China violates Vietnam territory with oil rig

[+OverSword]

Classic might makes right move IMO

From the article:

China’s placement of the giant state-owned oil rig HD-981 in Block 143 inside Vietnam’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) on May 2 was unexpected, provocative and illegal.

This incident marks the first time China has placed one of its oil rigs in the EEZ of another state without prior permission. This was an unexpected move because China-Vietnam relations have been on an upward trajectory since the visit to Hanoi by Premier Li Keqiang in October. At that time, both sides indicated they had reached agreement to carry forward discussions on maritime issues. China’s move was also unexpected because Vietnam has not undertaken any discernible provocative action that would justify China’s unprecedented actions.

China’s deployment of the rig was provocative because the oil rig was accompanied by as many as 80 ships, including seven People’s Liberation Army Navy warships. When Vietnam dispatched Coast Guard vessels to defend its sovereign jurisdiction, China responded by ordering its ships to use water cannons and to deliberately ram the Vietnamese vessels. These actions were not only highly dangerous, but caused injuries to the Vietnamese crew.

China’s actions are illegal under international law. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying justified China’s actions by claiming the rig’s operations were in Chinese “territorial waters” and had nothing to do with Vietnam. In other words, China has adopted a position similar to Japan with regard to the Senkaku Islands by declaring there is no dispute with Vietnam.

China has placed itself in an inconsistent position. China has been provocative in using paramilitary ships and aircraft to challenge Japan’s assertion of administrative control over the Senkakus. China seeks to get Tokyo to admit that the Senkaku Islands are disputed. Yet Beijing has adopted Japan’s stance with respect to Block 143 by refusing to acknowledge that there is a legal dispute between China and Vietnam.

Chinese spokesperson Hua Chunying only presented a general statement, not a detailed legal argument in support of China’s actions. Her claim that the oil rig is in Chinese “territorial waters” lacks any foundation because there is no Chinese land feature within twelve nautical miles of Block 143 on which to base this assertion. Chinese statements refer to the Paracel Islands – and not Hainan Island – as the basis for its claim.

Read it here

[Wickian]

Well this is a diagram of what China claims as it's territory. In some cases it goes right up into the shoreline of other countries.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

So basically, they're claiming just about all of the South China Sea down almost as far as AUSTRALIA.

Marvelous.

[Frank Merton]

It's based mainly on the fact that this area is widely called the South China Sea. This is on the same order of sensibleness as India claiming Madagascar because it is in the Indian Ocean.

[redhen]

Outraged Vietnamese are exacting revenge.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27403851

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

[Ogbin]

Well.. does not bigger have the right of way? After all, who is going to tell China they can't do what they want?

Edited May 14, 2014 by Ogbin

[redhen]

Well.. does not bigger have the right of way?

Might is right? How is that morally justified?

[Frank Merton]

I think the more China persists with this sort of thing, and the more it continues destroying the minority cultures, especially in Tibet, and the more it continues building its military capability, the more the rest of the world will unite against it. At the moment only Russia and N. Korea, both of which have been bought, is particularly friendly. Vietnam has been doing back flips land somersaults and even kow-tows to try to pacify the dragon, but I can see that the government is giving up (the population turned anti-Chinese several years ago).

[AtlantisRises]

Might is right? How is that morally justified?

Those who can, do. What does morality have to do with it?

Edited May 15, 2014 by AtlantisRises

[Frank Merton]

Those who can, do. What does morality have to do with it?

It may be that morality has more to do with it than might appear. What an individual or a nation does effects how others respond and treat them, and moral behavior works best long term. German might prevailed at first but in the long run generated world-wide responses that led to their defeat.

[AtlantisRises]

That is true. But it was also before the threat of global annihilation really existed. The same conditions that stopped a direct confrontation between the US and the USSR for 50 years are just as true between the US and China. More so given how much the US and any other power that may be capable of admonishing China relies on Chinese manufacturing for the vast majority of their daily needs. As well as their reliance on Chinese investment.

China may be more willing to accept the hardships to its citizenry that lack of western commerce brings then the US or European countries can tolerate. I can't see any real way for the world to sanction China in a way that it is likely to care about. China is quite capable of thumbing its nose at the world in much the way that Russia is at the moment.

[Bavarian Raven]

Might is right? How is that morally justified?

Well to be fair (not saying I agree mind you) from a biological point if view might IS right

[Frank Merton]

Destroying an offshore rig is not that hard; they are sitting ducks and China will have to spend tons protecting them. I think it is unwise for China to act unilaterally. They need to negotiate and let everyone involved have a cut. This would also help their relations in lots of other small ways that add up. They are however a proud bunch who probably cannot see beyond their noses.

[redhen]

Those who can, do. What does morality have to do with it?

How would you like it if an arbitrary injustice was perpetrated against you, for the sole reason "because we can" ?

[AtlantisRises]

How would you like it if an arbitrary injustice was perpetrated against you, for the sole reason "because we can" ?

I am sure I would dislike it greatly. And if I had no recourse to stop the injustice from being perpetrated upon me then whoever was performing it would have no reason to cease their actions.

[redhen]

I am sure I would dislike it greatly.

Then you've answered the question you posed earlier "What does morality have to do with it?"

[AtlantisRises]

Yes. My emotions which are of no relevance to anyone other then me. Which certainly reinforces the irrelevance of morality. If I have no ability to defend myself and there is no one willing or able to defend me then might most certainly is right.

[redhen]

Yes. My emotions which are of no relevance to anyone other then me.

Who said anything about emotions? We are discussing morality.

Which certainly reinforces the irrelevance of morality.

You believe that morality is irrelevant? You should explain that to the judge if you ever happen to be charged with an offense.

If I have no ability to defend myself and there is no one willing or able to defend me then might most certainly is right.

This is known as the is-ought fallacy. You are stating what is the case (descriptive), and concluding that therefore it should be the case (normative).

[AtlantisRises]

If I am ever bought before a judge it will be for reasons relating to the legality of an offence. Laws do not necessarily relate to morality. And I will be there largely because the police or other judicial forces have the strength to bring me there. Again their might has made there ability to detain me right. If I had the strength of arms to free myself or the speed and wit to evade capture in the first place then I would not have been bought before the judge and any sanctions that he might wish to apply be they morally or legally appropriate would be irrelevant.

And certainly there is a fallacy there. But if China feels it is in an impervious position and is above the reproach of other nations then it is still apt. Wether China is correct in its thinking is another thing all together. As I said those who can, do. At the same time those who think they can also do, and it is up to the rest of the world to prove that China can not. If as seems to be Chinas assumption, the world lacks the will to do anything about it then China is in the right. If the world has the will but lacks the ability to do anything then China is also in the right.

[redhen]

If I am ever bought before a judge it will be for reasons relating to the legality of an offence. Laws do not necessarily relate to morality.

Sure they do, morality, ethics, that's the basis of laws (at least in the West). Not all laws are moral, but they are based on moral/ethical concerns.

Ah, I didn't notice your Nietszche signature. We could have saved some time. Sure, go ahead, whatever floats your boat. Might is Right.

Meanwhile; Gen. Fang Fenghui, chief of the general staff of the People's Liberation Army, rebuked the U.S. today, at a Pentagon news conference.

http://www.businessi...nference-2014-5

[Ogbin]

As small nations and factions are seen getting away with atrocity's it is only a matter of time before we see bigger nations and factions try to do the same.

[+OverSword]

As small nations and factions are seen getting away with atrocity's it is only a matter of time before we see bigger nations and factions try to do the same.

good point.

[Frank Merton]

Sure they do, morality, ethics, that's the basis of laws (at least in the West). Not all laws are moral, but they are based on moral/ethical concerns.

Ah, I didn't notice your Nietszche signature. We could have saved some time. Sure, go ahead, whatever floats your boat. Might is Right.

Meanwhile; Gen. Fang Fenghui, chief of the general staff of the People's Liberation Army, rebuked the U.S. today, at a Pentagon news conference.

http://www.businessi...nference-2014-5

I don't think laws should be based on morality. There are lots of things one might do that may be wrong but the state should keep its nose out of. I think law should be based on the practical needs of a functioning society, not on what is right and wrong. Besides, when you start arguing the morality of a law, you break separation of church and state as often as not.

[redhen]

I don't think laws should be based on morality. There are lots of things one might do that may be wrong but the state should keep its nose out of.

Maybe morality has the wrong connotation, perhaps ethics or fairness are better words.

I'm sorry, I can't get that picture out of my head.of the Chief of the general staff of the PLA speaking at the Pentagon.

This all seems so staged and contrived.

Edited May 16, 2014 by redhen

[Yamato]

I am sure I would dislike it greatly. And if I had no recourse to stop the injustice from being perpetrated upon me then whoever was performing it would have no reason to cease their actions.

Having no recourse for that isn't right, having no reason to cease their actions isn't right either.

Might makes, it doesn't make right.