Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

China extends sea control 200 miles: US fears enforcement will lead to military confrontations
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, March 2, 2004

Posted on 04/02/2004 1:14:17 AM PST by JohnHuang2

China has "intensified" monitoring of foreign vessels in areas it considers Chinese waters, but which internationally are regarded as open ocean, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence information service.

The effort is part of China's announced goal of extending its sea control further from Chinese shores.

The stepped-up surveillance was announced in a 2003 China Maritime Administrative Law Enforcement Bulletin recently published by the State Bureau of Oceanic Administration.

The U.S. government last year challenged China's new decree claiming control over a 200-mile economic zone from its coast.

The bulletin said its surveillance ships tracked two U.S. Navy vessels that entered China's claimed waters without permission.

The ships were identified as the oceanographic survey ship USNS Henson and ocean surveillance ship USNS Victorious.

The report said during 2003, Chinese ships conducted 53 inspections of 13 marine research projects involving foreign ships.

Defense officials said the decree violates international law and high-seas freedom of navigation.

The SOA is part of the Ministry of Land and Resources and the subordinate China Marine Surveillance.

Officials fear Chinese attempts to enforce the control might lead to military confrontations.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: china; economic; eez; exclusionzone; freedomoftheseas; navigation; territorialwaters
Friday, March 2, 2004

Quote of the Day by dirtboy

1 posted on 04/02/2004 1:14:18 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All


Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!


2 posted on 04/02/2004 1:15:16 AM PST by Support Free Republic (Freepers post from sun to sun, but a fundraiser bot's work is never done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Does anyone know how far off the coast the US extends its control?

Assuming it is the same, it is hard to complain. I don't think the US would be so permissive of unwanted Chinese vessels in its area of control.

I am not necessarily supporting what China does, but a nation's sovereignty in certain aspects is just that. In terms of human rights China should be condemned, but a desire to secure their coasts is understandable.
3 posted on 04/02/2004 1:28:45 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (Tax energy not labor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The U.S. government last year challenged China's new decree claiming control over a 200-mile economic zone from its coast.

The US should declare an economic zone from our shores to within 200 miles of China - just to stir the pot.

4 posted on 04/02/2004 1:30:51 AM PST by Sunnyvale CA Eng.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
IIRC, in the mid-70s the US changed its claims frmo 50 miles to 200 miles, since Russian trawlers were scooping up all the good fish that we wanted for ourselves.
5 posted on 04/02/2004 1:34:24 AM PST by Tarantulas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
G'mornin' again, Diego. Just tryin' out this other handle. She'll be on next week, and probably banned in a minute...........gonzo
6 posted on 04/02/2004 1:38:12 AM PST by Mata-Sherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarantulas
Thanks for the info - interesting resume.
7 posted on 04/02/2004 1:56:31 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (Tax energy not labor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tarantulas
The EEC (economic exclusion zone) is 200 miles out. Basically a nation has control over the economic resources of this area but cannot control the free passage of vessels (whether military or civillian) within in region. Indeed, foriegn nations are completely in their right to carry out military exercises (including live fire) in this region - though it might be poor form under some circumstances. Territorial waters on the otherhand extend some 20 miles out I believe and a nation has pretty much complete power within this zone. China is trying to argue that their EEC is actual their territorial waters and they have absolute power over this area which of course completely makes the distinction, in the International Law of the Sea, between the EEC and territorial water completely meaningless. Some of you may recall the downing of a U.S. recon plane early in the summer of 2001 by some yahoo Chinese pilot. This U.S. aircraft was flying in the EEC but not in Chinese territorial waters.
8 posted on 04/02/2004 2:26:20 AM PST by Avenger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Does anyone know how far off the coast the US extends its control?

12 nautical miles as I recall. That's why the USSR used to park their 'fishing trawlers' - spy ships- just outside the 12 mile mark offshore of Cape canaveral to observe our rocket launches.

The distance is even less in areas of "tight navigation" we split with other nations like Canada. This is because in waters less than 24 miles in width, nations on either side of the waters have to split the diff since both cannot have the limit of 12. It also depends on navigation; nations don't have the right to interfere with freedom of navigation, say in straights where if one nation hogged it all, others nations' vessels would not be able to pass and could have their trade choked off.

In addition to tightly controlled territorial waters, nations also may extend their economic exclusion zones up to 200 nautical miles, provided there is no neighboring nations' with territorial or exclusion zones of their own and no restricted trade routes; they do not have the same level of control in these areas as China desires, nor as much as in the narrower territorial waters. In econnomic eclusion zones nations cannot 'control' the zone by hindering the passage of vessels or aircraft whether military or civilian- they can only bar vessels from extracting resources , such as fish or oil, at least in quantities larger than for mere research.

Nations cannot bar warships, cruise ships, tankers, transports, aircraft, etc from transiting their economic exclusion zone.

Assuming it is the same, it is hard to complain.

The US is objecting because China has been grabbing uninhabited or seasonally inhabited islands belonging to other nations so as to gain an additional 12 mile territorial water around the island. China has grabbed reefs and shoals from other countries, even ones which aren't even remotely 'dry land' and built faclities on them for occupancy so as to keep them from being retaken. They then try to claim extra territory around them for their exclusive use, and usually succeed since they arm their island-scouts. If China were also allowed to take an additonal 200 zone from those 'shores' even a small submerged pinpoint reef would gain a cricle of territory 400 miles in diameter. If those areas contain oil and teeming stocks of fish, that's a huge economic theft for the small price of using a few men to steal a few feet of coral.

The Chinese are moving with a great deal of determination towards the Philippines' territory with little island hops like this. And Taiwan's territory as well. china wants to extend its control so as to prevent Taiwan from being able to defend itself- to bar US warships from aiding it.

I don't think the US would be so permissive of unwanted Chinese vessels in its area of control.

Then you would be wrong. Chinese vessels can transit our economic exclusion zone at any time. They don't have a comparable bluewater navy, but if they did, they could transit the same waters we do around the globe and even enter our EEC. Russia passes through these waters, and still does, warships and bombers included. Things only get dicey within the twelve mile territorial waters boundary.

We've been much more tolerant of those kinds of intrusions than the Chinese would be. We've had Russian bombers over our land and didn't blow them out of the sky. We've had Russian fighter planes have to make emergency landings here. They did so, we gave their pilots coffee and help, and saw them off without delay, and during the Cold War at that. We get our EP-3 rammed by hotdog Chinees fighter pilots and it wasn't even close to their 12 mile territorial waters. Go figure.

I am not necessarily supporting what China does, but a nation's sovereignty in certain aspects is just that.

The violator of sovereignity in this case is China, so it can reach out to swipe islands and reefs. This is above all a freedom of navigation issue. Without freedom of navigation, no nation can be sovereign. It would instead be blackmailed and controlled by those nations blocking its essential navigable waters and trade routes.

In terms of human rights China should be condemned, but a desire to secure their coasts is understandable.

They have no more a right to secure their coasts than any other nation- their coasts are as secure as ours. They should abide by the 12 mile standard instead of trying to get exceptions, and respect the sovereignity of others.

9 posted on 04/02/2004 2:42:19 AM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

There is no moral equivalency between nations by the way. The US keeps the seas free for all, while China seeks to deny use of a very large and important body of water and aggressively threatens Taiwan almost routinely.

Even though in this case we are being fair, we don't have to be fair to evil.

10 posted on 04/02/2004 2:55:29 AM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I agree with China on this, except only in places where that claim of 200 miles would interfere with another nation's claim of 200 miles -- in such cases an equal split is the rule.

Better this -- national sovereignity -- than some UN "Law of the Sea".

As long as free passage and safe harbors rules apply in this more offshore zone.

11 posted on 04/02/2004 3:00:51 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piasa
Spratly Islands. Oil grab?
12 posted on 04/02/2004 3:09:05 AM PST by Finalapproach29er (" Permitting homosexuality didn't work out very well for the Roman Empire")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bvw
"I agree with China on this, except only in places where that claim of 200 miles would interfere with another nation's claim of 200 miles -- in such cases an equal split is the rule."

Why not 300 miles or 5000 miles? Why 200? Why not 50, or 40, or 30?

"Better this -- national sovereignity -- than some UN "Law of the Sea"."

Ok, so we will replace the "UN Law of the Sea" with bvw's Law of the Sea.

I don't want to be rude but you are clueless on this issue and what the PRC is doing in the South China sea to infringe on other nations territorial rights.
13 posted on 04/02/2004 3:14:39 AM PST by Avenger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bvw
I agree with China on this.../snip/...As long as free passage and safe harbors rules apply in this more offshore zone.

WELL WHY DON'T YOU READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE "AGREEING WITH CHINA"! The problem is not the 200 mi Economic Zone. The Chinese navy is already interfering with non-fishing vessels on the high seas.

The report said during 2003, Chinese ships conducted 53 inspections of 13 marine research projects involving foreign ships.

14 posted on 04/02/2004 3:18:21 AM PST by XHogPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: XHogPilot
I did and I still agree with them. "Free Passage" should not include the right to bring in an armada within 200 miles.
15 posted on 04/02/2004 3:29:10 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Avenger
Alright. make it 300 miles.
16 posted on 04/02/2004 3:30:37 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: XHogPilot
What, exactly, is a "marine research project"?
17 posted on 04/02/2004 3:31:33 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: piasa
Thank you!
18 posted on 04/02/2004 3:40:58 AM PST by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
"Does anyone know how far off the coast the US extends its control?"

12 miles.
19 posted on 04/02/2004 5:50:46 AM PST by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: piasa
Thank you piasa. We should all consider ourselves thankful that freepers like you take the time to educate those of us who are less well informed.

Do you write term papers? :0)
20 posted on 04/02/2004 7:39:36 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (Tax energy not labor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: piasa; Avenger
China is trying to argue that their EEC is actual their territorial waters

Exactly.

Excellent posts. Both of you.

21 posted on 04/02/2004 5:55:17 PM PST by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Avenger; piasa
Your both exactly right (including the part where 'bvw' is clueless.)

FONOPS bump.
22 posted on 04/03/2004 2:03:32 PM PST by Magnum44 (Terrorism is a disease, precise application of superior force is the ONLY cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson