on freedom of navigation" easily translates into "WERE - unlike everyone else - in favor of freedom of navigation" then you aren't reading your own posts closely enough.
Your position was "The U.S. came into being and rose to prominence on international trade and the whole world has benefited from our insistence on freedom of navigation." in opposition to everyone else's "empires were attempting to protect their own commerce, transporting goods between themselves and their colonies". If you can't see how "empires were attempting to protect their own commerce, transporting goods between themselves and their colonies" easily translates into "were NOT in favor of freedom of navigation" while " the whole world has benefited from our insistence on freedom of navigation" easily translates into "WERE - unlike everyone else - in favor of freedom of navigation" then you aren't reading your own posts closely enough.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Every Country claims 250 miles out but the recognized standard by the UN is 13 miles and an economic zone 250 miles out. So you have 3 countries claiming the Fishing and Development Rights to the South China Sea, China, Vietnam and the Philippines. Philippines used to be a US Territory and is an Ally so of course we support their claim. China has built their own island to lend extra credence to their claim.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel - PO; [inventing some numbers here] If you have two countries that are 200 miles apart at one point and each is claiming an "Exclusive Economic Zone" of 250 Nmi the "usual drill" is that each of them gets 100 Nmi at that point.
It would be HIGHLY unusual for one of the two countries to get the entire 250 Nmi and the other to get zip. For one thing that would mean that the country that got the whole 250Nmi would have an "Exclusive Economic Zone" that extended 50Nmi PAST the coastline of the country that didn't get anything.
What everyone appears to be overlooking is that the PRC is NOT taking any steps to DENY "freedom of navigation" in the areas that it is claiming are within its "Exclusive Economic Zone" and is NOT claiming that area as "Territorial Waters".
I'll skip over the "inconvenient truth" that the US also claims a 250 Nmi "Exclusive Economic Zone" and also has an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) that, in all respects has the same characteristics as the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) claimed by the PRC (and claims that any "intrusion" into the US ADIZ is "aggressive" while any USAF/USN activity by the US inside the PRC's ADIZ is "normal operations" since I don't want to be responsible for any exploding brains today.
It would be HIGHLY unusual for one of the two countries to get the entire 250 Nmi and the other to get zip. For one thing that would mean that the country that got the whole 250Nmi would have an "Exclusive Economic Zone" that extended 50Nmi PAST the coastline of the country that didn't get anything.
What everyone appears to be overlooking is that the PRC is NOT taking any steps to DENY "freedom of navigation" in the areas that it is claiming are within its "Exclusive Economic Zone" and is NOT claiming that area as "Territorial Waters".
I'll skip over the "inconvenient truth" that the US also claims a 250 Nmi "Exclusive Economic Zone" and also has an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) that, in all respects has the same characteristics as the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) claimed by the PRC (and claims that any "intrusion" into the US ADIZ is "aggressive" while any USAF/USN activity by the US inside the PRC's ADIZ is "normal operations" since I don't want to be responsible for any exploding brains today.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google