A Chinese ship has reportedly seized an underwater survey drone in full sight of a US Navy contracted research vessel.
The drone was taken on Dec. 15, the first seizure of its kind in recent memory, about 50 nautical miles northwest of Subic Bay off the Philippines just as the USNS Bowditch was about to retrieve the unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV), officials said.
"The UUV was lawfully conducting a military survey in the waters of the South China Sea," one official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"It's a sovereign immune vessel, clearly marked in English not to be removed from the water - that it was U.S. property," the official said.
From the CNN report:
The US got no answer from the Chinese on the radio when it said the drone was American property, the official said.
[...] US oceanographic research vessels are often followed in the water under the assumption they are spying. In this case, however, the drone was simply measuring ocean conditions, the official said.
Some background on why the South China Sea is such a tense place.
Related Stories
Amid continuing tensions in the South China Sea, the People's Liberation Army Navy is showing off its new electronic reconnaissance ship:
China's Navy has launched a new electronic reconnaissance ship, state media said on Thursday, the latest addition to an expanding fleet and as Beijing's new assertiveness to territorial claims in the South China Sea fuels tensions. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) now operates six electronic reconnaissance vessels, the official English-language China Daily newspaper said, noting that the PLA "has never made public so many details about its intelligence collection ships".
Last year, the PLA Navy commissioned 18 ships, including missile destroyers, corvettes and guided missile frigates, the paper said. China has also said it is building a second aircraft carrier. China's only carrier is the second-hand, Soviet-built Liaoning, which this week unsettled neighbors with drills in the disputed South China Sea.
Previously: China's South China Sea Claims Rejected By "Binding" but Unenforceable Tribunal Ruling
Piracy on the Open Sea?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @06:25PM
Umm.. story is a bit late.. I mean, it's an important story, but if it's going to be posted now rather than on the 15th.. it really should include the relevant updates that make it relevant today, on the 17th.. ie that china will be returning the drone.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @06:28PM
Don't get me wrong.. China is obviously in the wrong here and a lot of stuff happening in the South China Sea area, hong kong, etc recently is scary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @06:30PM
That "China" (i.e., the organization in China that calls itself "government") will be returning the drone is somewhat irrelevant to the point: Existing, voluntarily agreed-upon contracts were ignored.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @06:54PM
It's all so propaganda driven.
I think it's somewhat self evident that China had reason to believe that the device was doing more than it's intended purpose. In other words - spying. They collect the device, verify its legitimate operation and return it. And after all the revelations of our indiscretions when it comes to surveilling friend and foe alike, are such concerns not legitimate? If the roles were reversed it'd be our news media reporting investigating a mysterious automated Chinese device that we had reason to believe was engaging in illicit surveillance outside international law - or some other post facto justification. It's ultimately all irrelevant. In the end super powers only follow international law when its to their personal or collective benefit. If China or the US wanted to provoke hostilities between one another then they'll do it. The cassus belli would be secondary to the decision. You want to invade Iraq so you claim Iraq has WMD, sadly in modern times it's rarely the other way around as it ought be. On the other hand if a nation doesn't want to provoke hostilities then this is absolutely no way whatsoever going to change that.
So ultimately, who cares?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Sunday December 18 2016, @12:10AM
The thing is, right now, in Washington, there's a giant disagreement: Trump and his team want to pick a fight with Iran and then China. Most of the rest of Washington appears to have a different plan, straight out of the brain of Henry Kissinger:
1. Finish the fight against ISIS in Iraq.
2. Finish the fight against everybody in Syria. That will, among other things, allow Israel to completely officially annex the Golon Heights and the south Lebanon "security zone".
3. Build a gas pipeline from Iraq through Syria and Turkey into Europe, creating a direct competitor to Russia's gas production that is currently propping up the Russian economy.
4. Attack and destroy Iran, replacing the government with US puppets just like in Iraq and Afghanistan. It presents a salient along the southern front, and targeting it leaves the US and its allies with near-total control of the world oil supply. They're really upset with John Kerry for screwing that up, at least temporarily.
5. Israel expels or massacres the Palestinians and officially claims both Gaza and the West Bank.
6. Cut off Russia from international oil and gas trade.
7. Attack and defeat Russia militarily.
8. With Russia out of the way, the US can now bring the entire "free world" resources to bear against China.
Now, you might notice a few flaws in this plan: Among other things, both Russia and China have nukes. But just because it's a stupid plan doesn't mean the US government won't be following it.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday December 18 2016, @02:50AM
Hmm, that sounds Anti-Semitic. Belief in conspiracy theories is grounds for involuntary detainment and evaluation.
Please be a good citizen and prepare to be rendered to your local CNN office for a health-and-wellness check as well as reeducation. Resistance is Jew-tile.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday December 17 2016, @06:50PM
Yes it is being returned, probably opened and photographed, any digital storage either confiscated or copied.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/world/asia/china-us-drone.html? [nytimes.com]
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/17/china-says-appropriately-handling-us-navy-drone-seizure.html [foxnews.com]
I rather suspect the Chinese were expecting to catch the US red handed in a spying attempt, or seeking to prevent an innocuous sea-floor mapping mission from providing information for US submarine missions, or to prevent the discovery of some of their own secretly placed military assets.
Were they suckered into this?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Nerdfest on Saturday December 17 2016, @10:06PM
No, it's just that the next story is probably something like: "China Announces Sale of Advanced Undersea Drones for Research and Military Purposes".
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Sunday December 18 2016, @03:26AM
innocuous sea-floor mapping mission
Yeah. Let's go with that. Maps of the sea floor are totally important. We absolutely weren't dicking around with anyone's communications cables or anything.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @08:04PM
And here I was, expecting an article on usage of torrents on the high seas... that'll be my luck, I guess
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Saturday December 17 2016, @10:18PM
I wouldn't put much faith in what either side is claiming. It seems unlikely that a US military submersible is off doing strictly charitable work, and equally unlikely that the Chinese didn't know exactly what they were doing - trolling Trump.
I expect a that there is layer upon layer of subtext, with both sides understanding all of it perfectly well. The Chinese want to demonstrate that they pown the China Sea, and the US wants to demonstrate that they pown the whole damned world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @10:41PM
International waters are just that, international. And as long as the US was operating in international waters, the PLAN had no business seizing the drone.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday December 17 2016, @10:55PM
Precisely. As long as the drone was in international waters, the operators only have to answer to the US government, not the Chinese government.
If the Chinese want to go harrassing their ships over Chinese law, they have their right to do that, but they don't have the right to harass foreign vessels operating in international waters.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Sunday December 18 2016, @12:22AM
equally unlikely that the Chinese didn't know exactly what they were doing - trolling Trump.
They can't be trolling Trump yet with something like this. Doing it now means they are giving Obama another middle finger, like when they wouldn't give Air Force One a boarding ladder and made him exit through the belly hatch. They have made it pretty clear they neither respect nor fear him.
All new Presidents get tested early on by a foreign power or two as they probe to see just how far they can push them around. It is going to be fascinating to see which one opts to be the one to test Trump first. For example China tested both Bush II and Obama with an air incident right after they took office. Both failed, Obama abjectly, and that set the pattern for the rest of their terms. This incident isn't nearly as humiliating as Iran seizing a U.S. Navy vessel with a few rubber speedboats. All I know is when it happens next year it will be "must see TV" because nobody, and I mean nobody, has a clue what Trump will do. But bet on unconventional and interesting.
Although some think Trump was getting a jump on the game by taking that call from Taiwan, going first in the game by being unexpected. But China can't be thinking they are getting even with this incident because Trump can't react to the provocation and thus they don't gain anything over him.
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday December 18 2016, @01:16PM
Can't really fault your logic here. In the to incidents you mention, what should BII and BHO have done?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday December 18 2016, @04:30PM
Since the Chinese were clearly in the wrong in causing the accident and detained the crew instead of simply offering the assistance due any plane calling an emergency they should have been punished in some way instead of a joint statement that "allowed both countries to save face while defusing a potentially volatile situation". No admission of wrongdoing, no reparations, no promise to obey the customs of rendering assistance, nothing. China respects strength so if they balked at taking the hit from accepting full responsibility I'd have just dropped in a press conference the blunt public warning that since our pilot was awesome enough to get our people safely down we would continue working to resolve this issue peacefully but another unprovoked attack on one of our aircraft would be considered an act of war and we would do what we always do to keep the seas and skies open. Then say nothing more and let em stew for a year.
For anyone else, this Hainan Island Incident should help.
Not bothering to dig through the pages of hits about the Obama G20 incident over the boarding ladder to get to details of Obama's more serious failure, but the same solution applies. As to the ass exit incident, i'd have ordered the pilot to make a final request for one and after ten minutes filed a request for refueling and a revised flight plan. The games would have instantly stopped, the point being made.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @03:59AM
Haha, because having Obama have a hissy fit and running home from the G20 wouldn't be a propaganda benefit to anyone...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @10:36PM
Some *real* piracy news. Not the copyright kind...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @10:50PM
How can a boat assert sovereignity when it is unoccupied?
I'm not a naval lawyer, but I think the US is skating on thin ice and they may have made a mistake by using that specific word.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 17 2016, @11:52PM
That thought crossed my mind. The Chinese could assert a salvage claim, since there were no crew aboard the vessel. It would be interesting to see that go to court. Lloyd's of London would want to get in on that case! Maritime law may be up to date enough to deal with all the issues here - but I doubt it.
Alternative für Deutschland
(Score: 2) by KiloByte on Sunday December 18 2016, @12:17AM
The mother ship was in sight. There's a difference between a stray dog and one that's running unleashed but attended.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 18 2016, @01:50AM
plausible deniability - "oh, well, there's been some mistake - apparently we have some incompetent lookouts posted aboard our ships, because none of them reported seeing your ship in the vicinity - either that, or your stealth technology is really good - but you see, we've returned your drone and we all get a warm fuzzy feeling from cooperating "
So, again, there is no piracy here. The Chinese can play it any number of ways, and never admit to any wrongdoing. Unless we back them into a corner, where they might lose face.
Alternative für Deutschland