Has Obama Drawn Another Red Line?

[esmith]

The U.S. Navy recently sent a guide missile destroyer withing the 12 mile limit that the Chinese claim is their territory in the Spratly Islands. The Chinese have said that this action is illegal ( http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34647651). Now by doing this the U.S. has said that this territory is not Chinese territory, thus IMO drawing a "red line" type statement. Now if the U.S. does not continue to send Navy warships into this area it sends a message to the Chinese that we now agree that this is their territory and have ceased violating Chinese territory. Thus Obama has put (IMO) the U.S. between a "rock and a hard place". If he continues to send warships into the area, basically saying that this is international waters, he is changeling the Chinese claim, if he stops this says that it is Chinese territory.

How say you?

 

[columbus]

Thus Obama has put (IMO) the U.S. between a "rock and a hard place".

I think you are inventing a problem in order to blame it on Obama.
Tom

 

[Shad]

The U.S. Navy recently sent a guide missile destroyer withing the 12 mile limit that the Chinese claim is their territory in the Spratly Islands. The Chinese have said that this action is illegal ( http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34647651). Now by doing this the U.S. has said that this territory is not Chinese territory, thus IMO drawing a "red line" type statement. Now if the U.S. does not continue to send Navy warships into this area it sends a message to the Chinese that we now agree that this is their territory and have ceased violating Chinese territory. Thus Obama has put (IMO) the U.S. between a "rock and a hard place". If he continues to send warships into the area, basically saying that this is international waters, he is changeling the Chinese claim, if he stops this says that it is Chinese territory.

How say you?

The area is disputed. China can claim all they want it does not make it a fact. The claim has not been resolved by an international court thus is international waters. America is legally allowed to send a ship or a fleet into the area if it wants.

 

[BSM1]

The U.S. Navy recently sent a guide missile destroyer withing the 12 mile limit that the Chinese claim is their territory in the Spratly Islands. The Chinese have said that this action is illegal ( http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34647651). Now by doing this the U.S. has said that this territory is not Chinese territory, thus IMO drawing a "red line" type statement. Now if the U.S. does not continue to send Navy warships into this area it sends a message to the Chinese that we now agree that this is their territory and have ceased violating Chinese territory. Thus Obama has put (IMO) the U.S. between a "rock and a hard place". If he continues to send warships into the area, basically saying that this is international waters, he is changeling the Chinese claim, if he stops this says that it is Chinese territory.

How say you?

I think we should send a destroyer in for a liberty call on the island and see what happens.

 

[esmith]

[Qnite="esmith, post: 4483068, member: 24621"]Thus Obama has put (IMO) the U.S. between a "rock and a hard place".

I think you are inventing a problem in order to blame it on Obama.
Tom[/QUOTE]
Questions:
1. Does the Chinese claim the Spratly Islands as there territory?
2. Did the US send a warship into the waters that the Chinese claim?
3. Did the Chinese say that this was an illegal act?
4. Does this not put the US and the Chinese at odds?
And the final question
5. Did or did not Obama send a warship into waters claimed by the Chinese without their permission?
If you answered yes to all of the above questions then if this escalates would it not be because Obama took the legal action he did?

 

[Shad]

1. Claims are not fact. Their claim has not be resolved. It is one among many claims to the ara.
2. Since it is not factual China waters it is international thus is irrelevant.
3. Yes but since their claim is not legal there was nothing illegal. The ship was legally allowed to operation in international waters.
4. Yes it does. However this happened with Taiwan, which China still claims. On the flip side it puts those that are against Chinese claims closer to the US in hopes of recognition of their claims to the area. 1 down, half a dozen up.
5. Irrelevant as it is not their waters by international law.

Now that your loaded questions based on misinformation are dealt with perhaps you should research the area you are talking about.

 

[columbus]

4. Does this not put the US and the Chinese at odds?

No.
China has been at odds with many countries over territory disputes for some time. This did not change that fact. So the answer to the most important question is No.
Tom

 

[Augustus]

4. Does this not put the US and the Chinese at odds?

Of course it does, but these are normal parts of 'diplomatic relations'.

If Putin had done it, might have had a different spin though...

 

[metis]

Where is this supposed "red line?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Chinese have been doing this for awhile, and trying to claim zones and islands as their own, causing disputes with other countries such as Japan.

 

[esmith]

Where is this supposed "red line?

Well I would say the red line is: China says the area around the Spratly Islands is theirs and Obama doesn't agree and sends a US warship into the area. Now the problem is if Obama does not follow through on this then China sees this as another action that Obama does not follow through on. However, what if Obama does follow through and has a US task-force enter the area and China acts provocatively by say causing a collision between a US warship and a Chinese ship. This game has been played off the Vietnam coast during the Vietnam War with the USSR. This area is a tinderbox and who know what hostilities will break out, and not necessarily between the US and China.

 

[esmith]

The area is disputed. China can claim all they want it does not make it a fact. The claim has not been resolved by an international court thus is international waters. America is legally allowed to send a ship or a fleet into the area if it wants.

There is legal president that China does not own the Spartleys see: http://www.answers.com/Q/Who_owns_the_Spratly_Islands

 

[Iti oj]

Now the problem is if Obama does not follow through on this then China sees this as another action that Obama does not follow through on. .

so? follow through how ? why do that ? hasn't he already made his statement.

 

[Shad]

There is legal president that China does not own the Spartleys see: http://www.answers.com/Q/Who_owns_the_Spratly_Islands

Thanks for proving my point. They do not own the islands hence there was nothing illegal by sending a ship into the area. Read what you link... The Philippines are not China hence China can whine all it wants but still down not own the islands.

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/99...-chinas-claims-in-south-china-sea-are-invalid

http://www.un.org/sg/spokesperson/highlights/index.asp?HighD=7/24/2012&d_month=7&d_year=2012

You can go to the UN website search for Spartleys to see that the claim is in dispute thus China's bluster about illegal is nonsense. In dispute does not mean Chinese territory.

 

[columbus]

Now the problem is if Obama does not follow through on this then China sees this as another action that Obama does not follow through on.

Obama already holds the record for most missile strikes launched by a Nobel Peace prize winner. And by the time it matters again, Hillary the Hawk will be President.
So relax, you'll probably get your war.
Tom

 

[metis]

Well I would say the red line is: China says the area around the Spratly Islands is theirs and Obama doesn't agree and sends a US warship into the area. Now the problem is if Obama does not follow through on this then China sees this as another action that Obama does not follow through on. However, what if Obama does follow through and has a US task-force enter the area and China acts provocatively by say causing a collision between a US warship and a Chinese ship. This game has been played off the Vietnam coast during the Vietnam War with the USSR. This area is a tinderbox and who know what hostilities will break out, and not necessarily between the US and China.

That's still not a "red line" in terms of how the term is politically used. But is it a serious problem? Yes.

 

[esmith]

Hmmm hearing a lot of "the Chinese do not own the Spratly's" so if China says no ships can enter with 12 miles of the islands who is going to challenge them. Oh by the way the Chinese say that the majority of the South China Seas is their territory. So you can see from the below map transiting the South China Sea would be very difficult if China backs up their claim with force. No transit from the Straits of Singapore east without going the long long long way around

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is that the red line?

 

[esmith]

Is that the red line?

You do realize that flippancy does not contribute to the issue brought forward. I do realize that there are those that do not grasp the enormity of the issue that China is attempting to do. But it would seem that we should be able to discuss the issue in a adult manner.