[chimi]

I always wonder about claims like this where one nation says a ship was within their borders and the other nation says it was in international waters. This USS Pueblo is one incident. Israel attacked a Turkish ship in international waters. Iran attacked oil tankers in international waters.

All these incidents ... I can't help but think we never grow up as human beings all the way until becoming international super powers.

It's like a geopolitical "I'm not touching you." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgXDYiHhp5Y

It's bullying behavior. It's an aggressive provocation.

Will we ever grow up?

[UncleSlacky]

> Israel attacked a Turkish ship in international waters.

Like they did the USS Liberty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

[dredmorbius]

And the SS African Glen.

[excalibur]

Or like the US and Russia always intercepting each other's aircraft. When reported in the media there's often a lot of bellyaching, i.e. "we were just minding our own business flying in international airspace, and then they showed up and intercepted, and they were so rude!" Like, maybe if you hadn't been flying your bombers or your spy planes 13 nautical miles from their coast they would be a bit friendlier. Nobody buys your "poor me" bullshit when it's clearly an example of a defensive response to an aggressive provocation.

[russdill]

It's not really a big deal in military terms. It's almost like a joint exercise. The only problem is when an aircraft flies unsafely close.

[ocdtrekkie]

My favorite in particular in this line of "geopolitical I'm not touching you" is what we call "freedom of navigation exercises". The US runs through the South China Sea on them all the time.

Basically, China says it's their territory, the US says it is international waters. And so we "prove" it by regularly traveling through it with US warships for no other purpose then to prove we can.

[pdonis]

> China says it's their territory, the US says it is international waters. And so we "prove" it by regularly traveling through it with US warships for no other purpose then to prove we can.

Suppose the US claimed that the entire Gulf of Mexico was US territory. Would people be as sympathetic to that as they appear to be to China claiming that the entire South China Sea is Chinese territory? (Note that the South China Sea is more than twice as large as the Gulf of Mexico, and less of its coastline is part of China as compared with the amount of Gulf of Mexico coastline that is part of the US.)

[Bendingo]

> Suppose the US claimed that the entire Gulf of Mexico was US territory

Since China is a long way from the Gulf of Mexico, and has no need to sail there, I'm confident that China couldn't care less about this.

On the other hand, The South China Sea is very important to China, and very far away from USA -- why does USA care so much about it?

Perhaps you could also comment of USA claims over the Northern Sea Route (which lies within Russia’s Exclusive Economic Zone) ? [0], [1]

[0] https://www.rt.com/business/423913-northern-sea-route-us/?

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/geopolitical-conse...?

[pdonis]

> Since China is a long way from the Gulf of Mexico, and has no need to sail there, I'm confident that China couldn't care less about this.

First, many Chinese flag ships sail through the Gulf of Mexico, so I think China does care.

Second, even if China didn't care, many other countries do. And the US, unlike China, respects the rights of other countries to freedom of the seas.

> The South China Sea is very important to China, and very far away from USA -- why does USA care so much about it?

First, because many US flag ships sail through the South China Sea. We trade with many countries other than China that have coastlines on that sea. You know that, right?

Second, because, just as with the Gulf of Mexico, many other countries have ships that sail through the South China Sea, and there are internationally agreed rules about international waters and freedom of the seas, which, as noted above, China does not respect the way the US does. The only way to enforce such rules is for countries that uphold them to take action against countries that do not.

> Perhaps you could also comment of USA claims over the Northern Sea Route (which lies within Russia’s Exclusive Economic Zone) ?

This case is an excellent illustration of the proper way to negotiate rules regarding freedom of the seas: to notify other countries of something you would like to see happen, and then have a diplomatic dialogue with them. As opposed to, oh, say, just asserting that a huge chunk of ocean is your territorial waters, in contravention of international law and treaties.

Also, since you mentioned Exclusive Economic Zones, you will note that the US is not saying it wants to exploit resources in this zone; it is only saying it wants it to be a transport corridor. Which, according to current international agreements, it already is everywhere outside 12 nautical miles from Russia's coast.

[TomMarius]

Probably because if you let them, it might become their territory?

[x220]

Yup. How else can you stop Chinese colonialism?

[monocasa]

US neo-colonialism is your answer?

[nyolfen]

there's plenty in US foreign policy to criticize but maintaining the open nature of international waters for everybody is not colonialism

[catalogia]

Perhaps changing the Japanese constitution and letting them rebuilt their navy would be a better answer, though I don't expect that to happen.

[x220]

After taking a look at the Hong Kong protests, I'll gladly take American colonialism over China's. And so, apparently, would the people of Hong Kong.

[monocasa]

How does that track? China is bad for trying to assert legal authority over a city no-one disputes they own, so the US should continue imperialism?

[x220]

China sends in soldiers as police, does false flag attacks, hires the triads, tear gasses 90% of the city, kills protesters on the streets, and arrests protesters and fakes their suicides. I'd much rather deal with US police.