U.S. Navy to China: We値l sail our ships near your man-made islands whenever we want

[solar Max]

Source: Washington Post

By Dan Lamothe October 8 at 6:05 PM EDT



U.S. officials could soon send a Navy ship steaming by a chain of man-made islands that China has built in the South China Sea, Pentagon officials said, potentially exacerbating tensions in an area in which Beijing is expanding its presence.

China set up a territorial limit around the islands, effectively claiming international waters as their own. Washington does not recognize those claims, prompting the Navy to develop plans to send at least one ship within 12 nautical miles of the islands, a defense official said.

The Navy sending ships through the disputed areas would require approval from the White House, and underscore that the United States will not let China limit freedom of navigation at sea, the official added. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to do so.

Asked about the plan, a spokesman for the Navy, Cmdr. William Marks, said he could not discuss future operations. But he said that the Navy “will continue to operate in international waters in the South China Sea in accordance with international rules of navigation — and do so at a time of our choosing.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/10/08/u-s-navy-to-china-well-sail-our-ships-near-your-man-made-islands-whenever-we-want/

---

And yet, for some reason, the rest of the world hates us. I just don't get it.

[Fearless]

1. A variation on George Carln's "Bigger Dick Foreign Policy"

This time it's "Who can be the bigger dick."

[JonathanRackham]

2. I was thinking of a Monty Python scenario. nt

Nt

[dorkzilla]

3. Something tells me this isn't going to end well

But I think in this particular case, we aren't in the wrong. China has been brazen about this and five other nations claim that's their territory as well.

http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-us-islands-20150128-story.html

[CBGLuthier]

8. Well, one thing is for sure, it isn't US territory so why don't we keep our big dick out of it

So sick of a country that travels halfway around the world to stir up a fight.

[newfie11]

9. Exactly what I'm thinking!!!!!

Don't we have enough "wars"'

[solar Max]

13. Thank you!

There is common sense in this thread!

[dorkzilla]

21. I totally agree, but the Philippines asked for our help...

As well as Japan.

http://www.manilalivewire.com/2015/03/japan-and-u-s-to-establish-military-bases-in-the-philippines/

I'd much rather feed and educate people than save our bigger dicks around, trust me.

[MADem]

89. Half of the world's seagoing trade transits that region.

This is an issue for the WORLD.

China does not have the right to throw up a toll road in the middle of an ocean superhighway, and that is what they are doing.

The United Nations conventions on international law of the sea do not support this.

We are on the side of the angels in this dispute.

It's not about "dicks." It's about food, clothes, those precious iPod/Pad/Puds and those things called JOBS.

No trade? No work.

[7962]

25. Have you actually looked where these "islands" are? Its ridiculous.

It would be like the US claiming all area between Hawaii & the mainland as territorial waters and off limits.
China is trying to claim ALL water all the way to the shores of the Philippines. Nearly to Malaysia.

[Duckhunter935]

30. Yep

Maybe we should build some islands near there

[MADem]

52. We forced Japan to eschew war in their constitution after WW2--in return we agreed to defend them.

That's why we are involved.

History. Gotta learn it.

[CBGLuthier]

54. So we are all beholden to agreements made by imperialists who died before most of us were born

Yeah, gotcha.

[Chan790]

59. Well, the other option is to withdraw from the argeement and allow Japan to rearm its armed forces.

That's what some Japanese RW hardliners want, specifically so they can act bellicose with China for regional dominance.

If you think we're not getting dragged into that war...you're not being honest with yourself.

This is the pacifist, anti-war option...crazy as that is. Nobody is shooting anybody and nobody is going to.

[MADem]

68. People forget we have US citizens in that end of the world, and US territory, too.

If we don't pipe up, next thing you know, they'll be bigfooting Guam. They're bullying Malaysia, Indonesia the PI and Taiwan with this gambit, and they've been harassing Japan for years. They need to be told to cut it out.

I agree with you--no matter what happens, we're in it. We can be dragged in late, or we can be proactive. We're better off letting China know that they'd be well advised to come to a cooperative "share the road" arrangement with their neighbors, rather than trying to assert some really bullshit soverignty that just doesn't pass anyone's smell test. Speak softly, and all that.

[Scootaloo]

77. Where have I heard talk of domino theory in southeast Asia before...?

[MADem]

78. lf you think this is about "domino theory" you are not paying the slightest atttention.

This is about international law of the sea.



Really--at least read/familiarize yourself with the basic issues before you say stuff like that.

[Scootaloo]

80. Maybe you'll want to read your posts?

If we don't pipe up, next thing you know, they'll be bigfooting Guam.

Also? Seriously, learn some geography.

[MADem]

82. Why don't you try reading the link I just gave you in response to your OTHER smartass post?

You clearly have no grasp of what this issue is about--it is a broad regional problem. You're hanging in the cove when you need to be looking at the bay, there, kid.

One more time, since you apparently wanted to snark before reading--this issue goes back DECADES, and China has been screwing with both Japan and Taiwan well before they started in over in this sector.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139


Read, learn, or snark away some more. A childish approach always gives people a lasting impression.

[Scootaloo]

84. You said this was about defending Japan.

And now apparently China will be "bigfooting Guam" next.

Problem is, these waters are nowhere near Japan, much less Guam. This situation has nothing to do with "defending japan," as you have claimed. It certainly has nothing to do with Guam! Do you even know where Guam is, MADem?

You're trying to paint the exercise in the OP as somehow being crucial to the defense of Japan, and American territory in Guam. This is just silly. For starters, geography. Next problem is that it's just not crucial at all. This is the international equivalent of siblings doing that "i'm not touching you, i'm not touching you!" thing on a car ride. Annoying, but not even remotely dangerous. And third, our proposed plan of action isn't going to accomplish diddle-squat. Unless you count burning fuel needlessly to be an accomplishment.

[MADem]

87. This UNCLOS business has been going on for YEARS. And it is about representing Japanese interests

in the region. The JMSDF is limited in what they can do as a consequence of their Constitution. Japan is an island nation, they do all of their trade by sea, and China bigfooting their way into that area and claiming it as their own closes down a seagoing "highway" to get their goods in and out. It also has that same effect on Guam, our territory.

What waters are "near" depends on what map you are using. Japan is part and parcel of this issue, and we act FOR them, owing to their limitations, and as they are (justifiably) concerned about the tack China is taking in the region; but they are not the only horse we are backing, we further support the interests of other allies in the region who are also Japan's regional trading partners.



http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/07/asian-worries-about-china-s-rise

We agree with PI and Vietnam and others that China has no basis in UNCLOS to do what they are doing. We've made this clear to them, as have other nations, and they need to cease and desist.

Almost all scholars of the law of the sea, except those from China, agree that the nine-dashed line egregiously violate UNCLOS. In this day and age, it is incredible that a state is still claiming almost an entire sea as its sovereign waters.
.....

If the tribunal will allow China's nine-dashed line to stand, then that means UNCLOS does not apply to the South China Sea. If UNCLOS does not apply to a vital sea like the South China Sea, where one-half of the world's seaborne trade passes through, then there will be grave doubt whether UNCLOS can resolve similar disputes in other oceans and seas of our planet. It will be the beginning of the end of UNCLOS...

http://www.dw.com/en/chinas-nine-dashed-line-has-no-basis-under-international-law/a-18609290


Play your naive and obtuse card all you want. This is all of a piece, and only someone who hasn't followed the issue for years would think that this is separate from the other encroachments that China has been making down the decades.

[MADem]

67. If you want to play the Isolationist Game, certainly. I don't agree with your "imperialist" jargon

WRT this issue in the slightest. It's naive and shortsighted.

And given that you're so free and easy with regard to public rights of way, you won't mind, then, if I build a house on the sidewalk in front of your place, and then drive my car over your lawn, and then try to tell you and anyone coming to visit you that you all need to back off if you get too close to my abode....because that's what the Chinese are trying to do.

These "floating islands" are anchored, stationary barges. They aren't land masses, and China doesn't have any right to the seas surrounding them. China best get correct on this score. This is an International Law of the Sea issue, and they're part of the world, and no one with interests in that end of the world--including the USA, which has territory round those parts--is going to put up with their shit.

[Scootaloo]

76. "History. Gotta learn it." You might wanna focus your studies in geography, MADem

There's a lot of islands there. Not a single one of them is even remotely Japan.

[MADem]

79. DUH. Read contextually--they've been doing this off Japan, too, FOR YEARS.

The whole South China Sea region is a lot of people's backyards.



Let's hear you wax eloquent on "domino theory" too, while we're at it.

Some light reading--this isn't all of it, either but it will get you started on an issue you're clearing coming up short on:


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139

[Scootaloo]

81. You're trying to make it about Japan.

We forced Japan to eschew war in their constitution after WW2--in return we agreed to defend them.

That's why we are involved.

Do you even read your own posts before subjecting the rest of us to the things?

[MADem]

83. It's about the common denominator....CHINA.

If you knew anything about this, you'd understand that.

Repeating "Do you even read your own posts..." doesn't make you look smart, you know. It makes it look like you don't understand the scope of this issue, how long it has been going on, and the many factors and nations involved in the matter. USA is not acting alone, here--virtually every nation in the region is angered at China's overrreach.

But do go on, if you'd like. Act like you've got the bubble. You fail to impress--again.

Here--one more try--maybe the third time, the airplane will go in the hanger:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139

[Scootaloo]

85. It's about the silly claim you made about how we're apparently "defending Japan"

And your follow-up baloney about Guam being in danger.

Nobody's in danger, MADem. least of all motherfucking Guam. This is about China trying to lay stake to international waters, and its trade impact. Japan is not threatened, much less any US territory (Palau is closer than Guam, if you're curious. I know you didn't know.) Now, it's a fucking dumb claim by China, which is why we're apparently set to give it a fucking dumb response. But it's hardly the crucial, life-or-death scenario you paint it as.

You're grasping at straws to try to come out "right" in an argument where you're just wrong.

[MADem]

88. Tired of "educating" you. Read post 87.

I am grasping at straws to think it's possible to educate someone so willfully obtuse and obstreperous, certainly.

I just have to smh at how PROUD you are at your lack of understanding on this matter. You are positively boastful--and it's .... sad-hilarious.

My mistake was engaging with you at all. You just don't have the bubble on this matter. And you're pleased that you don't. Hmmmm.

[xocet]

56. So, international law means nothing to you? That is quite a disgraceful position to take.

South China Sea islands are Chinese plan to militarise zone, claims US
Emma Graham-Harrison
Saturday 30 May 2015 16.00 EDT

...

Some countries, including Vietnam, Malaysia and Taiwan, have used land reclamation to expand or plan expansion of the islands so that they can better support human life and, by extension, troops and other military capacity.

However, China is the only power to have begun turning reefs, which are under water at high tide and therefore not considered land under international law, into permanent islands.

This weekend Beijing’s conversion of open ocean it claims as its own into land that could be used to claim even more ocean triggered a serious escalation in the long-running dispute.

...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/30/us-claims-south-china-sea-islands-are-beijing-plot

Q. and A.: Eugenio B. Bito-onon Jr. on China’s Island Expansion
By Javier C. Hernández September 28, 2015 6:08 pm

...

Q.The Philippines has pushed back against China’s advances in the South China Sea more forcefully than any other country in the region. Why are people so passionate about this issue?

A.One country should not just invade another without any strong reason. There’s an international law, the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which makes it very clear that these territories are within our zone. We see Chinese ships patrolling our waters, and in many instances, we are being chased out in the middle of the night. In our own territory, we are being bullied, we are being harassed.

...

http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/28/south-china-sea-philippines-bito-ono/

[FrodosPet]

73. Potentially millions of additional dead ...more than a billion of additional destitute

But at least we would be keeping our big dick out of it.

China is NOT a friendlier superpower than the U.S. They have major beef with damn near every other nation in their neighborhood. If we just back out and say "not our problem" just to appease some naive pacifists, it's not going to go well for a large number of people.

BTW: Have you ever studied Pacific WWII history to at least a modest layman's extent? Please spend a few days on it and then hit us back about whether there is a good reason, to PRESERVE peace and global access to the sea lanes, that our big dick should enter the picture now rather than later.

[psychopomp]

86. It's a small world, after all

The sea-lanes of the world have been kept open for decades thanks to the diligence of the USN and allies who help to enforce international law. Our allies in the region are unable to challenge the PLN and if the South China sea, through which a significant portion of global trade passes.

The CCP must not be allowed to dominate the sea-lanes with a military presence there.

Some graphics to get a better idea of what's at stake:

link:http://amti.csis.org/atlas/
18 Maps that Explain Maritime Security in Asia

[uhnope]

4. Good for the USA on this one, "Solar Max"

The world's largest dictatorship is using their billion$ leftover from their Communist kleptocracy days & current authoritarian hypercapitalism to ecologically devastate the ocean by dredging the seabed & making manmade islands for new miliary bases.

& you think the USA is the bad guy in this equation, Solar Max? Are you joking? You're new at DU. Are you aware it's devoted to progressive, democratic values (& electing Democrats), not celebrating dictatorships?

FREE TIBET

[solar Max]

6. We're going to send at least one ship inside China's 12-mile limit

How would we feel if Chinese warships were <12 miles off California? As for dictatorships, hmm, I seem to recall us taking down a dictator named Saddam twelve years ago, and that has certainly turned out great, hasn't it?

Bottom line: We don't own this planet!

[Sherman A1]

7. One might add

nor, do the Chinese own this planet. This is a man made island that is nothing more than a military base with a territorial limit to push Chinese territorial claims into what has always been international waters. This is about freedom of navigation and freedom of the seas.

[solar Max]

12. No one owns the planet

But we, like the British Empire before us, seem to think we do. China wants control of the waters of its own coast, two seas with "China" in their names! We'd never do such a thing, right? Like meddling in Central and South America? Naw. And the Monroe Doctrine was just a myth!



But, by all means, have me booted, while ignoring an obvious troll who's been posting opinion pieces here in LBN, not even understanding the rules, and has racked up 46 posts after being banned and immediately re-registering at 9:21 AM EDT on Wednesday.

[Sherman A1]

17. That is the point

The Chinese do not own that planet and other nations (including the United States) are free to navigate through these waters.

Beyond that I have no idea ( nor do I care) as to what you are discussing in this post regarding being banned and an obvious troll????

[snooper2]

39. I actually do own the planet, I'm just waiting for royalties from everone

You send your check yet!

[FSogol]

49. LOL. Beat me to it. n/t

[FrodosPet]

74. It should be getting there any day now

It has the Janis Joplin commemorative stamp on the envelope and contains a nice "Thank you for letting us live and breathe" card done by a friend who is awesome at calligraphy. You can't miss it.

[Adrahil]

48. So, it's OK for China to just plant fake islands and start claiming international waters?

I think it is most definitely in the interests of the U.S. to maintain the free navigation of international waters.

[uhnope]

14. LOL. China doesn't own the entire South China Sea. WTF?

Hell yeah this should be challenged.

Are you a fan of China's militaristic expansion, their creating of new islands for mllitary bases? Do you think any country, especially a giant dictatorship like China, should be able to create manmade islands for their military anywhere in the world? WTF? Where do you come off, Solar Max? Can you answer these questions?

[solar Max]

15. Does China have 750 military bases around the world?

I can only conclude, sir, that you have appointed yourself as a self-styled Devil's Advocate, arguing for imperialism instead of reason. Fine. Consider yourself on Ignore, and have a good Halloween.

[7962]

28. And we dont claim all the land & oceans around ANY of those bases either. You fail again.

Not to mention most want us there to bolster their economies.

[snooper2]

41. Did you try the Halloween Whopper Yet!

[FrodosPet]

75. I though it was the kelp suppliments I had started taking

They should shoot for a designer series.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

45. Dude, I'm fine with shutting down many, or even all of America's overseas bases.

But there's a significant difference here that you're simply ignoring. US bases are located inside existing countries, and those countries can, if they choose, boot the US out. They may annoy the US by doing so, but they can. By simply creating bases out in international waters, China is creating bases that only actual military actions can get rid of them. And if it is not made plain that the world does not and will not recognize such man made islands in terms of territorial limits, there is nothing to stop China, Russia, the US, North Korea, or any other country from doing the same, and creating more offshore military bases anywhere in the world and simply claiming new swathes of international waters as 'territorial waters' and disrupting shipping lanes and flight paths for planes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. China's "12 mile limit", which is 1000km away from established permanently inhabited Chinese land

Here's the location of Fiery Cross Reef:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Fiery+Cross+Reef/@13.3445446,109.4354511,6z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x322ab9dcff51e387:0x4335ad06cb7b62a4

It's about 400km from Vietnam, 400km from the Philippines, 400km from Sabah (the Malaysian northernmost part of Borneo) and 1000km from Hainan. China may have a believable claim to at least some of the Paracel Islands (some of them were seized from Vietnam in the 1970s), but they're still over 600km away.

Being over 200 miles from anyone's coast, that stretch of sea ought to be open navigation for everyone. The point is that the Chinese don't own it. Here's the map of the South China Sea, and the claims China is making over it:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea

You can see that China's claims pushes their 'territory' right up to the shores of countries a 1000km away from China proper.

[7962]

26. The Spratley Islands are nowhere NEAR mainland China. Ridiculous comparsion

[uawchild]

29. cough Falkland Islands no where near "mainland" United Kingdom either cough

The Falkland Islands are further away from the UK then the Spratley Islands are from China though. China has a much longer historical claim to the Spratlies then the UK does to the Falklands, and both sets of islands are claimed by multiple countries, yet the UK claims them none the less.

Why does the UK get a different set of rules then China? European privilege perhaps?

[Duckhunter935]

32. One is a real island

And was colonized hundreds of years ago.

[uawchild]

35. real islands

All of the Spratleys are smaller islands, islets and reefs, all of which are recognized by international law as basis for territorial claims. And all of the claimants in the Spratleys have built bases and done landfills. China is just the latest and greatest to do so.
As for the UK "colonizing" it "hundreds" of years ago, well, the Sprtaleys have been "colonized" and used as fishing bases by several countries, including China, for thousands of years. So, I still don't see why the UK gets a pass on the falklands, while China's claim to at least _some_ of the Sprately's get out right denied by the US. The world courts still consider it all an open issue for peaceful arbitration.

[7962]

37. And the UK isnt claiming the ocean between The Falklands & England either

Not to mention, the Falklands are actual islands

[uawchild]

42. oh, but they ARE claiming tons of ocean

Seriously, the UK is claiming a HUGE swath of ocean around the Falklands as their own territorial economic zone.

http://www.marineregions.org/gazetteer.php?p=details&id=8389

So, why hate on China for making similar claims? European Privilege?

[7962]

62. China is claiming EVERYTHING. Pretty much up to the beaches of the Philippines & Malyasia.

Your own link shows hardly any claim around the Falklands by England. the islands are only 300 miles off the coast; that map doesnt even cover half that.
Another poor example. Not mention England has been there for hundreds of years.

[Duckhunter935]

31. California

Is not a man made artificial island out in the Pacific Ocean

[7962]

40. Looks like Putin isnt the only one to pay posters on internet forums.

[Duckhunter935]

43. True

[GGJohn]

47. That's not China's 12 mile exclusionary limit,

it's China trying to restrict passage in international waters and the US is challenging that, rightly so.
Welcome to DU.

[hack89]

50. China has no legal claim to that territory. It is a pure land grab. Nt

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

58. No we are not!

"plans to send at least one ship within 12 nautical miles"

We are planning on exercising our right to use international waters, which is important. We are not going to violate China's waters. I'm sure other Navies come right up to our boundaries too.

This is ONLY controversial to the Chinese because they are creating new "international waters" where they do not by agreed convention, exist.

[Chan790]

60. This isn't that.

This would be like the US creating man-made islands off the coast of Canada, claiming territorial rights and using the Navy to chase Canadian ships out of their own coastal waters and threatening to blockade commerce ships from Canadian ports.

What China is doing is a violation of international law, in addition to being aggressively bellicose. (They want to provoke a war.) What the US is doing in response isn't as we were invited into those waters by a nation, the Philippines, with legitimate territorial rights to those waters, even if they are also within 12 miles of Chinese (fake) islands.

Bottom line: you're wrong both morally and in terms of upholding international law to oppose this action by the US Navy.

[itsrobert]

65. You are comparing man made islands far from the China mainland to the state of California?

Not even close to the same.

[NickB79]

66. The Chinese mainland is several hundred MILES away from these MAN-MADE islands

Your analogy is piss-poor at best.

[psychopomp]

91. You've missed the point

How would we feel if Chinese warships were <12 miles off California?

Comparing the piles of dredged sand and rock out in the middle of the South China Sea to
California is entirely missing the point. These territories are disputed, first off; secondly, they are not even "islands," according to the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. Twelve miles is out is quite within legal parameters.

[GGJohn]

96. Again, that's not China's 12 mile limit,

it's international waters that China is trying to claim as their own.
What part of that do you not understand?

[Depaysement]

22. K & R

And again.
And again.

[Blue_Tires]

95. +1

[left on green only]

5. Perhaps In A Few Years......

.....the problem will take care of itself; as soon as the global sea level rises a couple of more feet. From looking at the satellite photo that was taken, it doesn't appear as if anyone on the Island has given it that much thought.

[highprincipleswork]

11. I don't see what's so neutral about building your territory into internat'l waters and claiming them

Seems perfectly reasonably to challenge this assertion.

[Mister Ed]

18. I was surprised to see how far from China these "territorial" waters actually are:

?w=1000

[highprincipleswork]

19. Exactly

Not to be bellicose, although the actions around this website recently are putting me in the mood sometimes, but you'd almost have to test these conditions, because they are extreme.

Thanks for the map! Very helpful for picturing the real situation.

[7962]

27. That picture says it all. China wants to control the entire area.

[brush]

61. Yes. The Spratlys are closer to Viet Nam, Indonesia and the Philippines than China

[davidpdx]

20. The area is international water and the ownership of the "islands"

some of which actually are only reefs which are being built on to raise them above water. China essentially claims ALL of the islands in the sea from right below Taiwan all the way down to the Philippines. One of the islands is inside the international boundary of the Philippines not far from Palawan Island (a beautiful place that I visited this past January).

The claims are about two things: 1) natural resources 2) the right to control international waters and stop any traffic from moving through that area (again I'm talking about the entire South China Sea).

You don't get it because you are clueless about foreign affairs.

[christx30]

36. Would probably make it easier

for China to attack Taiwan at some point in the future, should Taiwan attempt to assert its independence. Less distance for China's war machine to cross.

[davidpdx]

44. I'd put more money on Hong Kong doing that than Taiwan

Taiwan relies a lot on mainland China. Hong Kong has the money.

[Democat]

23. Blame America?

Why not bash Obama for China's actions while you're at it?

[sulphurdunn]

24. The Chinese have no right to claim

international waters as part of their territory. The US Navy gets two thumbs up on this one.

[uawchild]

33. Why not let world courts handle this without the military bluster?

Other claimant nations have built up military bases and even air strips in the Sprately's, why so much military bluster directed just at china? Enlarging existing claim land is allowed under international law also. Other countries have done it there, just not as well as the Chinese have. In any case, all these bases are really tiny land specs, so why is some land filling an excuse to deny China's long standing and, honestly, fairly reasonable territorial claims when we accept Malaysia's, Taiwan's and the Philippine's claims in the area?

[7962]

38. Because the "world courts" have no power & anything they say would be ignored by China

And also because Malaysia and the Phillipines are RIGHT THERE and not a thousand miles away

[drm604]

34. China is in the wrong here.

They're trying to claim international waters as theirs. If this is allowed then anyone can claim anything simply by building islands (and causing ecological damage by doing so).

[JCMach1]

70. Exactly, this particular issue (unlike a lot of other BS) is actually a National Security issue

where the US does have a significant strategic interest...

[jtuck004]

46. Huh. I wonder why they don't just murder 50 million indigenous people and steal their land like us?

"We’ll sail our ships near your man-made islands whenever we want" < Gotta love people who live in the past.

[MADem]

51. This is all about our long post WW2 defense cooperation relationship with Japan.

Those "man-made islands" are in JAPAN's backyard.

This isn't about us waving our privates at China--it's about Japan's Constitution (that we foisted on them as the victors after the war, which prohibits them from pushing back unless they're invaded, pretty much). Those man-made islands are breathing down Japan's neck.

China is appropriating area in international waterways and trying to assert a right over it. That's like building a house on the median of a superhighway and claiming you own the road.

I don't recognize China's claims either--the international laws of the sea mean something, and China can't just bigfoot their way in and close off points of access by throwing up artificial islands in ships' passageways.

[Jester Messiah]

53. Well, but here's the thing...

"effectively claiming international waters as their own" is not cool. Abiding by that claim would set a poor precedent.

[TwilightGardener]

55. Hey idiots, just quietly do it and stop provoking a showdown. China didn't announce to us

their little cruise near Alaska, why are we publicly advertising this "Oh, we're gonna do it! Any minute now!! Watch out!!" bullshit?

[7962]

63. THANK YOU!!! I'm SO tired of the govt/media announcing every move before they make it

Its almost as though they WANT it to fail
I can just see it if todays media were around in 1950: "Marines head north; expected to land at Inchon any day"

[christx30]

92. I think the idea is that China is very publically

closing the area and seizing international waters in violation of maritime law. So we have to be just as public in our "Oh hell no" message to them.

[TwilightGardener]

93. When they suddenly declared a new air identification zone that stretched all the way to Japan

in 2013, which was totally arbitrary, we said: nope--and simply flew a B-52 right through it with no fanfare. I think that's a better way to handle their bullshit made-up territory grabs. When you publicly debate and plot to run a ship through contested space, it creates a showdown where no one wants to lose face.

[hedgehog]

57. This may be the one time to invoke Chamberlain's experience

and stand up to an aggressive country. The difference is that we are not facing a possibly insane military dictator but a kleptocracy with a lot of different pressures at the top. I think we will see China constantly testing limits to see how far it can go, but I don't see China going to war over this. Too many people at the top are making too much money selling to the US.

[uhnope]

64. " the rest of the world hates us." Speak for yourself, Solar Max. Know a lot of haters?

the rest of the world does not hate us. In fact for much of the world a chance to live in the USA would be their dream come true. Perhaps you should expand your circle of contacts to include people who don't "hate us".

[Blue_Tires]

69. Nice strawman

And yet, for some reason, the rest of the world hates us. I just don't get it.

This is brazen Chinese aggression in a territory that isn't theirs...Maybe you should read up on the issue and get back to us.

[Owl]

94. Exactly.

[Judi Lynn]

71. Thanks for the article, solar Max. Welcome to D.U. n/t

[FrodosPet]

72. The rest of the world does NOT hate us

Some of the rest of the world hates us.

Some of the rest of the world is peeved at us.

But the statement that (most of? all?) the rest of the world hates us is patently false.

Thinkaboutit. Try to break past the "first in being worst" mentality. Do you really believe that China's potential dominance of Asia and many of the most important trade routes in the world is a good thing?

I know this is going to piss off a lot of people here, but reality check: Commercial trade is the most effective way to preserve what peace the world has. And it is the best way to eliminate poverty and suffering.

[nsd]

90. +1