Tillerson says US should block China from new islands

It's not a lousy sandbar, it's a means of asserting control over a vital shipping lane.

Yup. Sounds like a plan.

That might be why they're doing what they're doing, but it doesn't somehow justify their doing it. As you say, their activities are illegal.

China's activities fly in the face of international law. That's a fact.

 

you can't build an island directly in the ocean. China build the island on the reef/low tide island they already controlled since 50-70's, not just random spot in middle of ocean. all the island build by china, Vietnam, and others has low tide or reef as its foundation.
china is not the 1st nor last doing this, both Vietnam/phillippine/malasia had extend its artificial island before. there are many countries extend its land by sand dredging.

 

Taking an analogy, it is just like saying that a crocodile in a river has never bitten anyone. Hence, you are going to put your foot in the river to find out whether it will bite or not.

 

Per a NY Times report on the conclusions reached by the international court:

 

Not only China, but the activities of the US, Japan and other powers fly in the face of international law. That's a fact.

It looks like you have not read the excerpts of the article at https://amti.csis.org/will-others-respect-precedent-set-philippines-case/

Now I repost the article with more excerpts for your perusal. Perhaps after reading, you will change your member ID to something like "Clever American".

(Begin excerpts)
But that ruling could set a precedent affecting the claims of several of the nations that are calling on China to abide by it. For instance, Australia, Brazil, France, Japan, and the United States all make expansive maritime claims from remote islets that are not dissimilar in size or habitability to some of the Spratly Islands that the Philippines insists are legally rocks, not islands. If the tribunal rules that those features in the South China Sea are indeed rocks and therefore cannot generate a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or continental shelf in accordance with Article 121 of UNCLOS, all states should face pressure to abide by the precedent set. That means that McDonald Island (Australia), Clipperton Island (France), Saint Peter and Paul Rocks (Brazil), Okinotorishima (Japan), and Howland Island, Baker Island, and Kingman Reef (the United States) should generate only 12-nautical-mile territorial seas, not EEZs or continental shelves as their owners currently claim.

If the tribunal decides that the land features in question in the Spratlys, particularly Itu Aba (Taiping Island), are “rocks” under Article 121(3) of UNCLOS, should the United States take the award into account and bring its own maritime claims into conformity with the ruling? Howland Island, Baker Island, and Kingman Reef in the Pacific Ocean constitute part of the United States Minor Outlying Islands. They contain no fresh water, no agricultural soil, and no permanent population. They measure 0.69 square miles, 0.46 square miles, and 0.004 square miles, respectively. In other words, they are clearly less able than Itu Aba to “sustain human habitation” or “economic life” as required of an island under Article 121(3).

The U.S. government has not made public its position on Article 121(3) and maritime zones generated by uninhabited islands, but its leading decisionmakers on topics related to the law of the sea have consistently asserted that the United States is entitled to claim an EEZ around all its possessions, whether inhabited or not, without regard to size or location.

At the 1986 annual meeting of the Law of the Sea Institute in Miami, Florida, the State Department’s assistant legal adviser for oceans, international environmental, and scientific affairs David Colson said, “The United States had concluded that all islands should have the same capacity to generate EEZs, whether they are inhabited or not, and that isolated or awkwardly located islands should not be viewed as ‘special circumstances’ or geographical anomalies in determining extended maritime boundaries.” He also said, “We decided that any piece of real estate could fit under the definition of an island, and we made the decision based upon what areas had United States territorial seas drawn around them.”

Professor Jon Van Dyke interpreted this U.S. position as meaning “any insular feature that can generate a territorial sea can also generate an EEZ. Under this view, there are no ‘rocks’ that meet the criteria of article 121(3) of being unable to ‘sustain human habitation or economic life of their own.’” The effect of this U.S. position “is to expand the areas of the ocean where the living and nonliving resources can be claimed by one nation to the exclusion of all others, thus reducing the resources that remain to be shared as the ‘common heritage’ for all humankind,” according to Van Dyke.

If this is indeed the official U.S. position, and if the tribunal decides in Manila’s favor regarding the legal status of features in the Spratlys, then in order to respect that precedent the U.S. government will need to consider changing or abandoning its claim to 200 EEZs and continental shelves from its remote Pacific islands. It should be hoped that other states, including Australia and Japan, also take the tribunal’s decisions into account and bring their maritime claims and conduct into conformity with UNCLOS if necessary. (End excerpts)

 

But not a peep about Israel illegally occupying a sizeable chunk of land which isn't theirs?

 

I for one welcome the distinction made between rocks and islands. And I don't care which governments are affected by the rule, the principle is sound: countries shouldn't be able to make claims to waterways based on the preservation/expansion of a tiny bit of reef or rock.

Silly argument that's off topic. You should open a different thread in which you can claim some group to be justified in "occupying" some chunk of land, and I will tell you why they're not...

 

My friend, please note that the international tribunal ruling undermines not only the unilateral claims of China but also those of the US, Canada and other powers. Please refer to the excerpts of the article at http://theconversation.com/explaine...lications-of-the-south-china-sea-ruling-62421

(Begin excerpts)
The ruling has the potential to reach far beyond the South China Sea and transform the international maritime map.

It indicates historic claims cannot be readily sustained. This undermines the unilateral claims of certain countries – such as Canada’s historical claims related to its Arctic archipelago.

Even though the ruling is technically only binding on China and the Philippines, it carries considerable legal weight as an authoritative and unanimous ruling by an international judicial body. As a result of uncertainties over which insular features can generate what maritime zones, many countries have advanced expansive maritime claims from small islands. These claims are now in jeopardy.

For example, the US claims 200-nautical-mile EEZs from several remote Pacific island territories that appear remarkably similar to some of the South China Sea features that the tribunal found could not generate extended maritime claims. The US welcomed the ruling, but it will be intriguing to see whether the US and other countries modify their practices in light of it. (End excerpts)

 

As I say, I would welcome the review of maritime claims across the board. Perhaps you'd like to share specific examples of the U.S. doing similar things to what China is doing? They'd have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, but the rule being applied is sound...

 

My friend, you seem to be very poor in reading comprehension. Perhaps that's why you call yourself "Silly American".

Either you have not read the two articles which I posted in the thread, or you simply don't understand their contents.

First, please answer this question: Why did the international tribunal take the trouble to downgrade China's islands in the South China Sea to the status of rocks?

 

Well, you can also say that the early European colonists and their descendants were/are occupying a whole continent which wasn't/isn't theirs.

 

Excellent idea, and I think we should start building them in the South China Sea.

No Chinese built crap - it'll break after the first use.

Let's outsource it to companies in the countries that have competing claims in the SCC.

 

Very good. It implies that you agree with me that China, the US, Japan and other powers are all making claims to waterways based on the preservation/expansion of a tiny bit of reef or rock. And I suppose you also criticise all those countries for doing the same thing. The problem is that the US, Japan and other countries are reluctant to abandon their claims. So why should China give up its claim?

 

I'm not a military expert by far. However I did look up the military websites that talk about what would happen if there was a military confrontation in that area. It appears that the Chinese navy, and the forces they could bring to bear from their shores is not even close to being a match for the U.S. navy. And of course the Chinese know this so they'd be foolish to start a war. I bet the U.S. can just flex it's muscle a bit and show that this administration is willing and able to stop China and that alone may very well slow China down.

 

When did Israel expand into the China Sea?

 

And like the Arabs who stole the Levant from the Byzantines many of those Native American tribes stole their land from other tribes.

This is all getting too complicated. Perhaps we all should return our lands to amino acids and let them sort it out.

 

Excellent idea, and I think China should start building some sandbars in the Gulf of Mexico too.

 

Don't be a cry baby.

All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.

http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/3-20.htm

 

He is absolutely correct. China's actions are an aggression. It must be stopped.

 

ANY President would have started a new war aside from Sanders.

 

In 1950, MacArthur also shared your belief that "the Chinese know this so they'd be foolish to start a war". Apparently, he also "bet the U.S. can just flex it's muscle a bit and show that this administration is willing and able to stop China and that alone may very well slow China down".

That was how the Korean War was started. Please refer to the excerpts from the article at http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch24kor4.htm

(Begin excerpts)
...On October 3, through India's ambassador to Beijing, K.M. Panikkar, China informed the world-at-large that if the United States crossed the 38th parallel China would intervene. Confident people in the US State Department, Dean Rusk among them, believed that the Chinese would not dare attack US forces in Korea. Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, believed it was a bluff and was concerned that a greater risk would arise if the US showed any "hesitation or timidity." A report by the Central Intelligence Agency dated 28 September 1950 held that China had missed its opportunity to intervene. That opportunity was described as when UN forces were almost defeated and within the Pusan Perimeter. The report claimed that China was not about to intervene now. And a CIA report for October 12 argued that intervention by China was unlikely because it would jeopardize China's domestic program and economy, encourage China's anti-Communists and endanger the Communist regime. Acheson agreed, saying it would be "sheer madness" for Beijing to enter the Korean war when they had numerous other problems.

...On October 15, 1950, MacArthur met President Truman on Wake Island. He assured Truman that victory was won in Korea and that the Chinese would not intervene. The Chinese, he said, have 300,000 men in Manchuria, "but only 50 to 60 thousand could be gotten across the Yalu River." They have no air force, he said, "and if they tried to get down to Pyongyang there would be the greatest slaughter." There, on Wake Island, Truman awarded MacArthur his fifth Distinguished Service Medal.

...In Tokyo, MacArthur clung to his belief that China would not enter the war, at least in significant number. He still believed that the war would be over by Christmas...

On November 26 the Chinese invaded in earnest, with approximately 300,000 men against a UN force numbering 423,000 (224,000 South Koreans, 178,500 from the US, almost 15,000 from Turkey, 11,000 from Britain and 1,000 Australians). It was the beginning of an unusually cold winter. Many of the Chinese movements were at night, out of sight of UN air power...

On December 6, the Chinese overran Pyongyang, the UN forces leaving the city in a bumper to bumper column of vehicles, with a massive number of refugees and a mile-high column of smoke rising above the city from burning supplies and fuel... (End excerpts)

 

Bwahahahaha! Funniest post yet.

 

Our stance reflects that of our regional allies, Japan especially. We have to rattle our sabres or we won't be perceived as a good ally. Kind of like what we're doing in Europe as well.

 

How did that war work out for China?
America is a lot more powerful now than it was back then.

Hopefully China learned from the Koran War that the U.S. will protect its allies.

 

ISIS has grown to power in 2014 while Obama's talking about Al-Qaeda being on the run and tide of war being receding. And now as a result of Obama policies the world has more refugees than ever since WWII.