bikerthai wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

I don’t think it’s up to the West to dictate who gets to be a superpower or not.

That decision is only made through war.

And technically, China was a world superpower in the past - under the reign of the Khans.

bt

I was referring to what the US of A did since Nixon decided to meet chairman Mao in 1972.
The PRC was almost as poor as some of the sub-Saharan countries in the 70s and early 80s.

Do you really think they would've got where they are now if the West didn't get greedy and outsourced everything to the PRC or allowed them to join the WTO?
Or more importantly allowed millions of students from the PRC to study abroad?

Kiwirob wrote:

It’s part of China according to the UN, US and the majority of countries.

yeah thanks to Nixon and his clowns

Since when was the RoC/Taiwan a part of the PRC?
The PRC has never occupied Taiwan.
I guess some people have been reading too many Global Times articles

also by your logic the Kim dynasty should just finish what they started in 1950
I mean at one point they did occupy almost all of the Korean peninsula

bajs11 wrote:

Since when was the RoC/Taiwan a part of the PRC?
The PRC has never occupied Taiwan.
I guess some people have been reading too many Global Times articles

also by your logic the Kim dynasty should just finish what they started in 1950
I mean at one point they did occupy almost all of the Korean peninsula

We all know if given half a chance they would in a heart beat

bajs11 wrote:

yeah thanks to Nixon and his clowns

Yes, thanks to the clowns for all the cheap smart phones, smart TVs, affordable large and small appliance and clothing which benefited not only the US, but the rest of the world.

Russia became a superpower with out help from the West. There is no reason why China could not have done the same except it may have taken longer.

The premise brings up and interesting "what ifs" though.

If Nixon did not go to China, then perhaps India would have become the source for cheap labor and would take over the economic position China occupy today.

bt

bajs11 wrote:

Since when was the RoC/Taiwan a part of the PRC?
The PRC has never occupied Taiwan.

They should have stuck with calling it two different countries like they did with the Koreas.

Wonder why they didn't. It would have avoided a lot of tension now.

bt

bajs11 wrote:

Or more importantly allowed millions of students from the PRC to study abroad?

Many of those students ended up saying abroad became citizen and contributed to the local economy. One of my colleague was one of those student.

bt

bajs11 wrote:

Since when was the RoC/Taiwan a part of the PRC?
The PRC has never occupied Taiwan.
I guess some people have been reading too many Global Times articles

also by your logic the Kim dynasty should just finish what they started in 1950
I mean at one point they did occupy almost all of the Korean peninsula

Funny you mention the GT as my friend used to be an editor there. They weren’t a half-bad publication before Xi came in. Nowadays, I don’t think anyone other that self-loathing Western tankies or batshit crazy conspiracy theorists take them all that seriously.

And as much as they’ll consistently remind their readers how China and Taiwan are one in the same, I don’t think they ever specifically mentioned that the CCP itself controlled Taiwan. At least back then. That’s why they employed a lot of Western editors so they could make sure their language was somewhat nuanced with sensitive topics. But that’s changed with Xi and most of those editors are gone now. You can kind of tell with their editing, which is pretty poor. Still not sure if they’d go far enough to actually claim the CCP ruled Taiwan, but I don’t actively try to read that publication to find out!

bikerthai wrote:

bajs11 wrote:

Since when was the RoC/Taiwan a part of the PRC?
The PRC has never occupied Taiwan.

They should have stuck with calling it two different countries like they did with the Koreas.

Wonder why they didn't. It would have avoided a lot of tension now.

bt

Neither side wanted it. Officially the ROC still sees itself as the de jure government of all China. After all it did run the place from 1911 to '49.
Unfinished civil wars are a nasty business!

Let's make something clear here. The Chinese defense ministry said P-8A was trying to enter Chinese air space and was warned repeatedly but still tried to enter it anyhow.

If you wonder why would RAAF try to enter Chinese air space, their excuse would be that they don't recognize that particular island as part of China even though China has that particular island in question under control.

So given that entering the air space around that island has no additional surveillance value, one could only surmise RAAF was doing this to antagonize China and somehow force China to give up claim of island it actually controls.

fyi, pretty much every island/rock in SCS has a country that's actually in control of it. It's not always the country that is physically the closest to that island. you can find a map of which countries control which island on this link.
https://www.voanews.com/a/how-vietnam-q ... 82776.html

bikerthai wrote:

Chaff in the engine? Question is whether it is a deliberate attempt to bring "accidentally" bring down a P-8A to obtain sensitive information similar to the P-3 incident a few years back?

Or it could be just another hot shot pilot playing games?

Either way, Australia should send a bill to the Chinese embassy the inspection time and any repair needed on the engines.

bt

See above, RAAF tried to enter Chinese air space (that they don't recognize) and PLAAF did not take that too kindly.

bajs11 wrote:

We may have international rules for safe conduct, but I wonder what the reaction of the US would be if a nuclear armed Chinese carrier battle groups and air wings carried out "freedom of navigation" exercises in the Gulf of Mexico, or sailed a fleet in the Florida Straits?

At least the US of A doesn't claim every single island in the Caribbean as part of their territory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territori ... _China_Sea

hmm, you might want to look into what's going on in SCS. Most of the islands there are claimed by multiple countries. In fact, Taiwan itself claims the same 9-dash territorial claim from its pre-1949 days.

Then again the West should blame themselves for have created this new empire which may be as hostile and ambitious as the Empire of Japan.
It will be even more interesting to see what current and future NATO members will do about the PRC.
For example Volvo Cars is owned by the Geely Holding Group of the PRC and it will be extremely interesting to see what the government of Sweden will do if the PRC and the US declare war on each other over Taiwan.

Has China attacked any countries or done anything other than trying to make money off everyone? If you don't want to let them make money off you, then don't do business with them.

Name 1 war China has gotten into in the last 40 years.

Avatar2go wrote:

Not just the Aussies, but the Canucks as well as the US. Several confrontations in the last month . I suspect that's why the US Defense Secretary is meeting with the Chinese Defense Minister this week, in an attempt to ramp things down again. Neither side is going to back off, but the Chinese need to follow the international rules for safe conduct.

Let's not confuse the 2 things together. Canada did nothing wrong. China certainly was intercepting RCAF more aggressively than it was used to. The Australians tried to enter Chinese air space.

Keep in mind that USAF went as close as 29 nm from Chinese border a few days later and there was no incident. Guess what? Don't try to enter another country's air space and there won't be any problems.

bajs11 wrote:

Since when was the RoC/Taiwan a part of the PRC?
The PRC has never occupied Taiwan.
I guess some people have been reading too many Global Times articles

also by your logic the Kim dynasty should just finish what they started in 1950
I mean at one point they did occupy almost all of the Korean peninsula

Do you realize that both the mainland and Taiwan claims all of China as part of their land. What we have right now is an unsettled civil war. As such, both sides can claim all of China proper and claim to be the legitimate government of that territory.

tphuang wrote:

Let's make something clear here. The Chinese defense ministry said P-8A was trying to enter Chinese air space and was warned repeatedly but still tried to enter it anyhow.

I have no issue with China protecting its air space. If the P-8A was violating Chinese airspace, then standard protocol would be radio warning. We can assume that the P-8A was giving their standard response that we have heard many times. If the P-8A continued into Chinese air space, then the next step would be radar lock. After that? Warning shots. Then finally shoot down.

Dropping chaffs or flares is something unexpected/unpredictable. In diplomacy unpredictability leads to mishaps.

tphuang wrote:

Name 1 war China has gotten into in the last 40 years.

Very clever chosing 40 instead of 50.

bt

To clarify, when China builds an artificial island, it also declares archipelagic rights, meaning the waters between it and other Chinese land masses are considered internal waterways. But neither the islands nor China's status as an archipelago are recognized under international law. Any territorial seas declared around them, are also unrecognized. So Australia would not recognize any territorial claim for such islands, including airspace.

If the island is a natural feature of Chinese territory, then China has the international right of 12 mile territorial seas around the island boundary. Australia would be certain to recognize and remain outside those lawful sea & air spaces.

tphuang wrote:

Let's make something clear here. The Chinese defense ministry said P-8A was trying to enter Chinese air space and was warned repeatedly but still tried to enter it anyhow.

If you wonder why would RAAF try to enter Chinese air space, their excuse would be that they don't recognize that particular island as part of China even though China has that particular island in question under control.

So given that entering the air space around that island has no additional surveillance value, one could only surmise RAAF was doing this to antagonize China and somehow force China to give up claim of island it actually controls.

fyi, pretty much every island/rock in SCS has a country that's actually in control of it. It's not always the country that is physically the closest to that island. you can find a map of which countries control which island on this link.
https://www.voanews.com/a/how-vietnam-q ... 82776.html

No its called Signals intelligence (SIGINT) and they would be trying gather data for any military Electronic Order of Battle (EOB) its just the same as when the Chines send a ship to Australia to gather the same type of information.

And secondly a

A international tribunal in a landmark ruling dismissed Beijing’s claim to much of the South China Sea. The Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague said on 12 July 2016 that there was no evidence that China had exercised exclusive control historically over the key waterway.

Clearly the verdict has had little impact on China’s behaviour as its land reclamation and creeping militarisation continues unabated, while its vessels regularly intrude into Filipino waters.

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-inter ... sea-ruling

According to the Chinese they are never in the wrong. Besides ignoring international rulings when it suits them

The Philippines has called on China to withdraw more than 200 ships it accuses of encroaching upon its territorial waters in the South China Sea.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56474847

In regards to the RAAF they only have 14 P8's not in a very good position to lose one and so close to china, me thinks the Chinese were hoping for another Hainan Island incident

A101 wrote:

In regards to the RAAF they only have 14 P8's not in a very good position to lose one and so close to china, me thinks the Chinese were hoping for another Hainan Island incident

They have 12 in the fleet, aircraft 13 and 14 on order.

hk144 wrote:

A101 wrote:

In regards to the RAAF they only have 14 P8's not in a very good position to lose one and so close to china, me thinks the Chinese were hoping for another Hainan Island incident

They have 12 in the fleet, aircraft 13 and 14 on order.

My mistake thought they had been delivered

A101 wrote:

My mistake thought they had been delivered

They are part of the Lot 12 order which includes Germany 6 frames. I have not read if Lot 12 contract with Boeing have been signed.

bt

Avatar2go wrote:

To clarify, when China builds an artificial island, it also declares archipelagic rights, meaning the waters between it and other Chinese land masses are considered internal waterways. But neither the islands nor China's status as an archipelago are recognized under international law. Any territorial seas declared around them, are also unrecognized. So Australia would not recognize any territorial claim for such islands, including airspace.

If the island is a natural feature of Chinese territory, then China has the international right of 12 mile territorial seas around the island boundary. Australia would be certain to recognize and remain outside those lawful sea & air spaces.

Please take a look at the map provided in my link. There are many islands/rocks in the region. The so called "artificial islands" are not really artificial islands. They are existing small islands that were expanded to much larger islands through land reclamation. They are not the only who have done land reclamation projects in the region. Vietnam has engaged in its own island expansion project as you can see in the link I provided. On top of that, we do not know exactly which island's air space the Australian air force was trying to enter. It could very well be one of the existing islands that China did no work on but occupies. From China's point of view, RAAF was doing a very aggressive move of trying to force China to give up claim over land it occupies. Any of the nations in the surrounding area would be pissed off if any other country tried to enter air space of one of the rocks/islands they have occupied. So while Australia may claim innocence here, they are far from being innocent. In fact, what they did could very well have started a war.

Given that they were taking off from Phillipines on these flights and require VFA to continue flying out of there, you can bet China will be pressuring the Filipino govt (the new govt is quite pro China) to revoke VFA. It was a terribly reckless move by RAAF.

A101 wrote:

No its called Signals intelligence (SIGINT) and they would be trying gather data for any military Electronic Order of Battle (EOB) its just the same as when the Chines send a ship to Australia to gather the same type of information.

Again, RAAF tried to enter Chinese air space. Australia itself may not recognize China's ownership of that island, but what they did was very unusual and was very aggressive in nature.

USAF sent airplane 29 nm from China's mainland several days later and no problems. What Australia did was trying to take sovereignty away from China. Huge issue here.

And secondly a

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-inter ... sea-ruling

According to the Chinese they are never in the wrong. Besides ignoring international rulings when it suits them

That ruling simply says China's 9-dash claims are not valid. It makes no decision on who actually has ownership of those islands. As I said before, all the islands/rocks in the region have been claimed by various countries in the region. Those have not changed hands. They all claim a much larger area than they should. China just happens to claim the largest portion of area, but that's something they've carried forward from the nationalist government. It's a policy that's been in place for over a hundred years. Each countries can claim what they claim, but they only enforce sovereignty over the islands they actually occupy.

If you actually want to see a case of a country disregarding UN ruling. That would be UK with Diego Garcia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -mauritius

How come UK is not abiding by UN ruling and returning Diego Garcia to Mauritius?

In regards to the RAAF they only have 14 P8's not in a very good position to lose one and so close to china, me thinks the Chinese were hoping for another Hainan Island incident

hmm, let's see what Australia is like and how lawful they are

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/austr ... -solomons/
threatened to invade Solomon island because they dared to sign an agreement with China that might bring a base that's 2000 km away from Australia. Remember when threatening invasion against democratically elected countries is wrong? Apparently, it doesn't apply to Australians.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... aggression
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-14/ ... /101066602
Or remember when Australian Defense minister called Chinese conducting surveillance well outside of Australian sea water as "an act of aggression"?

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Intern ... Penny-Wong
Or when Australia called Fiji and other Pacific nations its "backyard"? Like everyone in the region needs to be subservient to Australia?

"Fiji is not anyone's backyard - we are a part of a Pacific family," Bainimarama wrote on Twitter, posting a picture of himself and Penny Wong shaking hands.

He appeared to be taking a veiled swipe at Scott Morrison, the conservative prime minister ousted in an election last weekend, who once referred to the Pacific as Australia's "backyard".

So again to clarify, the definition of island is:

Islands must be naturally occurring, above the water at high tide, and able to sustain human habitation or economic life of their own. Islands do not need to be inhabited; they only need to be capable of sustaining human habitation or economic life. Islands create the same territorial seas as coastal areas, drawn from their boundaries or from an established baseline.

Further this must be true before artificial buildup or enhancement. Thus a reef, rock, or atoll are not considered islands, even if they are later enhanced.

The definition of artificial island is:

States have the right to construct artificial islands, installations and structures within their economic zones. Owners of such artificial features are permitted to establish reasonable safety zones, usually not to exceed 500 meters (1649 feet). Since they are not naturally occurring, artificial features do not create a territorial sea.

The recurring issue with China has been their claim that artificial islands have the same territorial seas as naturally occurring islands. Also that collections of artificial & natural islands, constitute an archipelago and hence can be considered as internal waters.

Both of these assertions are false under international law. To prevent the Chinese from enforcing these claims, forces from the US, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, New Zealand, Canada, & Australia, routinely patrol and overfly the disputed international waters. This activity is lawful and within their international rights.

Thus it's hard to accept that Australia knowingly entered lawful Chinese airspace, but easy to accept that Australia flew through Chinese-claimed airspace that is not recognized by international law.

tphuang wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

To clarify, when China builds an artificial island, it also declares archipelagic rights, meaning the waters between it and other Chinese land masses are considered internal waterways. But neither the islands nor China's status as an archipelago are recognized under international law. Any territorial seas declared around them, are also unrecognized. So Australia would not recognize any territorial claim for such islands, including airspace.

If the island is a natural feature of Chinese territory, then China has the international right of 12 mile territorial seas around the island boundary. Australia would be certain to recognize and remain outside those lawful sea & air spaces.

Please take a look at the map provided in my link. There are many islands/rocks in the region. The so called "artificial islands" are not really artificial islands. They are existing small islands that were expanded to much larger islands through land reclamation. They are not the only who have done land reclamation projects in the region. Vietnam has engaged in its own island expansion project as you can see in the link I provided. On top of that, we do not know exactly which island's air space the Australian air force was trying to enter. It could very well be one of the existing islands that China did no work on but occupies. From China's point of view, RAAF was doing a very aggressive move of trying to force China to give up claim over land it occupies. Any of the nations in the surrounding area would be pissed off if any other country tried to enter air space of one of the rocks/islands they have occupied. So while Australia may claim innocence here, they are far from being innocent. In fact, what they did could very well have started a war.

Given that they were taking off from Phillipines on these flights and require VFA to continue flying out of there, you can bet China will be pressuring the Filipino govt (the new govt is quite pro China) to revoke VFA. It was a terribly reckless move by RAAF.

A101 wrote:

No its called Signals intelligence (SIGINT) and they would be trying gather data for any military Electronic Order of Battle (EOB) its just the same as when the Chines send a ship to Australia to gather the same type of information.

Again, RAAF tried to enter Chinese air space. Australia itself may not recognize China's ownership of that island, but what they did was very unusual and was very aggressive in nature.

USAF sent airplane 29 nm from China's mainland several days later and no problems. What Australia did was trying to take sovereignty away from China. Huge issue here.

And secondly a

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-inter ... sea-ruling

According to the Chinese they are never in the wrong. Besides ignoring international rulings when it suits them

That ruling simply says China's 9-dash claims are not valid. It makes no decision on who actually has ownership of those islands. As I said before, all the islands/rocks in the region have been claimed by various countries in the region. Those have not changed hands. They all claim a much larger area than they should. China just happens to claim the largest portion of area, but that's something they've carried forward from the nationalist government. It's a policy that's been in place for over a hundred years. Each countries can claim what they claim, but they only enforce sovereignty over the islands they actually occupy.

If you actually want to see a case of a country disregarding UN ruling. That would be UK with Diego Garcia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -mauritius

How come UK is not abiding by UN ruling and returning Diego Garcia to Mauritius?

In regards to the RAAF they only have 14 P8's not in a very good position to lose one and so close to china, me thinks the Chinese were hoping for another Hainan Island incident

hmm, let's see what Australia is like and how lawful they are

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/austr ... -solomons/
threatened to invade Solomon island because they dared to sign an agreement with China that might bring a base that's 2000 km away from Australia. Remember when threatening invasion against democratically elected countries is wrong? Apparently, it doesn't apply to Australians.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... aggression
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-14/ ... /101066602
Or remember when Australian Defense minister called Chinese conducting surveillance well outside of Australian sea water as "an act of aggression"?

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Intern ... Penny-Wong
Or when Australia called Fiji and other Pacific nations its "backyard"? Like everyone in the region needs to be subservient to Australia?

"Fiji is not anyone's backyard - we are a part of a Pacific family," Bainimarama wrote on Twitter, posting a picture of himself and Penny Wong shaking hands.

He appeared to be taking a veiled swipe at Scott Morrison, the conservative prime minister ousted in an election last weekend, who once referred to the Pacific as Australia's "backyard".

Your arguments here are kind of invalid. Regardless of what someone else does, the line of arguments in this thread are around Chinese actions, not what the UK is doing in Mauritius, or someone else elsewhere.
Bringing other countries' land disputes into this has nothing to do with the situation discussed in this thread involving Chinese land claims. Arguing the way you are arguing is a logical fallacy.
Regardless of what someone else does, the Chinese land claims are obviously widely disputed, primarily not recognized, especially by the countries surrounding the South China Sea,
and this issue stand on its own. In the case discussed here, courts would only discuss the merits of the arguments surrounding the Chinese land reclamation efforts, not what anyone else is doing elsewhere.

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

No its called Signals intelligence (SIGINT) and they would be trying gather data for any military Electronic Order of Battle (EOB) its just the same as when the Chines send a ship to Australia to gather the same type of information.

Again, RAAF tried to enter Chinese air space. Australia itself may not recognize China's ownership of that island, but what they did was very unusual and was very aggressive in nature.

No they did no such thing as the ruling in the Hauge explains under international law

tphuang wrote:

USAF sent airplane 29 nm from China's mainland several days later and no problems. What Australia did was trying to take sovereignty away from China. Huge issue here.

If I remember correctly territorial is 12nm, no sovereignty issues at all what’s so ever

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

And secondly a
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-inter ... sea-ruling
According to the Chinese they are never in the wrong. Besides ignoring international rulings when it suits them

That ruling simply says China's 9-dash claims are not valid. It makes no decision on who actually has ownership of those islands. As I said before, all the islands/rocks in the region have been claimed by various countries in the region. Those have not changed hands. They all claim a much larger area than they should.

Seems you speak the same language of the Chinese and ignore they lost with the Hauge rulings

tphuang wrote:

China just happens to claim the largest portion of area, but that's something they've carried forward from the nationalist government. It's a policy that's been in place for over a hundred years. Each countries can claim what they claim, but they only enforce sovereignty over the islands they actually occupy.

Its Chinese policy not international law, The Hague ruled that most of China's claims in the disputed sea were illegal. The judgment was legally binding

tphuang wrote:

If you actually want to see a case of a country disregarding UN ruling. That would be UK with Diego Garcia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -mauritius
How come UK is not abiding by UN ruling and returning Diego Garcia to Mauritius?

I have not read the ruling or the reasoning for the outcome, but what I do know that the ruling is non-binding (not legally enforceable)
From my understanding inter government meeting in regards to Diego Garcia it was agreed that the UK would compensate the Government of Mauritius and its landowners in regards to BIOT, why this agreement is null and void I haven’t seen a rational explanation as yet
And If by the ruling that process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed then technically Mauritius is not independent and still a territory of the UK would it not be?

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

n regards to the RAAF they only have 14 P8's not in a very good position to lose one and so close to china, me thinks the Chinese were hoping for another Hainan Island incident

hmm, let's see what Australia is like and how lawful they are
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/austr ... -solomons/
threatened to invade Solomon island because they dared to sign an agreement with China that might bring a base that's 2000 km away from Australia. Remember when threatening invasion against democratically elected countries is wrong? Apparently, it doesn't apply to Australians.

Ahh so you are following Sogavare rhetoric, did Morrison actually say he would invade?
He said a red line would be crossed if the Solomons lets the Chinese build a military base. Red lines can mean many things, but in this case I imagine it would mean that the end of AusAid and interventions at the request of the Solomons Government in civil disturbance (riots)and that the Solomons would become a legitimate target in any military confrontation with China.

tphuang wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... aggression
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-14/ ... /101066602
Or remember when Australian Defense minister called Chinese conducting surveillance well outside of Australian sea water as "an act of aggression"?

The defence minister was using the same rhetoric as the Chinese.
Australian sea water?
That’s new terminology for saying that they were in Australia’s EEZ the very same area that China continues to claim against RAAF entering Chinese sovereign territory.

tphuang wrote:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Intern ... Penny-Wong
Or when Australia called Fiji and other Pacific nations its "backyard"? Like everyone in the region needs to be subservient to Australia?

Backyard has different meaning to different nations, to Australians it somewhere where friends and family come and enjoy themselves having a BBQ or playing footy or cricket or whatever, nothing about being subservient to another, but if they don’t want Australians to come and visit many Australians will be disappointed by the decision if that’s what they wanted

tphuang wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

In regards to the RAAF they only have 14 P8's not in a very good position to lose one and so close to china, me thinks the Chinese were hoping for another Hainan Island incident

hmm, let's see what Australia is like and how lawful they are

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/austr ... -solomons/
threatened to invade Solomon island because they dared to sign an agreement with China that might bring a base that's 2000 km away from Australia. Remember when threatening invasion against democratically elected countries is wrong? Apparently, it doesn't apply to Australians.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Intern ... Penny-Wong
Or when Australia called Fiji and other Pacific nations its "backyard"? Like everyone in the region needs to be subservient to Australia?

"Fiji is not anyone's backyard - we are a part of a Pacific family," Bainimarama wrote on Twitter, posting a picture of himself and Penny Wong shaking hands.

He appeared to be taking a veiled swipe at Scott Morrison, the conservative prime minister ousted in an election last weekend, who once referred to the Pacific as Australia's "backyard".

Firstly, just a couple of points, whoever you are:

You refer to the ASPI article which at no time mentioned anything about invading the Solomons. This comment was a hyped up comment by the Solomons PM. Second, the term 'backyard' in Australia is at no times referencing anyone being subordinate to Australia, backyard means 'neighbourhood' again another hyped up comment by another leader and latched onto by the CCP media.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

but the Chinese need to follow the international rules for safe conduct.

We may have international rules for safe conduct, but I wonder what the reaction of the US would be if a nuclear armed Chinese carrier battle groups and air wings carried out "freedom of navigation" exercises in the Gulf of Mexico, or sailed a fleet in the Florida Straits?

With China increasing their blue water navy they may have to deal with a reaction like that soon.

You greatly overstate the capability of the Chinese Navy

INFINITI329 wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

but the Chinese need to follow the international rules for safe conduct.

We may have international rules for safe conduct, but I wonder what the reaction of the US would be if a nuclear armed Chinese carrier battle groups and air wings carried out "freedom of navigation" exercises in the Gulf of Mexico, or sailed a fleet in the Florida Straits?

With China increasing their blue water navy they may have to deal with a reaction like that soon.

You greatly overstate the capability of the Chinese Navy

Its not that it will never happen but just like in the cold war and even happens now Chinese PLAN ships regular turn up when large exercise happen such as Rim Pac. as long as they do not enter US territorial waters then they will be monitored closely

I wonder what the Chinese would say and do if the USN asked the chines fishing trawlers to move on because the USN wants to conduct a military ex within their EEZ


https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... for%20fish.

Not Cool: Russian Warships Harassed American Fishermen Near Alaska

The fishermen were warned to leave the area and were surprised when the U.S. Coast Guard told them to comply with warnings issued by the Russian warships. The exercise reportedly featured an amphibious ship, a missile cruiser, and a cruise missile-firing submarine.

Part of Russia's “Ocean Shield” exercises, however, took place in America’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), a 200-nautical mile strip extending from shoreline where the U.S. can claim exclusive economic development rights. Somewhat ironically, foreign military forces can enter an EEZ, but not a fishing boat intent on trawling for fish.

hk144 wrote:

Firstly, just a couple of points, whoever you are:

You refer to the ASPI article which at no time mentioned anything about invading the Solomons. This comment was a hyped up comment by the Solomons PM. Second, the term 'backyard' in Australia is at no times referencing anyone being subordinate to Australia, backyard means 'neighbourhood' again another hyped up comment by another leader and latched onto by the CCP media.

I have over 7000 posts on this forum. If you want to disagree with me, please do so politely rather than calling me "whoever you are".

If Australia wants to temper things down, it should not be using phrases like "red line" when discussing things. The fact that Pacific Island nations took a swipe at the 'backyard" comment should tell you what they think about Australians using that term to describe them.

stratable wrote:

Your arguments here are kind of invalid. Regardless of what someone else does, the line of arguments in this thread are around Chinese actions, not what the UK is doing in Mauritius, or someone else elsewhere.
Bringing other countries' land disputes into this has nothing to do with the situation discussed in this thread involving Chinese land claims. Arguing the way you are arguing is a logical fallacy.
Regardless of what someone else does, the Chinese land claims are obviously widely disputed, primarily not recognized, especially by the countries surrounding the South China Sea,
and this issue stand on its own. In the case discussed here, courts would only discuss the merits of the arguments surrounding the Chinese land reclamation efforts, not what anyone else is doing elsewhere.

I was replying to this comment "According to the Chinese they are never in the wrong. Besides ignoring international rulings when it suits them ". It seems to me that if they are guilty of that, then they are far and away from the only nation doing so.

On the issue at hand, you are forgetting that all the countries in the region have very expansionist claims. Vietnam claims islands/sea area well into Filipino EEZ. Taiwan has the same exact 9-dash claims as mainland. The court ruling only says that China's 9-dash claims are not valid. It's not a ruling on the border claims of the islands themselves. That's something that SCS countries need to negotiate and settle among themselves.

A101 wrote:

No they did no such thing as the ruling in the Hauge explains under international law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China

the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines on most of its submissions. It clarified that while it would not "rule on any question of sovereignty ... and would not delimit any maritime boundary", China's historic rights claims over maritime areas (as opposed to land masses and territorial waters) within the "nine-dash line" have no lawful effect unless entitled to under UNCLOS

Again, the ruling does not state which country is in control of which island. It simply states that China's 9-dash claims are not lawful. It also ruled that Beijing had been unlawful in blocking Filipino fishing grounds of Scarborough Shoal. None of this involve the air space that China was trying to protect.

There are many islands in SCS. Each of those islands in SCS are controlled by a country and these countries enforce the air space around there. If Australia flies into an island controlled Vietnam, it will get shot at also.

more importantly, if you know China controls that island and is enforcing air space around there, why would you intentionally fly into it? RAAF is clearly trying to cause problems in a region far from its homeland when nobody in the region asked them to interfere.

Its Chinese policy not international law, The Hague ruled that most of China's claims in the disputed sea were illegal. The judgment was legally binding

Again, please read what the ruling was about. It simply invalidates 9-dash.

The United Nations itself "doesn't have a position on the legal and procedural merits of the case or on the disputed claims"

This is something that countries around SCS need to settle and decide by themselves. Not with Austrlians.

I have not read the ruling or the reasoning for the outcome, but what I do know that the ruling is non-binding (not legally enforceable)
From my understanding inter government meeting in regards to Diego Garcia it was agreed that the UK would compensate the Government of Mauritius and its landowners in regards to BIOT, why this agreement is null and void I haven’t seen a rational explanation as yet
And If by the ruling that process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed then technically Mauritius is not independent and still a territory of the UK would it not be?

https://theconversation.com/how-the-us- ... ans-177636

On the request of the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, on 25th February, 2019, deemed the detachment of the Chagos Islands from Mauritius and their incorporation into a new colony unlawful. The UN General Assembly passed Resolution 73/295 on 22nd May, 2019 obligating the UK to withdraw its colonial administration within six months.

I think this article covers it pretty well.

tphuang wrote:

Ahh so you are following Sogavare rhetoric, did Morrison actually say he would invade?
He said a red line would be crossed if the Solomons lets the Chinese build a military base. Red lines can mean many things, but in this case I imagine it would mean that the end of AusAid and interventions at the request of the Solomons Government in civil disturbance (riots)and that the Solomons would become a legitimate target in any military confrontation with China.

If you do not want people to mistaken your meaning, then don't use the phrase "red line" and feel free to renounce intention to invade the Solomon Islands. Why do they not renounce their intention to invade Solomon Islands?
https://www.cato.org/commentary/us-aust ... inese-wolf

Yet hawks in both Canberra and Washington are smelling gunpowder and promoting war. For instance, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison called the base issue a red line, while Dutton cited the PRC in telling Australians that they “should prepare for war” in his Anzac Day talk. Businessman and publisher David Llewellyn‐​Smith insisted that if necessary Canberra should “invade and capture Guadalcanal such that we engineer regime change in Honiara.” Preferably Canberra would “Get the backing and military support of Washington and drive China out of the South Pacific.”
.....
When pressed on whether that meant possible military action, Kritenbrink responded: “I’m not in a position to talk about what the United States may or may not do in such a situation.”

The defence minister was using the same rhetoric as the Chinese.
Australian sea water?
That’s new terminology for saying that they were in Australia’s EEZ the very same area that China continues to claim against RAAF entering Chinese sovereign territory.

whatever you want to call it. If you want to call it something else, we will use whatever you want to call it.

The Chinese warship was operating well outside of 12nm and was even outside of EEZ for much of it. And the Australian defence minister made it sound like China was looking to invade Australia.

Backyard has different meaning to different nations, to Australians it somewhere where friends and family come and enjoy themselves having a BBQ or playing footy or cricket or whatever, nothing about being subservient to another, but if they don’t want Australians to come and visit many Australians will be disappointed by the decision if that’s what they wanted

You may want to read how pacific Islands view some of these comments.
https://thefrontierpost.com/all-the-pac ... of-others/

A101 wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

We may have international rules for safe conduct, but I wonder what the reaction of the US would be if a nuclear armed Chinese carrier battle groups and air wings carried out "freedom of navigation" exercises in the Gulf of Mexico, or sailed a fleet in the Florida Straits?

With China increasing their blue water navy they may have to deal with a reaction like that soon.

You greatly overstate the capability of the Chinese Navy

Its not that it will never happen but just like in the cold war and even happens now Chinese PLAN ships regular turn up when large exercise happen such as Rim Pac. as long as they do not enter US territorial waters then they will be monitored closely

That is probably the extent of their reach. The Chinese Navy lacks the logistical support to make it to the US mainland let alone the Gulf of Mexico

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

No they did no such thing as the ruling in the Hauge explains under international law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China

To put in context, you said that;

“Again, RAAF tried to enter Chinese air space. Australia itself may not recognize China's ownership of that island, but what they did was very unusual and was very aggressive in nature.”

Irrespective whether or not Australia recognises Chinese claims to the rock in dispute does not mean they tried to enter Chinese airspace and at no time did the RAAF enter any contested airspace. The incident happened in international airspace. The aggressive nature and intent was purely on the Chinese aircraft against the RAAF aircraft in international airspace which it has legal passage.

Can you explain how the RAAF acted in an aggressive nature?

tphuang wrote:

There are many islands in SCS. Each of those islands in SCS are controlled by a country and these countries enforce the air space around there. If Australia flies into an island controlled Vietnam, it will get shot at also.
more importantly, if you know China controls that island and is enforcing air space around there, why would you intentionally fly into it? RAAF is clearly trying to cause problems in a region far from its homeland when nobody in the region asked them to interfere.

Once again, the RAAF did not fly into contested air space, as you said China would have shot it down. Just as the USSR shot down KAL 007 in its mistaken belief of shooting down a USAF aircraft.

Also, any reclamation work to enlarge a atoll, rock or island does not mean the territorial space enlarges with it.

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

Its Chinese policy not international law, The Hague ruled that most of China's claims in the disputed sea were illegal. The judgment was legally binding

Again, please read what the ruling was about. It simply invalidates 9-dash.

You are simplifying the ruling which does a lot more than that. It differentiates whether or not claims of the Chinese hold any of the three types of territorial objects at sea under UNCLOS

tphuang wrote:

The United Nations itself "doesn't have a position on the legal and procedural merits of the case or on the disputed claims"

This is something that countries around SCS need to settle and decide by themselves. Not with Austrlians.

Irrespective of the position of AusGov to the claims of nations within the SCS, Australia does have a claim to hold China to account on navigational rights and freedoms consistent with international law in which China continually tries to deny those rights.

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

Ahh so you are following Sogavare rhetoric, did Morrison actually say he would invade?
He said a red line would be crossed if the Solomons lets the Chinese build a military base. Red lines can mean many things, but in this case I imagine it would mean that the end of AusAid and interventions at the request of the Solomons Government in civil disturbance (riots)and that the Solomons would become a legitimate target in any military confrontation with China.

If you do not want people to mistaken your meaning, then don't use the phrase "red line" and feel free to renounce intention to invade the Solomon Islands. Why do they not renounce their intention to invade Solomon Islands?
https://www.cato.org/commentary/us-aust ... inese-wolf

Why would the AusGov need to renounce a intention proposed by PM Sogavare in the Solomons Islands Parliament?

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

The defence minister was using the same rhetoric as the Chinese.
Australian sea water?
That’s new terminology for saying that they were in Australia’s EEZ the very same area that China continues to claim against RAAF entering Chinese sovereign territory.

whatever you want to call it. If you want to call it something else, we will use whatever you want to call it.

??

Not sure why you want to call it something else when China has ratified UNCLOS

tphuang wrote:

The Chinese warship was operating well outside of 12nm and was even outside of EEZ for much of it. And the Australian defence minister made it sound like China was looking to invade Australia.

The comments were made during an Australian national election and was primarily for domestic consumption, but it also had a secondary intent to show the absurd position from the Chinese Politburo in regards to military vessels entering nations EEZ and claiming it infringes on their sovereign territorial rights

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

Backyard has different meaning to different nations, to Australians it somewhere where friends and family come and enjoy themselves having a BBQ or playing footy or cricket or whatever, nothing about being subservient to another, but if they don’t want Australians to come and visit many Australians will be disappointed by the decision if that’s what they wanted

You may want to read how pacific Islands view some of these comments.
https://thefrontierpost.com/all-the-pac ... of-others/

Why?

It was widely disseminated within Australian media on the Solomons PM in which he refers to backyard definition, but if he wants to degenerate his own constitutes and how the ordinary Solomons Islands people live he is most welcome too.

tphuang wrote:

stratable wrote:

Your arguments here are kind of invalid. Regardless of what someone else does, the line of arguments in this thread are around Chinese actions, not what the UK is doing in Mauritius, or someone else elsewhere.
Bringing other countries' land disputes into this has nothing to do with the situation discussed in this thread involving Chinese land claims. Arguing the way you are arguing is a logical fallacy.
Regardless of what someone else does, the Chinese land claims are obviously widely disputed, primarily not recognized, especially by the countries surrounding the South China Sea,
and this issue stand on its own. In the case discussed here, courts would only discuss the merits of the arguments surrounding the Chinese land reclamation efforts, not what anyone else is doing elsewhere.

I was replying to this comment "According to the Chinese they are never in the wrong. Besides ignoring international rulings when it suits them ". It seems to me that if they are guilty of that, then they are far and away from the only nation doing so.

On the issue at hand, you are forgetting that all the countries in the region have very expansionist claims. Vietnam claims islands/sea area well into Filipino EEZ. Taiwan has the same exact 9-dash claims as mainland. The court ruling only says that China's 9-dash claims are not valid. It's not a ruling on the border claims of the islands themselves. That's something that SCS countries need to negotiate and settle among themselves.

Your statement is a bit of a false equivalence though, as China is the only country in the region trying to enforce major claims with military power, especially against countries that have inferior naval forces.

A101 wrote:

No they did no such thing as the ruling in the Hauge explains under international law

A101, I am getting the impression we are talking to a propaganda account here. There is a reason why these land claims are not recognized, and pretty much every other country in the region, and every Western democracy is conducting freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea.

A101 wrote:

To put in context, you said that;

“Again, RAAF tried to enter Chinese air space. Australia itself may not recognize China's ownership of that island, but what they did was very unusual and was very aggressive in nature.”

Irrespective whether or not Australia recognises Chinese claims to the rock in dispute does not mean they tried to enter Chinese airspace and at no time did the RAAF enter any contested airspace. The incident happened in international airspace. The aggressive nature and intent was purely on the Chinese aircraft against the RAAF aircraft in international airspace which it has legal passage.

Can you explain how the RAAF acted in an aggressive nature?

If tomorrow, China no longer recognizes Okinawa as part of Japan and decide to fly into Japanese air space around Okinawa, would Japan have the rights to defend itself and shoot down the intruding aircraft? So, it cannot just be based on what you recognize.

UN laws stipulates that islands have 12nm boundary, but reefs do not. As such, China only enforces airspace over islands, not reefs. So, this is not related to the often talked about reefs around Spratleys. We know USN frequently carry out FON flights within 12nm of those reefs and China does not regard those as entering their air space.

So, this is involving an island, most likely in Paracels, that China has control for many years now. What RAAF did here is extremely aggressive in nature. No country would tolerate you going into their air space.

Once again, the RAAF did not fly into contested air space, as you said China would have shot it down. Just as the USSR shot down KAL 007 in its mistaken belief of shooting down a USAF aircraft.

Also, any reclamation work to enlarge a atoll, rock or island does not mean the territorial space enlarges with it.

Again, China does not enforce air space over reefs. That's not UN law. it enforces air space around islands. If China had been enforcing 12nm around reefs, it would've gotten into a fight with USN by now.

Notice how USN hasn't gotten into a similar issue with China despite doing frequent FON trips around those expanded islands?

You are simplifying the ruling which does a lot more than that. It differentiates whether or not claims of the Chinese hold any of the three types of territorial objects at sea under UNCLOS

Again, RAAF was trying to fly into an island, not a reef that China has controlled for many years. There has no been no ruling that determined the ownership of islands inside SCS. The Hague ruling was invalidating China's general claim over all of SCS and more specifically around scarborough shoal. The island in question here is not scarborough shoal.

The Hague ruling has no relation with the island RAAF was trying to fly into.

Irrespective of the position of AusGov to the claims of nations within the SCS, Australia does have a claim to hold China to account on navigational rights and freedoms consistent with international law in which China continually tries to deny those rights.

you can do FON, but not in someone's air space.

If China denies those rights, why has USN not had a similar confrontation around Subi Reef or one of the other Reefs that China expanded?

Why did this only happen to the Australians? Think about it.

Why would the AusGov need to renounce a intention proposed by PM Sogavare in the Solomons Islands Parliament?

if you have no intention to invade when using a term like "red line", why would you not clarify and say you are not going to invade? The reason is that the Australians want to maintain ambiguity over what they might do.

What does red lines mean in geopolitics? When countries draw red line, they want other countries to interpret it as they might face invasion if that red line is crossed.
https://mwi.usma.edu/geopolitical-costs-red-lines/

Considering that Solomon Island government was making a legally acceptable and sovereign decision to sign a security pact with China. What the Australians did there is quite despicable.

Not sure why you want to call it something else when China has ratified UNCLOS

I wasn't trying to have an argument with you about that. I'm simply referring to where they were. As you saw from the article, they were not within Australian EEZ for large portion of the time, so I can't say they were only in the Australian EEZ. That's why I said, we can call it whatever you want to call it.

The comments were made during an Australian national election and was primarily for domestic consumption, but it also had a secondary intent to show the absurd position from the Chinese Politburo in regards to military vessels entering nations EEZ and claiming it infringes on their sovereign territorial rights

all it shows is Australian hypocrisy and acting like bullies around their neck of the wood.

Why?

It was widely disseminated within Australian media on the Solomons PM in which he refers to backyard definition, but if he wants to degenerate his own constitutes and how the ordinary Solomons Islands people live he is most welcome too.

It was Fijians that rebuked the "backyard" comment.

I'll just leave a short comment here: This incident might have happened exactly how RAAF states it did, or it might not have happened at all, or anything in between.
In the West we usually take what our military leaders and services say as plain truth. But it's quite clear that sometimes it isn't.
As an example, before the Russian "special operation" invasion began, the Royal Navy was sailing the HMS Defender (a destroyer) outside Crimea, following what the Royal Navy called established trade routes. The Russians did not like this, and asked the destroyer to turn around. After some back and forth communication and warnings, the Russian Coast Guard fired warning shots "across the bow" of the Royal Navy destroyer. In reality the shots went a bit further away from the ship. An SU-24 attack aircraft also dropped bombs in the waters around the destroyer, and the HMS Defender finally altered it's course. Right after this, the Royal Navy denied any shots had been fired at all. The only problem with that story is that the Russians released video and audio from the incident, where you can both see and hear the Russians firing the warning shots and dropping the bombs. The Royal Navy then changed their story, admitting the shots were fired, but that they were "too far away" to be warning shots. Point is, with incidents like this - the official version you read about in the press is sometimes not accurate or correct.

JetBuddy wrote:

the Russian Coast Guard fired warning shots "across the bow" of the Royal Navy destroyer. In reality the shots went a bit further away from the ship.

This was what I was alluding earlier in the debate. I don't see any issue with warning shots. But dumping chaff or flares into the aircraft engines would be like dropping fishing nets in front of that UK ship in your example. It is unconventional and in case of the chaf and flares, could cause more damage to the plane than nets getting caught in the props.

bt

JetBuddy wrote:

I'll just leave a short comment here: This incident might have happened exactly how RAAF states it did, or it might not have happened at all, or anything in between.
In the West we usually take what our military leaders and services say as plain truth. But it's quite clear that sometimes it isn't.
As an example, before the Russian "special operation" invasion began, the Royal Navy was sailing the HMS Defender (a destroyer) outside Crimea, following what the Royal Navy called established trade routes. The Russians did not like this, and asked the destroyer to turn around. After some back and forth communication and warnings, the Russian Coast Guard fired warning shots "across the bow" of the Royal Navy destroyer. In reality the shots went a bit further away from the ship. An SU-24 attack aircraft also dropped bombs in the waters around the destroyer, and the HMS Defender finally altered it's course. Right after this, the Royal Navy denied any shots had been fired at all. The only problem with that story is that the Russians released video and audio from the incident, where you can both see and hear the Russians firing the warning shots and dropping the bombs. The Royal Navy then changed their story, admitting the shots were fired, but that they were "too far away" to be warning shots. Point is, with incidents like this - the official version you read about in the press is sometimes not accurate or correct.

Just to clarify, in the Defender incident, the Defender was already hopelessly out of range when the shots were fired. The crew, observing the shots from a distance, did not consider themselves as being shot at, and did not report the incident that way, probably to keep things calm.

The Russians later made the shots across the bow claim, and released video of the firing, but in that video, the Defender is disappearing over the horizon. To naval folks, the video was worth a chuckle, nothing more. It was clearly propaganda. Same thing with the dropping bombs claim, which occured in a practice zone where the Defender wasn't.

So in that case, the Royal Navy was truthful, and the Russians were producing news for domestic consumption.

In this case, the RAAF knows exactly where they need to be, conducts these mission routinely, and the intelligence mission is not enhanced by penetrating airspace that will invoke an escort that disturbs the mission. So I highly doubt the claim that they violated Chinese airspace.

It's an example of Occam's razor. Which explanation is more likely? Once the airspace claim is removed, the incident is clearly understood for what it was.

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

To put in context, you said that;
“Again, RAAF tried to enter Chinese air space. Australia itself may not recognize China's ownership of that island, but what they did was very unusual and was very aggressive in nature.”
Irrespective whether or not Australia recognises Chinese claims to the rock in dispute does not mean they tried to enter Chinese airspace and at no time did the RAAF enter any contested airspace. The incident happened in international airspace. The aggressive nature and intent was purely on the Chinese aircraft against the RAAF aircraft in international airspace which it has legal passage.
Can you explain how the RAAF acted in an aggressive nature?

If tomorrow, China no longer recognizes Okinawa as part of Japan and decide to fly into Japanese air space around Okinawa, would Japan have the rights to defend itself and shoot down the intruding aircraft? So, it cannot just be based on what you recognize.

Wow you are really are overreaching now

Any chance in illustrating how the RAAF were being aggressive?

tphuang wrote:

UN laws stipulates that islands have 12nm boundary, but reefs do not. As such, China only enforces airspace over islands, not reefs. So, this is not related to the often talked about reefs around Spratleys. We know USN frequently carry out FON flights within 12nm of those reefs and China does not regard those as entering their air space.
So, this is involving an island, most likely in Paracels, that China has control for many years now. What RAAF did here is extremely aggressive in nature. No country would tolerate you going into their air space.

China claims almost all the SCS as its sovereign territory hence the disputes and Freedom of Navigation by ships and aircraft.

But your assertion on the Parcel Islands holds no water legally, whilst the Islands have been improved artificially, under UNCLOS these Islands could not sustain human habitation or economic life on its own, so therefor are not entitled to a territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ, and continental shelf rights.

China has also militarised these islands so I hardly think an unarmed RAAF aircraft would enter the 12nm territorial as you claim due to the fact that China has placed a number and built significant point-defence capabilities that are able to reach out to in excess of 100nm

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

Once again, the RAAF did not fly into contested air space, as you said China would have shot it down. Just as the USSR shot down KAL 007 in its mistaken belief of shooting down a USAF aircraft.
Also, any reclamation work to enlarge a atoll, rock or island does not mean the territorial space enlarges with it.

Again, China does not enforce air space over reefs. That's not UN law. it enforces air space around islands. If China had been enforcing 12nm around reefs, it would've gotten into a fight with USN by now.
Notice how USN hasn't gotten into a similar issue with China despite doing frequent FON trips around those expanded islands?

Again, China claims almost all the territory in SCS with revised straight base lines for territorial reefs and islands and then claiming them as internal waters, which is outside the provisions under UNCLOS. The right to do so only applies to archipelagic nation states which clearly China is not.

tphuang wrote:

Notice how USN hasn't gotten into a similar issue with China despite doing frequent FON trips around those expanded islands?

Don’t be so vacuous, China always has issues with the US in its FON trips

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

You are simplifying the ruling which does a lot more than that. It differentiates whether or not claims of the Chinese hold any of the three types of territorial objects at sea under UNCLOS

Again, RAAF was trying to fly into an island, not a reef that China has controlled for many years. There has no been no ruling that determined the ownership of islands inside SCS. The Hague ruling was invalidating China's general claim over all of SCS and more specifically around scarborough shoal. The island in question here is not scarborough shoal.

The ruling has implications to all Chinese claims by precedence irrespective if it’s a Low-tide elevation, Rock or Island

tphuang wrote:

The Hague ruling has no relation with the island RAAF was trying to fly into.

It most certainly does have an effect as to the legitimacy of the claims, as China knows if it were to shoot down an aircraft in international waters its liable to either start a protracted war or economic war at the moment it cannot win hence the harassment levels.

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

Irrespective of the position of AusGov to the claims of nations within the SCS, Australia does have a claim to hold China to account on navigational rights and freedoms consistent with international law in which China continually tries to deny those rights.

you can do FON, but not in someone's air space.

And as we established with the Hauge ruling the RAAF did not fly into Chinese airspace

tphuang wrote:

If China denies those rights, why has USN not had a similar confrontation around Subi Reef or one of the other Reefs that China expanded?
Why did this only happen to the Australians? Think about it.

Really its not hard to figure out that is, but you want to localise it to on geographical area.

China has for some time tried to impede and harass both civilian and military navigation through the region either directly as with the Incident recently with the RAAF or indirectly or broadcasting warning to move away to civilian air and maritime traffic going about lawful passage. If it wasn’t for various nations using FON

I’d hate to see what the reality would look like now in the SCS

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

Not sure why you want to call it something else when China has ratified UNCLOS

I wasn't trying to have an argument with you about that. I'm simply referring to where they were. As you saw from the article, they were not within Australian EEZ for large portion of the time, so I can't say they were only in the Australian EEZ. That's why I said, we can call it whatever you want to call it.

CNS Haiwangxing operated off the WA coast within Australian EEZ for 4 days and the closest it came was 50nm to Harold E Holt Communication Station a joint AU/US facility

But that’s not the point you admit that a Chinese Naval vessel entered into the Australian EEZ and without being harassed by the ADF, monitored yes but not harassed. But yet the PLAAF harassed with a dangerous' interception against a unarmed military aircraft in international waters, see the hypocrisy of the Chinese claims.

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

The comments were made during an Australian national election and was primarily for domestic consumption, but it also had a secondary intent to show the absurd position from the Chinese Politburo in regards to military vessels entering nations EEZ and claiming it infringes on their sovereign territorial rights

all it shows is Australian hypocrisy and acting like bullies around their neck of the wood.

LOL really, you yourself up thread called the RAAF flight in international waters

“Again, RAAF tried to enter Chinese air space. Australia itself may not recognize China's ownership of that island, but what they did was very unusual and was very aggressive in nature.”

As I mentioned earlier just using the same rhetoric as the Chinese Politburo, now what did Dutton say said it was “very strange” and “unprecedented” that the ship had sailed so far south off the WA coast.

The act of aggression comment was prompted by the media;

“When asked whether he would characterise this spy ship’s presence as an act of aggression, Dutton said: “I think it is an aggressive act – and I think particularly because it has come so far south.”

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

Why would the AusGov need to renounce a intention proposed by PM Sogavare in the Solomons Islands Parliament?

f you have no intention to invade when using a term like "red line", why would you not clarify and say you are not going to invade? The reason is that the Australians want to maintain ambiguity over what they might do.

The Solomons Island discussion is getting off topic, but

Correct as pointed out before a “red line” many things hence the ambiguity

tphuang wrote:

What does red lines mean in geopolitics? When countries draw red line, they want other countries to interpret it as they might face invasion if that red line is crossed.
https://mwi.usma.edu/geopolitical-costs-red-lines/

No that’s just your perception. As your linked article suggests

A “red line” can be thought of as an unequivocal threat, a line in the sand that if crossed, the target would incur the full fury of the state that issued the threat in the first place

Notice it doesn’t say anything about invasion “full fury of the state” can be many options but principally it can be either military or a diplomatic response

tphuang wrote:

Considering that Solomon Island government was making a legally acceptable and sovereign decision to sign a security pact with China. What the Australians did there is quite despicable.

No not really just an appropriate response, with all the treaties that the Solomon’s has with Australia and with the deteriorating security outlook with known Chinese coercion the reference to a military base by the Chinese would be a step to far for Australia to continue relations the Solomons currently enjoy. It’s a measured response diplomatically. Considering many here in Australia feel like the Solomon’s PM is trying to take advantage of the situation and would rather we cut aid and reinvest it in people who are doing hard at home.

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

Why?
It was widely disseminated within Australian media on the Solomons PM in which he refers to backyard definition, but if he wants to degenerate his own constitutes and how the ordinary Solomons Islands people live he is most welcome too.

It was Fijians that rebuked the "backyard" comment.

https://twitter.com/FijiPM/status/1530265872354332673 5:13 AM · May 28, 2022

Which was later on, with the new Australian Foreign Minister Wong and most likely at her behest for political point scoring.
But PM Sogavare said in Parliament on the 3th May

He said the term ‘Backyard’ is very insulating and disrespectful.
He highlighted the term ‘Backyard’ means its where the chickens, pig pens are located, not only that but it’s a place where people can relieve themselves.
“Therefore, I call on those who brand us as backyard to stop and start to respect us,” he said.

https://www.solomonstarnews.com/pm-hits ... ard-brand/

When even the pacifist New Zealand Prime Minister gives a warning about the Chinese, then that gets my attention.

A101 wrote:

China claims almost all the SCS as its sovereign territory hence the disputes and Freedom of Navigation by ships and aircraft.

But your assertion on the Parcel Islands holds no water legally, whilst the Islands have been improved artificially, under UNCLOS these Islands could not sustain human habitation or economic life on its own, so therefor are not entitled to a territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ, and continental shelf rights.

China has also militarised these islands so I hardly think an unarmed RAAF aircraft would enter the 12nm territorial as you claim due to the fact that China has placed a number and built significant point-defence capabilities that are able to reach out to in excess of 100nm

It really seems to me you need to read up about this area. There are islands that can sustain human habitation and reefs that could not. Different countries (including Taiwan) own both island and reefs. China does not defend 12 nm airspace around reefs. They do it around islands. You are absolutely allowed to claim airspace over island that you control.

Maybe Australia should have respect over other's countries other airspace.

As for island expansion, China is free to expand reefs/islands and militarize just as any other country is allowed to do if they control it.

In fact, Philippines recently just complained to Taiwan because it was conducting a military exercise on Taiping, which is the largest island in Spratleys and one that is controlled by Taiwan.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 022-06-29/

spats are very common in this region.

Vietnam built up 10 islands in South China Sea.
https://www.voanews.com/a/how-vietnam-q ... 82776.html

Land reclamation and militarization is very common in SCS. It's not something only done by China.

Here are the islands of Spratleys. Notice how China does not control any of the islands? It only control reefs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands

Here are the Paracel Islands. Notice how China does control many of these islands? (and Vietnam controls the rest)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracel_Islands

So China enforces 12nm air space around Paracel islands that it controls. It does not enforce air space over reefs, because that's not recognized under UNCLOS.

Don’t be so vacuous, China always has issues with the US in its FON trips

loud warning and aggressive interception is par for the course here. China will complain to your face, because it doesn't like it. But it's not going to get more aggressive than loud warning/intercept you as long as you don't enter its air space. USN with its FON doesn't go into Chinese air space.

RAAF violated Chinese air space. You know, maybe RAAF should just stop entering other country's air space. That would be a good start?

The ruling has implications to all Chinese claims by precedence irrespective if it’s a Low-tide elevation, Rock or Island

pure bs, you don't even bother to read about what the ruling was. The entire case was over fishing ground around Scarborough Shoal, which is in Spratley. China is enforcing airspace over Paracel islands that it controls.

Again, Vietnam controls some. Taiwan does. Malaysia does and Philippines does. The countries that control these islands will protect their own air space.

It most certainly does have an effect as to the legitimacy of the claims, as China knows if it were to shoot down an aircraft in international waters its liable to either start a protracted war or economic war at the moment it cannot win hence the harassment levels.

oh believe me, if RAAF did try to enter Chinese air space after repeated warnings, it would've been shot down.

Please, just try to read the case and stop spewing nonsense. I've spoke to many Filipinos about the ruling and it's pretty obvious what the ruling says.

Again, each of these islands have a country that control. They are claimed by many countries. But only 1 country control it and enforce its territorial integrity.

Let's say the island is controled by Vietnam instead of China. Should RAAF be entering Vietnamese air space?

The air space it was entering was clearly not Australian. It clearly belongs to somebody. So, why does RAAF need act like a bully and enter that island's air space?

Really its not hard to figure out that is, but you want to localise it to on geographical area.

China has for some time tried to impede and harass both civilian and military navigation through the region either directly as with the Incident recently with the RAAF or indirectly or broadcasting warning to move away to civilian air and maritime traffic going about lawful passage. If it wasn’t for various nations using FON

I’d hate to see what the reality would look like now in the SCS

Again, warning/interception over one of their reefs is different than what happened here. RAAF crossed the line by trying to enter Chinese air space. You clearly have no understanding on what the Hague ruling was. You clearly no appreciation that many of the islands in SCS are real islands. As such, these islands have air space. Even if RAAF does not recognize Chinese ownership of that island, it clearly belongs to someone. It's not right for RAAF to enter the air space of another country after being warned not to.

CNS Haiwangxing operated off the WA coast within Australian EEZ for 4 days and the closest it came was 50nm to Harold E Holt Communication Station a joint AU/US facility

But that’s not the point you admit that a Chinese Naval vessel entered into the Australian EEZ and without being harassed by the ADF, monitored yes but not harassed. But yet the PLAAF harassed with a dangerous' interception against a unarmed military aircraft in international waters, see the hypocrisy of the Chinese claims.

lol, again. Big difference between within 12nm and outside of it. Don't enter another country's airspace. There won't be any problems

It's like this. There is an island. You know it's an island and there is a 12nm air space around it. You know you don't control it and you don't recognize the country that actually controls it. So, does that mean you have a right to enter its air space? Because clearly, someone other than you must control that island. You can't just go in without permission.

As I mentioned earlier just using the same rhetoric as the Chinese Politburo, now what did Dutton say said it was “very strange” and “unprecedented” that the ship had sailed so far south off the WA coast.

The act of aggression comment was prompted by the media;

hmm, since you said it. Why don't you find a quote from Chinese politburo that called a typical FON "unprecedented"? You won't find any. Because they see it daily and don't complain to the media about it. You know when USAF had their spy aircraft 29 nm off the coast of China? Not a peep from China.

If a Chinese aircraft had flown within 29 nm off the coast of Australia, what would Dutton have said? He clearly find even 50nm as unprecedented.

No not really just an appropriate response, with all the treaties that the Solomon’s has with Australia and with the deteriorating security outlook with known Chinese coercion the reference to a military base by the Chinese would be a step to far for Australia to continue relations the Solomons currently enjoy. It’s a measured response diplomatically. Considering many here in Australia feel like the Solomon’s PM is trying to take advantage of the situation and would rather we cut aid and reinvest it in people who are doing hard at home.

lol, Australia acts like a bully and you just keep giving them excuses.

Let's get this straight. Solomon island is a sovereign country. It can make choices on who it wants to sign security agreement with. That's what a country is allowed to do.

How did China coerce Solomon Islands? Why don't you proof it? How did China coerce Solomon Islands?

Australia keeps treating its neigbhors like they are pawns and expect them to continue to rely on Australia. Solomon Islands sign a security treaty with China as it's perfectly allowed to. Australia flips out and threatens red line. What a joke.

If "red line" doesn't mean invasion, why does Australia not take invasion off the table? Why?

If Australia is so peaceful, why does it not take invasion off the table?

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

Why?
It was widely disseminated within Australian media on the Solomons PM in which he refers to backyard definition, but if he wants to degenerate his own constitutes and how the ordinary Solomons Islands people live he is most welcome too.

It was Fijians that rebuked the "backyard" comment.

https://twitter.com/FijiPM/status/1530265872354332673 5:13 AM · May 28, 2022

Which was later on, with the new Australian Foreign Minister Wong and most likely at her behest for political point scoring.
But PM Sogavare said in Parliament on the 3th May

He said the term ‘Backyard’ is very insulating and disrespectful.
He highlighted the term ‘Backyard’ means its where the chickens, pig pens are located, not only that but it’s a place where people can relieve themselves.
“Therefore, I call on those who brand us as backyard to stop and start to respect us,” he said.

https://www.solomonstarnews.com/pm-hits ... ard-brand/[/quote]

But clearly, Fijians found it disrespectful too. I would bet other Pacific Island nations feel the same way.

I understand you are proud of your country, but they are acting like huge bullies to their Pacific Island neighbors.

We should all read this recap of the Hainan incident in 2001.
"When a US Navy EP-3 collided with a Chinese J-8 interceptor: the Hainan incident and the last flight of Lt. Cdr. Wang Wei"

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/when-a- ... -wang-wei/

"Osborn told CNN he had had “eyeball-to-eyeball” contact with Wang: “I did on the second time he joined up on us. He came out a little bit front and was making gestures, and we could all see him.” What kind of gestures? “I don’t care to comment on that,” Osborn said."

As the story relates, the Chinese version is that the four engine P-3 flying at 180 knots purposely hit the fighter. I'm surprised the P-3 did not crash but Lt. Osborn did a great job flying. Lt. Cmdr Wei not so much.

IMO the Chinese are spinning this P-8 story the same.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

When even the pacifist New Zealand Prime Minister gives a warning about the Chinese, then that gets my attention.

No one who has been watching the PRC consistently abuse the rights of smaller nations in the international realm can be surprised.

tphuang wrote:

But clearly, Fijians found it disrespectful too. I would bet other Pacific Island nations feel the same way.

I understand you are proud of your country, but they are acting like huge bullies to their Pacific Island neighbors.

Always ironic to hear the mainland Chinese claiming "bullying" by others.

The foundation of this argument is the claim that the RAAF violated Chinese airspace. That is unsupported by anything other than the Chinese saying so. If true, why not release the data proving it? Should be readily settleable.

As mentioned earlier, Occam's razor. Which is more likely, that the Chinese have made an unwarranted claim (as they have done many times before), or that the RAAF knowingly violated Chinese airspace (which they have no history of doing).

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

China claims almost all the SCS as its sovereign territory hence the disputes and Freedom of Navigation by ships and aircraft.
But your assertion on the Parcel Islands holds no water legally, whilst the Islands have been improved artificially, under UNCLOS these Islands could not sustain human habitation or economic life on its own, so therefor are not entitled to a territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ, and continental shelf rights.
China has also militarised these islands so I hardly think an unarmed RAAF aircraft would enter the 12nm territorial as you claim due to the fact that China has placed a number and built significant point-defence capabilities that are able to reach out to in excess of 100nm

It really seems to me you need to read up about this area. There are islands that can sustain human habitation and reefs that could not. Different countries (including Taiwan) own both island and reefs. China does not defend 12 nm airspace around reefs. They do it around islands. You are absolutely allowed to claim airspace over island that you control.

The Islands could only sustain permanent habitation once the Chinese put infrastructure on the Island, under UNCLOS because it cannot can sustain human habitation or economic life on its own, therefore it is treated like a rock. Yes, you are correct on the 12nm as I incorrectly type the line about included territorial sea by mistake

tphuang wrote:

Maybe Australia should have respect over other's countries other airspace.

Once again the RAAF did not enter contested airspace

tphuang wrote:

As for island expansion, China is free to expand reefs/islands and militarize just as any other country is allowed to do if they control it.

I have never contested the claim that artificial enlarging an island is against UNCLOS only the boundaries under UNCLOSS do not enlarge because of land reclamation

tphuang wrote:

In fact, Philippines recently just complained to Taiwan because it was conducting a military exercise on Taiping, which is the largest island in Spratleys and one that is controlled by Taiwan.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 022-06-29/
spats are very common in this region.
Vietnam built up 10 islands in South China Sea.
https://www.voanews.com/a/how-vietnam-q ... 82776.html
Land reclamation and militarization is very common in SCS. It's not something only done by China.
Here are the islands of Spratleys. Notice how China does not control any of the islands? It only control reefs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands
Here are the Paracel Islands. Notice how China does control many of these islands? (and Vietnam controls the rest)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracel_Islands

I am well aware the areas are highly contested, the problem here is China is using greater advantage size wise to its advantage and trying to bending the international rules to its own advantage, which is why there is considerable push back against Chinese claims

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

Don’t be so vacuous, China always has issues with the US in its FON trips

loud warning and aggressive interception is par for the course here. China will complain to your face, because it doesn't like it. But it's not going to get more aggressive than loud warning/intercept you as long as you don't enter its air space. USN with its FON doesn't go into Chinese air space.

Really the Hainan Island incident doesn’t ring a bell which occurred in international airspace, just as the RAAF flight was in international airspace

tphuang wrote:

RAAF violated Chinese air space. You know, maybe RAAF should just stop entering other country's air space. That would be a good start?

Chinese propaganda and you are continually making the false claim of entering Chinese airspace, you continually saying does not make it true.

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

The ruling has implications to all Chinese claims by precedence irrespective if it’s a Low-tide elevation, Rock or Island

pure bs, you don't even bother to read about what the ruling was. The entire case was over fishing ground around Scarborough Shoal, which is in Spratley. China is enforcing airspace over Paracel islands that it controls.

Again, Vietnam controls some. Taiwan does. Malaysia does and Philippines does. The countries that control these islands will protect their own air space.

Oh boy, the ruling has significate effect as it ruled Chinese territorial and EEZ claims are unlawful under international law which directly challenges the Chinese Politburo which does not recognize the airspace above its EEZ to be international airspace
"We hold a consistent and clear-cut stance on the issue. We oppose any party to take any military actions in our exclusive economic zone without permission,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in a statement.

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

It most certainly does have an effect as to the legitimacy of the claims, as China knows if it were to shoot down an aircraft in international waters its liable to either start a protracted war or economic war at the moment it cannot win hence the harassment levels.

oh believe me, if RAAF did try to enter Chinese air space after repeated warnings, it would've been shot down.

So, you recognising now that the RAAF did not enter Chinese airspace?

tphuang wrote:

Please, just try to read the case and stop spewing nonsense. I've spoke to many Filipinos about the ruling and it's pretty obvious what the ruling says.
Again, each of these islands have a country that control. They are claimed by many countries. But only 1 country control it and enforce its territorial integrity.
Let's say the island is controled by Vietnam instead of China. Should RAAF be entering Vietnamese air space?
The air space it was entering was clearly not Australian. It clearly belongs to somebody. So, why does RAAF need act like a bully and enter that island's air space?

Ahh back to the propaganda tales

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

Really its not hard to figure out that is, but you want to localise it to on geographical area.

China has for some time tried to impede and harass both civilian and military navigation through the region either directly as with the Incident recently with the RAAF or indirectly or broadcasting warning to move away to civilian air and maritime traffic going about lawful passage. If it wasn’t for various nations using FON

I’d hate to see what the reality would look like now in the SCS

Again, warning/interception over one of their reefs is different than what happened here. RAAF crossed the line by trying to enter Chinese air space. You clearly have no understanding on what the Hague ruling was. You clearly no appreciation that many of the islands in SCS are real islands. As such, these islands have air space. Even if RAAF does not recognize Chinese ownership of that island, it clearly belongs to someone. It's not right for RAAF to enter the air space of another country after being warned not to.

What are we doing here the hockey poky, RAAF are in the RAAF are out of Chinese airspace hard to keep up now?
Its clear you do not understand how the Chinese are refusing its obligations under international law and its attempts to create ambiguity about the legality of Chinese claims

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

CNS Haiwangxing operated off the WA coast within Australian EEZ for 4 days and the closest it came was 50nm to Harold E Holt Communication Station a joint AU/US facility
But that’s not the point you admit that a Chinese Naval vessel entered into the Australian EEZ and without being harassed by the ADF, monitored yes but not harassed. But yet the PLAAF harassed with a dangerous' interception against a unarmed military aircraft in international waters, see the hypocrisy of the Chinese claims.

lol, again. Big difference between within 12nm and outside of it. Don't enter another country's airspace. There won't be any problems
It's like this. There is an island. You know it's an island and there is a 12nm air space around it. You know you don't control it and you don't recognize the country that actually controls it. So, does that mean you have a right to enter its air space? Because clearly, someone other than you must control that island. You can't just go in without permission.

And the hypocrisy just keeps rolling along:
"We hold a consistent and clear-cut stance on the issue. We oppose any party to take any military actions in our exclusive economic zone without permission,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in a statement.

tphuang wrote:

A101 wrote:

As I mentioned earlier just using the same rhetoric as the Chinese Politburo, now what did Dutton say said it was “very strange” and “unprecedented” that the ship had sailed so far south off the WA coast.
The act of aggression comment was prompted by the media;

hmm, since you said it. Why don't you find a quote from Chinese politburo that called a typical FON "unprecedented"? You won't find any. Because they see it daily and don't complain to the media about it. You know when USAF had their spy aircraft 29 nm off the coast of China? Not a peep from China.
If a Chinese aircraft had flown within 29 nm off the coast of Australia, what would Dutton have said? He clearly find even 50nm as unprecedented.

Well actually you said it up thread in your posts it’s a whole lot of rhetorical hyperbole from all sides

As for the remaining part of your post in regards to the Solomons Islands its off topic, if you want to start another topic on it we can continue it there

No point in continuing conversing with tphuang, he will always revert to broadcasting the standard CCP line as soon as any of his comments are seriously questioned.

hk144 wrote:

No point in continuing conversing with tphuang, he will always revert to broadcasting the standard CCP line as soon as any of his comments are seriously questioned.

yes agree

its like a merry go-round

time to jump off

Seems even the Beijing agree that the RAAF did not fly into Chinese airspace, still like to find out how the RAAF flight was “risky and provocative” when flying on lawful passage in international waters, I wonder if they went as close as 50nm?

Beijing issues stark warning to Australia over South China Sea

WILL GLASGOW
NORTH ASIA CORRESPONDENT
@wmdglasgow

Beijing has warned Australia will “bear the consequences” of any military accident between Chinese and Australian forces operating in disputed areas in the South China Sea.

China’s Defence Ministry said Canberra had been involved in “risky and provocative” behaviour by flying an Australian surveillance plane near the Paracel Islands in the first week of the Albanese government.

Canada, which last month complained about dangerous encounters with People’s Liberation Army fighter jets, was also scolded in a joint dressing down on Thursday evening.

“Whenever they come, [the PLA] will counteract,” said Senior Colonel Tan Kefei at a press conference in Beijing.

“Those who come uninvited shall bear the consequences,” said Colonel Tan, a spokesman for China’s Ministry of National Defence.

Hours earlier Anthony Albanese had his first meeting as Prime Minister with his Canadian counterpart Justin Trudeau on the sidelines of a NATO summit in Madrid.

On May 26 — as Mr Albanese was returning from a meeting of the Quad in Tokyo — a Chinese J-16 fighter challenged an RAAF maritime surveillance aircraft in international airspace over the South China Sea, flying close to the Australian jet and firing flares and “chaff” countermeasures.

Canberra lodged a furious protest with Beijing over the mid-air incident, which took place near the Paracels, which China calls “Xisha”. The disputed islands are claimed by China, Vietnam and Taiwan.

Canada’s aircraft have also been repeatedly harassed by PLA jets in recent months as they attempted to carry out a surveillance mission to enforce United Nations sanctions on North Korea.

Beijing said the Canadian planes — which had flown out of Japanese air bases — were undertaking reconnaissance of China “under the pretext of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions”.

“What is the duty of a soldier? That is to defend the homeland,” said Colonel Tan on Thursday evening.

“No matter what the name or excuse is, it is completely unreasonable to send military planes to the door of others to provoke and jeopardise the national security of other countries. The armed forces of any country will not sit idly by, and the Chinese military is no exception,” he said.

This week NATO’s members endorsed a new 10-year strategic road map that identified China for the first time as a strategic “challenge” to the alliance’s “interests, security and values”.

Australia is not a NATO member, but was invited to this year’s summit along with Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, as the Atlantic alliance becomes increasingly concerned about China’s threats of war against Taiwan after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg said China was “not our adversary”, but warned NATO “must be clear-eyed about the challenges it represents”.

“China is substantially building up its military forces, including nuclear weapons, bullying its neighbours, threatening Taiwan … monitoring and controlling its own citizens through advanced technology, and spreading Russian lies and disinformation,” Mr Stoltenberg said.

At the summit on Wednesday, Mr Albanese said China should take note of the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“China must look at what is happening and look at the resolve from throughout the world and should be condemning Russia’s actions,” Mr Albanese said.

The China Daily, a Communist Party mouthpiece, attacked Mr Albanese in an editorial, saying it was “hard to believe that the new Australian leader can be so ill-­informed”.

“Last month, when Albanese’s Labor Party came to power, there were high hopes in both countries that it offered the opportunity to reset Australia’s ties with China. Those hopes are diminishing by the day,” the editorial said.

This is my last comment on this issue, since this is getting nowhere.


First on air space. you must have found a source that was providing incomplete news. Australia was try to do something illegal in the eyes of PLA and got stopped. Different from Canada, who was just conducting regular spy mission.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202206/1267471.shtml

The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) warned away an Australian spy plane when it recently attempted to trespass into Chinese airspace of the Xisha Islands in the South China Sea for close-in reconnaissance, the Chinese Defense Ministry said on Tuesday, debunking Australia’s claim that a PLA warplane intercepted the Australian aircraft and threatened the safety of its crew.

fyi, Xisha = Paracel Islands. So, China did believe that Australia was trying to enter its air space.

Again, big difference between Spratleys and Paracel. China only controls reefs in Spratleys, so it does not enforce air space there. At Paracel, it does control actual islands, so it enforces air space over those islands.

According to CIA hadbank, there are over 1000 people living on Woody Island, which is the largest of the Paracel islands.
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/ ... l-islands/

Area

total: 8 sq km ca.
land: 7.75 sq km ca.

Area - comparative
land area is about 13 times the size of the National Mall in Washington, DC

here is a picture of woody island. Plenty of trees and buildings there.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-19/ ... in/7184286
if you do not think that's enough space to live, I don't know what to tell you.

here is wiki on this. You can see that Paracel Islands have had a long history of people spending time there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracel_Islands

In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually sojourned on the Paracel and Spratly Islands for part of the year.[86][87] For three months each year between 1881 and 1884, the German Imperial Navy sent two boats (the ship Freya and the warship Iltis) to study and map the Paracel Islands without either seeking the permission of or incurring protest by the Chinese government. This mission was finished without any problems and the German Admiralty published the results in 1885 in a document called "Die Paracel-Inseln" (The Paracel Islands).[56]

In 1909, Zhang Renjun (Chinese: 張人駿), the Viceroy of Liangguang, ordered Guangdong Fleet Admiral Li Zhun (李準) to sail to the Paracel Islands. In June, with over 170 sailors in three warships named Fubo (伏波號), Guangjin (廣金號) and Shenhang (琛航號), he inspected 15 islands, erected stone tablets engraved with each island's name, raised China's flag and fired cannons to declare the islands "sacred territory of China",[88] which France did not protest.[89] In 1910, the Qing government decided to invite Chinese merchants to contract for the administration of the development affairs of the South China Sea islands, and demanded that officials shall provide protection and maintenance in order to highlight Chinese territory and protect its titles and interests.[90]

Chinese flag was planted in Paracel Islands as early as 1909.

Here is a map of the SCS. You can take a look at the map and see how close Paracel Islands are to Haian, China. So, it should not be surprising that China holds most of the Paracel Islands. It has held them for a long time.
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/ ... 1-2022.jpg

If you look at that map, it shows you where Scarborough Reef is. That's what the Hague ruling was about. This is according to CFR
https://www.cfr.org/councilofcouncils/g ... -influence

While these aspects of the ruling garnered headlines, the boldest implications flow from the judges’ opinion that none of the maritime features in the Spratly Islands are entitled to maritime zones beyond twelve nautical miles. UNCLOS accords the full suite of maritime jurisdiction privileges (territorial sea, EEZ, and continental shelf rights) to islands. Rocks, however, are only entitled to twelve nautical miles of territorial sea, and freestanding low-tide elevations have no jurisdictional entitlement at all.

The tribunal ruled that the Spratly Islands are not islands in the legal sense, but rather, rocks or low-tide elevations. This includes the aptly named Mischief Reef, a submerged feature that China has occupied since 1995; it is one of seven features upon which Beijing has heaped thousands of tons of sand and concrete since the case was lodged in 2013. Although Mischief Reef now accommodates a military-grade runway and port facilities, the ruling is unambiguous that it falls within the Philippine EEZ. This means China is in a state of unlawful occupation.

Again, the ruling is over Spratly Islands, not Paracel. The islands in Paracel are actually islands that China has controlled for over 100 years.

I don't really know how else to convince people when I'm providing links to Western websites that says the Hague ruling was about Spratlys and people still apply it to Paracel islands. They are different island chains. There is large body of water between Spratlys and Paracel. It would be good if people can take a look at the map.


Now, let's talk about why this Australia/China spat is so sad. The two countries had good relationship all throughout Kevin Rudd era. And then, the conservatives took power in Australia and China's military growth started to really scare Washington and Australia's military establishment. And over time, Australia started to increasingly do patrols around SCS. And once China developed its own ability to spy around Australia, it started sending spy ships there too. So obviously, you are going to have escalating tension. If Australia is willing to stop getting within China's EEZ and spy on China, you can bet that China would agree to stop doing it too. You maybe skeptical of this, but China's main focus is in East Asia, not in Australia. It just wants to trade and buy natural resources off Australia.

Do you think it is beneficial for Australia to repeatedly send spy aircraft/ships next to its biggest trading partner that is well over 4000 km away and have no interest in attacking it?
Maybe not, but it had to do it back in 2017.
I've listened to Kevin Rudd talk about this multiple times. China tried to persuade Australia not to pick America. But as we know, that would be impossible given the history between the two countries.
If you wonder see why Australia turned so hard against China, just see what John Mearsheimer had to say.
https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affa ... 729-p52bqc

"Security invariably trumps prosperity," he says via phone from Chicago ahead of his trip to Australia.
The debate over Canberra's China choice has been running for years.
As China rises to take on the United States in both economic and military power, will the Australian government be forced to take sides? And which side will it choose – China, its biggest trading partner and the underwriter of Australia's record run of almost 28 years of economic growth? Or the US, the world's reigning superpower, alongside which Australia has fought in every major US military action in the past century?
"If Australia has to make sacrifices, they will make them on the economic front, not on the security front and they will choose to align more closely with the United States," says Mearsheimer.
"That's not to say Australia won't go to great lengths to maintain economic ties with China and avoid picking a fight. The Australians will not be foolish. But at the same time, they will have no choice, given the trajectory of China."

btw, this logic applies to New Zealand also.

tphuang wrote:

This is my last comment on this issue, since this is getting nowhere...Australia was try to do something illegal in the eyes of PLA and got stopped. Different from Canada, who was just conducting regular spy mission.

Emphasis mine.

Please take note that when you argue a point using written words then your written words must be very precise. Imprecise words and "similar" phrases detract from the validity of your point, expose the flaws in your argument, or back you into a logical trap.

Example: you may think "spy mission" is the same thing as "reconnaissance mission", but they are two distinctly different things under international law: one is illegal, the other is not. One is punishable by death in many countries. The other is not.

LyleLanley wrote:

tphuang wrote:

This is my last comment on this issue, since this is getting nowhere...Australia was try to do something illegal in the eyes of PLA and got stopped. Different from Canada, who was just conducting regular spy mission.

Emphasis mine.

Please take note that when you argue a point using written words then your written words must be very precise. Imprecise words and "similar" phrases detract from the validity of your point, expose the flaws in your argument, or back you into a logical trap.

Example: you may think "spy mission" is the same thing as "reconnaissance mission", but they are two distinctly different things under international law: one is illegal, the other is not. One is punishable by death in many countries. The other is not.

@ LyleLanley, there is no point arguing with an obvious propaganda account. *shrug*

mods pls delete, double post.

tphuang wrote:

This is my last comment on this issue, since this is getting nowhere.

Yes, it is 100%

tphuang wrote:

First on air space. you must have found a source that was providing incomplete news. Australia was try to do something illegal in the eyes of PLA and got stopped. Different from Canada, who was just conducting regular spy mission.

Now here is where you are going wrong when you said;

Australia was try to do something illegal in the eyes of PLA and got stopped.

Yours and Chinese perception does not translate to illegal activity under international law

tphuang wrote:

yi, Xisha = Paracel Islands. So, China did believe that Australia was trying to enter its air space.

Once again perceptions.

Senior Colonel Tan Kefei at a press conference in Beijing said “Canberra had been involved in “risky and provocative” behaviour by flying an Australian surveillance plane near the Paracel Islands

He also said that the PLAAF will “Whenever they come, they will counteract” and “Those who come uninvited shall bear the consequences,” which reinforces what I said earlier that China does not recognise the lawful passage of aircraft in international airspace near disputed areas.

Now tphuang if the RAAF entered Chinese airspace as you claim these Islands have significate Integrated Air Defence System in place to monitor the airspace, why is it that the Chinese cannot release a image of the flight path and the area in which the incident happened.

Here are the two recent images from the Australian DOD in relation to lasing incident of a RAAF P8 and the surveillance ship CNS Haiwangxing.

lasing incident against a Royal Australian Air Force P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft that occurred on 17 February 2022
https://images.defence.gov.au/assets/Ho ... e=Filename

Movements of PLA-N Dongdiao AGI-792 near Australia 8-13 May 2022
https://images.defence.gov.au/assets/Ho ... e=Filename

tphuang wrote:

Again, big difference between Spratleys and Paracel. China only controls reefs in Spratleys, so it does not enforce air space there.

Really, I think you may have to change your definition of enforcing airspace;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... miral-says
https://www.stripes.com/news/china-warn ... d-1.384122
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-35097054

tphuang wrote:

According to CIA hadbank, there are over 1000 people living on Woody Island, which is the largest of the Paracel islands.
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/ ... l-islands/
here is a picture of woody island. Plenty of trees and buildings there.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-19/ ... in/7184286
if you do not think that's enough space to live, I don't know what to tell you.
here is wiki on this. You can see that Paracel Islands have had a long history of people spending time there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracel_Islands

Yes, no dispute that the Chinese are occupying the Island, what is in dispute under UNCLOS if its an Island or a rock. What you fail to include is that the Island had to be regularly supplied from the Chinese mainland for supplies sources such as with bottled water.

Your own link confirms the Island does not have unimproved drinking water source but now has an improved drinking water source via a desalination plant which is “capable of treating 1,000 tonnes of seawater per day and 700 tonnes of processed water is drinkable” Your wiki link actually supports the UNCLOS position in that in years gone by that fisherman only “sojourned” on the Island which means “stay somewhere temporarily” not permanently.

Now under UNCLOS because the landmass is unable to sustain human habitation or economic life on its own it is classed as a rock and not entitled to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf rights under international law via UNCLOS for which China is a signatory

tphuang wrote:

If you look at that map, it shows you where Scarborough Reef is. That's what the Hague ruling was about. This is according to CFR
https://www.cfr.org/councilofcouncils/g ... -influence
Again, the ruling is over Spratly Islands, not Paracel. The islands in Paracel are actually islands that China has controlled for over 100 years.
I don't really know how else to convince people when I'm providing links to Western websites that says the Hague ruling was about Spratlys and people still apply it to Paracel islands. They are different island chains. There is large body of water between Spratlys and Paracel. It would be good if people can take a look at the map.

Just as I have been trying to say to you that the ruling it also has precedence and reinforces UNCLOS under international law not just in the Scarborough Reef but throughout the remaining contested areas and for that matter the entire bloody planet.

tphuang wrote:

Now, let's talk about why this Australia/China spat is so sad. The two countries had good relationship all throughout Kevin Rudd era. And then, the conservatives took power in Australia and China's military growth started to really scare Washington and Australia's military establishment. And over time, Australia started to increasingly do patrols around SCS. And once China developed its own ability to spy around Australia, it started sending spy ships there too. So obviously, you are going to have escalating tension. If Australia is willing to stop getting within China's EEZ and spy on China, you can bet that China would agree to stop doing it too. You maybe skeptical of this, but China's main focus is in East Asia, not in Australia. It just wants to trade and buy natural resources off Australia.

Do you think it is beneficial for Australia to repeatedly send spy aircraft/ships next to its biggest trading partner that is well over 4000 km away and have no interest in attacking it?
Maybe not, but it had to do it back in 2017.
I've listened to Kevin Rudd talk about this multiple times. China tried to persuade Australia not to pick America. But as we know, that would be impossible given the history between the two countries.
If you wonder see why Australia turned so hard against China, just see what John Mearsheimer had to say.
https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affa ... 729-p52bqc

Yes, you are right I’m very sceptical of China and its intentions both militarily and diplomatically.

You do realise that the RAAF have been conducting maritime awareness patrols throughout the SCS since 1980?

tphuang wrote:

btw, this logic applies to New Zealand also.

Now you have done it, you will upset Jacinderella with that comment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HynsTvRVLiI

LyleLanley wrote:

tphuang wrote:

This is my last comment on this issue, since this is getting nowhere...Australia was try to do something illegal in the eyes of PLA and got stopped. Different from Canada, who was just conducting regular spy mission.

Emphasis mine.

Please take note that when you argue a point using written words then your written words must be very precise. Imprecise words and "similar" phrases detract from the validity of your point, expose the flaws in your argument, or back you into a logical trap.

Example: you may think "spy mission" is the same thing as "reconnaissance mission", but they are two distinctly different things under international law: one is illegal, the other is not. One is punishable by death in many countries. The other is not.

I apologize if that is offensive. I was only trying to say that Canadian encounter and Australian encounter should be not grouped as one.

stratable wrote:

@ LyleLanley, there is no point arguing with an obvious propaganda account. *shrug*

I have over 5 years of history on this forum and over 7000 posts. 99% of them have nothing to do with defense issues. Before you attack me personally, please do consider that there is a huge difference between having a different view vs being a propaganda account. There are many fellow posters on civil aviation forum that can vouch regular correspondence with me over many years.

Calling me a propaganda account is extremely offensive.

I think you touched upon a raw nerve with most Anet readers. IMO , many see the PRC as a 21st Century version of Imperial Japan - just waiting to even the score for all the past wrongs it feels have been done to it.

Just today, MI-5 and the FBI state that the PRC is the biggest threat to the United States and Europe. And this is with Russia threatening to first strike nuke both the US and the UK on a daily basis.

"The FBI and MI5 gave an unprecedented joint warning on threats from China, and said the UK disrupted a cyberattack on 'critical' aerospace firms".
https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-us-s ... ess-2022-7

tphuang wrote:

i apologize if that is offensive. I was only trying to say that Canadian encounter and Australian encounter should be not grouped as one.

You’re alright. To make my point even more, “offensive” wouldn’t be the word to use. Even “annoyed” would be strong. I was just wanting you to know there’s a distinction between spy and reconnaissance in order for your argument (even though I disagree) to be communicated more clearly.