China is starting to play a very dangerous game: In a rush? For a quick synopsis, just read the red highlighted lines. Since this is out on the open sea, should this be recognized or viewed by the US as a Chinese attempt at piracy? Suppose the Americans opened fire on Chinese personnel for attempting to steal top secret American sonar equipment; what would be the repercussions? Or, suppose that the Americans, already anticipating that a brazen theft by Chinese, on the open seas would occur, planted a bomb inside the sono platform, and when "captured" by the PRC naval platform, the platform explodes, sinking the PRC ship? What would the repercussions be? Is either the PRC or US ready for another USS Pueblo or Mayaguez affair? My personal opinion? Any act of piracy, whether off the coast of Africa by Somali pirates or in international waters off the Chinese coast by PLA Naval assets, should be met with extreme violence as a matter of principle. Having top secret sonar electronics on board would just be the icing on the cake. I'm sure if US military had attempted to interdict a PLA naval vessel on the open seas, it wouldn't hesitate in opening fire. Or suppose these were Russians unlawfully interdicting a Chinese vessel on the open seas, should the Chinese have the right to open fire in self defense?
China responds to US allegations of of violating Maritime rules with charges of its own: In a rush? For a quick synopsis, just read the red highlighted lines.
Right on. The Ship in question and labeled as a "unarmed" ship is RIDICULOUS. It is one of the prime US marine assets used in Anti Submarine warfare and it contains the best of its class in Sonar equipment and its purpose is clear. More info about the USNS victorious here. - http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com/WhyNeed/index.htm http://www.msc.navy.mil/inventory/ships.asp?ship=165&type=OceanSurveillanceShip The act by the US is provocative and it has every intention of acquiring the Chinese Submarine forces oceanic "signatures". Above all, despite repeated warnings, it chooses to stay on its course of continuing to harass China's submarine fleet. The continuous pinging is disruptive and hostile. This ship is often accompanied by class US marine submarines. It is not a singular entity by itself. However this kind of incidents are to some extent routine. The shadowing deployment movements of the cloak and dagger game in the high seas are to be expected. But the fact that the US gave this prime time news coverage during this time is telling. It is the 50th anniversary of the uprising of the Tibetans after all. Moreover, the US is conducting is annual joint military exercise with South Korea and North Koreans have openly threaten War if any of its test missiles were shot down. One would expect the Obama administration to act more responsibly and take on a more peaceable approach to world affairs. Yet, the crust of the icing be it from any president will always be the same. When it comes to destabalising China, there is simply no restraint. There is a Chinese saying to this. He who is a thief himself is accusing others for being one.
In a rush? For a quick synopsis, just read the red highlighted lines. *** My apologies Mobidoo, but I think you misread my intent, so I therefore made an editing clarification (one that you probably don't want to hear, sorry). After reading your "agreement" with me and then the rest of your text, I realized that you and I are actually in total disagreement. Here's why: As an example, if I'm standing in the street or any other public place and I'm running a tape recorder, would a passerby have the right to accost me because I'm recording the sound of him walking by? Hardly. Thus, the statement of the Chinese government giving "repeated warning" to the US, is frankly a non starter. The PRC does not own the international ocean; as such, it has no authority to warn anyone. If they really did have the authority (ie if the ship had strayed into PRC exclusionary waters), then the US ship would have been boarded long ago. In fact, this is similar to the warnings that the US navy makes to other ships, to stay away from it's carrier task force's way of passage whenever it transits the oceans lanes. But these are hollow threats as well. The US, like the PRC, doesn't have the authority to dictate how others can move on the open ocean either. If it did, that PRC sub that surfaced in the midst of the US task force last year would have been immediately fired upon and sunk. Interestingly enough, it is this maritime legal principle that is stopping the military navies (from around the world) from preemptively stopping Somali fishing vessels in the combating of Indian Ocean piracy. The military navies cannot act until the Somalis make an aggressor move (like attempted interdiction or boarding of a vessel). Your comment of "One would expect the Obama admin..." misses the mark. FYI, this type of military posturing had been going for a very long time. Remember the last time when the PLA tried to kick it up a notch? Their jet fighter ran into one of the US's surveillance planes. Inotherwords, the Obama administration had nothing to do with this per se; this is standard US public intelligence gathering. Just like US radio signal intel listening stations that are in Mongolia, listening for Chinese military radio and launch traffic. Should the PLA now invade Mongolia because the US is ensconced there "stealing" radio signals from the PRC? I certainly don't think so, do you? My understanding is that any act of high seas piracy (unauthorized boarding of a ship or impeding its movement) can be met with lethal force. As long as the US ship is in international waters, that ship can do whatever it wants, record any signals that it wants, and generate any signals that it wants; the PRC cannot do anything legally. If PLA naval personnel should attempt to blockade or board the US ship, the US ship does have the right to use deadly force. As it stand right now, the US ship already has the right to open fire on those Chinese trawlers. It is a testament to the restraint of the new US administration that a bloodbath wasn't started. If I was sitting in the big chair, I would have ordered those Chinese vessels sunk. The problem here is this; intelligence gathering has been going on like this for the last half century with US, former Soviets, and now Russian, and to a degree, PLA forces. This is nothing new. These "games" have always been played with a known set of rules and etiquette; we shadow box but never land any real blows. What is new here is how the PLA has (perhaps predictably) put their toe a little over the usual acceptable line. I think they're purposely doing this in order to gauge the new US admin's reaction. Inotherwords, this was a "feeler" gesture to test the new US president. They did exactly the same when Bush first got into office (except the idiot PLA pilot got too close, forgot his aerodynamics, and wound up getting his head shredded to pieces by an American propeller). Hence, if anything, this was an orchestrated and planned escalation and deliberate provocation by China. Several incidents over the past few weeks have already indicated to the US that the PRC was upping the ante in this routine cat and mouse game. I Notice here that the PLA also uses "fishing trawlers" as clandestine military vessels, same as the Russians. Bottom line? US naval assets can and should continue to monitor PLA naval forces activity, using all legal and legitimate means available, including collection of sonar signatures of PLA submarine assets. That's simply good intel gathering. Like how the thousands of PRC "students" in US universities report home the newest and latest experiments being studied in top US academic arenas, there are a myriad number of ways to play this game. LOL, again, if I were in the big chair, I would have the US state department deny visas for Chinese and Russian students who plan to take hard science or mathematics. No reason to train foreign scientists who then go home and make better missiles to point at you right? But hey, that's just me. -detect ***Sidebar1: Mobidoo first alluded to US forces' "...intention of acquiring the Chinese Submarine forces oceanic 'signatures'" and then goes on to complain about the "...constant pinging is disruptive and hostile." This statement makes absolutely no sense as you can only acquire and record mechanical noises generated by maritime vessels (signatures) when you're being very quiet. This is what is referred to as Passive Sonar Detection. The other type, Active Sonar Detection, is done by constantly blasting the water with a loud noise (aka 'pinging') and waiting for an echo (bounced off of anything solid) to come back. So, if someone is actively pounding the water, it's highly improbable that he's sitting there quietly collecting those passive sonar signatures. Hence, Mobidoo's suggestion is inherently flawed as it is self contradictory. Further the statement made that, "...the fact that the US gave this prime time news coverage during this time is telling" implies that the US administration somehow orchestrated or controlled US news coverage to specifically highlight this event. I'm pretty certain that most people already acknowledge that, unlike China, the press is the US is generally not under the direction of its government. ***Sidebar2: Underwater Acoustic Signatures are unique telltale noises that every ship makes as it transits the water (generally from its propellers cutting into the water). Each and every ship has a distinct signature that is as unique as a fingerprint. This signature is then displayed on a screen and looks more or less like a bar code. The signature is then compared to all known samples in a computer and if a match is found, then that particular sonar contact is positively identified. This can be helpful in combat as it readily allows a crew to know exactly what they are up against. Hitting the water with an active sonar search is generally just a last ditch attempt at finding the location of an enemy. It tells you little about what it is that is reflecting the signal, but allows you to know the general location of all large metal objects in your vicinity (friend, foe, or neutral) without distinction as to class of ship or direction of movement.
Totally agree. I think the latest is just posturing by both sides. Both countries have too much at stake to even think about it. However, it's incidents like this that sometimes spins out of control, and have a way of snowballing its way into something tragic. Hence my preamble notation that the PRC is starting to play a very dangerous game. :nuts:
Ah there you go ralph. If the President, as the commander in chief have no say in the running of the intelligence networks and the operative spheres, then you are simply implying that the Naval Intelligence and for that matter any intelligence outfit operates under its own supervision. That claim is ridiculous. Even if the theater command are given a full reign, these are sensitive times. And it was the US State Department who have made the announcements to the Press corp. Why didn't the State Department decides to play this out quietly with the Chinese but instead choose to bring it up to the world during the anniversary of the Tibetan uprising ? This my friend, set the tone of the OBAMA's adminstration, as far as dealings with China is concern. Oh ! Is this is suppose to be a goodwill gesture by the US Navy during such tense time in that part of the world now with the North Korean openly threatening war ? LOL. You mean the president is not given his brief prior to the release of the news ? That he have forgotten to read the newspaper for the day, that President Obama have no say whatsoever ? You have to be kidding me. The facts spoke for itself. It was the US who have internationalize the event and not the Chinese. Next, as you say, the high sea and the US can choose to use lethal force to confront the Chinese. Well ho and behold, the vice versa is true too. The Chinese can crash its boats into the USNS craft and then announce that it was an unfortunate accident and China have save all the US sailors on board the sinking ship. If the US can escalate the isses, so can the Chinese. Its pure bull crap that your analogy tries to portray that the US ship is merely parked there for leisure. There are other destination my friend, to go for sightseeing. Why then is there a Sonar naval craft been deployed ? If they are not listening or pinging then what might they be doing ? Are they trying to communicate with wild sea life there ? Its intention is clearly hostile and provocative. If the Chinese were to park their surveillance assets just next to a US naval base in international waters, will the US tolerate it ? Action, reaction, its fair game. So the crap headed US spokesman can go on TV to say that China's forces have been "unprofessional". What a retarded statement that is. Does the US itself decides on the ACCEPTABLE and CORRECT standards or what professionalism is about ? Who made them boss of the high seas ? I say ramp the goddam vessels and see who stands to loose more. The US is a diminishing power. Its time they act according to the size of its deflated ego.
In a rush? For a quick synopsis, just read the red highlighted lines. If the President, as the commander in chief have no say in the running of the intelligence networks and the operative spheres, then you are simply implying that the Naval Intelligence and for that matter any intelligence outfit operates under its own supervision. That claim is ridiculous. Even if the theater command are given a full reign, these are sensitive times. And it was the US who State Department who have made the announcements to the Press corp. Why didn't the State Department decides to play this out quietly with the Chinese but instead choose to bring it up to the world during the anniversary of the Tibetan uprising ? I never stated that the president of the US has no say in the running of the intelligence networks. I only stated that the Obama admin never initiated this as this proven methodology was already in use for nearly the last half century. The PRC doesn't have to like it (the Russian don't either). But as long as it's legal, and the PRC wants to pretend that they can obey international law like everyone else on the planet, then they'll have to tolerate it. As for the timing of news releases, one should instead consider why did the PLA navy choose this time frame to dramatically increase its harassment of US naval intelligence assets. The US would have probably been happy with the status quo. It was the PRC that increased the friction, so because of this you're claiming that the US is being extraordinarily political in bringing it to world attention? If China didn't want the world attention cast on it during the anniversary of the Tibetan uprising; why did it choose this time frame to be extra confrontational? You'll have to ask ZhongNanHai as it was their doing. This my friend, set the tone of the OBAMA's adminstration, as far as dealings with China is concern. Oh. this is suppose to be a goodwill gesture by the US Nay during such tense time in that part of the world now with North Korea openly threatening war ? LOL. You mean the president is not brief ? That he have forgotten to read the newspaper for the day ? You have to be kidding me. Well, yes, you're correct in that this sets the tone with the Obama admin as far as dealings with China is concern. Obama is letting China know that the US is still there doing what its been doing to maintain itself in a world leadership position. It can operate in the Pacific arena and project its power abroad despite being involved in two current theaters of conflict, and despite any of these dangerous PRC games to test US resolve. And of course the president is briefed; he's probably the most knowledgeable man on the planet with regards to intelligence matters. And I should kid you? Don't flatter yourself, I don't even need to answer you; I'm simply following the rules and convention of debate. If the PRC did behaved likewise (ie obeyed the internationally accepted rules of these confrontations), then we wouldn't even be having these rounds of talks. The facts spoke for itself. It was the US who have internationalize the event and not the Chinese. Res Ipsa Loquitur indeed, it was the PRC then, that thus gave the US the chance to decide on internationalizing the event. Hence the Chinese have either badly miscalculated or they were fools for handing the Americans such a wonderful opportunity to deliver the Tibet issue right into the court of public opinion and embarrass China (so you're correct after all, eh? The Americans really did want to bring up Tibet anniversary and China blindly gave them the perfect chance to? LOL... Sorry, but you're talking in comical circles). Next, as you say, the high sea and the US can choose to use lethal force to confront the Chinese. Well ho and behold, the vice versa is true too. The Chinese can crash its boats into the USNS boats and call it an unfortunate accident. If the US escalates, so can the Chinese. Therein lies the weakness in your argument. I never stated that the US should use lethal force to confront the Chinese. I stated that the US should use lethal force to confront piracy. If the Chinese (or anyone else) chose to act like pirates with the US, then the US has the right to defend itself against pirates (which are criminals). The Chinese, if they chose to, could crash their vessels into US vessels in international waters; but again, doing so would also classify their actions as piracy, which is against the law. You persistently couch this as a US versus China event, and it is this perspective that has kept China politically out of much of the modern world. The problem with your view is that China wants very much to be a part of the first world and to be an international player; but the first world has rules. One of the most important ones is the fact that nations, when dealing with one another, obey rules of law. Or else, it would be the strongest or loudest, by using primitive mentality and violent methodology (of bashing anything that it doesn't like or anything that gets in its way), to try to win every time. I suspect that the PRC leadership already understands this, as normal US intel gathering has been going on for decades without direct confrontation from the PRC. Why China chose to increase the level of confrontation during this time frame can only be guessed at. But since you brought Tibet up, I can only assume that that also matters greatly to the PRC; that China might be doing this to attempt to divert attention from how it deals with Tibet. Its pure bull crap that your analogy tries to potray that the US ship is merely parked there for leisure. There are destination my friend for sightseeing. Its intention either way is hostile. If the Chinese were to park their surveillance assets just next to a US naval base in international waters, will the US tolerate it ? Action, reaction, its fair game. Pure bull crap, or perhaps you are reading but not understanding? I never stated that the US ship is there for leisure. I already acknowledged in all my posts that the ship is an intelligence gathering platform, or colloquially, a 'Spy Ship' for those that don't appreciate what 'intelligence' is. Even the US government acknowledges this, or else you yourself would not have been able to post links (describing the overall mission function of the vessel) to it like you did in your previous response. Is it hostile? Well that depends on who you ask. The person being spied upon is certainly not going to like it, but the action is in compliance with international law; so hence, one may look upon it as covertly hostile. Its actions goes against the interests of the spied upon nation, but is nothing that does overt harm. Again, this is what is allowable under accepted rules of international law. As for the PRC (or Russians generally), if it chooses to park surveillance next to a US base in international waters, would the US tolerate it? It would have to, so long as the vessel is not doing anything illegal. I alluded to this already with my comment of the PRC Song type that surfaced within a US carrier group about a year ago. Again, had the PRC sub done anything that was illegal, the US ships would have reacted. However, since it was in international waters, the USN could do nothing except grind its teeth. So the PRC is welcome to play the game too. But it is indeed fortunate that the PRC doesn't yet have the same level of intelligence gathering ability that is as extensive as the US. So the crap headed spokesman can go on TV to say that China's forces have been "unprofessional". What a retarded statement that is. Does the US itself decides on the ACCEPTABLE and CORRECT standards ? Who made them boss of the high seas ? Again, you're looking at China being called a bad boy and you're getting your nationalistic emotions all tied in knot. By labeling the PRC's forces' actions as unprofessional, the US is calling attention to the escalation. You're looking at this from the tactical perspective while I suspect that Beijing considered this to be an acceptable strategic political risk. They're willing to let their forces be called all sorts of names for the purpose or another greater political prize. And don't let the rhetoric cloud your perspective. The PLA Navy has been spectacular in its growth and is probably on a par with the US in terms of professionalism, dedication, and commitment. You have to ask yourself why would such a well practiced and disciplined group go and do something as unprofessional as direct and overt confrontation on the open seas and in international waters, against the most major of world players? Why? Because they were ordered to. By whom? The leadership in Beijing. So, what we have to ask is, why is the PRC government willing to sacrifice the professional reputation and standing of its military? Because there are other, more important issues, at stake. I suspect you already know what that is as you yourself have consistently referred to it. I say ramp the goddam vessels and see who stands to loose more. The US is a diminishing power. Its time to act according to their deflated ego. If the US vessel were to be rammed by the Chinese vessel, then that takes it up another notch with China being viewed as the aggressor. That would give the US even more reasons to start shooting back, which would be another escalation. Hence one dangerous escalation could lead to something more deadly, ie a cessation of all trade between China and the US. It is in this game that China does not want to lose. The PRC could ill afford to lose it's best customer, especially one that owes it so much money. And you're right, the US is a diminishing power, but apparently one that is not diminishing fast enough for many with nationalistic Chinese opinions and world ambition. China can only strategically beat the US if it can rid itself of its total reliance on foreign customers and replace it with their own middle class consumption. But there in lies its predicament. The PRC has little in terms of consumer buying power. Except for a few high profile showcase cities, the rest of China is still largely third world, rife with graft and corruption, often at the hands of its own branches of regional and local government. In the final analysis, even if the US were to keep listening off the coast of China, what does that really matter in terms of diminished US power or the projecting of Chinese power? Not much. China recognizes that the reason why the US is so powerful is not because of its military, but by its buying power. So insofar as Chinese ambition goes, this is the much bigger game to play. Along with that game is the opinion of its best buyer and its world customers. China cannot afford to have the anticipated Tibet unrest be the only headlines as it fears the risk of boycotts of its products. Hence, it seeks to divert attention from that area by giving Americans and others other things to fret over and something else to look at for the next several weeks. After the sensitive time passes, the PLA navy will withdraw and allow the US navy to continue what it has done for years. The PLA units involved will all quietly receive commendations for a job well done in creating this political distraction. You can go on arguing about what boat went where, and that's great as far as the PRC is concern; you're a part of the needed distraction.
Ah cheers Hey no need for sorry dude. I think you and I both would love a good exploration of the issue ! Comon geezer all in good sport ! :riaa: Its good to have a good debate Sometimes I wish there would be dudes who would disagree with us hahah oh well, cheers Let's see if more folks reply. Tata for now.
More folks reply? Nah... from what I've seen, you're already one of the rare ones. :rolleyes2: At any rate, happy to have you, and to have at you -detect
Here's my two cents.... Legally the US Navy ship has the right to be at the area, as it is internaional water, but the US Navy acted in a hostile manner in the first place. Regardless what people think, the US Navy is conducting under water cartigraphy of the water around Chinese sea, and collecting sonar info from Chinese subs. The Chinese of course has the right to defend themsevles..regardless of means. I read a bunch of articles regarding this Western media is being very biased again..Despite this article did mentioined, that this USS intelligence ship was dragging a sonar to collect military informations most of the other articles I have read it made no mentions. China needs to focus on building better and stealthier subs which I bet they are -cool This world only respects military might. They'll threaten/bully you cause you are weak because China is currently threaten their national interest. They'll do it to any nation..regardless of the country's political ideology(demoracy, communist etc). So, keep up the good work China! Invest more in R&D.
by UNLOS(1982) rules of which all nations of EARTH signed except the USA. 230miles(200nm) is international waters, NOT 75 miles! an EEZ(Exclusive economic zone) is defined as: http://geography.about.com/library/misc/uceez.htm US vassel is in China's EE Zone, not in international waters. it is also a spy boat! JUST THINK about this: what would the USA do if a CHINESE spy ship goes 75 Miles from Calfornia and do sonar mapping of the area? -----it would be blown out of the water by a USA war ship, thats what. So Impeccable would have expected the same, no?
Countryboy, nice post. You are truely right . The US navy was not in internnational water but in China's EEZ. EEZ is not considered international water. Now, China can make a good case that spying is hostile, military and aggressive action threatening its security since that is not allowed under the UNCLOS. China can legally hold the US responsible for spying. The US always like to bully people, especially China and plays very dangerous games.
You know, I really didn't want to bring any of this up here, as most of it is couched in legalese. I already know from past experience that most PA Forum viewers would care little about legal language, many won't even bother to read through these things. But since you brought it up, for those that have actually taken the time to read through the UNCLOS document, which can be access here: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (last updated 09 FEB 2009) ...and downloaded here: English Language PDF Download Here Specifically then, I call your attention to PART V, Articles 55 through 58, 87 through 90, which I've taken the liberty to reprint here verbatim:[FONT="] [/FONT] This statement: "...The US navy was not in internnational water but in China's EEZ. EEZ is not considered international water..." is absolutely wrong as it misquotes and misinterprets the law. Basically, what the UNCLOS document recognizes and supports is that China has exclusive rights (Article 56) to fish and drill for oil there (ie have possession of the resources), but insofar as anything (Articles 56 subsection 2, Articles 58, 87) else, it is treated as if it were the high seas, aka international waters. The US had every right to be there and do what it was doing. An analogy would be that of a hot dog vending cart; the vendor has an exclusive commercial license for a particular street location, meaning that he is the only one that is legally allowed to sell anything on that street. However, he's taken this to imply that he can then tell people what to do on that street, where they can park, who can walk through or not, who can take pictures or not, and if he doesn't like it, to include the right to kick you off "his" street. Well, China is behaving rather like that street vendor. As for bullying, I call your attention to what China claims as its territorial waters: If you look at the above map, you'll realize how ridiculous the PRC's claim is. What it is effectively saying is, that the entirety of the South China Sea belongs to China. The PRC has been doing this for years, laying claim on islands or rocks jutting out of the water simply because a fisherman in Ming times may have fished in that area. Well what about the Malay, Indonesian, or Filipino fisherman that had fished there before and after that Ming fisherman; so shouldn't they have a claim too? Well, not according to China. So who is being a bully?
^but the US isn't within 200 nautical miles of China's EEZ unless u consider military bases, which i doubt... therefore it doesn't fall under article 58...
Actually, the US ship was located approx 75 Nautical miles south of Hainan Island, way outside the sovereign waters (12 miles) but well within the Exclusive Economic Zone (200 miles). However, the title of the zone is deceptive. Many people misread this to mean the same as sovereign waters when it clearly isn't. And China is happy to continue to mislead them. What the EEZ means is exclusive rights to manage and develop the natural resources in that area. In all else, it is considered still to be a part of the high seas or international waters. If the US boat was fishing there, then it would be violating the law. As it was mapping the ocean floor it wasn't taking from the natural resources there. It could have been laying a television cable too, and that would have been legal. Basically, any country can behave as if they were in the high seas except for taking from the natural resources when in any EEZ.
i'm not talking about sovereign waters... i'm talkin bout the EEZ... article 58 only applies to states that are within 200nautical miles... article 87 only outlines what "Freedom of the high seas" means... the US, being not within 200nautical miles of the EEZ, cannot consider that area as "high seas"... as far as whatever the US boat was doing, the wording of the agreement is so vague that it's always up for interpretation...
The 200 nautical mile range beyond that of sovereign waters is the determinate of where the boundaries of an EEZ lie. That is all that the 200 nautical mile observance means or signifies (it does not mean the the US land mass be required to be within 200 nautical miles of that location in order for the article to be in effect). Art 56 describes what the benefits for a nation who is in possession of a particular EEZ; subsection 2 of that article describes what the EEZ holder is obligated to observe insofar as it acts with other nations who enter into its EEZ. In this case, what China is obligated to adhere to in how it treats other nations who transit through China's EEZ. Art 58 then describes what other nations, as a visiting party, can do when they enter into an EEZ owned by someone else. Visiting countries need not be distinguished between those that have coastlines and those that are land locked. So in essence, it could be a vessel from anywhere else in the world, those that sit next to water, and even those that don't. In this case, ie. what the US can do when they enter into a Chinese EEZ. The US must observe the exclusive natural resource rights of China, meaning that it cannot drag net fish, mine, drill for oil, develop islands by land reclamation, etc. However, as long as it does not involve the management of natural resources, the US (or any visitor nation) can behave as if it were on the open sea, as stated in Art 56 S/S 1, which then defers to Art 87. This means the US can have absolute freedom of navigation, overflight, etc; including freedom of scientific research (which would include ocean floor mapping). China, by its behavior is clearly in violation of Art 89. It is acting as if EEZ means the same as Sovereign waters; it does not.
Sorry, I was tired last night, I kept reading States that are IN, meaning sharing an EEZ... regardless... justification for Mapping the sea floor as scientific research does not give the US the right to do so... in other words... the US needed consent... in which case they clearly did not have... and since, the US openly acknowledged their ship was indeed a spy ship, this was not research in "peaceful purposes and in order to increase scientific knowledge of the marine environment for the benefit of all mankind."... again... these laws are subject to so many interpretations, it's essentially gray area, the US knows it, China knows it... western media, vilifying China at it's best... the US's statement about China not observing international maritime laws is laughable as the US itself didn't ratify the UNCLOS of 1982 to begin with...
I see how China is at disadvantage siutation, even though she is the one being spied on. Why? The U.S. has the military edge and controls a large portion of the world's media. All hell will break loose if a Chinese spy ship came even close to Hawaii and the RED CHINA THREAT will be all over the news days and nights like there is no tomorrow. ralphrepo, I noticed you display the Hong Kong flag icon in all your posts. If you don't mind me asking, are you a HK chinse or a foreigner living in HK?
