Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

China on 'high alert' after Japan warship sails through Taiwan Strait
Channel News Asia ^ | 26 Sep 2024

Posted on 09/26/2024 10:22:30 PM PDT by nickcarraway

China's military was on "high alert" on Thursday (Sep 26) and Beijing said it had lodged a complaint with Tokyo after a Japanese warship sailed through the Taiwan Strait for the first time.

Japan's top government spokesman Yoshimasa Hayashi declined to comment on the reports at a regular briefing because they concerned military operations. But Beijing confirmed its military had responded to "the activities of a Japanese Self-Defence Force ship entering the Taiwan Strait".

"China is highly vigilant about the political intentions of Japan's actions and has lodged stern representations with Japan," foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian said.

(Excerpt) Read more at channelnewsasia.com ...


TOPICS: China; Foreign Affairs; Japan; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: internationalwaters

1 posted on 09/26/2024 10:22:30 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Political implications perhaps being that Japan intends to perform self defense at long range?


2 posted on 09/26/2024 10:25:04 PM PDT by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Last week, China's Liaoning aircraft carrier sailed between two Japanese islands near Taiwan for the first time, accompanied by two destroyers.

The ships entered Japan's contiguous zone -- an area up to 24 nautical miles from the country's coast -- Tokyo said, calling the incident "totally unacceptable". China said it had complied with international law.

3 posted on 09/26/2024 10:28:21 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Ha.

Not just Japan. Germany, Australia and New Zealand navy ships sailed through.

Japan is the capper.

Chicoms have been having a psychotic breakdown, threatening Taiwan (as usual, but more often), Philippines, Malaysia and Japan.

And they’ve been providing military equipment to Putin.

People are getting sick of pandering to their psychosis.

And Trump showed they don’t need to be pandered to or appeased.


4 posted on 09/26/2024 10:41:11 PM PDT by ifinnegan (Democrats kill babies and harvest their organs to sell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

We created a monster. First it was Carter recognizing China. 20 years later Clinton gives them MFN status. It’s one thing for Nixon to use them when dealing with the Soviets. It’s another when people sell out their own country. Trump warned us on Oprah in ‘88.


5 posted on 09/26/2024 11:15:19 PM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
The ships entered Japan's contiguous zone -- an area up to 24 nautical miles from the country's coast

The territorial waters extend 12 nautical miles. The contiguous zone goes to 24 nautical miles, but the extra 12nm are not territorial waters. A country exercises limited jurisdiction in the contiguous zone.

6 posted on 09/27/2024 12:13:13 AM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

What the worlds needs now, is Trump, sweet Trump...


7 posted on 09/27/2024 12:27:45 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

Yes.

And Bush sending Scowcroft in secret after Tiananmen Square telling them don’t worry, we’ll support you, just let us use your cheap labor and we’ll make you personally rich.

Kissinger was the worst.


8 posted on 09/27/2024 12:33:14 AM PDT by ifinnegan (Democrats kill babies and harvest their organs to sell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

K Street/DC and Wall Street have been selling out Main Street to China for 30+ years, since Clinton.


9 posted on 09/27/2024 1:52:17 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

The “Japanese card”.


10 posted on 09/27/2024 1:56:13 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET
Every so called US “economist” seems to be a myopic stupid free traitor and preaches "all import tariffs are bad" and off shoring EVEN WITH OUR ENEMIES. I hate them all.
11 posted on 09/27/2024 1:59:41 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Last week, China’s Liaoning aircraft carrier sailed between two Japanese islands near Taiwan for the first time, accompanied by two destroyers.

~~~

Now that changes contexts quite a lot, doesn’t it?
Yet China wants to protest being a victim as if this new event just happened in a vacuum.


12 posted on 09/27/2024 3:30:30 AM PDT by z3n (Kakistocracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

**K Street/DC and Wall Street have been selling out Main Street to China for 30+ years, since Clinton.**

I saw an Ayn Rand interview where she advocated having ‘nothing to do’ with our enemies.


13 posted on 09/27/2024 5:01:09 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher

Right - the Chinese didn’t violate international law or anything but it was a provocative act. The Japanese are just retaliating.


14 posted on 09/27/2024 5:56:34 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

INTERNATIONAL WATERS???


15 posted on 09/27/2024 7:08:01 AM PDT by ridesthemiles (not giving up on TRUMP---EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Chinese didn’t violate international law

Yes they did. They sailed in the Japanese Contiguous Zone.

Which is illegal.

Japan sailed in international waters.


16 posted on 09/27/2024 8:03:46 AM PDT by ro_dreaming (Who knew "Idiocracy", "1984", "Enemy of the State", and "Person of Interest" would be non-fiction?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ro_dreaming

The Japanese contiguous zone is international waters.


17 posted on 09/27/2024 8:57:04 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ro_dreaming; Alter Kaker
Chinese didn’t violate international law

Yes they did. They sailed in the Japanese Contiguous Zone.

Which is illegal.

There is nothing illegal about sailing into the contiguous zone or into the territorial waters.

https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdf

Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone 1958

Done at Geneva on 29 April 1958. Entered into force on 10 September 1964.

United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 516, p. 205.

[excerpt]

Article 13

If a river flows directly into the sea, the baseline shall be a straight line across the mouth of the river between points on the low-tide line of its banks.

SECTION III.

RIGHT OF INNOCENT PASSAGE

Subsection A. Rules applicable to all ships

Article 14

1. Subject to the provisions of these articles, ships of all States, whether coastal or not, shall enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.

2. Passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose either of traversing that sea without entering internal waters, or of proceeding to internal waters, or of making for the high seas from internal waters.

3. Passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only insofar as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or by distress.

4. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with these articles and with other rules of international law.

5. Passage of foreign fishing vessels shall not be considered innocent if they do not observe such laws and regulations as the coastal State may make and publish in order to prevent these vessels from fishing in the territorial sea.

6. Submarines are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag.

Article 15

1. The coastal State must not hamper innocent passage through the territorial sea.

2. The coastal State is required to give appropriate publicity to any dangers to navigation, of which it has knowledge, within its territorial sea.

Article 16

1. The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.

2. In the case of ships proceeding to internal waters, the coastal State shall also have the right to take the necessary steps to prevent any breach of the conditions to which admission of those ships to those waters is subject.

3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the coastal State may, without discrimination amongst foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published.

4. There shall be no suspension of the innocent passage of foreign ships through straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and another part of the high seas or the territorial sea of a foreign State.

Article 17

Foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage shall comply with the laws and regulations enacted by the coastal State in conformity with these articles and other rules of international law and, in particular, with such laws and regulations relating to transport and navigation.

Subsection B. Rules applicable to merchant ships

Article 18

1. No charge may be levied upon foreign ships by reason only of their passage through the territorial sea.

2. Charges may be levied upon a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea as payment only for specific services rendered to the ship. These charges shall be levied without discrimination.

Article 19

1.The criminal jurisdiction of the coastal State should not be exercised on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in connection with any crime committed on board the ship during its passage, save only in the following cases:

(a) If the consequences of the crime extend to the coastal State; or

(b) If the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial sea; or

(c) If the assistance of the local authorities has been requested by the captain of the ship or by the consul of the country whose flag the ship flies; or

(d) If it is necessary for the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs.

2. The above provisions do not affect the right of the coastal State to take any steps authorized by its laws for the purpose of an arrest or investigation on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea after leaving internal waters.

3. In the cases provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article, the coastal State shall, if the captain so requests, advise the consular authority of the flag State before taking any steps, and shall facilitate contact between such authority and the ship’s crew. In cases of emergency this notification may be communicated while the measures are being taken.

4. In considering whether or how an arrest should be made, the local authorities shall pay due regard to the interests of navigation.

5. The coastal State may not take any steps on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in connection with any crime committed before the ship entered the territorial sea, if the ship, proceeding from a foreign port, is only passing through the territorial sea without entering internal waters.

Article 20

1. The coastal State should not stop or divert a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea for the purpose of exercising civil jurisdiction in relation to a person on board the ship.

2. The coastal State may not levy execution against or arrest the ship for the purpose of any civil proceedings, save only in respect of obligations or liabilities assumed or incurred by the ship itself in the course or for the purpose of its voyage through the waters of the coastal State.

3. The provisions of the previous paragraph are without prejudice to the right of the coastal State, in accordance with its laws, to levy execution against or to arrest, for the purpose of any civil proceedings, a foreign ship lying in the territorial sea, or passing through the territorial sea after leaving internal waters.

Subsection C. Rules applicable to government ships other than warships

Article 21

The rules contained in subsections A and B shall also apply to government ships operated for commercial purposes.

Article 22

1.The rules contained in subsection A and in article 18 shall apply to government ships operated for non-commercial purposes.

2.With such exceptions as are contained in the provisions referred to in the preceding paragraph, nothing in these articles affects the immunities which such ships enjoy under these articles or other rules of international law.

Subsection D. Rules applicable to warships

Article 23

If any warship does not comply with the regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance which is made to it, the coastal State may require the warship to leave the territorial sea.

PART II.

CONTIGUOUS ZONE

Article 24

1. In a zone of the high seas contiguous to its territorial sea, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to:

(a) Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary regulations within its territory or territorial sea;

(b) Punish infringement of the above regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.

2. The contiguous zone may not extend beyond twelve miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

3. Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its contiguous zone beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of the two States is measured.

18 posted on 09/27/2024 11:31:32 AM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

TIL, then.

My understanding is that it was essentially an extension of coastal territorial waters.


19 posted on 09/27/2024 3:13:05 PM PDT by ro_dreaming (Who knew "Idiocracy", "1984", "Enemy of the State", and "Person of Interest" would be non-fiction?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson