U.S Military encirclement of China

Tsavo Lion wrote:US Coast Guard to net wayward Chinese fishing fleets

GarryB wrote:Western fishing fleets have been raping the sea for centuries, but when Chinese fishermen start earning a living it becomes a problem that needs action...

LMFS wrote:Yeah, piracy was actually proposed lately as a way of countering the Chinese trade might, only a nicer name was used. They see it fit to use the advantages of controlling the seas and not be restrained by such BS as international law. It is going to get pretty interesting out there and it is actually likely that situations like we have seen with VMF units protecting purely civilian vessels in international waters (NS2, an Iranian tanker bound to Syria recently) are going to get more frequent. I guess it makes the case for the blue water development of the VMF even more clear.

Who can forget their dominance of the whaling business? Nearly hunted whales to extinction.

GarryB wrote:imagine the US Coast guard approaches a Chinese flagged container ship and a 23mm twin barrel cannon mount pops up from one container sitting on the deck and a turret mount with Igla-S missiles pops out the top of another container... I mean obviously for use with the small group of naval infantry soldiers on board for use against pirates, but can be used against any pirates trying to get aboard the ship... whether on rubber speed boats or helicopters... some pirate forces are very well equipped...

The US Coast Guard has no right to search ships in international waters near the coast of China, and certainly no rights to manage the fisheries of other nations.

They can claim to be helping to enforce the court decision in favor of the Philippines- that the PRC didn't accept, & in line with mutual US-Philippines-Japan defence treaties.

trying to board a ship without permission is piracy...

Tsavo Lion wrote:

trying to board a ship without permission is piracy...

Not if that ship/boat is violating an EEZ or territorial waters. The USCG may just ram them & let its allies take it in custody. 
It had done ship boardings & inspections in the Persian Gulf enforcing sanctions on Iraq since 1991 till 2003.

PhSt wrote:

The USCG may just ram them & let its allies take it in custody.

I'm pretty sure the Chinese maritime militia far outnumbers any USCG in the area, so if a Chinese ship gets "rammed" then perhaps some 10 Chinese ships will ram them back.

And based on Chinese ship movements in the South China Sea, they do operate within the EEZ of countries like the Philippines or Vietnam, but never on their territorial waters.

BS.  The EEZ is not territorial waters.   It is an economic exploitation claim.   No country has the right to board or detain any ship in the EEZ.   As for poachers going for fish in the EEZ, that is more complicated since it involves actual economic violation and not any other sort of violation which the EEZ does not control. wrote:
https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm

In the event that foreign vessels do not respect coastal States' laws and regulations, the latter can take several actions depending on where the non-complying vessel is located. The concept of self-defense underlies the possibility of such actions. Although the best way to resolve such an incident is by diplomatic means, the coastal State is allowed to take forceful measures if the foreign vessel refuses to obey demands of compliance. However, the use of force against the vessel must be necessary and proportionate to the offense committed. Even on the high seas, the foreign vessel can be arrested if it has committed crimes that are deemed so important that any State can take actions against them.
https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=pilr

However, the LOSC permit coastal States to adopt laws
and regulations related to passage through the territorial sea in the following list of circumstances: 
..The conservation of the living resources of the sea;
The prevention of infringement of the fisheries laws and regulations of the coastal State; .. https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-three/
EEZ can be claimed in whole or in part as "territorial sea", as 
1. The sovereignty of a coastal State extends, beyond its land territory and internal waters and, in the case of an archipelagic State, its archipelagic waters, to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea.
https://www.unodc.org/documents/Maritime_crime/UNODC_GMCP_-_Maritime_Crime_-_A_Manual_for_Criminal_Justice_Practitioners_2017_2.pdf
Btw, besides SC Sea claims by the rlevant SE Asian states, parts of Russia's NSR & Canada's NW Passage also fall into this category.

When a coastal State engages in law enforcement actions in relation to its exclusive economic zone, it does not need to seek permission from the flag State of a suspect vessel before it boards and searches that vessel. This is because the coastal State has the sovereign right to make laws in relation to certain matters in its exclusive economic zone as well as the corresponding right to enforce those laws. The coastal State’s rights in the exclusive economic zone are therefore not subject to the requirement of flag State consent before a boarding operation designed to confirm (or dispel) the coastal State’s suspicion that a vessel is breaching a coastal State law applicable in the exclusive economic zone. If the suspicions are confirmed upon boarding and  further investigation, the coastal State can then take that vessel, its crew and cargo back to a coastal State port for further investigation. Again, the coastal State does not need to seek flag State permission to do so. If a breach is confirmed, then the vessel, crew and/or cargo (e.g. the illegal catch found on the vessel) can be subjected to further legal processes in the coastal  State. 
https://www.unodc.org/documents/Maritime_crime/UNODC_GMCP_-_Maritime_Crime_-_A_Manual_for_Criminal_Justice_Practitioners_2017_2.pdf

When a coastal State engages in law enforcement actions in relation to its exclusive economic zone, it does not need to seek permission from the flag State of a suspect vessel before it boards and searches that vessel. This is because the coastal State has the sovereign right to make laws in relation to certain matters in its exclusive economic zone as well as the corresponding right to enforce those laws. The coastal State’s rights in the exclusive economic zone are therefore not subject to the requirement of flag State consent before a boarding operation designed to confirm (or dispel) the coastal State’s suspicion that a vessel is breaching a coastal State law applicable in the exclusive economic zone. If the suspicions are confirmed upon boarding and  further investigation, the coast... blah blah blah

In the event that foreign vessels do not respect coastal States' laws and regulations, the latter can take several actions depending on where the non-complying vessel is located.

Does not apply to the US coast guard 5 thousand fucking miles from any US territory.

When the waters involved are disputed then no laws or regulations apply until the legality of the claims are sorted out... whether the Yanks come over and interfere or not.

BTW UNSC rulings are regularly ignored by the US when it suits them so they don't apply when the US is involved in anything anyway... you can't ignore some rules and demand others are followed...

not if it was invited by coastal states to act on their behalf.

The court in Hague ruled in favour of the Philippines & against all PRC claims there. On that basis, the US help is legal.

The US isn't a legal party to territorial disputes in the E/S China Seas.

However, they want to contain China & r using the freedom of navigation issue & current defence agreements with allies to stick their nose there, on their behalf, & w/o any objections on the part of those allies.
Therefore, the US non-ratification of the UNCLOS is not relevant.

The areas in question are disputed, neither the coastal states nor the US coast guard have any rights till offical borders are agreed upon by all parties... until then it is piracy which means the Chinese navy can defend its ships... Why do you think the Hague gets the final say in anything?  ..Which makes any actions illegal in this regard.

The fact that the US has not ratified the UNCLOS means they have no say in imposing anyone's will and have no rights at all in this situation.

China expressed outrage and frustration Friday after the US officially delisted the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) as an official terror organization.

The group is a hardline Islamist group rooted in Muslim Uighur-dominant Xinjiang province that has sent foreign fighters to Syria, where it's been observed cooperating with Syrian al-Qaeda and ISIS over the past years to try and oust Assad. It's also believed the ETIM still has a presence in Idlib. Its ultimate goal is to erect an Islamic state in Western China and Central Asia.

The artificial islands that the PRC created & militarized in the SCS pushed the legal envelope for her claims there-

China doesn't & won't agree on the borders claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam & Taiwan.

Thus, the USN/CG & AF r acting as a counterweight to the PLAN/AF. Hague gets the final say in many cases; when it doesn't, those with means willing to enforce its verdicts do think they have the final say. They can defend their allies' ships & boats from CCG/Militia harassments, damn all the legalities.

I don't take any1 side on this evolving issue, just being objective & impartial observer.