Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 07, 2023

Quod Licet Iovi ...

The BBC reported on August 22, 2022:

Taiwan: Two US warships sail through strait

Two US warships are passing through the Taiwan Strait, the US Navy has announced.
...
Washington says its two guided-missile cruisers - the USS Antietam and the USS Chancellorsville - are demonstrating freedom of navigation through international waters.
...
Beijing views such actions as provocative and maintains that the island of Taiwan is an integral part of Chinese territory.

On Sunday, its military said it was monitoring the two vessels' progress, maintaining a high alert, and was ready to defeat any provocation, Reuters news agency reports.

The US Navy said in a statement that the transit through the Taiwan Strait demonstrated the "United States' commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific".

The WSJ on August 6, 2023:

Russia and China Sent Large Naval Patrol Near Alaska

A combined Russian and Chinese naval force patrolled near the coast of Alaska last week in what U.S. experts said appeared to be the largest such flotilla to approach American shores.

Eleven Russian and Chinese ships steamed close to the Aleutian Islands, according to U.S. officials. The ships, which never entered U.S. territorial waters and have since left, were shadowed by four U.S. destroyers and P-8 Poseidon aircraft.

“It is a historical first,” said Brent Sadler, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a retired Navy captain. “Given the context of the war in Ukraine and tensions around Taiwan, this move is highly provocative.”
...
Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the patrol was a reminder that the U.S. has entered “a new era of authoritarian aggression” and applauded the robust U.S. response.

Posted by b on August 7, 2023 at 13:29 UTC | Permalink

Comments
next page »

The Strait of "Taiwan", under the Art.38, Law of the Sea, is sovereign Chinese territory, with which the US agrees. Fact. China's being tolerant allowing foreign passage...for now.

Posted by: jgarbo | Aug 7 2023 13:35 utc | 1

@1

the law of the sea is based on the predominance of firepower in loco

p-8, and RF-135 are showing up around the black, and baltic seas

and they serve Kiev kill chain to fix valuable target, along with drone, e-3,& satellites

all hugely more damaging than cruising in the North Pacific vastness

Posted by: paddy | Aug 7 2023 13:50 utc | 2

Jesus, the US is a huge spoiled child. The US behaves like a child bully who points and holds a stick an inch from china’s eye and when china batts it away , the US can accuse it of aggression.

Posted by: Steve wilson | Aug 7 2023 13:51 utc | 3

If the US didn't have double standards, it would have no standards at all. When it sails through the Taiwan Strait, it's just exercising "freedom of navigation." But when China and Russia patrol the Alaskan coast, it's "authoritarian aggression." You can't make this sh*t up.

Posted by: Janet | Aug 7 2023 14:00 utc | 4

First, supposedly they wait a week to “inform the public”…
Then they have vague timeline “last week”… No reports from either China or Russia other than that PAC Drill that was widely reported. So probably this may have been part of that.
Total gas lighting story for Americans to fear & hate Russia & China as they’re “coming to get us”…

Posted by: Trubind1 | Aug 7 2023 14:03 utc | 5

Kind of hard to fix crazy and non-agreement-capable-stupid. As Mark Twain once worte, in regard to Huck Finn's father, the only way to reform him was with a shotgun.

Posted by: Perimetr | Aug 7 2023 14:06 utc | 6

I hope one day Chinese sailors can stop in New Orleans for shore leave and this is treated as no big deal.

Posted by: fnord | Aug 7 2023 14:13 utc | 7

The US has entered a new era of authoritarian aggression or China has entered a new era of authoritarian aggression?

Posted by: Giyane | Aug 7 2023 14:13 utc | 8

Perimetr 6

They don't like it up 'em, Mr Mannering. Russia and China are patiently educating the US out of its bad psychological habit of projection.

Posted by: Giyane | Aug 7 2023 14:17 utc | 9

8

The lack of a sixth grade education among our so-called representatives is becoming increasingly obvious.

The sentence indicates that the US is the aggressor and that's not what the bonehead intended.
He wanted to include the buzz word "authoritarian".

You know, the CCP Marxists and Putin's rearing head are nothing if not "authoritarian".

Posted by: Chaka Khagan | Aug 7 2023 14:26 utc | 10

Let's see, how many fronts do we have in play now? Ukraine, Taiwan, Iran, Syria (occupied by US so Turkey can steal Syria's oil), Niger, Mali... let's just say all of Africa, Belarus, Pakistan, Venezuela, Cuba, and Mexico is being taken over by the Chinese I hear - and what's going on with Trump? Wheels seem to be coming off. I hope it doesn't all get out of control.

Posted by: JimG | Aug 7 2023 14:32 utc | 11

Hypocrisy taken to the level of idiocy. America beclowns itself constantly.

Posted by: Figleaf23 | Aug 7 2023 14:36 utc | 12

Slowly, then all at once.

Posted by: Pym of Nantucket | Aug 7 2023 14:38 utc | 13

Us war machine is painted in that Hollywood propaganda paint whereby it is the defender of aggressions it provocateur 🤣

Posted by: Sam Vandenberg | Aug 7 2023 14:41 utc | 14

thx b for the update.

Frankly these people are really really really really tiring in their stupid, dumb, moronic, false-faced, dishonest, opportunistic, self-serving, jingoistic, treacherous and destructive behaviour (I lack finding the right one adjective to put my utter disgust and contempt into proper English) and ought to be put into asylum where I could throw cake into their faces.

Posted by: AG | Aug 7 2023 14:42 utc | 15

@ Janet 4
If the US didn't have double standards, it would have no standards at all.
Funniest thing I've heard in days ! True, too true.

Posted by: JessDTruth | Aug 7 2023 14:50 utc | 16

yay, russia and china! keep it up and make sure umercans know that the u.s. has been doing and does the same for years.

u.s. can't stand fair payback, the little murdering babies.

Posted by: polarbear4 | Aug 7 2023 14:57 utc | 17

And this is the leader of the Western world. What can one say, but poor West.

Posted by: Steve | Aug 7 2023 14:57 utc | 18

The good news is that the "robust response" (applauded by Senator Dan of the Armed Services Committee) was not robust.

Posted by: Chaka Khagan | Aug 7 2023 15:03 utc | 19

Blinken said “climate change” was the existential threat more than bearding Russia to nuclear war , in an interview in late July in Australia.

Blinken either supposes he can win a nuclear exchange or the plan is back off with the proxie war, that is backdown when Russia hits the US’ safe haven intel parts of its kill chain.

I am siding with the neocon all out nuclear option as any time now it will be sunset for the empire.

If only Clinton had realized she needed more cheating in 2016, she might have run her proxie war from 2028.

Posted by: paddy | Aug 7 2023 15:06 utc | 20

I wonder if this "gun boat diplomacy" serves our interests. I am thinking it did in the past, but no longer does in the current circumstance. Meanwhile the institutional setup to implement it remains in place, and so it continues.

Posted by: Jmaas | Aug 7 2023 15:06 utc | 21

Ironic, isn't it? The two U.S. warships passing through the strait are named after battles in a war in which the U.S. government sought to reclaim it's former territory that had become independent....sort of like what is happening with both China and Russia.

Posted by: Ray | Aug 7 2023 15:08 utc | 22

Ray | Aug 7 2023 15:08 utc | 22

us navy tradition: name cruisers after us' land battles.

the ships are ticonderoga (small low casualty battle gained a minor fortress in revolution).

fun recollection: antietam (shrapsburg to southerners) was an operation and strategic defeat for the federal side, and chancellorsville was a federal debacle!

ticonderoga class ships are getting 'long in the tooth'.

Posted by: paddy | Aug 7 2023 15:14 utc | 23

In this age of Newspeak, even Orwell would be startled by the Americans' misuse of language.
Michael Hudson is fond of pointing out that in Biden's claim that the fight against Russia and China is a fight of democracy against authoritarianism, what is actually the case is that 'democracy' stands for oligarchy, while 'authoritarian' stands for any government that prevents oligarchies (foreign or domestic) from financial control.
America cannot stand Putin because he kicked American financiers out of Russia to stop their pillage, and America cannot stand China because their banking system is owned or controlled by the government.

Posted by: Tedder | Aug 7 2023 15:20 utc | 24

Looking through a one-way glass and all they see is
"authoritarian"? Is that what they're left with?

They don't even capitalize it, define it, much less turn it around and point it at themselves. Maybe that's coming up on Halloween?

Posted by: Elmagnostic | Aug 7 2023 15:20 utc | 25

Seems like one power faction in the US is hoping that either Russia or China will push back at which point they can finally get a green light to escalate military conflict. Which also implies that there are other factions who don't want it and so the result is this pussy-footing around potential nuclear war.

Posted by: Scorpion | Aug 7 2023 15:34 utc | 26

When comparing the combat capabilities of the ships involved, all USN ships would be quickly sunk by the stand-off weapons from the Chinese mainland and the anti-ship missiles from the combined Russian-Chinese flotilla. And the shadowing USAF planes would be shotdown by the flotilla's AD. There are no facilities in Alaska to do anything about Russian naval activities. Plus, the method of naval warfare has changed but USN lacks the types of ships and weapons needed to engage in that sort of combat--missiles are now the rage, with Russia fielding its hypersonics on an ever increasing number of vessels. Martyanov recently roasted the USN over this very issue here.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 7 2023 15:35 utc | 27

I hope these sailors enjoy floating around in peacetime.

It seems in a war all surface vessels are all hopelessly vulnerable.

In the meantime enjoy the hypocrisy.

Posted by: Neofeudalfuture | Aug 7 2023 15:36 utc | 28

@ Janet | Aug 7 2023 14:00 utc | 4

right on janet!

Posted by: james | Aug 7 2023 15:37 utc | 29

It’s like

Niger banning access to French media
Eu - this is not acceptable…

But eu banning access to Russian media in eu is ok.

Posted by: Horbin | Aug 7 2023 15:39 utc | 30

jgarbo 1

Thank you for pointing out the stipulations of Article 48. It took me a while to find Article 48, but for anyone who is interested, here is a link to the document with Article 48: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

How possible is it for the lawyers to find devils in the details that make this somehow not apply to the Taiwan Strait? Or is it bulletproof legally? Or will bullets have to fly to settle the legalities?

This is my first comment on this site. I have benefitted greatly since I began reading the articles and comments at the start of Russia's Special Military Operation. I always appreciate it when someone provides a link for the source of an assertion so that I and others can do our own further research. So here is my start of giving back to the community.

Posted by: Gary | Aug 7 2023 15:44 utc | 31

The hypocrisy of it all. They really do have no shame. Not just blindness and a sense of entitlement. This just shows a total lack of shame

Posted by: A.z | Aug 7 2023 15:48 utc | 32

Seems like one power faction in the US is hoping that either Russia or China will push back at which point they can finally get a green light to escalate military conflict. Which also implies that there are other factions who don't want it and so the result is this pussy-footing around potential nuclear war.

Posted by: Scorpion | Aug 7 2023 15:34 utc | 26

I think the neocons still believe that China wouldn't dare push back. That's what they believed about Russia for years, and when Russia finally pushed back the neocons presumed that Russia would collapse from sanctions and US wonder weapons. Now that that delusion is being exposed, they will just move on to the next one while the last one is memory holed. It's all hubris and magical thinking.

Posted by: Mike R | Aug 7 2023 15:55 utc | 33

paddy | Aug 7 2023 15:14 utc | 23

fun recollection: antietam (shrapsburg to southerners) was an operation and strategic defeat for the federal side, and chancellorsville was a federal debacle!

With all the demolition of statues and re-naming of US military bases, one wonders when US ships will no longer be named for Civil War battles that were won by the Confederacy. Pettiness rules, after all...

Posted by: DougK | Aug 7 2023 15:58 utc | 34

>>the ships are Ticonderoga (small low casualty battle gained a minor fortress in revolution)..
Posted by: paddy | Aug 7 2023 15:14 utc | 23

Well, actually, it was a no casualty battle. Lack of alertness by the defenders allowed the Nathan Green and Benedict Arnold led force to take a major fort with only one trooper taken by physical force. In an earlier time period the British had 2,000 troops killed when trying to evict the French from the fort. It turned out to be important because the cannon seized were used by George Washington to drive the British out of Boston. History worth remembering?

Posted by: Jmaas | Aug 7 2023 16:02 utc | 35

"If the US didn't have double standards, it would have no standards at all."
...
Posted by: Janet | Aug 7 2023 14:00 utc | 4

Brilliant!
A comprehensive description of the United States of Assholery in 14 words!

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 7 2023 16:05 utc | 36

"Washington says its two guided-missile cruisers - the USS Antietam and the USS Chancellorsville - are demonstrating freedom of navigation through international waters."

A vast amount of shipping passes through the Taiwan Straits daily. No need for an extra demonstration thank you.

Posted by: dh | Aug 7 2023 16:07 utc | 37

Posted by: Gary | Aug 7 2023 15:44 utc | 31

Article 48: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

As I have understood it:
The USA has not ratified the UN Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

So they do what they want.

Posted by: Paul from Norway | Aug 7 2023 16:15 utc | 38

Re: Posted by: Scorpion | Aug 7 2023 15:34 utc | 26
“Which also implies that there are other factions who don't want it and so the result is this pussy-footing around potential nuclear war.”
I was thinking this way, like “factions” and stuff. But honestly, lately I believe Russia & China have made it crystal clear the West must capitulate, to multipolar reality or be destroyed.
I don’t think of it as much as factions fighting, but acceptance of new reality.
We’re just seeing, like you do in families, some adjusting & adapting, and others lagging or completely unwilling.
I’m saying truly, the West has no power anymore, there’s no “decision” to be made, just acceptance.
Regarding escalation to nuclear, I suppose anything’s possible, but self preservation, even in the worst of living conditions usually prevails.
I do agree, regarding as do “declines” go…”slowly then suddenly”
Frankly, the US isn’t the only power to cause catastrophic financial collapse… China could instantaneously as well…heck so could Iran… Iran could cause an I incident, close Hormuz, cause oil to go to 300 $ or more a barrel & cause global financial collapse.
On a military level… US/NATO are beat.
As I said, US has no power. It has no say. Acceptance is all that’s left. The “factions” don’t matter, it’s just gnashing of the teeth that means nothing. Could they go on a rampage of destruction short of nuclear ? Sure, but the days of impunity are finished, their allies & assets would also be destroyed. Just my opinion, there aren’t opposing factions anymore, just those that accept & those that refuse and will either be dragged along, die, or relegated to the bins of history because USA, as other Empires b4, is finished.

Posted by: Trubind1 | Aug 7 2023 16:22 utc | 39

@ Horbin | Aug 7 2023 15:39 utc | 30

very good point! thanks.. in fact - your comment needs to be highlighted.. i will repeat it again in my own way..


Niger banning access to French media : Eu - "this is not acceptable."

Eu banning access to Russian media : Eu - "this is entirely acceptable."

Posted by: james | Aug 7 2023 16:31 utc | 40

Near the end of Episode 3 of Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews, VVP is complementing the judgement of the "brave captain" of the USS Donald Cook who did a rapid U-turn and raced away from a Russian vessel equipped with Bastion missiles. He remarked that the Donald Cook would be "utterly defenseless" against Bastion.

It's not hard to imagine how worried Russia and China are NOT about AmeriKKKa's 'Freedom Of Navigation' patrols in other people's backyards.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 7 2023 16:39 utc | 41

Excellent b,

That's how you beat em by shining a light on their blatant hypocrisy.

That Josep Borrell the EU foreign policy chief carries out the same offence on a monthly basis. Macron when talking about Niger is the same.

Eventually even the brainwashed will realise what they are up to.

Posted by: Echo Chamber | Aug 7 2023 16:50 utc | 42

1/Jgarboo:

Just because it is someone's territorial water does NOT mean that passage is forbidden, IF it is a "navigable strait". There are a few straits where free passage is prohibited (Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay entrances are examples, noted in the law). But many other straits (Hormuz, Gibralter, Malacca, Danish straits, Turkish straits, etc.) are "in someone's territorial water", but free passage is still allowed, since it is a connection between two open sea areas. This is very well covered in the treaty.

Posted by: Beat Army | Aug 7 2023 16:52 utc | 43

Neofeudalfuture @ 28

I hope these sailors enjoy floating around in peacetime. It seems in a war all surface vessels are all hopelessly vulnerable.

Floating Bradleys and Leopards.

Posted by: LightYearsFromHome | Aug 7 2023 16:57 utc | 44

the behavior of the Americans makes total sense if you take 2 things in consideration.

#1: the world belongs to the US; they own it. (at least, they feel like this). everybody must bow down to the gobal overlords.
rules are for other people, but do not apply to them.

#2; they are the exceptional nation. (a literal Obama quote) let's dig up some old German words and it becomes clear what mindset they have:
they believe in the depth of whatever passes for a soul over there that they are the superior people. the master race.... Ubermenschen.

this makes the USA the real actual heir apparent of Hitler's Third Reich. the Fourth Reich. not a stretch.
they don't do Holocaust against Jews; although what they repeatedly do themselves or by proxy (israel for example; IS, Al Qaida etc) or by sanctions, to muslim countries in West Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran); the Middle East (irak, Syria, Yemen, Palestine) or Africa (Libya, maybe Niger is next) comes pretty close
the death toll has reached Holocaust numbers, and the number of refugees is much much higher; the UN has calculated that in this century alone, since 9-11, US warmaking and sancions have caused a death toll of 6-9 million and refugee number between 35-54 million. those numbers are likely conservative.
they even share the oldskool nazi hatred for eastern Slavic people (read: Russians) and the superiority complex versus African or Asian people that the OG nazi's had. Eichmann or Himmler would be proud.

but another thing that they have in common with Adolf's failed experiment is that they're not the brightest bulb in the box.
with an attitude like that, they show the rest of the world exactly hat they are. repeatedly. the hypocrisy is visible for everybody.
they still seem to think Africans, Asians, Latino's or ME muslims don't do internet or can read news in English...
and then, they are so surprised that the rest of the globe -minus vassals and hostages- doesn't choose their side in the latest comnflict with the Russians.
but the global south doesn't have collective amnesia, America. they remember...

Posted by: valar morghulis | Aug 7 2023 17:18 utc | 45

@43

Does that treaty make a distinction in the type of vessel that gets the privilege of passing through said waters? Seems to me that a guided missile destroyer isn't in those neck of the woods to score some Mahi Mahi.

Posted by: Ronnie James | Aug 7 2023 17:22 utc | 46

Ukraine Pravda is running a story in the MSM press that Russia, on August 6, used projectiles with chemicals in them in the Zaporizhzhia region. The story, which appeared on Microsoft News, said "it was a violation of international law", though they noted that there appeared to be NO injuries.

The moment I tried to copy and paste the story it disappeared only to be replaced with another lying story about how Ukraine destroyed all kinds of Russian equipment, and as soon as I tried to copy and paste, again the story disappeared and was replaced by another story about some Russian shenanigans.

It all seems so surreal.

Posted by: Ed | Aug 7 2023 17:24 utc | 47

Self-awareness is not a particularly well-developed aspect of the American character. The recent freak-out over alleged Chinese spy bases in Cuba is also a case in point.

The Chinese have the legal right to close or otherwise curtail the waterway between Taiwan and the mainland. If and when that happens, it will serve as the signal that the Taiwan "question" is nearing resolution. Regardless of how many weapons the U.S. and its allies pour into the "first island chain", simply consulting a map demonstrates clearly what will be the eventual result of the ongoing attempt to position Taiwan as a western allied "anti-China".

Posted by: jayc | Aug 7 2023 17:35 utc | 48

@ A.G. @ Comment # 15.

I think the succinct words you are looking for in the English language is actually a slang expression ;

Utter wankers.

Posted by: Beibdnn. | Aug 7 2023 17:36 utc | 49

That US Navy exercise to sail between mainland China and Taiwan was a year ago. Let them try this again nowadays. See how it goes. I also think that it is hard to account for some RF's nuclear subs. I guess there must be some in international waters very near West and East US coast. Why US is not mentioning that? Because US has no reaction time and it lost that 10 years ago. That was the content of Trump's secret docs.

Posted by: whirlX | Aug 7 2023 17:40 utc | 50

Hahaha... "Freedom of navigation" if the US Navy decides to let you navigate...The same Navy that nearly started a war with England in 1861 in the Trent Affair by boarding an English mail packet in the open seas and seizing two confederate diplomats.....

Posted by: pyrrhus | Aug 7 2023 17:53 utc | 51

@55

true, I was too hurried to study the Ticonderoga ‘battle’.

Posted by: paddy | Aug 7 2023 17:56 utc | 52

It is Time for the United States to Ratify UNCLOS
U.S. Naval Academy Class of 2021
CAPSTONE ESSAY CONTEST WINNERS
Sponsored by the Class of 1945 in honor of Commander Earl Fannin
Category: Surface
By Ensign Lara Malaver, U.S. Navy

UNCLOS was ratified by 60 states and entered into effect in 1994 as a single, encompassing framework developed to define sea borders of coastal states, support maritime economies, guarantee navigational rights and freedoms, protect the ocean as an environment, and preserve peace on the high seas.1 Since then, 108 more states have joined the convention; the United States has not.2 Despite having adopted the common practices outlined in the treaty and accepting UNCLOS as customary international law, the United States has yet to accede to the convention—a fact that is immensely relevant to the U.S. Navy and particularly the surface warfare community.

Nearly 40 years ago, the Reagan administration and the U.S. Senate backed away from UNCLOS [which the US helped to draft] for reasons that made little sense then and none today. Since then, a number of presidents, including Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, and Barack Obama, have unsuccessfully lobbied for the Senate to ratify it. For the United States to retake its position as a global leader, and for the U.S. Navy to be seen as a legitimate extension of that leadership, it is time for the Senate to finally give its advice and consent to accede to UNCLOS. The Navy’s surface combatants effectively project American power abroad and enforce freedom of the seas in routine freedom of navigation operations. This mission has become especially significant in the wake of aggressive actions and provoking claims at sea made by our adversaries abroad. However, exerting military strength is not enough. The formal acceptance of UNCLOS by the United States will diplomatically support national interests abroad, secure American influence in the maritime domain, and more proactively underpin the efforts of the U.S. surface navy.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2021/june/it-time-united-states-ratify-unclos#Combatting%20China%20and%20Russia
-----------------------------------------------------------

If you don't join, then your freedom of movement at sea is only as good as your military power to demand that you have your way. Many nations are starting to challenge the US military (Navel) power and the "right" for the US to flaunt it.

Posted by: Ed | Aug 7 2023 17:57 utc | 53

Posted by: Paul from Norway | Aug 7 2023 16:15 utc | 38

That is true, the US has not rarified it. However, the convention only codifies Maritime Law that is already known for centuries before the Law of the Sea Convention was written-up.

In addition, being a member of the UN means the US must agree to widely-held conventions and the Convention on the Sea is such .

According to Posted by: Beat Army | Aug 7 2023 16:52 utc | 43, the US already has certain of its bays marked out in the convention; so implication is the US knows it is considered part of international law that even has sections on itself.

The USA is always first-most barking about how certain countries had such and such a ruling in international courts about this Law of the Sea. When it suits its purposes of course.

Seems to me that the US is just trying to avoid laws that don’t suit it.

Posted by: Wondrous | Aug 7 2023 17:59 utc | 54

Interestingly enough, I only became aware of the Latin saying
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi from Sergey Lavrov a few years ago. He had a lot to talk about, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Ukraine, Crimea. He could have dished out a lot more, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Vietnam etc. etc.
Then he dropped a bit about how the laws for Jupiter are not the laws for a cow. I knew I had to be dealing with a ropey translation, so I looked it up. And there we are, Jovis vs. Bovis.
I like it, it's even better than my previous favorite quotation about American foreign policy, which I lifted from Joseph Heller's Catch 22"
"We are free to do whatever we want to do, because you can’t stop us from doing it.”
Can't argue with logic like that.

Posted by: Jake Dee | Aug 7 2023 18:00 utc | 55

The Straits of Taiwan are how wide? Territorial waters only extend for a few miles though Exclusive Economic Zones are much wider. So the US has every right to sail those straights.
By the same token the Chinese and Russian navies can also freely sail the Straights of Cuba or any other bit of water beyond the territorial limits. If they want they can park a battle fleet just outside the US territorial waters off San Diego, or Holululu, NYC etc as a provocative show of force that could be seen from shore by millions. So sailing the open ocean many miles from Alaska is hardly provocative by comparison to what is legally possible.

Posted by: Neal | Aug 7 2023 18:01 utc | 56

Last I checked it was 200 nautical miles.

Posted by: Scorpion | Aug 7 2023 18:06 utc | 57

@ Ed | Aug 7 2023 17:24 utc | 47

It seems that AI generated news are becoming the MSM and successfully failing at that.

Posted by: whirlX | Aug 7 2023 18:06 utc | 58

The strait and narrow is a path shunned by Creepy Joe et al

Posted by: DilNir | Aug 7 2023 18:13 utc | 59

Do US war ships, that is, do armed US ships ever dock at Taiwan? I am not aware of it, but the US does sell weapons to Tiawan, which is like Russia selling weapons to Texas in order that it might want to succeed from the federal government and become an independent country and be free to collaborate with Russia and China.

Somehow, I do not think Washington D.C. would take kindly to such events.

Posted by: Ed | Aug 7 2023 18:15 utc | 60

The USA has not ratified the UN Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
So they do what they want.
Posted by: Paul from Norway | Aug 7 2023 16:15 utc | 38

Does this mean that, if Iran attacks US ships, the US lacks legal recourse under the UN Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?

Posted by: Passerby | Aug 7 2023 18:31 utc | 61

Posted by: Neal | Aug 7 2023 18:01 utc | 56

I may be mistaken but there is some law- on at least naval vessels - not going through a nation’s internal seas unless there is no alternative. The Straits between Taiwan and China are an internal sea, and thus anyone’s navy should steam around the right hand coast of Taiwan ie Open Sea to go from point A to B. The US agrees in law that Taiwan and mainland China are one nation and Beijing is the lawful authority. So it is an inland sea. In any case, why is the US navy there ?

It is not calling into port in Vladivostok, Japan or China , so why even need to be there. It is frivolous and so transparently a saber-rattling exercise ,which are “fighting words”.

Of course ,having the law on your side means nothing when you have little power to enforce it, which is why Average Joes get stiffed everyday by expensively-paid lackey lawyers of powerful people and corporations.

Posted by: Wondrous | Aug 7 2023 18:33 utc | 62

Posted by: Janet | Aug 7 2023 14:00 utc | 4

"If [I] didn't have double standards, [I wouldn't] have no standards at all."

Sounds like the hook for a good country/western song...

Posted by: Clever Dog | Aug 7 2023 18:36 utc | 63

Another glaring example of how the US media promotes the US Empire's agenda and warmongering.

Posted by: bill wolfe | Aug 7 2023 18:40 utc | 64

@Scorpion, territorial waters do not exceed 12 miles. Then out to 200 miles is the Exclusive Economic Zone. So any country can sail those straits, they just can’t fish, drill for oil etc.

Posted by: Neal | Aug 7 2023 18:43 utc | 65

O vir clarissimus b! Not classical Latin but good to see nonetheless. In English we have the great expression "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", with a similar sense of hypocrisy. Of course the Iovis in the proverb could conceivably be more comically rendered: quod Boni Iovii licet, non licet bovi which would give us: "Bon Jovi can do what cows cannot". Either way we're all livin' on a prayer these days...

Posted by: Patroklos | Aug 7 2023 18:48 utc | 66

What would happen if these two ships got sunk and China and Russia denied eny envolvment suggesting the US must of sunk their own ships.

Posted by: Mark2 | Aug 7 2023 18:57 utc | 67

Blinken said “climate change” was the existential threat more than bearding Russia to nuclear war , in an interview in late July in Australia.

Posted by: paddy | Aug 7 2023 15:06 utc | 20

To the genuine believers in "climate change challenge", it is hard to postpone or even sabotage solutions more effectively than with war hysteria and global economic conflict. First, sheer diversion of resources, military spending, war destruction and copying with consequences of EU sanctions with nearly a trillion of inflationary spending. Any approach that was described requires robust national budgets. Of course, poorer people tend to generate fewer carbon emissions, unless they close nuclear power plants and substitute them and natural gas (big fraction of energy from hydrogen) with coal (no hydrogen).

Then there is a need for technology cooperation. China is the most efficient provider of solar panel, and Russia, of nuclear reactors for power stations. Sanctions can double the cost of green transition.

Inflationary spending increases interest rates and increases the cost of investing, including green investing.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Aug 7 2023 18:57 utc | 68

@ Scorpion | Aug 7 2023 18:06 utc | 57

12 Nautical Miles from the land point protruding furtherest outwards. That is the rule to where maritime border of each and every country stops. Economic zone concerns fishing, oil drilling etc. and that can be temporary proclaimed and police enforced, like issuing fines and such.
I think good example is Island doing that to Spanish, UK and Portuguese fishing boats. If Japanese tuna fishing boats can do the Med and still be in international waters so it seems ok as such. Still there are few disputes ongoing in EU, but are mutually tolerated, even if borders overlap. Antwerp is one such dispute.

Posted by: whirlX | Aug 7 2023 19:02 utc | 69

@43

Does that treaty make a distinction in the type of vessel that gets the privilege of passing through said waters? Seems to me that a guided missile destroyer isn't in those neck of the woods to score some Mahi Mahi.

Posted by: Ronnie James | Aug 7 2023 17:22 utc | 46

It does.... UNCLOS specifically deals with the Taiwan Straits issue, and other similar issues like the one between the Channel Islands and the South California Coast, by specifying those as territorial waters, under the total control of the littoral state.... China in the case of the Taiwan Strait and the USA in the case of the San Bernadino Strait.

In such cases, foreign warships can only transit with express permission of the Littoral State, because same can easily pass seaward of the offlying island(s) instead of through those straits.

The USN is basically thumbing it's nose at the Chinese.

The Chinese Coast Guard has the right under UNCLOS to stop said vessels, and inspect them for contraband and violations of Chinese maritime law.

Were they to do that, would create a FLAP heard round the world...

INDY

Posted by: Dr. George W Oprisko | Aug 7 2023 19:03 utc | 70

Mark2 | Aug 7 2023 18:57 utc | 67
***What would happen if these two ships got sunk and China and Russia denied eny envolvment suggesting the US must of sunk their own ships.***

NATO and its media would just blame North Korea, with assistance from Iran.

Posted by: Cynic | Aug 7 2023 19:13 utc | 71

The USN is basically thumbing it's nose at the Chinese.

The Chinese Coast Guard has the right under UNCLOS to stop said vessels, and inspect them for contraband and violations of Chinese maritime law.

Were they to do that, would create a FLAP heard round the world...

INDY

Posted by: Dr. George W Oprisko | Aug 7 2023 19:03 utc | 70

More Accurately a large bang.
With bigger to follow.
Unfortunately for us all.

Posted by: jpc | Aug 7 2023 19:17 utc | 72

Neal @65. It's not so cut and dried. See the unclos treaty; part 3, section 2, article 1. Wondrous is correct.

Posted by: Scuppers | Aug 7 2023 19:20 utc | 73

Cynic @ 71
But but no evedence just like north stream 2.

Posted by: Mark2 | Aug 7 2023 19:20 utc | 74

First of all--there can be no international law as long as the Empire (Washington) does not agree to it. There is only power and the US still has it or thinks it does. If most of the developed world agrees then there is only Imperial decrees and the rest is bullshit. Now, a new sort of international law will likely be developed out of agreements between the Empire (most of the developed world that goes along with Washington decrees) and the emerging multi-polar world. This is a time when all sides stake out there particular posture of power and from those positions negotiations can start but not before. This thing is complicated but necessary. If Washington's leaders were somewhat moral as many were back in the day then these extreme situations wouldn't have had to occur. At this time, the power-elite in Washington and those who choose to follow its diktats are strictly Machiavellian characters and have only a negative morality.

In the USA, at least, the ordinary person is beginning to "get it" so we shall see what we shall see.

Posted by: Chris Cosmos | Aug 7 2023 19:22 utc | 75

Posted by: Clever Dog | Aug 7 2023 18:36 utc | 63
Sounds like the hook for a good country/western song...

"Bad Luck Blues" and "Born Under a Bad Sign" both contain the lyrics "If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all"

Posted by: Ranelagh | Aug 7 2023 19:23 utc | 76

Sorry, article 37 and 38

Posted by: Scuppers | Aug 7 2023 19:27 utc | 77

Posted by: Clever Dog | Aug 7 2023 18:36 utc | 63
Sounds like the hook for a good country/western song...

——

“Doom, despair, and agony, oh me!
Deep dark depression, excessive misery!
If it weren't for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all!
Doom, despair, and agony, oh me!”

—from the teevee show “Hee Haw”

Posted by: malenkov | Aug 7 2023 19:31 utc | 78

The management of any globe spanning empire, ostensibly operating as a "democracy" requires a captured and obedient press/media to disseminate imperial talking points to the people, often disguised using Doublethink and Newspeak to account for obviously contradictory messaging when discussing Imperial actions and those of the du-jour "hostile foreign power(s)."

Or in the words of George Orwell...

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

-and-

“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.”

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Aug 7 2023 19:31 utc | 79

Cynic @ 71
But no evidence just like north stream 2.

Posted by: Mark2 | Aug 7 2023 19:20 utc | 74
------------------------------------------------

The destruction of the Nord Stream Pipelines is settled: Joe Biden did it, even if you can't wrap your mind around that fact.

Posted by: Ed | Aug 7 2023 19:39 utc | 80

Neal @65. It's not so cut and dried. See the unclos treaty; part 3, section 2, article 1. Wondrous is correct.

Posted by: Scuppers | Aug 7 2023 19:20 utc | 73
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please explain what you find is so "wondrous."

PART III

STRAITS USED FOR INTERNATIONAL NAVIGATION

SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 34. Legal status of waters forming straits used for international navigation

1. The regime of passage through straits used for international navigation established in this Part shall not in other respects affect the legal status of the waters forming such straits or the exercise by the States bordering the straits of their sovereignty or jurisdiction over such waters and their air space, bed and subsoil.

2. The sovereignty or jurisdiction of the States bordering the straits is exercised subject to this Part and to other rules of international law.

Article 35. Scope of this Part

Nothing in this Part affects:

(a) any areas of internal waters within a strait, except where the establishment of a straight baseline in accordance with the method set forth in article 7 has the effect of enclosing as internal waters areas which had not previously been considered as such;

(b) the legal status of the waters beyond the territorial seas of States bordering straits as exclusive economic zones or high seas; or

(c) the legal regime in straits in which passage is regulated in whole or in part by long-standing international conventions in force specifically relating to such straits.

Article 36. High seas routes or routes through exclusive economic zones through straits used for international navigation

This Part does not apply to a strait used for international navigation if there exists through the strait a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics; in such routes, the other relevant Parts of this Convention, including the provisions regarding the freedoms of navigation and overflight, apply.

SECTION 2. TRANSIT PASSAGE

Article 37. Scope of this section

This section applies to straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.

Article 38. Right of transit passage

1. In straits referred to in article 37, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded; except that, if the strait is formed by an island of a State bordering the strait and its mainland, transit passage shall not apply if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics.

2. Transit passage means the exercise in accordance with this Part of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a State bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that State.

3. Any activity which is not an exercise of the right of transit passage through a strait remains subject to the other applicable provisions of this Convention.

Article 39. Duties of ships and aircraft during transit passage

1. Ships and aircraft, while exercising the right of transit passage, shall:

(a) proceed without delay through or over the strait;

(b) refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty territorial integrity or political independence of States bordering the strait, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) refrain from any activities other than those incident to their normal modes of continuous and expeditious transit unless rendered necessary by force majeure or by distress;

(d ) comply with other relevant provisions of this Part.

2. Ships in transit passage shall:

(a) comply with generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices for safety at sea, including the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea;

(b) comply with generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from ships.

3. Aircraft in transit passage shall

(a) observe the Rules of the Air established by the International Civil Aviation Organization as they apply to civil aircraft; state aircraft will normally comply with such safety measures and will at all times operate with due regard for the safety of navigation;

(b) at all times monitor the radio frequency assigned by the competent internationally designated air traffic control authority or the appropriate international distress radio frequency.

Article 40. Research and survey activities

During transit passage, foreign ships, including marine scientific research and hydrographic survey ships, may not carry out any research or survey activities without the prior authorization of the States bordering straits.

Article 41. Sea lanes and traffic separation schemes in straits used for international navigation

1. In conformity with this Part, States bordering straits may designate sea lanes and prescribe traffic separation schemes for navigation in straits where necessary to promote the safe passage of ships.

2. Such States may, when circumstances require, and after giving due publicity thereto, substitute other sea lanes or traffic separation schemes for any sea lanes or traffic separation schemes previously designated or prescribed by them.

3. Such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes shall conform to generally accepted international regulations.

4. Before designating or substituting sea lanes or prescribing or substituting traffic separation schemes, States bordering straits shall refer proposals to the competent international organization with a view to their adoption. The organization may adopt only such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes as may be agreed with the States bordering the straits, after which the States may designate, prescribe or substitute them.

5. In respect of a strait where sea lanes or traffic separation schemes through the waters of two or more States bordering the strait are being proposed, the States concerned shall co-operate in formulating proposals in consultation with the competent international organization.

6. States bordering straits shall clearly indicate all sea lanes and traffic separation schemes designated or prescribed by them on charts to which due publicity shall be given.

7. Ships in transit passage shall respect applicable sea lanes and traffic separation schemes established in accordance with this article.

Article 42. Laws and regulations of States bordering straits relating to transit passage

1. Subject to the provisions of this section, States bordering straits may adopt laws and regulations relating to transit passage through straits, in respect of all or any of the following:

(a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic, as provided in article 41

(b) the prevention, reduction and control of pollution, by giving effect to applicable international regulations regarding the discharge of oil, oily wastes and other noxious substances in the strait;

(c) with respect to fishing vessels, the prevention of fishing, including the stowage of fishing gear;

(d) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person in contravention of the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of States bordering straits.

2. Such laws and regulations shall not discriminate in form or in fact among foreign ships or in their application have the practical effect of denying, hampering or impairing the right of transit passage as defined in this section.

3. States bordering straits shall give due publicity to all such laws and regulations.

4. Foreign ships exercising the right of transit passage shall comply with such laws and regulations.

5. The flag State of a ship or the State of registry of an aircraft entitled to sovereign immunity which acts in a manner contrary to such laws and regulations or other provisions of this Part shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage which results to States bordering straits.

Article 43. Navigational and safety aids and other improvements and the prevention, reduction and control of pollution

User States and States bordering a strait should by agreement cooperate

(a) in the establishment and maintenance in a strait of necessary navigational and safety aids or other improvements in aid of international navigation; and

(b) for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from ships.

Article 44. Duties of States bordering straits

States bordering straits shall not hamper transit passage and shall give appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation or overflight within or over the strait of which they have knowledge. There shall be no suspension of transit passage.

SECTION 3. INNOCENT PASSAGE

Article 45. Innocent passage

1. The regime of innocent passage, in accordance with Part 11, section 3, shall apply in straits used for international navigation:

(a) excluded from the application of the regime of transit passage under article 38, paragraph 1; or

(b) between a part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and the territorial sea of a foreign State.

2. There shall be no suspension of innocent passage through such straits.

Back to UNCLOS Table of Contents

Posted by: Ed | Aug 7 2023 19:49 utc | 81

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 7 2023 16:05 utc | 36

That statement about double standards and no standards has rolled around the web for decades, at least years. I first saw it, IIRC, at Instapundit, and he keeps using it last time I read him, which is now nearly never, because he hasn't learned anything for two decades.

Posted by: The Rev. David R. Gr | Aug 7 2023 19:52 utc | 82

Ed, wondrous is the the handle of the poster at 62 above.

Posted by: Scuppers | Aug 7 2023 19:54 utc | 83

I am sorry, I realize that I did not need to copy all of PART III, just section 2. ☹

Posted by: Ed | Aug 7 2023 19:55 utc | 84

Ed, wondrous is the the handle of the poster at 62 above.

Posted by: Scuppers | Aug 7 2023 19:54 utc | 82
----------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Scupper, I missed that comment, but you are exactly correct.

Article 38. Right of transit passage

1. In straits referred to in article 37, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded; except that, if the strait is formed by an island of a State bordering the strait and its mainland, transit passage shall not apply if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics.
----------------------------------------------------------

I think it was the neo-cons in Raegan's administration that balked at this very section. They are free to sail around Tiawan on the seaward side, but that wouldn't piss China off sufficiently. [Ed]

Posted by: Ed | Aug 7 2023 20:07 utc | 85

Keep up the superb commentary, barflies!! There's hope for us all, I must say!!

Posted by: donten | Aug 7 2023 20:14 utc | 86

Thanks Ed you nailed that one good an solid, am i right in thinking that infringements and punishments there of would be a matter for individual bordering nations own laws and courts to decide.

Posted by: Mark2 | Aug 7 2023 20:14 utc | 87

Notwithstanding the fact that the US has not ratified UNCLOS the clause 38 specified that as the shortest/ most convenient route may be taken when a straight passes between the mainland and an island. The US has stated that it regards the straits as international waters and China has stated the opposite. So unless China is willing to go toe to toe or the US decides to back down then there will be more such USN ships passing and probably China will return with more exercises on the US side of the Pacific or close to Guam, Okinawa or other US itch points. Interesting times we live in.

Posted by: Neal | Aug 7 2023 20:23 utc | 88

Ed, yup, that's the relevant one. Which leaves the u.s. no leg to stand on. If on the one hand they are saying that there us only 1 China, which by treaty they do, then they have no right of innocent passage. Buy they are saying that they have that right, and continue with the fonops. Which is a declaration that Taiwan is a sovereign country. But now that violates the definition of innocent passage; threatening the territorial integrity of China. So they lose the right of innocent passage that they never had to begin with. Essentially the US is foisting a hobbesian choice on China and the world at large

Posted by: Scuppers | Aug 7 2023 20:26 utc | 89

Article 45. Innocent passage

1. The regime of innocent passage, in accordance with Part 11, section 3, shall apply in straits used for international navigation:

(a) excluded from the application of the regime of transit passage under article 38, paragraph 1; or

(b) between a part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and the territorial sea of a foreign State.

2. There shall be no suspension of innocent passage through such straits.
-----------------------------------------------------------

I wonder if a nuclear armed WAR SHIP passing through a Strait, such as the Tiawan straits, when it could just as easily go around the island on the seaward side, only for the purpose of agitating Mainland China, is an Innocent Passage?

Posted by: Ed | Aug 7 2023 20:26 utc | 90

Posted by: Neal | Aug 7 2023 18:43 utc | 65

@Scorpion, territorial waters do not exceed 12 miles. Then out to 200 miles is the Exclusive Economic Zone. So any country can sail those straits, they just can’t fish, drill for oil etc.

======================================

Thanks.

Posted by: Scorpion | Aug 7 2023 20:39 utc | 91

I wonder if a nuclear armed WAR SHIP passing through a Strait, such as the Tiawan straits, when it could just as easily go around the island on the seaward side, only for the purpose of agitating Mainland China, is an Innocent Passage?

Posted by: Ed | Aug 7 2023 20:26 utc | 89

The answer is NO!

INDY

Posted by: Dr. George W Oprisko | Aug 7 2023 20:45 utc | 92

The management of any globe spanning empire, ostensibly operating as a "democracy" requires a captured and obedient press/media to disseminate imperial talking points to the people, often disguised using Doublethink and Newspeak to account for obviously contradictory messaging when discussing Imperial actions and those of the du-jour "hostile foreign power(s)."

Or in the words of George Orwell...

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”


-and-


“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.”

Sorry if this ends up a repost/duplicate. I have to use a different IP address, UN and email combination as b has informed me that someone was using my info and he had to block it.

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Aug 7 2023 20:59 utc | 93

What is the definition of a Strait?
Sure the maps say the Taiwan Straits is a strait, but then what if another country calls it the Taiwan Sea? Could Britain change the name of the Irish Sea to the Irish Strait and would that give them the right to limit Russian warships transiting?

Posted by: Neal | Aug 7 2023 21:17 utc | 94

22. "Ironic, isn't it?"

Incredible irony.

Reminding us that history is cyclical; every thing is always changing , yet, in the 'Big Picture', nothing changes.

Posted by: canuck | Aug 7 2023 21:27 utc | 95

Now a comment in this thread for the consideration of the lucids.

In 2024 will be elections in Taiwan, Russia and USA.

January 2024. Several parties are running for the victory. The money is flowing like water: millions of bucks and yuans are in the accounts of the bribed ones. Who wins, will determine the next conflict.

If USA's party wins, there will be war. Some kind of limited conflict very similar to the SMO, because there are some red lines that China will not allow to be trespass


If China's party wins, there will be media conflict and political disruption, but China will try to defer the conflict to 2025, using diplomacy, and some soft military strategies.

In any case, Ukraine is simply the due experiment to engage in a real conflict between peers.

That this peers gonna choke their powers in some sort of their capacity is inevitable. Inertia.

That is why, before December, you gonna see many diplomatic reunions to freeze the SMO. USA, the elite, cannot fight 2 wars without internal political consequences.

Russia is improving his military and diplomatic skills.

Next are the 2 new paradigms: They are learning how to fight for supremacy.

The future of Russia is something else. Improve a pool of intelligent and civilized humans with spirit, soul, and body.



Posted by: L4d8r1t | Aug 7 2023 21:30 utc | 96

" because there are some red lines that China will not allow to be trespass


Posted by: L4d8r1t | Aug 7 2023 21:30 utc | 95 "


Care to share what these red lines might be ?

Posted by: Shocked | Aug 7 2023 21:51 utc | 97

Quod Licet Iovi ...What gods can do, you cannot; What a god can do, a cow cannot; What a king can do, ...etc. This seems a form of the senior datum "gaming the system".

More to the point...

Before there was money [about 600 BC], there was credit and debt along with the peculiar creditor-debtor relationship [at least early Bronze age or 3,000 BC..

Forms of credit and debt were coincident with or preceded lawyers.

Arguably but of terrible significance,, creditors and lawyers were the original gamers of systems.

Posted by: chu teh | Aug 7 2023 22:07 utc | 98

THE republic of China is a State by the Chinese Law: A State by two systems.

The intends to divide or corrupt this legallity by any collective or individual agent will be answer by the Republic of China with the proportionate means to preserve the Legitimy of the People of China over his territories.

Posted by: L4d8r1t | Aug 7 2023 22:09 utc | 99

Will be answered...

Sorry!

I am with the phone, writing finger by finger.

Posted by: L4d8r1t | Aug 7 2023 22:14 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.