Tuesday, October 27, 2015

U.S. ship passes island in South China Sea; Lauren Bush


Link: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/27/asia/us-china-south-china-sea/index.html

On Tuesday, China was concerned over the presence of a U.S. navy warship near one of China’s artificial islands in the South China Sea. China's Foreign Ministry stated that the ship "illegally entered into the waters of China's Spratly Islands…The action taken by the U.S. warship has threatened China's sovereignty and security interest, and has put the safety of personnel on the reefs in danger.”
U.S. defense officials said that the U.S. doesn't recognize the artificial islands as Chinese sovereign territory, so they say operation didn't offend any boundaries, and that thy have the right to navigate through those waters.
The South China Sea holds many unsettled territorial claims; these include China, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. But in the past 18 months, China has reclaimed Subi, Mischief and Fiery Cross reefs of the Spratly Islands. Here, they have built airstrips capable of handling bombers.
This isn't the first time a conflict has risen between the U.S. and China over the freedom of navigation in these waters. In May, a U.S. surveillance plane flew over the Spratly Islands, which China viewed as a threat. ”China is resolutely opposed to any country damaging China's sovereignty and security interest in the name of freedom of navigation and overflight.”
Yoshihide Suga, Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary, said "it was extremely important that the international community work together in order to protect open, free and peaceful ocean.” Australia also supports the rights of all countries to travel through the South China Sea.

I’m questioning if this is really about the U.S.’s right to travel through the South China Sea or if we’re concerned about the potential bomber-airstrips. The U.S. has been fighting strongly for their rights throughout history. This can be seen in the War of 1812, the Civil War, and many other examples. But do the same principles that motivated those movements apply to this situation as well?

1 comment:

  1. Im surprised you did not bring up the court case of Gibbons vs. Ogden

    ReplyDelete