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

Skip to comments.

China enacts law extending its control
The Washington Times ^ | January 27, 2003 | Bill Gertz

Posted on 01/27/2003 7:36:05 AM PST by conservativecorner

Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

China has enacted a new decree extending its control over a 200-mile economic zone from its coast that Bush administration officials say could lead to another clash with the United States over freedom of navigation.

"This is a Chinese domestic law that is inconsistent with international law and the law that we follow," said a defense official.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 01/27/2003 7:36:05 AM PST by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
the Law of the Sea Treaty does not allow signatories to regulate noneconomic activities in the 200-mile zone, such as ocean surveys and mapping.

Yes but is electronic evesdropping like the Pueblo an economic or non economic activity ?

2 posted on 01/27/2003 7:52:06 AM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maui_hawaii; soccer8; tallhappy; ChaseR
Asian Bully Ping!
3 posted on 01/27/2003 9:46:03 AM PST by Enemy Of The State (There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who dont.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
Note their timing.
4 posted on 01/27/2003 10:34:13 AM PST by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge; ninenot; flamefront; Sawdring; Jeff Head; brat; dalereed; soccer8; Ranger; ...
bump
5 posted on 01/27/2003 1:34:13 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe (God Armeth The Patriot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
LINKS OF INTEREST:

***WASHINGTON TIMES.com: "CHINA ENACTS LAW EXTENDING ITS CONTROL" by Bill Gertz (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "China has enacted a new decree extending its control over a 200-mile economic zone from its coast that Bush administration officials say could lead to another clash with the United States over freedom of navigation.") (012703)

***An interesting discussion on FREEREPUBLIC.com regarding a JANES DEFENCE WEEKLY article. TOPIC: "CHINA READY TO SIGN NEXT CONTRACT FOR SU-30's." (011503)

NewsMax.com: "CLINTON AND CHINESE MISSILES" by Charles R. Smith (January 14, 2003)

***BOOK: "UNRESTRICTED WARFARE: CHINA'S MASTER PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA" by Col. Qiao Liang, Col. Wang Xiangsui, and Al Santoli

WorldNetDaily.com: "U.S. FIRMS HELPED CHINA WITH NUKES? State Accuses Hughes, Boeing of Providing Missile Technology" by Jon Dougherty (010203)

MIDDLE EAST NEWSLINE: Washington. "U.S. TAKEN BY SURPRISE BY SAUDI MISSILE CAPABILITY" (120902)

DefenseLINK.mil: "Remarks by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz , Frontiers of Freedom, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC, Thursday, October 24, 2002." (SPEECH Question & Answer Session SNIPPET: "DepSec Wolfowitz: I think what it points out, and I think it should be a reminder to people on every side -- I was about to say both sides of this debate, but I find it a multi-sided debate. Whatever position one holds, one I think should recognize the potential for things to develop in ways that we don't anticipate, and the fact that if you stop and think about it, that concern that I mentioned which is a real one -- As I said, we demonstrated it in 1947 and we aren't the only ones who have thought about it, is something that requires thinking about missile defense in yet another difficult way. One could build the best possible defenses against intercontinental ballistic missiles and miss that possibility. I think as long as there are countries out there -- and there are -- who are as clearly determined as they are and they evidence it among other things, I mentioned the amount of resources they devote to being able to attack us. We need to be thinking ahead of them. We need to be thinking out of the box. We need to remember that there was a time when we said, I believe it was March of 1962, that it was inconceivable the Soviet Union would put missiles in Cuba. I believe in the 1980s when Saudi Arabia acquired long-range ballistic missiles from the Peoples Republic of China it took us completely by surprise. We think a relatively harmless surprise, but nonetheless a surprise.")

stepping back in time...NYI.edu - GLOBAL BEAT: "U.S.-CHINA TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: ANNOTATED TIMELINE 1980- JANUARY 1998" by Bates Gill (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "1988 March - Reports reveal that China has transferred approximately 36 CSS-2 intermediate-range ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia. This is first transfer of missiles of this range and capability within the developing world; the missiles were originally part of China's strategic arsenal, but Saudi and Chinese officials assure that the missiles will not be nuclear-armed. July - In Beijing, U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz expresses his concern over Chinese missile and weapons exports to Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.") (June 22, 1998)

PANAMA CANAL.com: THE PANAMA CANAL - MIRAFLORES WEB CAM"

NewsMax.com: HOT TOPICS: "NORTH KOREA"

YAHOO! News - Articles - Topic: "NORTH KOREA"

NORTH KOREA DAILY News Online

GLOBAL SECURITY.org: YONGBYON [NYONGBYON]

IAEA.org - INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY: Press Releases

6 posted on 01/27/2003 1:39:55 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
We had better step lightly, China could send their Navy after any tresspassers. If they're series, they might even send BOTH BOATS. BWHAAAHHAAAAA
7 posted on 01/27/2003 1:44:49 PM PST by SandfleaCSC (Yes, I'm bad, but you all knew that anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: tallhappy; Tailgunner Joe
That pretty well includes the territory of Taiwan. I imagine the Taiwanese are furious about now. It will be interesting to see their editorial responses.
9 posted on 01/27/2003 5:04:08 PM PST by flamefront (Hillary is in 2004! -- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/827844/posts?page=19#19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner; Enemy Of The State
good thread/article. Very good.
10 posted on 01/27/2003 5:13:26 PM PST by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
The US should ensure rights of passage via sinking anything that comes up on us. If they want to pass, let them pass. If they roll up on us, or anyone else, sink their ship(s).
11 posted on 01/27/2003 5:15:32 PM PST by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maui_hawaii
The US should ensure rights of passage via sinking anything that comes up on us. If they want to pass, let them pass. If they roll up on us, or anyone else, sink their ship(s).

substitute US with China, that could be an interesting policy.

12 posted on 01/27/2003 8:14:44 PM PST by NP-INCOMPLETE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe; conservativecorner; maui_hawaii; Enemy Of The State; HighRoadToChina; tallhappy
While most of the Navy's ocean-survey ships conduct scientific research, some gather intelligence. Neither activity is banned under the 1994 international treaty that allowed states to regulate seas up to 200 miles off their coasts.

Treaty? ChiComs don't need no stinkin' treaty.

Asian bully dittos.

Axis of Evil/Anus of Evil bump.

China wishes to create an Incident while we are otherwise involved.

Nuke Beijing. Offer them a free shot at Nancy Pelosi in return.

Or send Bill Richardson--duct-taped to a second nuke: Shanghai.

The fastest way to stop all of this is pull Hillary's Secret Service protection.

She would then discipline her donors.

13 posted on 01/27/2003 8:35:10 PM PST by PhilDragoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NP-INCOMPLETE
Its very likely, but China's future rests in relations with Washington, so they might not want to move like that.

Its one more thing on the long list of conflicting interests. Its also one more thing that our "engagement" seeks to prevent.

If anything did happen most likely it would end up ultimately swept under the rug. I say we should be ready to shoot first, just in case, and make them sweep it under the rug instead of us.

14 posted on 01/27/2003 8:59:56 PM PST by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: maui_hawaii
And what if they do exactly the same thing? Who will be sweeping it under the rug then? Your policy has the potential to start a large scale war.
15 posted on 01/27/2003 10:02:43 PM PST by NP-INCOMPLETE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NP-INCOMPLETE
They have just as much interest in preventing a large scale war as we do. So it limits what the action will be. If they do the same? That is largely what happened in April 01, except we were in international airspace and un armed. If we had a figher jet with our flying school bus, they might not be so keen on buzzing the thing. Thats the point.

It very well could lead to a clash. That chance is there whether or not we are prepared for it or not. That is the difference. Disarming will embolden them. Arming will let them know to not start anything. Detterence.

The only way to prevent conflict is to stay completely out of their "zone" and let them dictate everything we do. Unless we do that, we have to manage the risk.

Not being ready does not lessen the threat. If they know we will shoot before they fly off the handle, it might be in their (and our) best interests to keep them from flying off in the first place. How many schoolyard bullies pick on the bad @ss (but generally nice guy) of the campus? The bully might want to do something, but the specter of an ass whoopin, or at least someone willing to give him a go for it might change his mind.

They very well might be getting ready to shoot. But if they know we will shoot back, that might change their minds about pulling the trigger.

16 posted on 01/27/2003 10:25:08 PM PST by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NP-INCOMPLETE
The longer we don't stand up to them, toe to toe, eyeball to eyeball, the worse the situation gets. It gets much more volotile in those situations than when we are the verified and willing king of the hill.

The might eye that big stick we are carrying and avoid a fight.

17 posted on 01/27/2003 10:28:03 PM PST by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: maui_hawaii; NP-INCOMPLETE
Your policy has the potential to start a large scale war.

Wrong. China's policy has the potential to start a large scale war, as does your policy of appeasement.

It's time to revoke the MFN and get the Chinese out of our colleges and labs. Let's see what they can come up with when they can no longer steal expertise.

I'm with you, maui--sink any ship that threatens us.

18 posted on 01/27/2003 11:05:08 PM PST by Lion's Cub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lion's Cub
No one likes to be spied on, and no matter what is said, these ships are clearly intelligence gathering vessels.
19 posted on 01/27/2003 11:07:11 PM PST by NP-INCOMPLETE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
Yep, the puppetmaster is Chinese I too believe
20 posted on 01/27/2003 11:28:43 PM PST by jeremiah (Sunshine scares all of them, for they all are cockaroaches)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NP-INCOMPLETE
No one likes to be spied on, and no matter what is said, these ships are clearly intelligence gathering vessels.

All nations spy on each other. The point is not what kind of vessel is out there--the point is where international waters begin. The Chinese have been appeased like little children for too long. It's time for them to grow up.

21 posted on 01/28/2003 1:29:43 AM PST by Lion's Cub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lion's Cub
I think the process should be as follows: Don't just sink everything in sight. That is not it.

We should though arm them, and escort them, should problems arise.

In a worst case scenario, shoot'em. Otherwise it is strictly deterrence.

22 posted on 01/28/2003 9:16:45 PM PST by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe; Enemy Of The State
Thanks for the ping. Good post and thread!
23 posted on 01/29/2003 12:51:04 PM PST by batter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: maui_hawaii
...but the specter of an ass whoopin, or at least someone willing to give him a go for it might change his mind.

Exactly - I was picked on in elementary school. After a couple of months I got sick of it. I faught back and never had a problem again...actually, the bully didn't bother anyone after that (the other kids realized the bully was a coward if you stood up to them).

24 posted on 01/29/2003 12:56:48 PM PST by batter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | 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