The US sailed a warship near a Chinese-claimed reef in the disputed South China Sea on Wednesday, the first such maneuver since China enacted a new law requiring foreign vessels to report themselves when entering Beijing’s claimed territorial waters.
As expected, the US ignored the new law, and the maneuver drew a sharp rebuke from Beijing. “The actions of the US side seriously violated China’s sovereignty and security, which is further solid evidence of its aggressive navigation hegemony and militarisation of the South China Sea,” said Col. Tian Junli, a spokesman for China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Tian added that the US is the “biggest destroyer” of peace and stability in the region.
The US Navy’s Seventh Fleet said the guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold passed within 12 nautical miles of Mischief Reef, a feature of the Spratly Islands that is controlled by China and also claimed by the Philippines and Vietnam. After China’s rebuke, the Seventh Fleet updated its statement, calling the Chinese statement “false.”
“The PLA’s statement is the latest in a long string of PRC actions to misrepresent lawful US maritime operations and assert its excessive and illegitimate maritime claims at the expense of its Southeast Asian neighbors in the South China Sea,” the Seventh Fleet said.
Since the Obama administration, the US has inserted itself into the maritime dispute between China and its Southeast Asian neighbors. In 2015, the US started sending warships near Chinese-claimed islands on a regular basis, what the Pentagon calls Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs).
FONOPs to challenge China increased during the Trump administration. In 2020, the US conducted nine FONOPs in the South China Sea, a record high. Wednesday’s maneuver marks the fifth FONOP in the South China Sea this year.
The 9 or 11 point drawn by the trumps of the time. Seriously, this small bit of info is huge and important if you wish to understand this sh**. To base your rights on this line drawn on a map(And we dont even know who did it!) is the epitome of arrogance. Ironically, the main whiners are those who came from around the cape of good hope to bulldoze this entire area for profit and arrogantly renamed these places. That always stuck in my craw as utter disrespect by coming to an area and renaming everything as if they are not already,for usually hundreds of years and do we give them back their old names? ‘Our beds are burning’ kiddies.
Kind of like bulldozing the Great Plains, killing buffalo, exterminating Native Americans, then renaming the areas.
Or, like conducting war against the Mexicans, taking their lands then renaming the lands.
Gee, same motive……………..profit.
Of course this group went west but first east/south, and what the carving they did of the sick man of europe has he was dismembered reverberates for decades to come…These are static once in a time events but instead they echo, they thunder like aftershocks actually and will till fixed. The continuant of africa was by whitewashed by our lovely forbears whos damage continues to nauseate…
deganawida
Joe Tracey
6 days ago
like we did here in the western hem.
The failure of the UN to establish means to arbitrate geographic resource claims requires correction. There appear to be two new approaches to end the long disputes. The traditional approach is to let states control resources within their boundaries, usually at defensible features like rivers or coasts, which does not work for maritime resources, and perpetuates resource concentrations and scarcities without any basis in human rights.
The geographic approach to division of maritime resources beyond the 12 mile territorial limit is difficult because any fair distribution must comprehend the changing resource needs of populations of different sizes, resource consumption, and extraction dependency. That could be resolved if the principles are agreed, but requires UN licensing, monitoring of vessels, and enforcement. Leaving that to the disputing nations requires them to command the territory, mixing the claims and needs of resources with those of defense, customs, etc. which has prevented agreements.
The global approach would empower the UN (or regional treaty groups) to control and even own all resources and distribution within the region and globally. That requires a large administration, agreement on the rights of the people of each state to the resources or proceeds of sale, and agreements on means and effects of extraction, licensing and monitoring of extraction outfits, etc. This could be done first with maritime resources as a model.
The global approach eliminates conflicts based upon resource claims and defense issues, which are the most concrete issues between nations, apart from the problems of tribalism and tyranny that have always plagued humanity. Only when we eliminate the resource claims and defense issues, can we focus upon elimination of tribalism and tyranny, the next step of human progress.