Tillerson says US should block China from new islands

This is a pretty aggressive stance on the matter, and I wonder how it would be enforced if pursued. Lots of talk at this point, but I dont think China is just going to let the US block them from their islands which at this point are armed and fortified. Would we assist local forces with claims to the waters, or would we be policing the South China sea on our own?

South China Sea: Tillerson says US should block China from new islands
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38593034
---Mr Tillerson, appearing before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, likened China's island-building to Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.
"We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops and second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed."

---Mr Tillerson did not explain how the US might block access to the islands.
But he said China's actions in the South China Sea, and its declaration of a special air zone over East China Sea islands controlled by Japan that Beijing also claims, were "illegal".
"They are taking territory or control or declaring control of territories that are not rightfully China's," he said.

 

China is building a lousy sandbar offshore. Sure, let's go to war over that...why not?

 

I think we should just build our own sandbars. International waters shouldn't concern us either. Maybe we can outsource the construction to a Chinese firm ... to improve relations.

 

Although I agree with you, I think the US is generally targeting China's new push to expand its military. It's creating "concern".

 

Since it appears that ISIS is starting to lose territory and power thanks to Obama's policies it may be necessary for the incoming administration to fabricate a new enemy so America's ridiculous level of military spending can be justified and possibly even increased. And since Trump is clearly financially tied to Russia I guess China is the only real option.

 

People were worried about Hillary causing a war. Look what we have here.

 

I have noticed any mentioning of Russian actions to Trump is usually responded with a mention of Chinese actions.

 

Place the 7th fleet smack at the center,
believe me China will never dare, if China does not respect the rulings of the international court in the Hague, bullying the claimants, then they should get the same treatment.

 

The countries with territorial waters in the S. China Seas want to come to an agreement with China so they could start gaining from their resources. That's what the US should be helping them with. Any pressure and demands exerted on China would be counter productive and give them nothing ... except maybe a war.

 

China has restarted its silk roads through Asia to Europe because of its fear of the seventh fleet. It had foreseen just such a scenario.

 

Smack in the center of what, the Sea or the Islands themselves? And I'm assuming you think they are supposed to limit or restrict the movement of Chinese naval and commerce vessels, would'nt that be a direct route to war? War in the South China Sea and with China could be bad militarily and economically for both of us.

 

Before you "go to war over that", you'd better dig a 6-foot-deep hole for yourself. It means World War 3 is coming.

- - - Updated - - -

Well said.

 

They need to claim more lands they have to support 1.4B Chinese inhabitants,
that's why they bolster their military might and flex it's muscle to enforce demands even though it's illegal.

 

The international court of the Hague already made a verdict, China is illegally occupied the Island chain, it's just a matter of enforcing the law. They will never wage war with the US and it's allies, I still don't believe that they are that technologically advanced just pure here says.

 

Of course is the Chinese behavior criminal here, no doubts ... but honestly:

The court of Hague ... if this is suddenly the legal backing for the USA, I will get a laughing convulsions! The court of Hague was and is always ignored by the USA if it hurts any US interest, so the USA should first follow this court in own issues!

 

We're not going to war with anyone. If anyone made us weaker, it's the last administration. The adults are back in charge...real world guys and gals who know how the world works.
Just stay out of the way and stop with the hyperbole.

 

The US is queer for war with China so we can cancel the huge debt we owe them. The problem is they have to "start" it or otherwise the war will be seen as the pretext for debt repudiation it is, which would ruin our credit with other nations, and that may happen anyway. So we have to sabre rattle in the area while our diplomats try to figure out if the rest of the world is stupid enough to fall for this. It also justifies higher military spending for two major powers, so I think our sailors should get used to hanging around remote sandbars.

 

To enforce the law of a country fairly, it must be applied to everybody -- the rich and the poor, the common and noble. Similarly, to enforce the international law fairly, it must be applied to all countries -- the developed and the developing, the weak and the strong, the communist and the anti-communist.

Actually, the international tribunal ruling impacts not only on China but also the US, Japan, Australia, France, Britain and other nations as shown in the excerpts from the article at https://amti.csis.org/will-others-respect-precedent-set-philippines-case/

(Begin excerpts)
"...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,...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...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)

P.S. Perhaps all the countries should get together to hold a "Global Conference on all rocks and islands" to find out how to apply the international tribunal ruling fairly on all countries. However, the big question is: "Will the US and Japan abandon their claims to 200 EEZs and continental shelves from their remote rocks, atolls and reefs?

 

The 7th fleet will become sitting ducks for the Chinese "Carrier-Killer" Missiles.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Iran-Russia-easily-attack-new-technology.html

 

There are reports that Russia is withholding something to blackmail Trump.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2943045

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...report-9600442

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ssia-ties.html

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...tape-sex-money

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

http://www.realchange.org/trump.htm

http://www.alternet.org/election-201...d-russia-thing

 

seems like Trump's foreign policy will be an incoherent mess.. who would've thought. Trumpers are always whining about how "x is not relevant to US interests", so I wonder, what do they think of america picking a fight with China over some sandbanks in the chinese sea? they are relevant, but crimea isn't?...

and with what trump said about taiwan, it seems trump's intent is to go hard on china, and soft on russia. It's very ironic then, that Trump will scrap TPP, which would have done more to contain China than any military action ever will. Trump is greatly helping china, while also annoying them at the same time..

What is he hoping to do? if China has planes and ships near the islands, there's little they could do to remove them except starting a war. China clearly doesn't care that all their neighbors hate them, or being condemned by the UN. diplomacy doesn't work. And economically.. good luck. And more importantly, why would trump even want to do this? I thought he wanted allies to defend themselves more, so why would he stand up to china for them? south china sea is as relevant to US interest as crimea is.. maybe less. and the argument that crimea is in russia's sphere obviously also applies to china and the islands too, so what's with the double standard?

 

Speculating on what Trump actually wants is a waste of time since it is clear that Trump doesn't know himself. His final decisions will be arrived at when all the bribes are in.

 

That construction was extremely destructive to the ocean's ecology in the area.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/n...al-impact-on-coral-of-beijings-military-bases

 

lol have you notice the phillippine don't care about the outcome of verdict, they already establish deal with china on fishing right and resource sharing in the disputed island, on top of that phillipine just send its fishing admin to china this month to learn their fishing farm skills.

so if the phillippine, a direct party involve in the dispute don't even care, why the heck we should. never say never, pushing mouse into a corner, it will fight back.

 

Missiles that have never even been tested let alone put into production.