PLAN South Sea Fleet Projecting Power and Showing the Flag

FYI, every year, the JASDF announces the number of JASDF scrambles in the past year, and against aircraft of what nationalities. I used to be a wee bit puzzled when these intercepts included Taiwanese aircraft, as the ROC military aircraft are usually professional, admire/respect the JASDF/JMSDF aircraft (as they share the Chicom as their mutual opponent), and probably wouldn’t intentionally intrude Jap ADIZ to test JASDF/JMSDF alert reaction time.

Don,

The ADIZ issue is unnecessarily confusing and utterly unrelated to the EEZ issue.

Japans ADIZ is unilaterally claimed and has no basis in any international legal framework – a quick scan of a few blogs seems to indicate that the ADIZ is challenged frequently as well. Japans EEZ conforms to established convention and has the same restriction on the rights it enjoys in that zone as any other nation has in theirs.

The two zones could not be more different in nature.

http://ku0811.hp.infoseek.co.jp/200kairi.jpg

For reference, the pink areas are 200 NM areas that Japan can claim.

Also, last week, Yahoo! Taiwan News has an article
http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/090309/78/1fpi8.html
about the Yonaguni Island (of Okinawa Prefecture, Japan), only 110 klicks east of Taiwan, where the Jap and Taiwanese ADIZs overlap.

Yonaguni Island is only three minutes flight by a ROCAF F-16 scrambled from Hua Lian AB, Taiwan. When the F-16 patrols along the Taiwanese ADIZ, and minds it own business, the JASDF would suddenly contact it and warn it to get out of town.

OTOH, in the F-16 flight simulator back at the ROCAF AB, the virtual reality programmed into the flight simulator includes all the Okinawa Islands.

] provided they were not actually involved in direct combat operations, have full legal rights to transit.

IIRC, the PLAN warships sailed through the international channel in the Tsugaru Strait, en route to a joint exercise with the Russian Navy, and JMSDF P-3s tracked them.
BTW, local radio news just reported the Chicom coast guard is sending a ship to the islands that Philippines passed a law last week, and claimed as Filipino.

What is wrong with the JMSDF Orions tracking the Chinese vessels?. Same as if the Chinese vessels chose to have an ESM watch set and were closely recording bathymetric data and, perhaps, doing a little basic route survey work while they happened to be so close to Japanese waters. As long as the Chinese vessels had not committed a direct act of hostility it is hard to see a justification for Japanese military intervention – beyond, prudent, monitoring.

Transposing this to the SURTASS incident we see exactly identical patterns. China is well within her rights to monitor these US vessels – prudence demands as much. That stops way short of attempting criminal damage from enlisted civilian vessels tho!.

] provided they were not actually involved in direct combat operations, have full legal rights to transit.

IIRC, the PLAN warships sailed through the international channel in the Tsugaru Strait, en route to a joint exercise with the Russian Navy, and JMSDF P-3s tracked them.
BTW, local radio news just reported the Chicom coast guard is sending a ship to the islands that Philippines passed a law last week, and claimed as Filipino.

although a few weeks ago, some PLAN warships sailed through the Tsugaru Strait between Hokkaidou and Honshuu, which is definitely Jap EEZ. XD

US violating Chinese waters = 😡
China violating Japan waters = 🙂

Naturally, the last time I read anything substantial about an EEZ was Operation Corporate, where Shars were tasked to, and did, shoot down unarmed Argentinean military transport planes near the Falklands, and the HMS Conqueror sank the General Belgrano that IIRC was departing the EEZ, which scared the 25 de Mayo back to her home port.

OTOH, I predict the 1.4 bil Chinese angry youths will be again disappointed because the Chicom coast guard or PLAN continues to not send anything to the DYT Islands (Diao Yu Tai Islands), which are owned by Taiwan, but administrated by Japan; no thanks to the cunning USA… although a few weeks ago, some PLAN warships sailed through the Tsugaru Strait between Hokkaidou and Honshuu, which is definitely Jap EEZ. XD

On the last point Don there is no issue in Chinese warships, or anyone elses for that matter, sailing through Japans EEZ. Japan has no more sovereignty in its EEZ than China does in hers and China’s warships, provided they were not actually involved in direct combat operations, have full legal rights to transit. The Tsugaru Strait is actually a great illustration of this as, owing to the narrowness of the straits, Japan has decreased its territorial limits to just 3 miles each side so that foreign vessels can pass without entering Japanese waters.

As to the Falklands I think you are confusing a Total Exclusion Zone or TEZ, which we established around the Falklands to control vessels within a specific radius, with an Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ. There are no real similarities between the two – apart from the single letter transposition in the acronyms of course!.

Naturally, the last time I read anything substantial about an EEZ was Operation Corporate, where Shars were tasked to, and did, shoot down unarmed Argentinean military transport planes near the Falklands, and the HMS Conqueror sank the General Belgrano that IIRC was departing the EEZ, which scared the 25 de Mayo back to her home port.

OTOH, I predict the 1.4 bil Chinese angry youths will be again disappointed because the Chicom coast guard or PLAN continues to not send anything to the DYT Islands (Diao Yu Tai Islands), which are owned by Taiwan, but administrated by Japan; no thanks to the cunning USA… although a few weeks ago, some PLAN warships sailed through the Tsugaru Strait between Hokkaidou and Honshuu, which is definitely Jap EEZ. XD

I think you are trying to make this more cut and dried then it is.

Even the likes of the BBC, who has never been keen to side with China can’t find experts to say China is definitely in the wrong here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7941425.stm

The issue here is that the USNS ship was in the Chinese EEZ. While there are laws giving foreign ships certain rights within other country’s EEZs, spying is not one of them, and that is why the US has never stated the real purpose of the ship even though anyone with any insight will know exactly what its mission is.

You are allowed free passage through EEZs, but when the EEZ is used for spying, you go into a grey area because there is nothing to definitively state if its allowed or not, and it is up to interpretation.

It IS cut and dried. All you’ve got is that the BBC are unwilling to be as determined about the conclusion as I am?. What????

An EEZ is an Exclusive ECONOMIC Zone it does not refer to any other behaviour whatsoever….IIRC it doesnt even cover SOLAS – thats a seperate UN Convention.

Understand this – an EEZ is NOT Chinese waters. These are INTERNATIONAL waters that China has explicit, limited, rights to use for economical purposes. Thats it. Period. Endex. China has no rights here of any type outside of economical exploitation.

Is that now clear enough for you?.

The issue is not China trying to make EEZ territorial waters, its about China trying to limit foreign military activity within EEZs. When put like that, it doesn’t sound nearly as belligerent as your claims of Chinese intent make it sound does it?

So as you state above China is trying to assert territorial sovereignty in international waters?. That is its own condemnation really isnt it?.

While the above was a very well thought out theory, I have good reason to disagree with most of your findings. But that is too big and complex an issue to discuss here.

Agreed. The discussion was deliberately being kept at a simplistic level. The simple fact is that the spectre of unemployment is looming large for China today WITH its largest export market in place. In ordinary trading conditions the loss of that export market would be devastating, over the short-mid term, to the Chinese economy.

As an academic concept you may be right. In the real world shall I tell you the price of your proposal?…

While the above was a very well thought out theory, I have good reason to disagree with most of your findings. But that is too big and complex an issue to discuss here.

If you want to start a new thread on it, feel free and we can put our different views across there. But lets at least try to keep this one on some kind of a loose track shall we?

Learn to live with this one lads….its a pretty much no-win situation.

Forgive me, but that was spoken with quite some arrogance.

Laws are made by men and can be changed by men, there is nothing untouchable about any law, especially not outdated ones that are clearly abused to break the spirit in which they were written.

The issue is not China trying to make EEZ territorial waters, its about China trying to limit foreign military activity within EEZs. When put like that, it doesn’t sound nearly as belligerent as your claims of Chinese intent make it sound does it?

Looks like not even Jonsey is above a little ‘spinning’ from time to time.:p

Again guys there…

I think you are trying to make this more cut and dried then it is.

Even the likes of the BBC, who has never been keen to side with China can’t find experts to say China is definitely in the wrong here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7941425.stm

The issue here is that the USNS ship was in the Chinese EEZ. While there are laws giving foreign ships certain rights within other country’s EEZs, spying is not one of them, and that is why the US has never stated the real purpose of the ship even though anyone with any insight will know exactly what its mission is.

You are allowed free passage through EEZs, but when the EEZ is used for spying, you go into a grey area because there is nothing to definitively state if its allowed or not, and it is up to interpretation.

Ok, here’s my answer. YES, I believe our government at times does some pretty stupid, and probably illegal things and has on occasion wrongfully detained innocent individuals. Americans of African descent and Sino-Americans in WWII come to mind. At least we usually come around to realize our mistakes. In China you don’t even have true freedom of religion or the press, and it’s widely understood that perfectly legitimate stuff is blocked on the internet by the government. So you see, there is a VAST difference between our government and the Chinese, although some of us think they’re trying hard to close the gap in the wrong direction. The problem here is that you people of hard heads are so stinking anti-US that even when we DO try to follow legal means of intelligence gathering, you act as if we’re some sort of wierdo idiots who have no rights. Truth of the matter is that for a LONG time the US and China have had differences over various matters (Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc…) and both countries have reason to want to know what the other is really doing / thinking. Both engage in this kind of stuff. However, your arguments for the Chinese are really childish when you step back and look at them.

Ryan

Well, fair answer, but you do realize you under estimated your government’s effect on cracking down the spying activities. That’s the most important part if your reply is anything related to the current topic. However, as a such good citizen, obviously you are still under estimating your government’s effect and will underestimate as well”.

For the rest, the last thing I’d do is convincing people’s personal view. If you like to do it, there’re 1.4 billion Chinese awaiting you, good luck!

You haven’t studied what jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention is, have you? It doesn’t mean the coastal state has any control whatsoever over non-intrusive surveys or research. It can only restrict activities which conflict with its (limited, specific) economic rights over the waters & seabed. Non-intrusive (i.e. without building things, or drilling, or setting off explosions, or trawling) surveying is permitted without restriction. Laying cables, pipelines etc is permitted as long as it does not conflict with the (limited, specific) economic rights of the coastal state. Etc., etc.

1.So, your study is just your wishy washy explain of my quoted Article 56 of UNCLOS?
Until you provide solid /credible backup of your claim that “ China’s jurisdiction rights over marine scientific research or survey is only restricted to “activities which conflict with its (limited, specific) economic rights over the waters & seabed”. Then I would rather refer to the UNCLOS general provisions itself which never state such thing as you said.

2. if you are not able to backup your claim as in point1, then the spy ship violated China’s certain jurisdiction in its EEZ. Since the ship violated the law assumed to protect 1st. why bothering to pick it up and protest by using it later?

3. The funniest part of your story is while crying foul that Chinese disturbed the spy ship in the name of other activity. Do you ever realize you bunch of guys are actually doing the same trick you accused people? By claiming the Impeccable was passing/laying pipe or cable etc, but it was spying as officially acknowledged by DoD. Spying/sniffing/peeping activities are hardy not intrusive. If you like to try to disguise the spy ship’s illegal/nonpeaceful activities as innocent as you can in the name of passage or cabling/piping, so as to justify the certain jurisdiction right favoring the coastal nations. Why so irritated when people just repeat the same tricks after you? Obviously I don’t know which civilization can come out so advanced logic, in our humble view, it called “double standard”

The coastal state does not own the waters or the seabed, it has a set of carefully defined & limited rights over them.

I note that neither you, nor any of the other “China can do no wrong” crowd have chosen to comment on Chinese naval intrusions into Japanese territorial waters. Do you think that is OK?

Have us claimed PLAN’s behavior is correct? As a matter of fact, the Chinese government already issued official apologies, should we say more if there’s a official statement? Do you think that is NOT correct?

BTW, what about the bit I’ve highlighted in red? China is clearly in breach of that.

See, you can breach it but not us. I’m so tied of it…

http://www.rimpeace.or.jp/jrp/umi/northd/0903tagos.html

5-8 March 2009:
Estimated locations of USN intelligence ships with passive sonar arrays, including T-AGOS-23 USNS Impeccable.

But wouldn’t the Chinese people do better if they just leave the Americans off to starve itself and cook food just for themselves? Now instead, they’ve been funding these ridiculous American debt, part of which is obviously being used on a larger military budget this year. So, Chinese lending is actually helping the US military, think about things that way.

As an academic concept you may be right. In the real world shall I tell you the price of your proposal?. MASSIVE and I do mean MASSIVE unemployment and derivative social unrest in China. Chinese consumer demand will not catch up to the biggest consumer society on the planet for a generation and, perhaps, not even then seeings as a great proportion of Chinese society is unlikely to gain the disposable income to drive such consumerism.

The Chinese model only works by having a massive and extremely cheap labour force. Once that labour force really becomes aspirational, educated, and wants to start buying BMW’s the whole shooting-match starts to teeter on the brink. Wage pressures increase and competetiveness plummets – if you disagree have a look at the Chinese economy right now. Today the Yuan is very strong and, as a consequence, Chinese goods are no-longer quite as cheap as they were = exports down 25%. That is an artifical and, likely, temporary high as well caused by the finiancial crisis. Wait til that is a permanent high caused by escalating wage demands!.

well, I think part of the problem is not just the spying, but operating on China’s background. If you take a look at any Chinese map, they basically claimed the entire South China Sea as part of the boundary. When US surface force operates between Hainan and some of the disputed islands controlled by China, that in many ways reduces China’s claims to these islands.

This effectively validates YourFather’s earlier comment on the matter. Hard to see what they believe they can do to achieve this – if that is their underlying intent. The 12 mile territorial limit is pretty much universal and well codified. No-one has the slightest intent of trying to get that pushed out to 200 miles, even I suspect the Chinese, as the conflicts generated would be almost too complex to consider. China, for all of her burgeoning superpower status, isnt big enough to try and sway that one on her own and no-one will sit quiet while one nation, whoever it is, unilaterally extends territorial waters like this!.

No problem. Just digitize the sensitive parts.

Send ships with nekkid sailors to throw trash at the bow.

would Reuters post confrontation pics to the public?? 😮

what about when China violates some other country’s territorial waters?

Send ships with nekkid sailors to throw trash at the bow.

well, I think part of the problem is not just the spying, but operating on China’s background. If you take a look at any Chinese map, they basically claimed the entire South China Sea as part of the boundary. When US surface force operates between Hainan and some of the disputed islands controlled by China, that in many ways reduces China’s claims to these islands.

what about when China violates some other country’s territorial waters?