China on our doorstep

[3 hound]

Yeah except Russians are getting smashed by Ukrainians who are being trained and tutored by Americans. As for China their troops or generals have 0 experience in any real conflicts.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

 

[JohnDe]

The crazy part to me is that it was only a couple of weeks ago that the Australian government way upset that China sailed a ship in international water along the Australian coast, but as it turns out we have been flying Surveillance aircraft up there routinely.

As for dangerous intercepts and manoeuvres, this has been almost common between nations that are trying to intimidate other forces who they believe are being to intrusive.

Check out this old footage of Russian bombers doing low passes over US aircraft carriers.

Crazy to you? Read the article that I posted before your post, it explains some of the issues that you are struggling with.

Chinese fighter’s indefensible action is full of hypocrisy. The interception by a Chinese J-16 fighter aircraft of an Australian surveillance plane in the South China Sea was aggressive, reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, gratuitous and illegal.​

​

Australia, like most nations, does not recognise the sovereignty or legitimacy of Beijing’s rule over islands in the South China Sea it has taken by force or simply constructed. This was also the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016, which Beijing refuses to recognise.​

​

Nonetheless, in the ship transits and air surveillance that Australian navy and air force assets undertake in the South China Sea, they do not breach the 12 nautical mile territorial waters zone that applies to any nation’s territory.​

​

Beyond the 12 nautical miles, there can be absolutely no dispute that Australia is operating legally in international waters or international air space.​

​

Thus, while the then Morrison government was unhappy that a Chinese spy ship sailed close to the coast of Western Australia, Canberra did not suggest Beijing was behaving illegally. Nor did it send out Australian war ships to cut off and threaten to ram the Chinese vessel, be the equivalent of Beijing’s action against the Australian P8 maritime surveillance aircraft.​

​

Beijing’s aircraft and ships have been behaving aggressively in territory around Taiwan and around Japanese islands which are claimed by China, for some years. The US air force and navy has been frequently surprised by how dangerous and irresponsible Chinese military stunts directed at US assets have often been.​

​

Beijing’s intentions appear to be to exercise intimidation, to raise the level or risk and cost for other nations operating in areas where Beijing wants to assert control, and to show its intent is decisive, ruthless and expanding.​

​

​

Chinese J-16 jet fighter dumps flares​

 

[3 hound]

Crazy to you? Read the article that I posted before your post, it explains some of the issues that you are struggling with.

Chinese fighter’s indefensible action is full of hypocrisy. The interception by a Chinese J-16 fighter aircraft of an Australian surveillance plane in the South China Sea was aggressive, reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, gratuitous and illegal.​

​

Australia, like most nations, does not recognise the sovereignty or legitimacy of Beijing’s rule over islands in the South China Sea it has taken by force or simply constructed. This was also the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016, which Beijing refuses to recognise.​

​

Nonetheless, in the ship transits and air surveillance that Australian navy and air force assets undertake in the South China Sea, they do not breach the 12 nautical mile territorial waters zone that applies to any nation’s territory.​

​

Beyond the 12 nautical miles, there can be absolutely no dispute that Australia is operating legally in international waters or international air space.​

​

Thus, while the then Morrison government was unhappy that a Chinese spy ship sailed close to the coast of Western Australia, Canberra did not suggest Beijing was behaving illegally. Nor did it send out Australian war ships to cut off and threaten to ram the Chinese vessel, be the equivalent of Beijing’s action against the Australian P8 maritime surveillance aircraft.​

​

Beijing’s aircraft and ships have been behaving aggressively in territory around Taiwan and around Japanese islands which are claimed by China, for some years. The US air force and navy has been frequently surprised by how dangerous and irresponsible Chinese military stunts directed at US assets have often been.​

​

Beijing’s intentions appear to be to exercise intimidation, to raise the level or risk and cost for other nations operating in areas where Beijing wants to assert control, and to show its intent is decisive, ruthless and expanding.​

​

View attachment 142577​

Chinese J-16 jet fighter dumps flares​

What point are you making (I read the article)?

 

[Value Collector]

Crazy to you? Read the article that I posted before your post, it explains some of the issues that you are struggling with.

Chinese fighter’s indefensible action is full of hypocrisy. The interception by a Chinese J-16 fighter aircraft of an Australian surveillance plane in the South China Sea was aggressive, reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, gratuitous and illegal.​

​

Australia, like most nations, does not recognise the sovereignty or legitimacy of Beijing’s rule over islands in the South China Sea it has taken by force or simply constructed. This was also the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016, which Beijing refuses to recognise.​

​

Nonetheless, in the ship transits and air surveillance that Australian navy and air force assets undertake in the South China Sea, they do not breach the 12 nautical mile territorial waters zone that applies to any nation’s territory.​

​

Beyond the 12 nautical miles, there can be absolutely no dispute that Australia is operating legally in international waters or international air space.​

​

Thus, while the then Morrison government was unhappy that a Chinese spy ship sailed close to the coast of Western Australia, Canberra did not suggest Beijing was behaving illegally. Nor did it send out Australian war ships to cut off and threaten to ram the Chinese vessel, be the equivalent of Beijing’s action against the Australian P8 maritime surveillance aircraft.​

​

Beijing’s aircraft and ships have been behaving aggressively in territory around Taiwan and around Japanese islands which are claimed by China, for some years. The US air force and navy has been frequently surprised by how dangerous and irresponsible Chinese military stunts directed at US assets have often been.​

​

Beijing’s intentions appear to be to exercise intimidation, to raise the level or risk and cost for other nations operating in areas where Beijing wants to assert control, and to show its intent is decisive, ruthless and expanding.​

​

View attachment 142577​

Chinese J-16 jet fighter dumps flares​

I did read the article and a few others, I still think it’s crazy that our government is upset by the Chinese ship sailing down here when we are routinely flying up there.

Don’t you think the two are related, eg that maybe China decided to send their ship down here because we have been flying Surveillance planes up in the south China sea.

 

[JohnDe]

I did read the article and a few others, I still think it’s crazy that our government is upset by the Chinese ship sailing down here when we are routinely flying up there.

Don’t you think the two are related, eg that maybe China decided to send their ship down here because we have been flying Surveillance planes up in the south China sea.

The Australian military/Navy did not put the Chinese ship into a dangerous position, it was not approached and no attempt to endanger Chinese lives was made.

China’s sweeping claims of sovereignty over the sea—and the sea’s estimated 11 billion barrels of untapped oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas—have antagonized competing claimants Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam.​

​

In July 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague issued its ruling on a claim brought against China by the Philippines under UNCLOS, ruling in favor of the Philippines on almost every count. While China is a signatory to the treaty, which established the tribunal, it refuses to accept the court’s authority.​

​

In recent years, satellite imagery has shown China’s increased efforts to reclaim land in the South China Sea by physically increasing the size of islands or creating new islands altogether. In addition to piling sand onto existing reefs, China has constructed ports, military installations, and airstrips—particularly in the Paracel and Spratly Islands, where it has twenty and seven outposts, respectively. China has militarized Woody Island by deploying fighter jets, cruise missiles, and a radar system.​

 

[Value Collector]

The Australian military/Navy did not put the Chinese ship into a dangerous position, it was not approached and no attempt of endangering Chinese lives was made.

China’s sweeping claims of sovereignty over the sea—and the sea’s estimated 11 billion barrels of untapped oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas—have antagonized competing claimants Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam.​

​

In July 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague issued its ruling on a claim brought against China by the Philippines under UNCLOS, ruling in favor of the Philippines on almost every count. While China is a signatory to the treaty, which established the tribunal, it refuses to accept the court’s authority.​

​

In recent years, satellite imagery has shown China’s increased efforts to reclaim land in the South China Sea by physically increasing the size of islands or creating new islands altogether. In addition to piling sand onto existing reefs, China has constructed ports, military installations, and airstrips—particularly in the Paracel and Spratly Islands, where it has twenty and seven outposts, respectively. China has militarized Woody Island by deploying fighter jets, cruise missiles, and a radar system.​

Yes I understand that, and I am not condone if the actions of the fighter jet (although as I mentioned above it has been a common thing done by both USA, Russia and other countries in the past)

What I am shocked about is the fact that the Australian government can be at all upset or shocked by the Chinese ship.

 

[JohnDe]

Yes I understand that, and I am not condone if the actions of the fighter jet (although as I mentioned above it has been a common thing done by both USA, Russia and other countries in the past)

What I am shocked about is the fact that the Australian government can be at all upset or shocked by the Chinese ship.

Just because it's "a common thing done by both USA, Russia and other countries in the past", does not make it right or something to be ignored.

I do not understand your confusion. The Australian government has made it quite clear why they are concerned -

Australia on Sunday said a Chinese fighter jet carried out dangerous maneuvers threatening the safety of one of its maritime surveillance planes over the South China Sea and forcing it to return to the base.​

​

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his government expressed concern to China over the May 26 incident, which the Defense Ministry said took place in international airspace where a Chinese J-16 intercepted a P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft on routine patrol.​

​

“We’re operating completely within our rights ... most of our trade traverses the South China Sea,” Marles said. “This incident will not deter Australia from continuing to engage in these activities, which are within our rights and international law to assure that there is freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, because that is fundamentally in our nation’s interest.”​

 

[Value Collector]

Just because it's "a common thing done by both USA, Russia and other countries in the past", does not make it right or something to be ignored.

I do not understand your confusion. The Australian government has made it quite clear why they are concerned -

Australia on Sunday said a Chinese fighter jet carried out dangerous maneuvers threatening the safety of one of its maritime surveillance planes over the South China Sea and forcing it to return to the base.​

​

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his government expressed concern to China over the May 26 incident, which the Defense Ministry said took place in international airspace where a Chinese J-16 intercepted a P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft on routine patrol.​

​

“We’re operating completely within our rights ... most of our trade traverses the South China Sea,” Marles said. “This incident will not deter Australia from continuing to engage in these activities, which are within our rights and international law to assure that there is freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, because that is fundamentally in our nation’s interest.”​

Ok, if you can’t see the double standard between us routinely sending Surveillance aircraft into the south China sea, but then acting all shocked and upset when they send a surveillance ship along the coast of Australia then I don’t know what else to say.

(Please don’t bring up the intercept aircraft again, I have already said I don’t condone that and that I am not actually talking about to that, I am talking about how upset The government was a few weeks again about the chineses ship, when they know that we regularly send planes up there)

If the Australian government doesn’t want Chinese surveillance around Australia, maybe we shouldn’t be sending our military up there.

 

[Dona Ferentes]

What was the old saying " beware of Greeks bearing gifts". Lol

©

 

[JohnDe]

Ok, if you can’t see the double standard between us routinely sending Surveillance aircraft into the south China sea, but then acting all shocked and upset when they send a surveillance ship along the coast of Australia then I don’t know what else to say.

It is you that can not see, even when I show you the reasoning.

I will try in simplistic terms -

The South China Sea is a major trade route, over 50% of Australian trade and 80% of world trade travels through it. The waters of that area are classified as international waters "International waters are those located outside any nation's territorial waters. Some refer to these waters as the open seas or the high seas". The Australian government has a duty to protect Australia's maritime jurisdiction, which includes trade, shipping, cargo, passengers and crew.

Australia’s national objective for civil maritime security is to deter or prevent illegal activity from occurring in Australia’s maritime jurisdiction and where necessary to interdict and enforce Australian laws. In terms of tonnes of cargo shipped and kilometres travelled, Australia is the world’s fifth largest shipping nation. Australian and foreign ships carry Australian passengers, crew and cargo within and beyond Australian waters. Australia therefore has strong economic and national interests in maintaining civil maritime security within and beyond Australian waters.​

The Australian surveillance plane was conducting a routine patrol in free international waters, which it has done on a regular basis since 1980.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his government expressed concern to China over the May 26 incident, which the Defense Ministry said took place in international airspace where a Chinese J-16 intercepted a P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft on routine patrol.​

“We’re operating completely within our rights ... most of our trade traverses the South China Sea,” Marles said. “This incident will not deter Australia from continuing to engage in these activities, which are within our rights and international law to assure that there is freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, because that is fundamentally in our nation’s interest.”​

If the Australian government doesn’t want Chinese surveillance around Australia, maybe we shouldn’t be sending our military up there.

Australia may not want "Chinese surveillance around Australia", but I do not see your point. As I have explained numerous times, including once again above, The P-8A was conducting surveillance in international waters. Those trade routes do not belong to China, the P-8A was not near the Chinese mainland.
The Australian government made an official remark about the Chinese ship that was caught conducting surveillance near the Australian mainland. However, the Australian government did not send a Naval ship to harass it, nor did they make an official complaint.

Once again - the P-8A was traveling in defined area of international waters/airspace.

The South China Sea is a critical commercial gateway for a significant portion of the world’s merchant shipping, and hence is an important economic and strategic sub-region of the Indo-Pacific.​

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which was concluded in 1982 and came into force in 1994, established a legal framework intended to balance the economic and security interests of coastal states with those of seafaring nations. UNCLOS enshrines the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), a 200 nautical mile area that extends sole exploitation rights to coastal nations over marine resources. However, the EEZ was never intended to serve as a security zone, and UNCLOS also guarantees wide-ranging passage rights for naval vessels and military aircraft.​

Australia has significant interests in the South China Sea, both economically, in terms of freedom of trade and navigation, and geopolitically, as the United States is invested in upholding the rules-based order in the region. Australia has been conducting its own airborne surveillance operations in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean, called Operation Gateway, since 1980.​

Read the rules and the history. You got this one wrong, admit it and move on.

 

[Value Collector]

It is you that can not see, even when I show you the reasoning.

I will try in simplistic terms -

The South China Sea is a major trade route, over 50% of Australian trade and 80% of world trade travels through it. The waters of that area are classified as international waters "International waters are those located outside any nation's territorial waters. Some refer to these waters as the open seas or the high seas". The Australian government has a duty to protect Australia's maritime jurisdiction, which includes trade, shipping, cargo, passengers and crew.

Australia’s national objective for civil maritime security is to deter or prevent illegal activity from occurring in Australia’s maritime jurisdiction and where necessary to interdict and enforce Australian laws. In terms of tonnes of cargo shipped and kilometres travelled, Australia is the world’s fifth largest shipping nation. Australian and foreign ships carry Australian passengers, crew and cargo within and beyond Australian waters. Australia therefore has strong economic and national interests in maintaining civil maritime security within and beyond Australian waters.​

The Australian surveillance plane was conducting a routine patrol in free international waters, which it has done on a regular basis since 1980.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his government expressed concern to China over the May 26 incident, which the Defense Ministry said took place in international airspace where a Chinese J-16 intercepted a P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft on routine patrol.​

“We’re operating completely within our rights ... most of our trade traverses the South China Sea,” Marles said. “This incident will not deter Australia from continuing to engage in these activities, which are within our rights and international law to assure that there is freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, because that is fundamentally in our nation’s interest.”​

Australia may not want "Chinese surveillance around Australia", but I do not see your point. As I have explained numerous times, including once again above, The P-8A was conducting surveillance in international waters. Those trade routes do not belong to China, the P-8A was not near the Chinese mainland.
The Australian government made an official remark about the Chinese ship that was caught conducting surveillance near the Australian mainland. However, the Australian government did not send a Naval ship to harass it, nor did they make an official complaint.

Once again - the P-8A was traveling in defined area of international waters/airspace.

The South China Sea is a critical commercial gateway for a significant portion of the world’s merchant shipping, and hence is an important economic and strategic sub-region of the Indo-Pacific.​

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which was concluded in 1982 and came into force in 1994, established a legal framework intended to balance the economic and security interests of coastal states with those of seafaring nations. UNCLOS enshrines the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), a 200 nautical mile area that extends sole exploitation rights to coastal nations over marine resources. However, the EEZ was never intended to serve as a security zone, and UNCLOS also guarantees wide-ranging passage rights for naval vessels and military aircraft.​

Australia has significant interests in the South China Sea, both economically, in terms of freedom of trade and navigation, and geopolitically, as the United States is invested in upholding the rules-based order in the region. Australia has been conducting its own airborne surveillance operations in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean, called Operation Gateway, since 1980.​

Read the rules and the history. You got this one wrong, admit it and move on.

The Chinese ship was also in international waters, in an area where a large amount of its trade passes through.

What parts of the South China Sea are Chinese is confusing and open for debate, for example Australia still doesn’t officially recognise Taiwan, the Australian government considers it as a province of China, so flying anywhere near Taiwan may upset China.

China (just like Australia) claims that many Island and reefs for part of their territory too, so as I said things are debatable as to where certain lines are.

But needless to say if you walk past some ones house filming them every day, you can be upset if they eventually walk past yours doing the same, and maybe throw an egg at you one day.

 

[JohnDe]

The Chinese ship was also in international waters, in an area where a large amount of its trade passes through.

What parts of the South China Sea are Chinese is confusing and open for debate, for example Australia still doesn’t officially recognise Taiwan, the Australian government considers it as a province of China, so flying anywhere near Taiwan may upset China.

China (just like Australia) claims that many Island and reefs for part of their territory too, so as I said things are debatable as to where certain lines are.

But needless to say if you walk past some ones house filming them every day, you can be upset if they eventually walk past yours doing the same, and maybe throw an egg at you one day.

And again, Australian military forces did not harass or cause any safety issues with the Chinese navy ship. Unlike the Chinese fighter plane, which “The intercept resulted in a dangerous manoeuvre which posed a safety threat to the P-8 aircraft and its crew”

Unlike China, Australia is working within the rules and guidelines of international laws.

Government will not complain about Chinese navy ship near Australian waters​

Chinese spy ship has been seen near secretive naval facility off Western Australia​

‘Act of intimidation’: Morrison condemns Chinese navy for shining laser at Australian surveillance plane​

China may have claimed many Islands and reefs, using your example of "walking past a house and filming" - walking past the same house does not give you the right to claim it.

China has no right to stop or inhibit shipping or air travel in the South China Seas, just like Australia does not. The difference is that China has and is using intimidatory and dangerous actions, whereas Australia uses words and rules.

Australia has been patrolling the contested area since 1980.

Australia has every right to mention and discuss foreign military ships near its waters, especially when there are incidents that require reporting. Not once has an Australian military personal intimidated the Chinese, unless you believe patrolling our trade routes and protecting our interests is intimidation.

I notice that when your view is question by a valid point, you start to rant and rave, clutching at straws. It undermines all your posts, even the correct ones. Time for you to accept that you are traveling the wrong creek, and without a paddle.

Law of the Sea - United Nations

B. Recent judgments, awards and orders
Permanent Court of Arbitration: The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China), 12 July 2016

1. China’s maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, like those of the Philippines, may not extend beyond those expressly permitted by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea;
2. China’s claims to sovereign rights jurisdiction, and to “historic rights”, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the so-called “nine-dash line” are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements expressly permitted by UNCLOS;
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...
6. ...
7. ...
8. China has unlawfully interfered with the enjoyment and exercise of the sovereign rights of the Philippines with respect to the living and non-living resources of its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf;
9. China has unlawfully failed to prevent its nationals and vessels from exploiting the living resources in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines;
10. China has unlawfully prevented Philippine fishermen from pursuing their livelihoods by interfering with traditional fishing activities at Scarborough Shoal;
11. China has violated its obligations under the Convention to protect and preserve the marine environment at Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef;
12. China’s occupation of and construction activities on Mischief Reef
    (a) violate the provisions of the Convention concerning artificial islands, installations and structures;
    (b) violate China’s duties to protect and preserve the marine environment under the Convention; and
    (c) constitute unlawful acts of attempted appropriation in violation of the Convention;

 

[Value Collector]

And again, Australian military forces did not harass or cause any safety issues with the Chinese navy ship. Unlike the Chinese fighter plane, which “The intercept resulted in a dangerous manoeuvre which posed a safety threat to the P-8 aircraft and its crew”

Unlike China, Australia is working within the rules and guidelines of international laws.

Government will not complain about Chinese navy ship near Australian waters​

Chinese spy ship has been seen near secretive naval facility off Western Australia​

‘Act of intimidation’: Morrison condemns Chinese navy for shining laser at Australian surveillance plane​

China may have claimed many Islands and reefs, using your example of "walking past a house and filming" - walking past the same house does not give you the right to claim it.

China has no right to stop or inhibit shipping or air travel in the South China Seas, just like Australia does not. The difference is that China has and is using intimidatory and dangerous actions, whereas Australia uses words and rules.

Australia has been patrolling the contested area since 1980, long before China got there.

Australia has every right to mention and discuss foreign military ships near its waters, especially when there are incidents that require reporting. Not once has an Australian military personal intimidated the Chinese, unless you believe patrolling our trade routes and protecting our interests is intimidation.

I notice that when your view is question by a valid point, you start to rant and rave, clutching at straws. It undermines all your posts, even the correct ones. Time for you ta accept that you are traveling the wrong creek without a paddle.

Law of the Sea - United Nations

B. Recent judgments, awards and orders
Permanent Court of Arbitration: The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China), 12 July 2016

1. China’s maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, like those of the Philippines, may not extend beyond those expressly permitted by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea;
2. China’s claims to sovereign rights jurisdiction, and to “historic rights”, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the so-called “nine-dash line” are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements expressly permitted by UNCLOS;
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...
6. ...
7. ...
8. China has unlawfully interfered with the enjoyment and exercise of the sovereign rights of the Philippines with respect to the living and non-living resources of its exclusive economic zone and continental
   shelf;
9. China has unlawfully failed to prevent its nationals and vessels from exploiting the living resources in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines;
10. China has unlawfully prevented Philippine fishermen from pursuing their livelihoods by interfering with traditional fishing activities at Scarborough Shoal;
11. China has violated its obligations under the Convention to protect and preserve the marine environment at Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef;
12. China’s occupation of and construction activities on Mischief Reef
    (a) violate the provisions of the Convention concerning artificial islands, installations and structures;
    (b) violate China’s duties to protect and preserve the marine environment under the Convention; and
    (c) constitute unlawful acts of attempted appropriation in violation of the Convention;

And again, I didn’t condone the actions of that Chinese fighter jet. (You really seem to want to attack points I am not making)

All I am simply saying is, it’s crazy how hysterical the Australian government got just because a Chinese surveillance ship came near by, when we routinely do the same.

(Again I am not talking about the Chinese fighters actions, I am talking about the Australian governments hypocrisy about fretting over Chinese ships when we are the ones sending surveillance craft into Asia routinely)

Also, people freak out the moment China starts laying claim to a few island etc it considers part of China, but it’s the USA that has the longest history of expanding its territory using islands and military bases etc in the Asia pacific.

I can bet if China attempted to fly a surveillance plane near Hawaii the USA would intercept it.

 

[JohnDe]

And again, I didn’t condone the actions of that Chinese fighter jet. (You really seem to want to attack points I am not making)

All I am simply saying is, it’s crazy how hysterical the Australian government got just because a Chinese surveillance ship came near by, when we routinely do the same.

(Again I am not talking about the Chinese fighters actions, I am talking about the Australian governments hypocrisy about fretting over Chinese ships when we are the ones sending surveillance craft into Asia routinely)

Also, people freak out the moment China starts laying claim to a few island etc it considers part of China, but it’s the USA that has the longest history of expanding its territory using islands and military bases etc in the Asia pacific.

I can bet if China attempted to fly a surveillance plane near Hawaii the USA would intercept it.

And again you miss the point.

The Australian government was not "hysterical" when reporting the incident. The actions of the Chinese military and the pilot are illegal and dangerous by international conventions.

And, people did not "freak out the moment China starts laying claim to a few island". The loss of islands, damage to reefs, loss of marine habitat, and the livelihood of many people that live in the area has occurred. A government in the region decided to take action.

After diplomatic discussions with China, the matter was taken to the United Nations - Law of the Sea Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs. The outcome of the case is in the document, or you can look at my previous post where I cut & paste some of the decisions that were made.

Stop blurring the issue and hypothesizing, follow the facts. You got this one wrong.

 

[Value Collector]

And again you miss the point.

The Australian government was not "hysterical" when reporting the incident. The actions of the Chinese military and the pilot are illegal and dangerous by international conventions.

And, people did not "freak out the moment China starts laying claim to a few island". The loss of islands, damage to reefs, loss of marine habitat, and the livelihood of many people that live in the area has occurred. A government in the region decided to take action.

After diplomatic discussions with China, the matter was taken to the United Nations - Law of the Sea Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs. The outcome of the case is in the document, or you can look at my previous post where I cut & paste some of the decisions that were made.

Stop blurring the issue and hypothesizing, follow the facts. You got this one wrong.

I don’t miss the point at all, it’s just not the point I am making. (Read back to my original statement and you will see it has nothing to do with the point you are being repeatedly trying to make)

Anyway this is getting circular, so I will leave it with you.

 

[JohnDe]

I don’t miss the point at all, it’s just not the point I am making. (Read back to my original statement and you will see it has nothing to do with the point you are being repeatedly trying to make)

Anyway this is getting circular, so I will leave it with you.

Value Collector said:​

The crazy part to me is that it was only a couple of weeks ago that the Australian government way upset that China sailed a ship in international water along the Australian coast, but as it turns out we have been flying Surveillance aircraft up there routinely.​

​

As for dangerous intercepts and manoeuvres, this has been almost common between nations that are trying to intimidate other forces who they believe are being to intrusive.​

Your point -

• The crazy part to me is that it was only a couple of weeks ago that the Australian government way upset that China sailed a ship in international water along the Australian coast, but as it turns out we have been flying Surveillance aircraft up there routinely.

And I explained what the issues where - Australian government commented on the Chinese surveillance ship off the coast of Australian water but no action was taken. Whereas the Chinese military has been harassing the Australian surveillance teams in free airspace, with increasingly more dangerous methods. Australia has been openly patrolling the area since 1980 to ensure the safety of Australian trade, cargo, crew and passengers. Recently China has forcibly take islands and are building military infrastructure in open seas, which happen to be a major trade route.

• As for dangerous intercepts and manoeuvres, this has been almost common between nations that are trying to intimidate other forces who they believe are being to intrusive.

Which I commented with something like - just because other countries do it does not make it legal, correct or to be condoned. Australia, as far as I know, has never used such maneuvers on any country.

My point stands - Australia has done nothing illegal, it has not acted inappropriately, the Australian government and our military has operated above board. Whereas the Chinese government and military has/is using intimidation, breaking international laws and endangering the safety of our personal.

You definitely missed the point of the article that I posted - Chinese fighter’s action is full of hypocrisy

 

[Value Collector]

​

Your point -

• The crazy part to me is that it was only a couple of weeks ago that the Australian government was upset that China sailed a ship in international water along the Australian coast, but as it turns out we have been flying Surveillance aircraft up there routinely.

And I explained what the issues where - Australian government commented on the Chinese surveillance ship off the coast of Australian water but no action was taken. Whereas the Chinese military has been harassing the Australian surveillance teams in free airspace, with increasingly more dangerous methods. Australia has been openly patrolling the area since 1980 to ensure the safety of Australian trade, cargo, crew and passengers. Recently China has forcibly take islands and are building military infrastructure in open seas, which happen to be a major trade route.

That’s the crazy part, as I said (and you agree with) we have been sending surveillance up there for ages, and they send one ship down towards us and we have a cry about it and called it an “Aggressive Act”, now shouldn’t our surveillance mission then also be labeled aggressive acts?

I am not sure what news you watch but the government certainly did more than make a simple “comment on it”, the had a little cry about it, maybe that was mainly because it was election time but either way it seems crazy to me for us to get upset when we do the same to things.

(As I said I don’t condone the intercept, I am not talking about the intercept, I am talking about the governments response to the Chinese ship off our coast and the song and dance that happened about it. but hey intercepts are going happen, especially when you fly over contested space, as I said fly over a USA claimed area and see what happens)

 

[JohnDe]

That’s the crazy part, as I said (and you agree with) we have been sending surveillance up there for ages, and they send one ship down towards us and we have a cry about it and called it an “Aggressive Act”, now shouldn’t our surveillance mission then also be labeled aggressive acts?

I am not sure what news you watch but the government certainly did more than make a simple “comment on it”, the had a little cry about it, maybe that was mainly because it was election time but either way it seems crazy to me for us to get upset when we do the same to things.

(As I said I don’t condone the intercept, I am not talking about the intercept, I am talking about the governments response to the Chinese ship off our coast and the song and dance that happened about it. but hey intercepts are going happen, especially when you fly over contested space, as I said fly over a USA claimed area and see what happens)

Firstly, that is a lie "and you agree with"

I do not know how to put it any simpler, you either can not grasp the simplest explanations, or you are purposefully trying to muddy the discussion because you can not bring yourself to admit you are wrong.

"we have been sending surveillance up there for ages" Yes, that is correct. The reason is to protect our trade routes, cargo, ships, passengers and crew. This has been explained numerous times and examples and reasons given.

"the government certainly did more than make a simple “comment on it”" No counts were done or mentiond. The government could have made a thousand comments and reports, Australia is within its rights as mentioned in the United Nations International Law. The Chinese government has and I breaking International Law. Which part of this is crazy to yo, that Australia is following the law to the letter, or that China is breaking it?

"I am talking about the governments response to the Chinese ship off our coast" And again I have to say I - Australia is within its rights as mentioned in the United Nations International Law. The Chinese government has and I breaking International Law. Which part of this is crazy to yo, that Australia is following the law to the letter, or that China is breaking it?

 

[Sean K]

I'm finding it hard to see a level of equivalency with these two actions.

The Chinese ship was there to surveille Australia's coast.
The Australian P8 was there to surveille the SCS.
Australia monitored the Chinese ship off the WA coast and didn't approach it.
China J16 dropped chaff in front of the P8 potentially destroying the engines.

There's probably a level of information that we're not aware of here. Like, exactly where the P8 was and what they were watching and listening to and, what an Australian submarine may or may not have been doing shadowing the Chinese spy ship.

I think China are very lucky that the chaff didn't destroy an engine and bring it down.

 

[rederob]

The idea that Australia needs to defend itself from China has no basis.
However, the interests that like to propound this idea do exceptionally well from Australia's defence spending. Not on things like drones, mind you, as they are far to cheap. We need nuclear submarines!

Unlike our good American friends, China has a policy of non-intervention in affairs of State and, instead, is selling its expertise to nations which we and our good friends continue to neglect. We call China's Belt & Road initiatives "debt traps" because we didn't think of helping first. Our good American friends haven't had an embassy in the Solomon Islands for almost 30 years, but recently sent a high level delegation after China's interest, and Daniel Kritenbrink, assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs (part of the delegation), said afterwards that the US won't rule out military action if China "establishes a base in Solomon Islands." I guess that's the type of military action they are renown for in the Ukrainian war.

When it comes to hypocrisy, Australia takes the cake. China's recent visit to Timor-Leste concluded with cooperative agreements between the 2 nations. Whereas Australia is still trying to screw over this fledgling nation on oil/gas deals after secretly bugging high level meetings and prosecuting anyone who dares to let the cat out of the bag.

Hopefully Penny Wong will use her better foreign affairs skills to navigate the murky waters of our present China relationship, and get us onto a solid keel. Albanese's announcement today of a South East Asia agency in Wong's Foreign Affairs Department is an excellent first step.