U.S. and Canadian warships sail through Taiwan Strait

Sailing through such an area with a commercial vessel is one thing, but doing so with warships is quite another.

It's international waters - there's no problem

Keep international waters, international

Would the US tolerate a Chinese warship (not commercial vessel) near California or New York?- Highly unlikely.

Actually, yes

"Chinese Navy Ships Came Within 12 Nautical Miles of U.S. Coast - Vessels complied with international law, Pentagon officials say"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-navy-ships-off-alaska-passed-through-u-s-territorial-waters-1441350488

The US also supports the international legal doctrine of Innocent Passage

"Chinese Warships Made ‘Innocent Passage’ Through U.S. Territorial Waters off Alaska"

https://news.usni.org/2015/09/03/chinese-warships-made-innocent-passage-through-u-s-territorial-waters-off-alaska

An innocent passage, without prior notification, is a maritime right laid out as part of the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. Under international law a warship can transit through a nation’s territorial waters “so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state,” according to Article 19 of the UNLOSC.

Specifically, it means during an innocent passage a warship can’t launch or recover aircraft, collect military intelligence, distribute propaganda, launch any kind of watercraft, fire weapons, fish or take any other action that is not involved in the direct passage of the ship through the territory of the coastal state.

The [Chinese navy] PLAN ships moving through the [U.S.] Aleutians would be the legal equivalent of a U.S. destroyer moving through the strait separating mainland China from Hainan Island

Closer to home China jealously guards its own maritime boundaries and has at times required prior notification for ships making innocent passages in its own territorial waters and routinely challenges aircraft and ships in what are universally considered international waters.

Kraska said there was a perception in China that the U.S. viewed the Bering Sea the same way the Chinese see the South China Sea and the [Chinese navy] PLAN mission would be provocative.

“They think this sends a big signal [to the U.S.] but they’ll be surprised that the U.S. treats them professionally,” he said.

Read that last sentence above again. As long as China follows international rules, the US has no problem - unlike China

The US and Canada are following international rules, so China should have no problem with that

That is not per se or how all laws work. You’ve never heard of unequal treaties?

China is a signatory to the UNCLOS but refuses to abide by it. The treaty does indeed treat all seafaring nations equally in terms of the right to sail freely outside of the territorial waters of nations.

@Desert Tortoise, I can imagine the shiny BMW slowly coasting and displaying its emblem to the Chinese in San Diego. Did you blast some Red Army music or 夜来香 through your system?

The contributor stated "without favortism." Laws are not impartially written per se as claimed. In fact, laws and policies are passed with the backing of interest groups designed to favort one group(s).

That is not per se or how all laws work. You’ve never heard of unequal treaties?

China is a signatory to the UNCLOS but refuses to abide by it. The treaty does indeed treat all seafaring nations equally in terms of the right to sail freely outside of the territorial waters of nations.

*See, that's how rule of law works. It applies equally to all, without favoritism*

That is not per se or how all laws work. You’ve never heard of unequal treaties?

In 1997, China and the US had good enough relations that a Chinese Navy destroyer visited San Diego. https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002016384/ When the crew got off the boat, they weren't followed and could see SoCal just like everyone else.

I saw those three Chinese ships, a Luda class can, the then new Harbin and an AOR. The Harbin and the Luda didn't have evaporators sufficient to provide their crews with fresh water. The crew had to drink bottled water brought along on the AOR and goodness knows what they showered in or when! Interior partitions within water tight compartments were plywood. No firefighting or damage control equipment visible anywhere. Real death traps.The crew didn't go anywhere on their own. Their political officers escorted them on organized outings.

We had lots of PLAN delegations come to North Island during the 1980s for demonstrations of our equipment. Back then their officers wore these brilliant blue Zhongshan suits, same style as Mao wore but in blue with a big red star on the cover. Lots of those covers were traded for US Navy officers covers and ended up displayed in offices around the base O_O I still remember one such delegation visiting an SH-2G Seasprite squadron. I was riding my then brand new BMW K100RS and I made a point of riding by real close and real slow. You could see their jaws hit the deck because back then there was nothing like it in China. They had those old Chang Jiang motorcycles like a Russian Ural but even cruder.

The Canadians might as well sail a cruise ship instead as that’s more battle ready than any of their military ships

Just curious if you have ever been on a Canadian combat ship or worked with their navy? I have.

Would the US tolerate a Chinese warship (not commercial vessel) near California or New York?- Highly unlikely.

During the Cold War there were Soviet AGIs, intelligence collecting ships, positioned just outside the 12 nautical mile territorial limit outside ever major US naval base. They stayed in international waters, and had every right to be there. A Balzam class used to sit right off La Jolla California sucking up all the microwave and radio traffic from Miramar, the bases on Point Loma, North Island and NAVSTA San Diego for analysis in Moscow. Just part of the nautical scenery. Few San Diegans even knew the Soviets were out there. Our standing orders were to never fly over one or harass it in any way. Soviet ships sailed through the Florida Straits between Key West and Cuba and the US said nothing. We watched them but, again, those were international waters and they had every right to be there. Same thing when a big Soviet surface action force sailed right up to the territorial limit off Waikiki, clearly visible to anyone on the beach. Nothing was said. The Soviets remained in international waters and that was that.

descendentSep. 21  03:40 pm JST

Would the US tolerate a Chinese warship (not commercial vessel) near California or New York?- Highly unlikely.

Actually, Chinese navy vessels have visited Cuba many times.

No surprise. both those nations are Communist.

Fighto!Sep. 21  05:45 pm JST

Sailing through such an area with a commercial vessel is one thing, but doing so with warships is quite another.

It seems that there are provocations and "provocations" right?

What part of "Freedom of the seas" do our pro-Beijing posters not understand? Unbelievable.

Good on the US and Canada. Here's hoping China throws another tantrum!

It's international waters. And it's over 160 kn from mainland China anyway. Let the CCP howl all they want to. WAH.

@1glenn China has never given up the military option regarding Taiwan. It's an unresolved civil war. China has always stressed that it prefers a peaceful settlement between authorities on both side of the Taiwan Strait. The meaningful difference these days is that the Chinese military arsenal is now much stronger than it was in the days of Deng and his immediate successors.

@Legrande THey do it all the time as long as they are in "INTERNATIONAL waters its ok"

Sailing through such an area with a commercial vessel is one thing, but doing so with warships is quite another.

Would the US tolerate a Chinese warship (not commercial vessel) near California or New York?- Highly unlikely.

Chinese military vessels have the same international water rights as every other vessel. That means, as long as they stay 12 nm off the coast and don't do any fishing within the recognized EEZ of another country, they are fine.

See, that's how rule of law works. It applies equally to all, without favoritism.

https://news.usni.org/2015/09/03/chinese-warships-made-innocent-passage-through-u-s-territorial-waters-off-alaska in 2015 with 5 ships. They were actually closer than 12nm, due to an exception for military vessels in international law.

In 1997, China and the US had good enough relations that a Chinese Navy destroyer visited San Diego. https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002016384/ When the crew got off the boat, they weren't followed and could see SoCal just like everyone else.

Mean and while the status quo continues. There will be no war which is what both China and Taiwan desire, peace.

Taiwan wants to maintain the status quo followed by unification ( these are the Taiwanese you don’t read about in Western media but they are everywhere in debates and panel discussions.)

Beijing wants to keep the status quo because they believe the status quo will eventually bring about unification peacefully.

The growing Taiwanese investment and population in China support this. Making money and enriching society go hand in hand.

The sad reality is that China is the manufacturer of the world and they make money without wars. Wars destroy wealth.

The export of the US arms and weapons trade is over $130 billion. The US arms export industry depends on wars. Wars create wealth.

From the 1972 Joint Communique:

"China will never be a superpower and it opposes hegemony and power politics of any kind."

From the Joint Communique of August 17, 1982:

"The Nine-Point Proposal put forward by China on September 30, 1981 represented a further major effort under this fundamental policy to strive for a peaceful solution to the Taiwan question."

.........."The United States Government understands and appreciates the Chinese policy of striving for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question as indicated in China's Message to Compatriots in Taiwan issued on January 1, 1979, and the Nine-Point Proposal put forward by China on September 30, 1981."

Since the rise to power of the current Chinese dictator, China's official policy regarding the Taiwan question has shifted, to the point where the current Chinese policy is that reunification between China and Taiwan can now be accomplished militarily. This is a complete break with the original policy agreed to between China and the United States.

The only five words that matter are "International Waters" & "Freedom of navigation."

Everything else is just huff and puff.

China's hissy fits expose their impotence. As if they really expected everyone to lie down and surrender whenever they make some illegal claims regarding open navigation accepted by the entire world save one unfree country, this after directly threatening the Taiwanese by shooting live missiles over the island.

Russia similarly expected the world to lie down and surrender when it launched its so-called "special operation" in Ukraine...how's that working out for China's Best Buddy Putin? Behold the "mighty power"...down to scrounging North Korea for superannuated artillery and Iran for "high-tech" (lol) drones! Pay close attention, Xi, and be very, very careful, because the world's telling you as plainly as possible: the quickest way to bring your country to ruin is through an aggressive, unprovoked invasion of Taiwan...

You are right it's not a game, so address what the US govt has officially stated regarding China's sovereignty over Taiwan which I posted about above.

Which official US statement should he address? The one where the US agrees there is one China, the one where the US, by law, is obliged to sell defensive weaponry to allow Taiwan to defend itself from China, or the official US statement that it will not stand by and allow China to militarily invade Taiwan to achieve it's goal or ruling over Taiwan for the first time ever in the history of the CCP? There are a number of "official" US statements on the issue of Taiwan.

The US has stated the people of Taiwan alone, must determine their future relationship with China. It is NOT for China to decide for Taiwan or its citizens. The US is prepared to back up that stance with force if required, as recently stated by the current US President. A statement he has reiterated more than once since becoming president.

Or should everyone overlook all those statements and concentrate only on the one China can exploit in it's favor?

lol Another nice try. Have a look at a map to confirm that a vessel would not have to pass near the US in any provocative way or between the US and Cuba in order to reach Cuba.

LOL have a look at the map yourself, though not the one CCP gave you.

You guys are really a riot, but I have to give it to you, you have numbers, and you try really hard.

We are a riot thanks, not 1.4 billion people yet but can smack down CCP anytime!!!

You are right it's not a game, so address what the US govt has officially stated regarding China's sovereignty over Taiwan which I posted about above.

LegrandeToday  05:08 pm JST

@OssanAmerica

You really need to up your game-

It's not a game son. Go complain to the US State Dept if you continure to have an issue.

https://www.voanews.com/a/pentagon-us-nearly-doubled-military-personnel-stationed-in-taiwan-this-year-/6337695.html

Sailing through such an area with a commercial vessel is one thing, but doing so with warships is quite another.

It seems that there are provocations and "provocations" right?

What part of "Freedom of the seas" do our pro-Beijing posters not understand? Unbelievable.

Good on the US and Canada. Here's hoping China throws another tantrum!

@Ulysses

Unless the ships flew through space and landed vertically in Cuba they have sailed though the waters between Cuba and the US.

lol Another nice try. Have a look at a map to confirm that a vessel would not have to pass near the US in any provocative way or between the US and Cuba in order to reach Cuba.

You guys are really a riot, but I have to give it to you, you have numbers, and you try really hard.

@OssanAmerica

You really need to up your game-

[ The United States' One-China policy was first stated in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972: "the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. ]

https://web.archive.org/web/20220722001126/https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/121325

Put this together with [ In the 60 Minutes interview, Biden reiterated the United States remained committed to a "one-China" policy in which Washington officially recognizes Beijing not Taipei ]

So yes, your statement that the US has never acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan does not correlate with what the US government has itself stated.

Many people want to just give into China, but you can't. Fight the good fight.

Eastman

Today 04:37 pm JST

Look up polar Silk road.

Seems China think Canadian, USA, Greenland, waters are somehow international.

They also think everything from the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia Japan, Korea is all Chinese waters.

If everyone used the Chinese method.

The UK and France would claim everything between Polynesian France the Auckland Islands in the UK, the USA mainland and Hawaii to Guam and Saipan.

It would be interesting to see Chinese ships get around in that situation.

Hello AP hello Japan.

No comments?

Is Taiwan strait is either part of USA or Canada?

Or did I missed anything?

Or again "google maps mistake"?

As when you wrote that russian and chinese ships have passed through Soya straight between "Hokkaido and Honshu"?

It seems that there are provocations and "provocations" right?

This is hardly a news item.

News flash## US and Canadian ships sail in international waters.

It hardly matters where on the planets many bodies of water that it happens. When it is international waters, all are permitted to sail on them with any type of ship.

Is this news because China is once again unhappy? If so, then it is more about China's unhappiness rather than the sailing of ships in international water.

New headline should be. "China voices unhappiness at ships in international waters, again".

Legrande

Today 03:35 pm JST

Sailing through such an area with a commercial vessel is one thing, but doing so with warships is quite another.

> Would the US tolerate a Chinese warship (not commercial vessel) near California or New York?- Highly unlikely

Actually China built a military icebreaker and sent it into the arctic above Alaska all the way in until forcibly escorted out in some bizarre claim that it doesn't recognise the claims by Canada, USA or even Russia over the arctic and claimed it's icebreaker was going in to survey for it's own claims.

Now unless things have changed China does touch the arctic but it seems to think it has rights there.

It is becoming a problem

No, that is not the point. The point is that although Chinese military vessels have visited the sovereign nation of Cuba, they have never sailed between Cuba and the US. That is a critical distinction.

Unless the ships flew through space and landed vertically in Cuba they have sailed though the waters between Cuba and the US.

@wallace

Yeah Aleutian Islands, good one, in international waters on their way to the Bering Sea and the ARTIC REGION.

Notice I said California or New York, minor distinction there.

"The ship transited through a corridor in the Strait that is beyond the territorial sea of any coastal State."

The ships sailed through international waters, China can whine all it wants but this was not Chinese territory.

I believe more and more nations will have their navies sail these waters, CCP's dreams of becoming a schoolyard bully should remain dreams!!!

LegrandeToday  03:54 pm JST

The U.S, has never recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. Therefore there is no change in US policy. No matter how much China whines.

Once again OssanAmerica you demonstrate how much false information you spread

Wow..and I even convinced President Biden and the US Government with my allegedly "false" information. LOL

The US recognizes the One China Policy. It does not agree with or recognize China's sovereignty over Taiwan. It never has. Which is why the Taiwan Relations Act exists and the US has and will continue to militarily support Taiwan.

No, that is not the point. The point is that although Chinese military vessels have visited the sovereign nation of Cuba, they have never sailed between Cuba and the US. That is a critical distinction.

Havana Cuba is 90 miles south of Florida. Any Chinese ship visiting Havana sailed between Cuba and the US.

My post points out that it would not be tolerated if a Chinese warship sailed close to the US, and obviously in the context of the story, this means not visiting a sovereign nation, but intentionally sailing near a declared enemy as a show of strength.

Of course it would. The US, or any country for that matter, would complain, but that's about it. Here is yet another story of Chinese ships sailing in American coastal waters. Were they or were they not tolerated? https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-navy-ships-off-alaska-passed-through-u-s-territorial-waters-1441350488

The US Coast Guard observed four Chinese warships sailing off Alaska, near the Aleutian Islands. The Chinese warships were observed in late August by the US Coast Guard ships Bertholf and Kimball, during their deployment to the Bering Sea and the Arctic region.

Sep 15, 2021

The point was that Chinese warships have indeed sailed close to the US before.

No, that is not the point. The point is that although Chinese military vessels have visited the sovereign nation of Cuba, they have never sailed between Cuba and the US. That is a critical distinction.

These kinds of maneuvers happen all the time. Chinese and Russian ships sailed through the Tsugaru Straits earlier this year.

Here you are talking about the Tsugaru Straits, which are near Japan and recognized as international waters.

My post points out that it would not be tolerated if a Chinese warship sailed close to the US, and obviously in the context of the story, this means not visiting a sovereign nation, but intentionally sailing near a declared enemy as a show of strength.

U.S. and Canadian warships sail through Taiwan Strait

Good. Let China bark all it wants.

Cuba is a sovereign nation, so a Chinese naval vessel is free to visit it. A Chinese warship has not sailed in between Cuba and the US.

The point was that Chinese warships have indeed sailed close to the US before. These kinds of maneuvers happen all the time. Chinese and Russian ships sailed through the Tsugaru Straits earlier this year.

There is more than 160 miles of ocean between mainland China, and Taiwan anyway.

A U.S. destroyer and a Canadian frigate sailed through the Taiwan Strait on Tuesday

Title should read "A U.S. destroyer held the hand of a Canadian frigate on Tuesday..."

*The U.S, has never recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. Therefore there is no change in US policy. No matter how much China whines.*

Once again OssanAmerica you demonstrate how much false information you spread-

[ In the 60 Minutes interview, Biden reiterated the United States remained committed to a "one-China" policy in which Washington officially recognizes Beijing not Taipei, and said the United States was not encouraging Taiwanese independence. ]

https://japantoday.com/category/world/biden-says-u.s.-forces-would-defend-taiwan-in-the-event-of-a-chinese-invasion3

@descendent

Cuba is a sovereign nation, so a Chinese naval vessel is free to visit it. A Chinese warship has not sailed in between Cuba and the US.

Would the US tolerate a Chinese warship (not commercial vessel) near California or New York?- Highly unlikely.

Actually, Chinese navy vessels have visited Cuba many times.

The U.S, has never recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. Therefore there is no change in US policy. No matter how much China whines.

Sailing through such an area with a commercial vessel is one thing, but doing so with warships is quite another.

Would the US tolerate a Chinese warship (not commercial vessel) near California or New York?- Highly unlikely.