Congrats, you're President. Now whatcha gonna do about China? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

shakran · 03-09-2009, 11:48 AM

U.S.: Chinese ships harass Navy - China- msnbc.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSNBC

U.S.: Chinese ships harass Navy
Obama administration cites days of 'increasingly aggressive' acts
The Associated Press
updated 1:56 p.m. CT, Mon., March. 9, 2009
WASHINGTON - The White House said Monday that it expects China to respect international law following an incident in which five Chinese ships shadowed and maneuvered dangerously close to a U.S. Navy vessel in the South China Sea, according to the Pentagon.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the U.S. has protested the action. The United States will continue to operate in those international waters, he said, and the Chinese must observe international law.

"On March 8, 2009, five Chinese vessels shadowed and aggressively maneuvered in dangerously close proximity to USNS Impeccable, in an apparent coordinated effort to harass the U.S. ocean surveillance ship while it was conducting routine operations in international waters," the Pentagon said.

The Impeccable sprayed one ship with water from fire hoses to force it away. Despite the force of the water, Chinese crew members stripped to their underwear and continued closing within 25 feet, the department said.

Defense officials in the administration said Sunday's incident followed several days of "increasingly aggressive" acts by Chinese ships in the region.

The Chinese ships included a Chinese Navy intelligence collection ship, a Bureau of Maritime Fisheries Patrol Vessel, a State Oceanographic Administration patrol vessel, and two small Chinese-flagged trawlers, officials said.

"The Chinese vessels surrounded USNS Impeccable, two of them closing to within 50 feet, waving Chinese flags and telling Impeccable to leave the area," defense officials said in the statement.

"Because the vessels' intentions were not known, Impeccable sprayed its fire hoses at one of the vessels in order to protect itself," the Defense statement said. "The Chinese crew members disrobed to their underwear and continued closing to within 25 feet."

Emergency stop
Impeccable crew radioed to tell the Chinese ships that it was leaving the area and requested a safe path to navigate, the Pentagon said.

But shortly afterward, two of the Chinese ships stopped directly ahead of the Impeccable, forcing it to an emergency stop in order to avoid collision because the Chinese had dropped pieces of wood in the water directly in front of Impeccable's path, the Pentagon said.

Defense officials said the incident took place in international waters in the South China Sea, about 75 miles south of Hainan Island.

"The unprofessional maneuvers by Chinese vessels violated the requirement under international law to operate with due regard for the rights and safety of other lawful users of the ocean," said Marine Maj. Stewart Upton, a Pentagon spokesman.

"We expect Chinese ships to act responsibly and refrain from provocative activities that could lead to miscalculation or a collision at sea, endangering vessels and the lives of U.S. and Chinese mariners," Upton added.

Military-to-military consultations resumed
The incident came just a week after China and the U.S. resumed military-to-military consultations following a five-month suspension over American arms sales to Taiwan.

It also comes as Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi is due in Washington this week to meet with U.S. officials.

And it brings to mind the first foreign policy crisis that former President George Bush suffered with Beijing shortly after he took office — China's forced landing of a spy plane and seizure of the crew in April of 2001.

The Pentagon said the incident came after several other incidents involving the Impeccable and another U.S. vessel Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday.

It described those as the following:

On Wednesday, a Chinese Bureau of Fisheries Patrol vessel used a high-intensity spotlight to illuminate the entire length of the ocean surveillance ship USNS Victorious several times as it was operating in the Yellow Sea, about 125 nautical miles from China's coast, the Pentagon said, adding that the Chinese ship Victorious' bow at a range of about 1400 yards in darkness without notice or warning. The next day, a Chinese Y-12 maritime surveillance aircraft conducted 12 fly-bys of Victorious at an altitude of about 400 feet and a range of 500 yards.
On Thursday, a Chinese frigate approached USNS Impeccable without warning and crossed its bow at a range of approximately 100 yards, the Pentagon said. This was followed less than two hours later by a Chinese Y-12 aircraft conducting 11 fly-bys of Impeccable at an altitude of 600 feet and a range from 100-300 feet. The frigate then crossed Impeccable's bow yet again, this time at a range of approximately 400-500 yards without rendering courtesy or notice of her intentions.
On Saturday, a Chinese intelligence collection ship challenged USNS Impeccable over bridge-to-bridge radio, calling her operations illegal and directing Impeccable to leave the area or "suffer the consequences."

Myself, with my new "leave us alone and you will never be harmed, fuck with us and get ready for Armageddon" policy, I'm gonna move a couple of carrier groups and a whole buttload of submarines to the area and ask the Chinese if they REALLY wanna keep stripping to their underwear and harassing us. Oh and by the way, if you guys keep it up with the overt acts of aggression against the warships of a sovereign nation, that nation might just decide that all debts between the nations are forgiven . .

Sound tough, especially for someone who's protested the Iraq war as much as I have? Yeah, it is tough. Why? Because while I do not think we should invade countries that aren't doing anything to us just because it sounds like fun, I also do not think that we should allow nations to bully us in any way whatsoever.

Assuming that our ships actually were in international waters, then the Chinese have no right to ask us to leave, and they certainly have no right to play high-stakes, dangerous games of chicken-of-the-sea. If they keep that shit up, someone's gonna get hurt, and I'm gonna make damn sure that we're ready to respond if that happens.

Jinn · 03-09-2009, 12:02 PM

Important part:

Quote:

The Chinese ships included a Chinese Navy intelligence collection ship, a Bureau of Maritime Fisheries Patrol Vessel, a State Oceanographic Administration patrol vessel, and two small Chinese-flagged trawlers, officials said.

A couple boats ! = Chinese people != Chinese government. If we raise serious military considerations as a result of a few yokels in boats, we have a bigger issue. Impeccable would've been justified to defend itself with available armament if they truly felt "threatened", but this doesn't somehow justify a larger US military action.

Rekna · 03-09-2009, 12:09 PM

We sneak onto their boats at night and steal there mascott....

snowy · 03-09-2009, 12:13 PM

Do they really want to pick a fight with the country that provides the largest existing market for their goods? We've already seen how the Chinese economy is doing due to the downturn in American consumer confidence. They don't have a big enough market for their own goods within their country--they need us to buy the cheap shit they manufacture.

Baraka_Guru · 03-09-2009, 12:22 PM

What not to do should include blowing things out of proportion.

Quote:

It also comes as Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi is due in Washington this week to meet with U.S. officials.

roachboy · 03-09-2009, 12:23 PM

maybe the us needs to figure out a different policy regarding taiwan.
that's at the source of alot of this nonsense.

Daval · 03-09-2009, 12:25 PM

I wonder how badly the US would freak if the Chinese sent a surveillance ship just outside of it's boundaries.....

Willravel · 03-09-2009, 12:26 PM

The article doesn't really outline a doomsday situation. As far as a few ships are concerned, we should just keep a watchful eye out but remain respectful. We want to avoid another cold war, not start one.

Jinn · 03-09-2009, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daval

I wonder how badly the US would freak if the Chinese sent a surveillance ship just outside of it's boundaries.....

They routinely do. That's what 'international waters' are about.

shakran · 03-09-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

They routinely do. That's what 'international waters' are about.

Yup. During the cold war, there were Russian nuclear missile submarines parked off our coast ready to launch at Washington. We knew about it but couldn't stop 'em because they were in international waters.

And we also had our own nuc boats parked off their coast.

Quote:

A couple boats ! = Chinese people != Chinese government. If we raise serious military considerations as a result of a few yokels in boats, we have a bigger issue.

Three of the five boats you noted in your quote are Chinese government vessels, one of which is a Chinese Navy vessel. The other two are trawlers. Many countries, ours and China included, disguise intelligence boats as trawlers.

dksuddeth · 03-09-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

maybe the us needs to figure out a different policy regarding taiwan.
that's at the source of alot of this nonsense.

what other policy could we implement?

roachboy · 03-09-2009, 03:00 PM

well, the existing policy is entirely a relic of the cold war--that taiwan has to be maintained as separate from china.

this is not an area of expertise on my part, so maybe there's more to it than i know, but what would be the problem with dropping that policy?

if relations with china are better--and they are--and if most of the 1947 generation has died off--which it has---what exactly is the rationale, beyond inertia, for continuing as though the logic of 1947, such as it was, still needs motivate anyone?

Rekna · 03-09-2009, 03:10 PM

The Taiwanese don't want to become part of China... I think we need to play hardball with China, especially when it comes to trade. If they don't play nice with us in trade we shouldn't play nice with them.

roachboy · 03-10-2009, 03:51 AM

so there are multiple contexts which could be mustered to frame this tempest in a teapot--what constitutes a legitimate claim to ocean, how many miles offshore does a nation-state extend--taiwan---jockeying for power/the Great Game 21st century stylee--surveillance of surveillance operations....take your pick. and as often happens, when the information starts to filter in, the notion of "playing hardball" dissolves into the puddle of stupid it sprung from.

Quote:

China Says U.S. Provoked Naval Incident
By MARK McDONALD

HONG KONG — China lashed out at the United States on Tuesday, blaming a U.S. Navy ship for violating international law during a tense confrontation near a Chinese submarine base.

The Pentagon said five Chinese vessels had blocked and surrounded a U.S. surveillance ship, Impeccable, in international waters on Sunday. One of the ships came within 25 feet of the U.S. boat, the Pentagon said.

“The U.S. claims are gravely in contravention of the facts and confuse black and white, and they are totally unacceptable to China,” said Ma Zhaoxu, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, at a briefing Tuesday in Beijing.

He did not specify what laws the American ship had broken, but said the Impeccable had “conducted activities in China’s special economic zone in the South China Sea without China’s permission.”

Although the United States and other nations consider most of the South China Sea to be international waters, China claims an economic exclusion zone extending 200 nautical miles, or 230 miles, from its coastline.

The encounter Sunday was the latest in a series of recent incidents in which Chinese ships shadowed the towering, twin-hulled Impeccable. The Pentagon said the confrontation took place in the South China Sea, about 120 kilometers, or 75 miles, from the island of Hainan, where China has an underground naval complex with submarine caves.

A United States Navy photo obtained by The New York Times showed a Chinese sailor manning a long grappling hook, and a navy spokesman said the Chinese had used the hook to try to snag a cable that the Impeccable was using to tow an underwater listening device known as a Surtass array.

“In short, this vessel is used by the military to track submarines,” said a report from GlobalSecurity.org, a defense-related Web site, in describing the Impeccable. The report also called the ship “the quietest vessel the government operates, outside of submarines themselves.”

“It’s not clear what the Chinese intentions were,” Capt. Jeff Breslau, a spokesman for the United States Pacific Command, said on Tuesday from the command’s headquarters in Hawaii. “There have been a few incidents over the past week and a half. But who orchestrated this latest one, and why, we don’t know.”

“We haven’t seen this level of activity recently,” he said.

Captain Breslau characterized the Chinese maneuvers as “dangerous”, although he said a hot line linking Adm. Timothy Keating, the head of the Command, with his military counterpart in Beijing was not used.

The captain said the Impeccable had radioed the Chinese vessels using an accepted international frequency. The American ship, which carries no fixed armaments, told the Chinese vessel that it had the right of safe passage in international waters.

“We spoke to them, we didn’t warn them,” Captain Breslau said. In previous incidents, he added, the Chinese have responded in English, but in the latest encounter they did not reply.

Admiral Keating would not comment Tuesday about the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s response, and Captain Breslau said further U.S. reaction would come through the State Department.

“They’re working this through diplomatic channels,” he said.

Admiral Keating, in a briefing last month in Hong Kong, expressed frustration over what he called a continuing lack of transparency on the part of senior military officials in China. He said Washington remained concerned about Chinese military expansion, especially in the development of area-denial weapons, anti-satellite operations and cyber-warfare.

Increasing patrols and wider deployments of Chinese submarines were less worrisome, he said.

“Their submarines,” the admiral said, “are not keeping me up at night.”

The Impeccable incident came just a week after the two countries resumed high-level talks between their militaries. The dialogue had been broken off last year by the Chinese over a $6.5 billion American arms deal with Taiwan.

The dispute also comes in the wake of a recent visit to China by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her stop in Beijing was part of a tour of the Asia-Pacific region, her first overseas trip for President Obama’s administration.

Soon after Mrs. Clinton left China, the State Department angered Beijing with a broad set of criticisms of its human rights record in 2008.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/wo...y.html?_r=1&hp

shakran · 03-10-2009, 07:34 AM

I'm not sure what your point is. The entire world recognizes it as international waters. China suddenly decides it's a "special economic zone." What the hell is a special economic zone, and what gives them the right to claim it for themselves? What's stopping us from claiming a special economic zone right next to theirs?

roachboy · 03-10-2009, 07:41 AM

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you might have a look at this--it's a wikipedia page on the body of law which enables territorial claims to be extended into the ocean. notice that it was the americans under harry truman that started the 200 mile thing. so there's nothing to stop china from making such a claim, and also no basis at all for the american claim you float as a snippy counter.

Baraka_Guru · 03-10-2009, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I'm not sure what your point is. The entire world recognizes it as international waters. China suddenly decides it's a "special economic zone." What the hell is a special economic zone, and what gives them the right to claim it for themselves? What's stopping us from claiming a special economic zone right next to theirs?

It's more accurately considered an "EEZ" (exclusive economic zone).

Exclusive Economic Zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure if the U.S. vessel breached this area of China's waters, but it might be what China is referring to here.

The U.S. should be familiar with this kind of zoning, especially in the South China Sea...and especially since they have more EEZ than any other nation.

shakran · 03-10-2009, 07:56 AM

hehe. Good enough. The question now becomes, did China actually declare this area to be an EEZ before they found the ship there? The question also becomes, could China not find a more mature and reasoned approach to getting the US vessel out of it's EEV than stripping and throwing wood at us?

roachboy · 03-10-2009, 08:01 AM

they had made the claim previously, yes.
an alternative question might be: were it not for the american policy toward taiwan, why would us ships have been there in the first place?
this is obviously at the center of the differend, and not anything china may or may not be doing relative to trade.

as for throwing wood and stripping down to underwear, that i cannot explain.
it would not have been my first thought (wait--there's a large surveillance ship. what to do? i know, let's take off our clothes...)
the only thing i can think of is that the whole incident was happening in an ambiguous space and taking off the clothes was a strange attempt to remove the military dimension to it.
but i just made that up.

the ny times article mentions something about there having been an attempt to gaffe an underwater submarine surveillance device, which seems somehow more germaine to what was happening.

shakran · 03-10-2009, 08:11 AM

So I've been educating myself about EEV's. Seems to me China's still in the wrong:

Quote:

Originally Posted by international law

Article 58
Rights and duties of other States
in the exclusive economic zone

1. In the exclusive economic zone all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.

I take this, and I think it reasonable for me to take this, to mean that nations can have their ships in EEV's as long as they aren't exploiting the natural resources within them. i.e. as long as our ship wasn't fishing or diving for clams or setting up an oil rig, we had the right to be there.

roachboy · 03-10-2009, 08:18 AM

maybe this is at the core of it:

Quote:

the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.

the question of whether this extends to underwater surveillance gear directed at submarines or not is open to question.

one thing that's kinda clear from reading a little about these territorial claims is that they're nebulous, really. they're as legit as enforcement makes them, as porous as non-enforcement allows. and there is a problem in principle with them--something kind of appealing about the ocean not belonging to anyone in particular. the conventions that have been agreed to seem mostly to concern either resources or pollution--and conflicts are hardly new--there have been periods of hostility between the us and canada over fishing rights to george's bank for example.

i still don't understand the stripping down to the underwear though.

Baraka_Guru · 03-10-2009, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i still don't understand the stripping down to the underwear though.

It was from all the water being hosed at them. Those uniforms get rather clingy and restrictive when wet.

dksuddeth · 03-10-2009, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I'm not sure what your point is. The entire world recognizes it as international waters. China suddenly decides it's a "special economic zone." What the hell is a special economic zone, and what gives them the right to claim it for themselves? What's stopping us from claiming a special economic zone right next to theirs?

and would that be any different than libyas claim over the entire gulf on their northern side? it's a bogus claim by china.

roachboy · 03-10-2009, 11:44 AM

if that's a bogus claim, then so's the american claim to the entirety of its contiguous continental shelf, which is the basis for it's 200 mile claim to sovereignty over the ocean.

you can't play this silly game of sitting in a chair and deciding which claims are and are not legitimate based on a vague sense of whether you happen to like a particular country or not, much in the way that you might like a type of cheese and not another.
these claims are all basically arbitrary: either all such claims are legit or no such claims are legit.

btw i still maintain that the underlying issue here is taiwan, not the extent of china's claims to ocean.

shakran · 03-10-2009, 11:56 AM

Whatever the underlying issue, Roach, the question is what response is appropriate for what the Chinese government did.

Also, are you suggesting that America is claiming more than an exclusive economic zone between 24 and 200 nautical miles offshore? Are you further suggesting that America forbids ships from other countries from entering that zone without permission?

roachboy · 03-10-2009, 11:59 AM

uh...i don't see the separation between taiwan, the american naval presence in the south china sea and this incident. i'd be interested to read how you manage to make such a separation. it's not like this happened outside of all context, is it?

i don't see the basis for your claim that the chinese did not allow the ship to be there: it was harassed, sure--but that's different from "not being allowed" isn't it?

basically, i do not understand what your position on this is based on. maybe if you explain it (again perhaps) i'll see this differently.

Deltona Couple · 03-10-2009, 12:21 PM

Lets see, if I were President, and this happened, I would tell my chief of staff to wait outside the Oval Office while I thought out my options, then have sex with my wife on my desk....hehehe. I mean come on, where here wouldnt want to have sex with their S.O. on that desk if they were pres? lol.

shakran · 03-10-2009, 12:45 PM

well, when you radio another ship and tell them to leave, and then act like you're going to ram it, and then throw things at it, that's generally an /attempt/ to "not allow" the ship to be there.

What you suggest - harassment is ok as long as you don't actually disallow someone from being in a certain place - has interesting implications in other fields, such as the US civil rights movement. Is it, then, OK to throw things and threaten black people as long as you don't kick them out of your lunch counter? The harassment can't happen. Either the US has the right to be there (And it seems that, assuming our intelligence vessels are not also whale hunting, we do have that right) or it does not. If the US has the right to be there, then Chinese ships should not be harassing them.

Cynthetiq · 03-10-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple

Lets see, if I were President, and this happened, I would tell my chief of staff to wait outside the Oval Office while I thought out my options, then have sex with my wife on my desk....hehehe. I mean come on, where here wouldnt want to have sex with their S.O. on that desk if they were pres? lol.

That's what you do? No response to China, just wipe your dick off after the creampie?

It's not like we're having this discussion in GD or Nonsense.

roachboy · 03-10-2009, 01:30 PM

the equation is false between claims to zones of ocean and something like the civil rights act/movement---the former are by their nature porous and the status of the claims is disputed and disputable--for example not all countries have signed the united nations convention about maritime law, and countries that haven't, which include the united states, do not consider themselves bound by it. claims to 200 miles are dubious under most international agreements, but it's one of those things that's riddled with exceptions and de facto assertions etc...none of this applies to law within particular nation-states. to argue the contrary, you'd have to posit a formal suspension of the constitutional order (for example) which would, in principle, render the individual laws that were operative by way of appeal to the constitution as their authority kinda like these maritime matters.

and again, the primary reason for naval encounters in the south china sea between the united states and china is taiwan. this is why the area is one of relatively high tension. this is why i suggested that perhaps this was a good time for the united states to rethink it's policies toward taiwan--but (repeating again) i say this without a whole lot of information about what that'd imply--and (this isn't repeating) not because of this incident per se, but because rather because i was thinking about the underlying reason for it and it doesn't really make sense to me.

to my mind, there's no way around factoring taiwan into this picture. i don't understand why you seem to want to factor it out.
if i understand your position correctly, sharkran, this is an instance of legitimate dickwaving by the united states that is underpinned by some kind of Problem you have with china. on the former, see above---on the latter, i'm pretty agnostic on the question.

i know relatively little about china--it seemed to me a place that one can either learn a whole lot about or that one sets aside because there's alot to know in order to feel as though you know anything at all. that's an explanation of my agnosticism.

so my position is more that the dickwaving seems pointless in itself and such legitimacy as it has derives from the politics surrounding taiwan.

shakran · 03-10-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

to my mind, there's no way around factoring taiwan into this picture.

If the US stopped voicing support for Taiwan, what would that say about how we treat those who share similar ideals to ours? I mean we already have a black eye for abandoning the Vietnamese, the Koreans, the Iraqis, the Iranians, and the Kurds...

Quote:

i don't understand why you seem to want to factor it out.

Because whether or not we support taiwan has no bearing over right-of-passage discussions when talking about large expanses of oceans. Hey, I bet we really pissed off North Korea when we said they were in the axis of evil, and I bet we really pissed off most of the arabic countries when we invaded Iraq. Does that mean they get to wander the oceans searching for US-flagged ships to harass?

Quote:

if i understand your position correctly, sharkran, this is an instance of legitimate dickwaving by the united states that is underpinned by some kind of Problem you have with china. on the former, see above---on the latter, i'm pretty agnostic on the question.

Assuming the facts of this story are fairly accurate so far, I think it's China that did most of the dickwaving. Intelligence ships from all seafaring nations operate all over the world. It's routine and standard. Our ship is quietly humming along doing its thing in a part of the ocean where apparently even China admits it has the right to be (since china is claming it's an economic-restriction area and therefore rights-of-passage are still considered to be in effect) and it's being harangued by a bunch of Chinese boats.

I don't have a particular problem with China, but I do have a problem any time some nation decides to act like the schoolyard bully. If they considered it to be territorial waters, then they should have had the balls to say that up front, and then be willing to back it up with warships if necessary. Instead they claim no such thing, yet send five ships out to annoy ours, and create a dangerous situation in the process. They do not have the right to bar travel through that area. If they try and steal that right, then someone should point out that other nations that need to be in that area will not like it. Hence my response of parking a few navy vessels in the area. Wanna play your ramming game with an unarmed ship? Fine. Here's an armed ship. Let's see if you're still as brave in the thwarting of international law.

Quote:

so my position is more that the dickwaving seems pointless in itself and such legitimacy as it has derives from the politics surrounding taiwan.

Based on this and the discussion in the nuclear submarine thread, I'm starting to think that you have a particular problem with armed boats. Be that as it may, a ship armed only with firehoses can hardly be classified as dick waving.

roachboy · 03-10-2009, 03:26 PM

well, one problem here is that the notion of international law is, in this situation, kinda nebulous.
a second is that this was an american surveillance ship. i don't quite see what it could possibly have been doing there, really.
third is that from what i've read, you're alot more bent about this than is the navy. i think an explanation for this is the nebulousness of the law, the questions around what is and is not territorial waters and what that means--my impression is that in this area there's a continual low-level game of chicken going on involving lots of sides and that this particular incident--which is neither the first nor the last nor even particularly interesting--happened at a curious time and in a curious way and so got a bunch of press. i see this as a distracting piece of old-school grand game theater that had the advantage of being able to distract folk from the myriad ways in which it is self-evident that nation-states are now functionally obsolete and provide a little nostalgic moment--in this situation, the us/them business still operates. not only that, but there's at least some imperial anxiety about china ending up a primary beneficiary of any real collapse of the existing geopolitical/economic order--so a bit of dickwaving functions to assuage them too.

personally, i was more unsettled about the nuclear submarines bumping into each other in the context of war games. i just was.

as for taiwan, i don't feel a whole lot like saying the same thing again so i won't.

new man · 03-16-2009, 09:14 PM

Of course it's about Taiwan. We support democratic govts, not the ChiComs who could give a shit about Tibet, the Taiwanese, their people, the world. See, Chinese culture does not have guilt as a motivator, not being generally Christian. Chinese culture has "face" or how they are perceived. so for Chinese, it's not about doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do, but about how you perceive yourself and how others perceive you. If you poison a bunch of kids with tainted milk and are not caught, then you are perceived as the successful businessman who reduced costs. If you are caught, then you are killed by the govt for being embarrasing, or you commit suicide over embarrasment of being caught. Not for guilt of doing the wrong thing.
My point is, they want to strut their stuff, and try to push us around. Everyone wants to knock down the cock of the walk, and we are still the biggest military power and the only thing that stands in the way of them taking Taiwan by force. So they test us, to see if we are serious. Does it have anything to do with the new president? You betcha!

dippin · 03-16-2009, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by new man

Of course it's about Taiwan. We support democratic govts, not the ChiComs who could give a shit about Tibet, the Taiwanese, their people, the world.

Regardless of what one thinks about the specific issue, this is the second time in this thread that Taiwan's "democratic" ideals have been mentioned as a reason to support them.

Newsflash: this is BS. Just as China has preferred trade nation status for reasons that have nothing to do with democracy.

How am I so certain of this? Taiwan was a dictatorship until the late 80s.

So argue away about this case. Just dont be naive that it has anything to do with supporting democracy or American ideals.

03-09-2009, 12:13 PM	#4 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	Do they really want to pick a fight with the country that provides the largest existing market for their goods? We've already seen how the Chinese economy is doing due to the downturn in American consumer confidence. They don't have a big enough market for their own goods within their country--they need us to buy the cheap shit they manufacture. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

03-09-2009, 12:23 PM	#6 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	maybe the us needs to figure out a different policy regarding taiwan. that's at the source of alot of this nonsense. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-09-2009, 12:25 PM	#7 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	I wonder how badly the US would freak if the Chinese sent a surveillance ship just outside of it's boundaries..... __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill

03-09-2009, 03:00 PM	#12 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, the existing policy is entirely a relic of the cold war--that taiwan has to be maintained as separate from china. this is not an area of expertise on my part, so maybe there's more to it than i know, but what would be the problem with dropping that policy? if relations with china are better--and they are--and if most of the 1947 generation has died off--which it has---what exactly is the rationale, beyond inertia, for continuing as though the logic of 1947, such as it was, still needs motivate anyone? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-10-2009, 07:41 AM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia you might have a look at this--it's a wikipedia page on the body of law which enables territorial claims to be extended into the ocean. notice that it was the americans under harry truman that started the 200 mile thing. so there's nothing to stop china from making such a claim, and also no basis at all for the american claim you float as a snippy counter. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-09-2009, 12:09 PM	#3 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	We sneak onto their boats at night and steal there mascott....

03-09-2009, 12:26 PM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The article doesn't really outline a doomsday situation. As far as a few ships are concerned, we should just keep a watchful eye out but remain respectful. We want to avoid another cold war, not start one.

03-09-2009, 03:10 PM	#13 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	The Taiwanese don't want to become part of China... I think we need to play hardball with China, especially when it comes to trade. If they don't play nice with us in trade we shouldn't play nice with them.

03-10-2009, 07:34 AM	#15 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	I'm not sure what your point is. The entire world recognizes it as international waters. China suddenly decides it's a "special economic zone." What the hell is a special economic zone, and what gives them the right to claim it for themselves? What's stopping us from claiming a special economic zone right next to theirs?

03-10-2009, 07:56 AM	#18 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	hehe. Good enough. The question now becomes, did China actually declare this area to be an EEZ before they found the ship there? The question also becomes, could China not find a more mature and reasoned approach to getting the US vessel out of it's EEV than stripping and throwing wood at us?

03-10-2009, 08:01 AM	#19 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	they had made the claim previously, yes. an alternative question might be: were it not for the american policy toward taiwan, why would us ships have been there in the first place? this is obviously at the center of the differend, and not anything china may or may not be doing relative to trade. as for throwing wood and stripping down to underwear, that i cannot explain. it would not have been my first thought (wait--there's a large surveillance ship. what to do? i know, let's take off our clothes...) the only thing i can think of is that the whole incident was happening in an ambiguous space and taking off the clothes was a strange attempt to remove the military dimension to it. but i just made that up. the ny times article mentions something about there having been an attempt to gaffe an underwater submarine surveillance device, which seems somehow more germaine to what was happening. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-10-2009, 11:44 AM	#24 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	if that's a bogus claim, then so's the american claim to the entirety of its contiguous continental shelf, which is the basis for it's 200 mile claim to sovereignty over the ocean. you can't play this silly game of sitting in a chair and deciding which claims are and are not legitimate based on a vague sense of whether you happen to like a particular country or not, much in the way that you might like a type of cheese and not another. these claims are all basically arbitrary: either all such claims are legit or no such claims are legit. btw i still maintain that the underlying issue here is taiwan, not the extent of china's claims to ocean. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-10-2009, 11:56 AM	#25 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Whatever the underlying issue, Roach, the question is what response is appropriate for what the Chinese government did. Also, are you suggesting that America is claiming more than an exclusive economic zone between 24 and 200 nautical miles offshore? Are you further suggesting that America forbids ships from other countries from entering that zone without permission?

03-10-2009, 11:59 AM	#26 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	uh...i don't see the separation between taiwan, the american naval presence in the south china sea and this incident. i'd be interested to read how you manage to make such a separation. it's not like this happened outside of all context, is it? i don't see the basis for your claim that the chinese did not allow the ship to be there: it was harassed, sure--but that's different from "not being allowed" isn't it? basically, i do not understand what your position on this is based on. maybe if you explain it (again perhaps) i'll see this differently. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-10-2009, 12:21 PM	#27 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	Lets see, if I were President, and this happened, I would tell my chief of staff to wait outside the Oval Office while I thought out my options, then have sex with my wife on my desk....hehehe. I mean come on, where here wouldnt want to have sex with their S.O. on that desk if they were pres? lol. __________________ "It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

03-10-2009, 12:45 PM	#28 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	well, when you radio another ship and tell them to leave, and then act like you're going to ram it, and then throw things at it, that's generally an /attempt/ to "not allow" the ship to be there. What you suggest - harassment is ok as long as you don't actually disallow someone from being in a certain place - has interesting implications in other fields, such as the US civil rights movement. Is it, then, OK to throw things and threaten black people as long as you don't kick them out of your lunch counter? The harassment can't happen. Either the US has the right to be there (And it seems that, assuming our intelligence vessels are not also whale hunting, we do have that right) or it does not. If the US has the right to be there, then Chinese ships should not be harassing them.

03-10-2009, 01:30 PM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the equation is false between claims to zones of ocean and something like the civil rights act/movement---the former are by their nature porous and the status of the claims is disputed and disputable--for example not all countries have signed the united nations convention about maritime law, and countries that haven't, which include the united states, do not consider themselves bound by it. claims to 200 miles are dubious under most international agreements, but it's one of those things that's riddled with exceptions and de facto assertions etc...none of this applies to law within particular nation-states. to argue the contrary, you'd have to posit a formal suspension of the constitutional order (for example) which would, in principle, render the individual laws that were operative by way of appeal to the constitution as their authority kinda like these maritime matters. and again, the primary reason for naval encounters in the south china sea between the united states and china is taiwan. this is why the area is one of relatively high tension. this is why i suggested that perhaps this was a good time for the united states to rethink it's policies toward taiwan--but (repeating again) i say this without a whole lot of information about what that'd imply--and (this isn't repeating) not because of this incident per se, but because rather because i was thinking about the underlying reason for it and it doesn't really make sense to me. to my mind, there's no way around factoring taiwan into this picture. i don't understand why you seem to want to factor it out. if i understand your position correctly, sharkran, this is an instance of legitimate dickwaving by the united states that is underpinned by some kind of Problem you have with china. on the former, see above---on the latter, i'm pretty agnostic on the question. i know relatively little about china--it seemed to me a place that one can either learn a whole lot about or that one sets aside because there's alot to know in order to feel as though you know anything at all. that's an explanation of my agnosticism. so my position is more that the dickwaving seems pointless in itself and such legitimacy as it has derives from the politics surrounding taiwan. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-10-2009, 03:26 PM	#32 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, one problem here is that the notion of international law is, in this situation, kinda nebulous. a second is that this was an american surveillance ship. i don't quite see what it could possibly have been doing there, really. third is that from what i've read, you're alot more bent about this than is the navy. i think an explanation for this is the nebulousness of the law, the questions around what is and is not territorial waters and what that means--my impression is that in this area there's a continual low-level game of chicken going on involving lots of sides and that this particular incident--which is neither the first nor the last nor even particularly interesting--happened at a curious time and in a curious way and so got a bunch of press. i see this as a distracting piece of old-school grand game theater that had the advantage of being able to distract folk from the myriad ways in which it is self-evident that nation-states are now functionally obsolete and provide a little nostalgic moment--in this situation, the us/them business still operates. not only that, but there's at least some imperial anxiety about china ending up a primary beneficiary of any real collapse of the existing geopolitical/economic order--so a bit of dickwaving functions to assuage them too. personally, i was more unsettled about the nuclear submarines bumping into each other in the context of war games. i just was. as for taiwan, i don't feel a whole lot like saying the same thing again so i won't. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-16-2009, 09:14 PM	#33 (permalink)
new man Banned	Of course it's about Taiwan. We support democratic govts, not the ChiComs who could give a shit about Tibet, the Taiwanese, their people, the world. See, Chinese culture does not have guilt as a motivator, not being generally Christian. Chinese culture has "face" or how they are perceived. so for Chinese, it's not about doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do, but about how you perceive yourself and how others perceive you. If you poison a bunch of kids with tainted milk and are not caught, then you are perceived as the successful businessman who reduced costs. If you are caught, then you are killed by the govt for being embarrasing, or you commit suicide over embarrasment of being caught. Not for guilt of doing the wrong thing. My point is, they want to strut their stuff, and try to push us around. Everyone wants to knock down the cock of the walk, and we are still the biggest military power and the only thing that stands in the way of them taking Taiwan by force. So they test us, to see if we are serious. Does it have anything to do with the new president? You betcha!