6 ms·

The drone was operating in international waters. And despite the name, only a small part of the South China Sea is in China's Exclusive Economic Zone. Much of

by JamilD 10y ago

The drone was operating in international waters. And despite the name, only a small part of the South China Sea is in China's Exclusive Economic Zone. Much of the sea is closer to other countries (like the Philippines and Vietnam), but China lays unilateral claim to many of the uninhabited islands. edit: A map, for reference: http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/5464160/data/south-china-sea-map-slide-5-data.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/5464160/data/south-china-sea-map...

jwtadvice 10y ago
This is one interpretation of a widely disputed issue. Many people like to underwrite this opinion with the Hague Tribunal findings, but unfortunately UNCLOS itself (article 299) states that it has no authority to decide territorial cases. In any case, the claims to the islands in the South China Sea are hardly unilateral, as the United States recognized many of them including the Paracels and Scarborough during the Potsdam Declaration, Cairo Declaration, San Fransisco Treaty and others (at the time motivated to punish the imperial Japanese at the end of WWII). Hell the Cairo Declaration even declared Manchuria and Taiwan as owned by China. It's funny what the American media bubble does to history.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  For the person/persons downvoting this, can you explain how it does not contribute to the conversation? I'm being very factual and on topic. If you'd like, we can go over the text of UNCLOS, Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and SF Treaty.
  - elefanten 10y ago
    Could you actually elaborate a bit more about how any of those pertain to the Spratly Islands or waters 100 miles off the coast of the Phillipines? I'm genuinely asking, because my light familiarity with those documents is not sparking a connection.
    - jwtadvice 10y ago
      Sure. During WWII the Japanese occupied Pacific Islands including the Paracels and Spratlys. At the time it came to resolve the war, Japan was forced to remove itself from various occupied areas including but not limited to Korea, China, and Pacific Islands. For instance in the Cairo Declaration it was stated that: "Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent." Note that here the United States, Britain and China together recognized Manchuria, Taiwan and the islands off of Taiwan as Chinese. Japan would need to extricate itself from Korea. The Qing Dynasty, before the war, had explored and occupied the Paracels and the Spratlys - to a minimal degree, since it had never become a great naval power. Indeed, there are a number of instances of Vietnam and China 'trading' the Paracels back and forth to protect their ownership during the occupation of French Indochina. These islands had also been occupied by imperial Japan (such islands are useful in naval warfare), who was forced to remove itself. The Potsdam Declaration reads "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." These islands were very limited indeed, did not include the Paracels/Spratlys and it should be noted that they do not include the Kurils (something today that the Americans would like to revise history on). Similarly, section (f) of article 2 of the Potsdam Treaty reads of Japan: "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands." What we have is a situation where the Philippines never had administration or territorial claims to these islands and where the Qing Dynasty had. In the post-war period, China was not only weak, but could not spend much patrolling the South China Sea - and focused primarily on it's Western Front during the Cold War. Today, China is trying to build infrastructure, shipping routes and naval security in this area. This is important to China because of its historical vulnerability to naval embargo, through the Strait of Malacca and elsewhere. The United States had hoped, because of weak territorial enforcement during the postwar period, to make an issue over the ownership of the islands and waters as part of a geopolitical effort to limit the expansion of Chinese influence in an area historically militarily dominated by US projection (it's own National Security concerns pertaining to its continued naval access to potential adversaries and compeditors). The bulwark of that effort was an attempt to build an Asian consensus, centered around the Philippines (an important US ally and prior colony). However, the effort failed, with states in Asia fracturing in opinion and not willing to commit themselves to a United States led effort to persist its power projection in that way. This is still evolving of course, but the future looks rather dim with the Philippines (the keystone of the project) backing away.
- EliRivers 10y ago
  It seems that the Vietnamese media bubble does the same, then. As does the Philippine media bubble, the Malay media bubble, the Brunei media bubble, and everyone else in the region who has just watched China annex the ocean off their shore.
  - jwtadvice 10y ago
    This is a mischaracterization of the Vietnamese press, Malay press, Philippine press, etc. I've seen plenty of articles criticizing the Philippine and US behavior in the South China Sea from these countries, and indeed the Philippines has for the most part stopped pressing their claim. Mostly, Japan and the United States don't want it to happen. You'll see their bubble selectively translate and report on Thai, Vietnamese, etc press. I'm sorry you seem to be under the impression there's such a uniform voice. The United States had hoped to build a uniform front and accusation against China, with the Philippines at the center. That effort failed. And it's getting to be nearly a year. In any case, you seem to take exception with the 'bubble accusation'. We can talk about that, if you like, but I would be interested in talking about the various declarations and treaties at the end of WWII.
    - EliRivers 10y ago
      I'm sorry you seem to be under the impression there's such a uniform voice. I think you're lying. I don't think you're sorry. I think this is childish, passive-aggressive bullshit from someone who knows how to act like an adult but somehow can't resist acting like a child. Here's how a grown man states what you were trying to say; "There's not such a uniform voice as you think across the different nations you mentioned." For God's sake, grow up. You seem to have some actual facts to present, but a childish tone undermines everything.
      - jwtadvice 10y ago
        Here is a source, dated in the May of this year, in which policy wonks (Julian Ku, Fravel, Malcohm Cook) discuss the situation in the South China Sea and United States Freedom of Navigation Operations ("FONOPs"). http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/16/freedom-of-navigation-operations-in-the-south-china-sea-arent-enough-unclos-fonop-philippines-tribunal/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/16/freedom-of-navigation-op... This isn't an outlier in reporting on the situation in the South China Sea: reporting - and the diplomacy - emphasizes the need for the United States to find allies and to build a consensus of Asian countries. The response from those would-be-allied Asian countries, the policy wonks discuss, has been ambivilent at best. They link to an article in which the Indonesian government criticizes the US for power projection and calls on the US and China to 'restrain themselves'. The Indonesian response in this regard was not an outlier. Much of the advice to US diplomats was that the FONOPs needed to be changed because the aggressive nature of the military projection undercut the narrative that China was the bully. Advice on changing the operations included doing them silently without much public coverage, or trying to build a coalition so that the US wouldn't 'sail alone'. (The US was unable to build such a coalition.) There's a lot to say in this regard. I think your comment(s) are highly constructive, I take seriously what you say, and have been upvoting them.
- lacampbell 10y ago
  It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. And Formosa and the Pescadores are today governed by the by the Republic of China, at least.
elefanten 10y ago
And this incident in particular happened 100 miles off the western coast of the Philippines, where the US has a sanctioned naval base. That's far closer to the Phillipines than anywhere else, even the disputed Spratly Islands.
eternalban 10y ago
The power calculus isn't all that different from the one that requires American dominance at sea, worldwide. In both cases, a power (one global, one local) is asserting control over strategic assets and ultimately arguing that the arrangement promotes stability and is better in the long run for the little fishies involved.
nullnilvoid 10y ago
The drones were clearly, undisputedly trying to spy on China. That is a blatantly provocative move. If Russia sends drones near the coast of new york city in the international waters, do you think the US will open arms and welcome them?
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  The Chinese and Russians have spy satellites that pass over the United States. Does that justify the United States destroying, de-orbiting, or otherwise taking them?
- woofyman 10y ago
  Russian and Chinese spy ships do this. http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/10/19/edison-publicly-tortured-animals-to-discredit-ac-power/ http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/10/19/edison-publicly-tortured... https://news.usni.org/2014/07/18/china-sends-uninvited-spy-ship-rimpac https://news.usni.org/2014/07/18/china-sends-uninvited-spy-s...
- bduerst 10y ago
  Yes. Russia and the U.S. are members of the Open Skies treaty, meaning we already allow unarmed observation over each other's land as part of building confidence with each other.
- EliRivers 10y ago
  clearly, undisputedly trying to spy on China Get a map. Look at where the drone was taken. See how far away from China it was.
Altay- 10y ago
Who says its 'international waters'? The Western created UN shackle? Fact is America is operating thousands of miles away from its territory. The only reason to do that is hostility and Imperialism.
- Brockenstein 10y ago
  China is on the UN and one of the permanent members of the security council... If China doesn't want to play by the rules everyone else has agreed to, they can go become a bigger version of North Korea.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Agreed, why is the U.S. standing in the way of righteous Chinese Navy sailors from claiming their birthright territorial waters of the Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, and Chinese Taipei (Taiwan is a fiction spun by pig-dog imperialist American spies).

by JamilD 10y ago

jwtadvice 10y ago

This is one interpretation of a widely disputed issue. Many people like to underwrite this opinion with the Hague Tribunal findings, but unfortunately UNCLOS itself (article 299) states that it has no authority to decide territorial cases. In any case, the claims to the islands in the South China Sea are hardly unilateral, as the United States recognized many of them including the Paracels and Scarborough during the Potsdam Declaration, Cairo Declaration, San Fransisco Treaty and others (at the time motivated to punish the imperial Japanese at the end of WWII). Hell the Cairo Declaration even declared Manchuria and Taiwan as owned by China. It's funny what the American media bubble does to history.

jwtadvice 10y ago
For the person/persons downvoting this, can you explain how it does not contribute to the conversation? I'm being very factual and on topic. If you'd like, we can go over the text of UNCLOS, Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and SF Treaty.
- elefanten 10y ago
  Could you actually elaborate a bit more about how any of those pertain to the Spratly Islands or waters 100 miles off the coast of the Phillipines? I'm genuinely asking, because my light familiarity with those documents is not sparking a connection.
  - jwtadvice 10y ago
    Sure. During WWII the Japanese occupied Pacific Islands including the Paracels and Spratlys. At the time it came to resolve the war, Japan was forced to remove itself from various occupied areas including but not limited to Korea, China, and Pacific Islands. For instance in the Cairo Declaration it was stated that: "Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent." Note that here the United States, Britain and China together recognized Manchuria, Taiwan and the islands off of Taiwan as Chinese. Japan would need to extricate itself from Korea. The Qing Dynasty, before the war, had explored and occupied the Paracels and the Spratlys - to a minimal degree, since it had never become a great naval power. Indeed, there are a number of instances of Vietnam and China 'trading' the Paracels back and forth to protect their ownership during the occupation of French Indochina. These islands had also been occupied by imperial Japan (such islands are useful in naval warfare), who was forced to remove itself. The Potsdam Declaration reads "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." These islands were very limited indeed, did not include the Paracels/Spratlys and it should be noted that they do not include the Kurils (something today that the Americans would like to revise history on). Similarly, section (f) of article 2 of the Potsdam Treaty reads of Japan: "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands." What we have is a situation where the Philippines never had administration or territorial claims to these islands and where the Qing Dynasty had. In the post-war period, China was not only weak, but could not spend much patrolling the South China Sea - and focused primarily on it's Western Front during the Cold War. Today, China is trying to build infrastructure, shipping routes and naval security in this area. This is important to China because of its historical vulnerability to naval embargo, through the Strait of Malacca and elsewhere. The United States had hoped, because of weak territorial enforcement during the postwar period, to make an issue over the ownership of the islands and waters as part of a geopolitical effort to limit the expansion of Chinese influence in an area historically militarily dominated by US projection (it's own National Security concerns pertaining to its continued naval access to potential adversaries and compeditors). The bulwark of that effort was an attempt to build an Asian consensus, centered around the Philippines (an important US ally and prior colony). However, the effort failed, with states in Asia fracturing in opinion and not willing to commit themselves to a United States led effort to persist its power projection in that way. This is still evolving of course, but the future looks rather dim with the Philippines (the keystone of the project) backing away.
EliRivers 10y ago
It seems that the Vietnamese media bubble does the same, then. As does the Philippine media bubble, the Malay media bubble, the Brunei media bubble, and everyone else in the region who has just watched China annex the ocean off their shore.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  This is a mischaracterization of the Vietnamese press, Malay press, Philippine press, etc. I've seen plenty of articles criticizing the Philippine and US behavior in the South China Sea from these countries, and indeed the Philippines has for the most part stopped pressing their claim. Mostly, Japan and the United States don't want it to happen. You'll see their bubble selectively translate and report on Thai, Vietnamese, etc press. I'm sorry you seem to be under the impression there's such a uniform voice. The United States had hoped to build a uniform front and accusation against China, with the Philippines at the center. That effort failed. And it's getting to be nearly a year. In any case, you seem to take exception with the 'bubble accusation'. We can talk about that, if you like, but I would be interested in talking about the various declarations and treaties at the end of WWII.
  - EliRivers 10y ago
    I'm sorry you seem to be under the impression there's such a uniform voice. I think you're lying. I don't think you're sorry. I think this is childish, passive-aggressive bullshit from someone who knows how to act like an adult but somehow can't resist acting like a child. Here's how a grown man states what you were trying to say; "There's not such a uniform voice as you think across the different nations you mentioned." For God's sake, grow up. You seem to have some actual facts to present, but a childish tone undermines everything.
    - jwtadvice 10y ago
      Here is a source, dated in the May of this year, in which policy wonks (Julian Ku, Fravel, Malcohm Cook) discuss the situation in the South China Sea and United States Freedom of Navigation Operations ("FONOPs"). http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/16/freedom-of-navigation-operations-in-the-south-china-sea-arent-enough-unclos-fonop-philippines-tribunal/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/16/freedom-of-navigation-op... This isn't an outlier in reporting on the situation in the South China Sea: reporting - and the diplomacy - emphasizes the need for the United States to find allies and to build a consensus of Asian countries. The response from those would-be-allied Asian countries, the policy wonks discuss, has been ambivilent at best. They link to an article in which the Indonesian government criticizes the US for power projection and calls on the US and China to 'restrain themselves'. The Indonesian response in this regard was not an outlier. Much of the advice to US diplomats was that the FONOPs needed to be changed because the aggressive nature of the military projection undercut the narrative that China was the bully. Advice on changing the operations included doing them silently without much public coverage, or trying to build a coalition so that the US wouldn't 'sail alone'. (The US was unable to build such a coalition.) There's a lot to say in this regard. I think your comment(s) are highly constructive, I take seriously what you say, and have been upvoting them.
lacampbell 10y ago
It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. And Formosa and the Pescadores are today governed by the by the Republic of China, at least.

elefanten 10y ago

And this incident in particular happened 100 miles off the western coast of the Philippines, where the US has a sanctioned naval base. That's far closer to the Phillipines than anywhere else, even the disputed Spratly Islands.

eternalban 10y ago

The power calculus isn't all that different from the one that requires American dominance at sea, worldwide. In both cases, a power (one global, one local) is asserting control over strategic assets and ultimately arguing that the arrangement promotes stability and is better in the long run for the little fishies involved.

nullnilvoid 10y ago

The drones were clearly, undisputedly trying to spy on China. That is a blatantly provocative move. If Russia sends drones near the coast of new york city in the international waters, do you think the US will open arms and welcome them?

MrZongle2 10y ago
The Chinese and Russians have spy satellites that pass over the United States. Does that justify the United States destroying, de-orbiting, or otherwise taking them?
woofyman 10y ago
Russian and Chinese spy ships do this. http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/10/19/edison-publicly-tortured-animals-to-discredit-ac-power/ http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/10/19/edison-publicly-tortured... https://news.usni.org/2014/07/18/china-sends-uninvited-spy-ship-rimpac https://news.usni.org/2014/07/18/china-sends-uninvited-spy-s...
bduerst 10y ago
Yes. Russia and the U.S. are members of the Open Skies treaty, meaning we already allow unarmed observation over each other's land as part of building confidence with each other.
EliRivers 10y ago
clearly, undisputedly trying to spy on China Get a map. Look at where the drone was taken. See how far away from China it was.

Altay- 10y ago

Who says its 'international waters'? The Western created UN shackle? Fact is America is operating thousands of miles away from its territory. The only reason to do that is hostility and Imperialism.

Brockenstein 10y ago
China is on the UN and one of the permanent members of the security council... If China doesn't want to play by the rules everyone else has agreed to, they can go become a bigger version of North Korea.
linkregister 10y ago
Agreed, why is the U.S. standing in the way of righteous Chinese Navy sailors from claiming their birthright territorial waters of the Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, and Chinese Taipei (Taiwan is a fiction spun by pig-dog imperialist American spies).