Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday November 22 2019, @07:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the artificial-islands-part-of-real-dispute dept.

US warships sail in disputed South China Sea amid tensions

Navy warships have sailed near islands claimed by China in the disputed South China Sea twice in the past few days, the United States military told Reuters on Thursday, at a time of tension between the world's two largest economies.

The busy waterway is one of a number of flashpoints in the US-China relationship, which include a trade war, US sanctions, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Earlier this week during high-level talks, China called on the US military to stop flexing its muscles in the South China Sea and adding "new uncertainties" over democratic Taiwan, which is seen as a wayward province and claimed by China.

[...] On Wednesday, the littoral combat ship Gabrielle Giffords travelled within 12 nautical miles of Mischief Reef[*], Commander Reann Mommsen, a spokeswoman for the US Navy's Seventh Fleet, told Reuters.

On Thursday, the destroyer Wayne E. Meyer challenged restrictions on innocent passage in the Paracel islands[**], Mommsen said.

"These missions are based in the rule of law and demonstrate our commitment to upholding the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea and airspace guaranteed to all nations," she added.

[...] China claims almost all the energy-rich waters of the South China Sea, where it has established military outposts on artificial islands.

However, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims to parts of the sea.

The United States accuses China of militarising the South China Sea and trying to intimidate Asian neighbours who might want to exploit its extensive oil and gas reserves.

[*] Mischief Reef
[**] Paracel Islands


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday November 22 2019, @08:34PM (4 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 22 2019, @08:34PM (#923510) Journal

    <no-sarcasm>
    I expected this days ago when it sounded like he would sign it. Seriously.

    It just seemed too out of character to sign a bill to protect human rights of an oppressor that treats Trump nicely.
    </no-sarcasm>

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday November 22 2019, @08:42PM (1 child)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday November 22 2019, @08:42PM (#923518) Journal

    Vetoing it and it getting overridden would make him look weak. So obviously that's what I'm hoping for!

    • (Score: 2) by legont on Friday November 22 2019, @11:00PM

      by legont (4179) on Friday November 22 2019, @11:00PM (#923559)

      It would also take the war blame from him. He will just get all the glory.

      --
      "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @11:07PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @11:07PM (#923561)

    It just seemed too out of character to sign a bill to protect human rights of an oppressor that treats Trump nicely.

    They haven't been treating him all that nicely. After all, as DeathMonkey points out, Trump has yet to work out a trade deal that would end his tariff war with China. No, I think it is because Trump genuinely thinks that human rights stuff is just so much namby-pamby, liberal bullshit.

    • (Score: 2) by shortscreen on Saturday November 23 2019, @10:47AM

      by shortscreen (2252) on Saturday November 23 2019, @10:47AM (#923771) Journal

      It is BS, but not because it has anything to do with human rights, which it doesn't. Congress has no ability to "protect human rights" in Hong Kong. They can't even do it here. They are just grandstanding.