Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ceratisa t1_j1nd0r3 wrote

Inb4 we have people saying America does the same to Chinese waters, ignoring the whole international ruling against China and their absurd territory grab attempt.

885

[deleted] t1_j1ojvx4 wrote

[deleted]

111

RedShooz10 t1_j1p98zh wrote

Two things.

  1. Yes, the US is not a party to the UNCLOS. However, US domestic law holds itself to the standards outlined by the convention making it a de facto party.

  2. China is in fact a party to the convention, meaning their violations of it are even more egregious than they were already. Saying “but america!” doesn’t get them out of this one.

368

a_man_of_music t1_j1pjiap wrote

>US domestic law holds itself to the standards outlined by the convention making it a de facto party.

So what's their reason for not being part of it?

27

salartarium t1_j1pld9q wrote

The original treaty put the UN in charge of seabed mining, and allowed them to regulate and tax. It would have mainly taxed Western companies who were able to do seabed mining. Also, it originally required technology transfer and American companies would have to share their tech and patents with the whole world. After the collapse of the USSR the US pushed for the treaty to be amended to limit taxation, remove the tech Transfer, and guarantee the US a veto if they joined.

The amendment was enough to convince the W Bush admin to join the treaty, and the ratification process was started in the Senate, but basically what happened is Obama became president and supported it so the Republican Party torpedoed the treaty just to cause disruption.

122

a_man_of_music t1_j1plv4b wrote

>the Republican Party torpedoed the treaty just to cause disruption

That's disappointing and, honestly, quite childish considering it's international geopolitics.

63

bocephus607 t1_j1pp0b5 wrote

They’ll grow up one of these generations I’m sure of it. 🤞🏻

44

cjeam t1_j1pps37 wrote

Trickle down economics will eventually start working I’m sure of it 🤞🏻

30

scotchdouble t1_j1q3pno wrote

Right-wing thinking will eventually start working, I’m sure of it. 🤞🏻

14

ComradeOmarova t1_j1qylui wrote

Yeah, it’s also not accurate. There’s a reason the Democrat-controlled Senate has never brought it to the floor. Democrats don’t support ratification either.

6

LoLModsAreCancer t1_j1osrwz wrote

The US still obeys and enforces international laws.

87

MindlessVegetation t1_j1pjvaj wrote

...if that obedience or enforcement is in her Interest.The most recent example likely being Torture. Edit, some people seem uncomfortable with this.Too bad.

−17

wolflordval t1_j1p57el wrote

One of the primary chapters in my International Relations class was about US hypocrisy when it comes to laws exactly like this, and it is one of the primary points of contention when dealing with US-China and US-Middle Eastern relations.

The US has not signed the Convention of Law on the Sea, and Congress explicitly stated that the reason they won't sign is because "they do not want to be bound by it."...then of course, they turn around and deploy Carrier groups to demand China comply with the UN law, which China has signed.

The US has great strategic benefits to forcing China's compliance, and refusing to comply with it themselves. It's also funny how US fleets rarely, if ever, enforce the UN convention on their allies. Generally, only strategic "potential combatants" like China or Iran get these laws "enforced" by US Carrier fleets.

China has a lot to fucking answer for, but they are right when they accuse the US of hypocrisy in this regard. The US doesn't really have any weight when they accuse others of breaking a law they themselves refuse to follow.

−30

RedShooz10 t1_j1p9bea wrote

The US isn’t being hypocritical. Domestic law puts the US to the same standard regardless if it’s a signatory or not. Furthermore, China is blatantly breaking the law that they claim to follow.

34

wolflordval t1_j1pa0dr wrote

No it doesn't. The US does whatever is in its strategic interest, and ignores everything else. Always has.

And China is following the law... from their perspective, all their actions are in compliance with the law. We just disagree about their perspective.

If you take China's claims about the South Sea Islands at face value (you shouldn't because they're bogus, but let's pretend here) then their actions are in compliance with the UN convention. Nobody else agrees with their South Sea Claims, so from everyone else's perspective, they are breaking that law.

Instead of just bickering over if they are breaking the law, which will achieve nothing as both sides are utterly convinced of their correctness, instead we should focus on getting China to withdraw their claims. Just telling them their claims are bunk isn't going to work, especially given how much Chinese culture demands maintaining face and admitting wrongness is not allowed.

We've tried the bully approach for 70 years. It doesn't work.

−48

RedShooz10 t1_j1pd1kx wrote

Yeah I’m starting to get the vibe you didn’t actually read the terms of the Law of the Sea

33

da_impaler t1_j1pdefj wrote

Maintain face?!? Admitting wrongness is not allowed?!? lol, hahahahahaha. Whatever, China. Grow up. That is teenage behavior.

25

Karffs t1_j1qcbc3 wrote

>No it doesn't. The US does whatever is in its Chinese culture demands maintaining face and admitting wrongness is not allowed.

In most international cultures admitting when you’re wrong is part of being a fucking adult.

11

[deleted] t1_j1ou718 wrote

[deleted]

−48

sluttytinkerbells t1_j1ow2hn wrote

Wow that sounds super serious!

When was the last time the US invaded the Hague?

63

oakpc2002 t1_j1p503c wrote

Well none of war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan during the second gulf war were investigated….

−42

meamarker24 t1_j1psolg wrote

Even from the most jaded point of view, there’s so much evidence and so many examples of US servicemen being prosecuted for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan

25

TheOneEyedWolf t1_j1qjiu3 wrote

Was George Bush prosecuted for the illegal invasion of Iraq? How many dollars in reparations have been paid?

−7

Chubbybellylover888 t1_j1sjc0k wrote

You can't criticise the US here. Even if its to criticise an unpopular president.

Americans are the best people ever and answer to no one. The USA is the neatest country in the world.

All other countries are little whiny babies who are jealous.

0

Happycamper385 t1_j1uqfuo wrote

You can criticise The USA here you are free to make any critique you like.

That doesn't mean people will agree with you.

0

TheOneEyedWolf t1_j1v1897 wrote

If you look closely my comment did not criticize the USA. It questioned the credulity of the redditor who claimed that the United States held themselves to the standards of international law. Something the United States does not claim to do on an official level. The USA does not believe that they should have to be restrained from acting in their own interests by international law. Maybe they are correct. Many would say that international law is simply a tool of Europe, put in place to enforce post colonial norms in the post WWII world order.
It is easier to believe the comforting lies we tell ourselves than it is to accept complicated truths. This is not criticism - I enjoy comfort as much as anyone. However if it is truth that you after the truth is that first strike wars are illegal according to international law and the Iraq war was illegal. According to that same law anyone who prosecuted that war should be accountable for war crimes - that would include not only George Bush, but Barak Obama, and the leadership of all 49 countries that participated.
Was it the correct action? That is clearly up to debate. Was it “legal” - that answer is no.

0

Happycamper385 t1_j1vkhfr wrote

Huh ?

I wasn't responding to you I was responding to the person that said you can't criticise The USA here. Which you can do and you are doing.

1

TheOneEyedWolf t1_j1vm8gy wrote

How am I criticizing the US?

1

Happycamper385 t1_j1vqwlo wrote

Dude go read the thread I didn't say anything to you I responded to somebody else !

1

TheOneEyedWolf t1_j1vs82a wrote

You just said that I am criticizing the USA.

1

Happycamper385 t1_j1vtlm9 wrote

Chubbybellylover888 said:

> You can't criticise the US here. Even if its to criticise an unpopular president. Americans are the best people ever and answer to no one. The USA is the neatest country in the world. All other countries are little whiny babies who are jealous.

And I responded to that by saying: >You can criticise The USA here you are free to make any critique you like. That doesn't mean people will agree with you.

Then you chimed in completely unrelated: >If you look closely my comment did not criticize the USA. It questioned the credulity of the redditor who claimed that the United States held themselves to the standards of international law. Something the United States does not claim to do on an official level. The USA does not believe that they should have to be restrained from acting in their own interests by international law. Maybe they are correct. Many would say that international law is simply a tool of Europe, put in place to enforce post colonial norms in the post WWII world order.
It is easier to believe the comforting lies we tell ourselves than it is to accept complicated truths. This is not criticism - I enjoy comfort as much as anyone. However if it is truth that you after the truth is that first strike wars are illegal according to international law and the Iraq war was illegal. According to that same law anyone who prosecuted that war should be accountable for war crimes - that would include not only George Bush, but Barak Obama, and the leadership of all 49 countries that participated.
Was it the correct action? That is clearly up to debate. Was it “legal” - that answer is no.

9 year old Reddit account and I'm explaining how Reddit works to you ?

Did you buy your account or something or are you confused and Chubbybellylover888 is your alt account?

Or is this some weird troll ?

1

TheOneEyedWolf t1_j1vvq8z wrote

Do you really not understand how conversations work? Read your above comment again and see if you can’t follow the thread that connects them. After that look a few steps after where you respond to me saying that I can and did criticize the USA. Which I did not. I merely stated that according to the UN charter, wars of aggression are illegal. The war in Iraq was a war of aggression. The war in Iraq was illegal. If you believe that legality matters and that the USA should be criticized for violating a law that is in you. If you believe that the USA is wrong to hold the position that they are not bound by international law, that is on you.

Of course I see that you weren’t responding to me - but why would that prevent me from clarifying a position further along in a conversation?

Edit: I apologize for asking if you understand how a conversation works. In reflection that was rude of me.

1

Happycamper385 t1_j1w3p4m wrote

You are correct I misspoke/mistyped here it should actually be:

>Huh ? I wasn't responding to you I was responding to the person that said you can't criticise The USA here. Which you can do and you they are doing.

But I don't care about the USA or the UN or Iraq I am neither here nor there about anything you said that's why I didn't comment on it. I don't care if you critique the USA or you praise the USA the only thing I do care about is what chubbybellylover888 said which was that you can't criticise The USA here which is not true.

This comment: >"If you look closely my comment did not criticize the USA. It questioned the credulity of the redditor who......"

should have been a reply to this: >Chubbybellylover888:"You can't criticise the US here. Even if its to criticise an unpopular President...."

It shouldn't have been a response to me saying: >You can criticise The USA here you are free to make any critique you like. That doesn't mean people will agree with you.

1

TheOneEyedWolf t1_j1w497z wrote

I can see how you would interpret the conversation that way.

1

Happycamper385 t1_j1w8ceo wrote

I'm glad we both now understand each other.

Have a great day !

1

oakpc2002 t1_j1pu32a wrote

The most jade point of view will be that those are prosecuted in American court with American laws and cases were pursue selectively

−18

ShadowSwipe t1_j1p1rtj wrote

I'm curious if you read your own link. The fact that people informally refer to it as the Hague Invasion Act does not have anything to do with its actual purpose. The US is not going to be invading the Netherlands. Lol

63

tlst9999 t1_j1pc38x wrote

Ten years ago, the us wasn't going to elect Donald trump. Things can change.

−50

Groundbreaking_Ask81 t1_j1ox5yo wrote

It’s about time we visited the Dutch over their heinous trade deals of US Native American tribes anyway. They bought Manhattan for $30 worth of beads and shells.

16

taggospreme t1_j1pqfne wrote

'Law of the Sea'? Do you mean like... the implication?

13

B_Eazy86 t1_j1pte6r wrote

The UN could say no but they never would...because of the implication

11

C0lMustard t1_j1pwlv0 wrote

Come on man you're putting the shills out of work.

3

username001999 t1_j1pvabm wrote

China is simply conducting freedom of navigation exercises.

−8

[deleted] t1_j1ne0k7 wrote

[deleted]

−434

aew360 t1_j1nwyh8 wrote

So the CCP says that Taiwan belongs to them? Ok well the people of Taiwan say that Taiwan belongs to them. I don’t think you understand the history behind the civil war.

185

19_equals_1 t1_j1opc82 wrote

well the indigenous people of Taiwan don't have much of a say, the roc stems from the right wing kmt fleeing the mainland

−31

sunoval2017 t1_j1p30t7 wrote

What confused you? Taiwan is Taiwan people's land and Taiwan is legally an island of China, be is ROC or PRC.

−34

Some_Yesterday3882 t1_j1pk6iz wrote

Think you are confusion good sir. Taiwan in a free and democratic country, independent of anyone in anything but name it’s self. Countries pay lip service to China on this issue so China can save face, all the while the west sniggers at Chinese ludicrous warnings.

7

sunoval2017 t1_j1pojux wrote

Free bullshit, democratic fantasy in some's wet dreams. I was born in Taiwan, educated in the US so I know a thing or two about the island. Taiwan was not, is not and never will be a country. Hell, it was not even qualified as a province but administered as part of Fujian in our history. My family made huge sacrifices for ROC and it hurts my soul to say it didn't work out. But she is dead and ought to be put out of her misery. Taiwan is unfinished business and that's all. By the way, this small game called democratic election could be played in Taiwan because it is allowed by the US and China. KMT is a failure party from almost the beginning and DPP is a mini CCP but doesn't learn it's merits yet. Shame

−19

Some_Yesterday3882 t1_j1pov4t wrote

The fact that you can even vote for the KMT or DDP speaks volumes to my point.

16

Ceratisa t1_j1ne57v wrote

And China says Taiwan belongs to them.. which makes them the defacto owner of the islands in their view. Also these were given back to Japan to administer post ww2 to Japan from U.S. control. These claims were uncontested until they were viewed as valuable, then China suddenly wanted them.

151

[deleted] t1_j1nfaqe wrote

[deleted]

−200

Ceratisa t1_j1nfxq2 wrote

Why would there need to be. They came under U.S. control during ww2 and were given back to the Japanese to control autonomously in 1972. There should be no dispute. Again,China automatically considers anything Tawian claims as its own. They become important because of the position they grant to control the economic zones in the waters around them. Japan has had control over them for decades. Them only becoming a dispute later says a lot

97