[Sixstrings]

Vietnamese fishermen say that Chinese coast guard stormed their boat, hit them, pushed them overboard and then rammed their fishing boat, sinking it (this was a couple days before ruling today):

Vietnamese boat sunk in South China Sea

HANOI (AFP) - Vietnam has accused the Chinese coastguard of sinking a fishing boat near a disputed island chain..

One ship was boarded by Chinese coastguards who forced the crew overboard, Vinafis said, while a second vessel was prevented from reaching the stranded fishermen.

Two Chinese vessels have rammed and sunk a Vietnamese fishing boat near the disputed Paracel Islands in the South China Sea, an official says.

'They not only sank the fishing boat but tried to prevent other boats from rescuing the fishermen,' said Phan Van On, a spokesman for the Quang Ngai provincial search and rescue agency.

The five-member Vietnamese fishing crew was returning to shore on Saturday when it was intercepted by a pair of Chinese boats, Thanh Nien newspaper reported.

Another fisherman in the area reported seeing the Chinese boats lingering near the stricken vessel for hours as its crew hung on to the bow.

'This action is merciless and pitiless and should be condemned,' Phan Van On told dpa.
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/asiapacific/2016/07/11/vietnamese-fishing-boat-sunk-in-south-china-sea.html

Vietnam says the Chinese Coast Guard is "without mercy" and "without pity," for ramming their boats and sinking them, leaving the fishermen clinging to the sinking ship and then worst of all, Chinese coast guard preventing Vietnamese provincial coast guard from rescuing.

In other news, Obama recently had a successful state visit to Vietnam:








Obama's townhall in Vietnam was actually pretty good. A bit similar to the townhall he had in UK, during Brexit. He's certainly polished and has become a great ambassador for the USA, recently (I'm just talking about these townhalls he does with universities abroad, just objectively he does a good job):

President Obama Holds a YSEALI Town Hall
https://youtu.be/XP-ymNEwZUU

Obama Enjoys Noodles With Anthony Bourdain During Historic Trip to Vietnam
https://youtu.be/QRJ0E06595U

Obama beat boxes as Vietnamese 'queen of hip hop' Suboi raps for him
https://youtu.be/1S9ISfOD0b4

President Obama Delivers Remarks on Entrepreneurship and Opportunity
https://youtu.be/z5aIRoHjKRs

US-Vietnam arms deal boosts big stick in sea dispute

“Both the US and Vietnam support freedom of navigation and peaceful regulation,” David B. Shear, who was US Ambassador to Vietnam from 2011 to 2014, declared at an AsiaConnect press briefing June 24.

Shear, who now works under the Secretary of Defense for Policy and the US Dept. of Defense, hailed the US’ new strategic partnership with Vietnam and its ASEAN neighbors, including the Philippines.

A newly implemented program, the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative (MSI) involves both the Philippines and Vietnam and allows the nations—including the U.S., Indonesia, Taiwan, Brunei, Thailand and Singapore—to work together to address maritime challenges and strengthen security in the South China Sea.

“We look forward to implementing the defense security with between countries. Lifting the naval arms ban was based on the desire to move forward with normalization, reflects improving changes and common interests… and ensures that [Vietnam] has access to the security it needs to protect itself,” Shear explained.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/140507/us-vietnam-arms-deal-boosts-big-stick-in-maritime-tension

[AgentR11]

Vietnamese fishermen say that Chinese coast guard stormed their boat, hit them, pushed them overboard and then rammed their fishing boat, sinking it (this was a couple days before ruling today):

This goes on by all sides down there. They regularly accuse each other of poaching; regularly sink and/or burn the others boats.

Think of it as a tradition.

It will certainly continue regardless of US patrols.

[Sixstrings]

It will certainly continue regardless of US patrols.

Right, US Navy isn't ever going to intervene in that way, although the Obama administration is setting up regional security organizations with Philippines and Thailand and Singapore, Brunei and Vietnam (above linked article). Probably some arms deals, for Vietnam.

What Obama told Xi back in March is just that one of these particular shoals is a "red line" and that if China builds on that shoal then that's crossing the red line. And since then, China hasn't moved to build on that shoal.

This is gonna shake out to be a LONG TERM thing.. as I posted before, US is making overtures with India too, with the sales pitch being that China will eventually be in the Indian ocean, so India ought to be hooked up with the US, and partnered in the Indian Ocean to counter-balance China. (India's got a lot of issues with China, this is all Chinese government's fault really.. ya gotta make your neighbors happy, or somebody else will..)

Anyhow, Obama really pulled out all the stops on that Vietnam visit (this was back in May, I'm just posting about it now).

During O's visit, this Vietnamese woman said "if we get the US and its allies' support, we can be stronger at sea:"

Excited Vietnamese greet Obama
https://youtu.be/u9B-qdPeNtU

That report says Vietnamese "are enthusiastic for close ties with the US."

Ceremony to welcome US President Barack Obama at the Presidential Palace
https://youtu.be/Y7WPKwAeF4M

Obama feeds fish at Vietnam's presidential palace
https://youtu.be/ebyv1QA8oFU

"The United States and Vietnam are united in our support of a regional order, including in the south china sea." -- Barrack Obama

Obama's visit resulted in Boeing getting an $11 billion contract with Vietnam, for jetliners.

I'm drifting off topic here, but that was a successful trip he did over there, just good will diplomacy / foreign policy wise and opening Vietnam up and getting it more on board with the Pacific allied bloc.

It's probably debatable how much we want to alienate China, it's two different routes to go.. lead everyone in the region that wants to counter China, or should we bend more China's way. Probably BOTH policies, simultaneously, is the smart thing to do.

One thing about it -- I don't like seeing our government ever bowing or kowtowing to Beijing and taking orders from them, so it's good O is doing some things Beijing doesn't like.

And, $11 billion is a big contract for Boeing, that's the first deal signed.

P.S. Another thing to note.. China already has "a commercial trade empire" in the world, from Africa to east Europe. So the US does need to compete. China is involved in South America, and they're building a transcontinental railroad from the Pacific side straight through the Amazon jungle to the Atlantic side of Brazil.

Eventually, Chinese investment is actually likely to make its way to the US. In the future, it's likely it will be China that builds high speed rail here.

So anyhow, policy towards China is just mixed, and that's not a bad thing -- even Australia feels the same way about China, and all these other neighbors that have involvement yet want a counter / some leverage too.

With China doing so much business in South America, USA has a right to do business with China's neighbors too, and get contracts for American exports like that Boeing deal.

[vtsnowedin]

[b]What Obama told Xi back in March is just that one of these particular shoals is a "red line" and that if China builds on that shoal then that's crossing the red line.

Just how much weight do you think any foreign government places on a Obama drawn Red Line?

[AgentR11]

[b]What Obama told Xi back in March is just that one of these particular shoals is a "red line" and that if China builds on that shoal then that's crossing the red line.

Just how much weight do you think any foreign government places on a Obama drawn Red Line?

Not much reason to have confidence in 6's comment without the name of the shoal; Obama is good at figuring out what the enemy wouldn't do even if you paid them; and then saying, "don't you dare do that..."

As to India, I'll just say this. India will not be buying a whole bunch of US equipment, unless it also comes with a whole bunch of US technology transfer. It is a BIG DEAL in India; and there is no getting around it.

[Sixstrings]

After South China Sea Ruling, China Censors Online Calls for War
Beijing has fanned the flames of nationalism. Now it’s struggling to contain it.

Jully 12 was a dark day for fervent Chinese nationalists. An international court based in the Hague issued a long-awaited ruling..

Within hours of the announcement, “South China Sea arbitration” was trending on Weibo, China’s heavily filtered Twitter-like microblogging platform, and hundreds of thousands of comments poured in.

Many expressed anger at the ruling itself, at the United States — China’s perceived great power rival in the South China Sea — and the Philippines, which filed the case against China in 2013. ...

One article called “War in the South China Sea Starts Tonight” received more than 100,000 views on mobile messaging platform WeChat; similar articles were widely shared as well.

One popular meme on both Weibo and WeChat showed a map of China with the distinctive Nine Dash Line dipping below it; a slogan beneath the image read, “China: We can’t lose even one dot.” ...

Phoenix, a Beijing-friendly media outlet based in Hong Kong, even posted Chinese web game called South China Sea Adventure. Users play a Chinese fisherman who gets lost in a storm in the South China Sea. Whether facing demands from the U.S. navy or imprisonment by armed Vietnamese, players are inevitably saved by the powerful Chinese military — and its well-equipped bases built on artificial islands in the sea. ...

But a wave of censorship also accompanied this outpouring of online commentary. Unsurprisingly, censors removed Weibo posts that contradicted the party line, such as one July 12 post that read “The South China Sea does not belong to China,” with an attached photo of a Filipino protesting China’s actions in nearby waters. ...

most deleted posts were not anti-nationalist but ultra-nationalist, calling for military action against the United States or the Philippines to defend China’s territorial claims.

“War is finally going to break out in the South China Sea,” wrote one user, whose post was later removed. “I was so damn excited last night that I couldn’t sleep!” Another wrote, “The South China Sea arbitration itself is an insult to China. Why would we wait for the result for this kind of crap? With such a large military, why don’t we just go fight to get back [what is ours]?”

The post that was later removed. “We’re definitely going to fight,” wrote another user in a deleted post. “’We can’t lose even one dot’ means that we must take back the reefs and islands that Vietnam and other countries have occupied. How can we take them back? We can only rely on fighting.”

To understand why Chinese authorities would want to suppress speech that supports Beijing’s official line, it’s important to understand the risks that unbridled nationalism pose to the party. “Grassroots reactions represent an opportunity and a challenge for the Chinese government, which wants to harness public opinion but fears its power to destabilize the regime,” said Jessica Chen Weiss, a professor of government at Cornell University who studies Chinese nationalism.

“The Chinese government tends to suppress grassroots nationalism when it wants room for maneuver in handling foreign incidents.” Weiss told Foreign Policy, “However tough the Chinese government’s response, it is unlikely to satisfy these ultra-nationalist demands for war.”“However tough the Chinese government’s response, it is unlikely to satisfy these ultra-nationalist demands for war.”
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/12/after-south-china-sea-ruling-china-censors-online-calls-for-war-unclos-tribunal/

As I posted before, a lot of Chinese are starting to sound like Americans.. they watch our tv shows, opinion there is mixed, but on this south china sea thing, their conservatives sound like worked-up Americans:

Why would we wait for the result for this kind of crap? With such a large military, why don’t we just go fight to get back [what is ours]?

China needs checked, and EARLY on, before things get out of hand with them.

Their government and their people have to learn some nuance and that no, the rest of the world isn't just gonna let them run roughshod over everything, that's just reality.

Chinese government understands that really, but they've stoked nationalism among their people, and the people of this young rising power haven't seen their country stood up to yet, so they gotta learn that. Not even the USA gets to just roll all over the Caribbean and build artificial islands and just TAKE what "we want." Nobody gets to do that, in this world.

[dissident]

@Tanada,

It is not the ICJ, it is the International Arbitration Tribunal at the Hague. This is a kangaroo court that recently awarded $50 billion to Yukos shareholders by staging a "trial" which it had no jurisdiction to conduct and which was devoid of any evidence.

http://globalarbitrationreview.com/news ... ide-hague/

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/w ... harassment

What a joke this Tribunal is. It's ruling on China's rights to the South China Sea are not credible right off the bat.

[AgentR11]

Six.. proposing going to war with China, since he couldn't make us go to war with Russia.

We are not going to shoot up Chinese dredgers and fishing boats.

China is not going to prevent navigation through the SCS; half of their concern is that WE will attempt to shut down navigation through the SCS.

There is nothing, currently, that we can "CHECK".

Unless you think we should just start shooting at Chinese vessels for fun.
Not that that would surprise me.

Needless to say, they will shoot back.
Our commanders know that.
Thus, they will not fire.

We will rant endlessly.
We will play dip and dodge close navigation games.
We will insult each other over radio.

No one will get shot.
And there will remain, nothing to CHECK.

[Sixstrings]

Not much reason to have confidence in 6's comment without the name of the shoal;

Obama forced Xi to back down over sea dispute

Some officials worried that China could install radar and missiles on Scarborough. Along with facilities in the Paracel and Spratly Islands, that would help China create a strategic triangle, which would enable the policing of any air defence identification zone in the South China Sea.

Several of the people familiar with the Obama-Xi meeting said the warning about the impact on Sino-US relations was critical because Mr Obama stressed that any reclamation at Scarborough would cross a red line.

One reason for the tougher US line was concern that China would try to cement its control of Scarborough before a ruling, expected on Tuesday, by an international tribunal adjudicating a case brought by the Philippines against China.

“Obama’s meeting with Xi in March appears to have been a key turning point,” said Evan Medeiros, managing director at Eurasia Group and the top White House Asia adviser until last year. “Obama made crystal clear the US interests at stake and the risk of military escalation. Afterwards Beijing did not take the expected provocative action towards the Philippines.”
http://news.easybranches.com/obama-forced-xi-to-back-down-over-sea-dispute/

[vtsnowedin]

Under what remains of the Obama administration no USN vessel will fire on a Chinese vessel regardless of provocation. Under the succeeding Clinton administration both Taiwan and the Philippines will become Chinese territory because "what difference does it make". Alternately under the Trump administration both Beijing and Washington D.C. are smoking holes in the earth along with the dozen largest cities in both countries. The Russians are pissed because they can't move into the USA to take over until the radiation levels subside in two hundred years.

[AgentR11]

Scarborough is very close to the Philippines.

I always scratch my head at lines like, "did not take the expected action". In that it actually says nothing. The analysis could be wrong from the start; or time tables could be misunderstood; if Beijing intends to build on Scarborough starting in 2020; the result would be the same; or if Beijing intends to use Scarborough as part of its negotiations with the Philippines and thus don't want to build out something they don't intend to keep; the result would look the same.

So, in the end, we can't tell if Obama dissuaded China, or if China indicated their lack of interest in Scarborough, allowing Obama to draw a red line that the enemy had no interest in crossing.

[Sixstrings]

Under what remains of the Obama administration no USN vessel will fire on a Chinese vessel regardless of provocation.

EDIT: rephrase, I realize I'm sounding like a right winger.

Long story short, it's an unhappy situation if it gets worse, but America's gotta do what America's gotta do -- freedom of navigation, doing business in the world and having friends just as China does, and most of all the USA's role in the world is upholding international law and equal rights for all, along with and in consensus with our allies.

South China Sea arbitration: China tells Japan not to interfere
https://youtu.be/g0_UDJvdcLw

China shouldn't boss Japan around. Japan is free to say whatever they want to, and Japan is a core US ally.

State Department arguing with a Chinese journalist:

John Kirby on South China Sea arbitration

The U.S. State Department said it’s waiting to see how both China and the Philippines will respond to the result.

Spokesperson John Kirby said the U.S. is concerned about militarization in the South China Sea. CCTV's Wang Guan was there for the statement. And questioned Kirby on why the U.S. is more concerned about China's activities than other nations in the region.
https://youtu.be/Rq_R_7hRCY0

John Kirby, state department:

We are a Pacific power. Five of our seven treaty alliances are in the Pacific. We have enormous security commitments in the region. When we operate our ships and aircraft, we do so in international air space and international maritime space. And we train with our allies and partners. Those are serious obligations. Our military has a responsibility to protect and defend United States' national security interests.

[Sixstrings]

In other news:

Iran Tries to Provoke Confrontation With US Navy On High Seas

The Islamic Republic of Iran tried to provoke a confrontation with the USS New Orleans as it sailed through the Straits of Hormuz Monday, head of U.S. Central Command General Joesph Votel told Fox News.

Iran deployed five patrol boats equipped with heavy machine guns and rocket launchers that circled the ship trying to disrupt the New Orleans’ path forward.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/12/iran-tries-to-provoke-confrontation-with-us-navy-on-high-seas/

Back on topic:

Beijing fury as tribunal rejects South China Sea claims

President Xi Jinping said the islands have been Chinese territory since ancient times and Beijing will not accept any action based on the decision, according to the official Xinhua news agency.

The Asian giant's Ambassador to the Netherlands Wu Ken was meanwhile quoted by Xinhua as saying "today is 'black Tuesday for The Hague" and that "the ruling "dishonours international law".
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/32038318/beijing-raises-rhetoric-ahead-of-south-china-sea-ruling/#page1

China said the south china sea was China's back in "ancient times" and it ought to be now; the international court disagreed.

[AgentR11]

6, So... let me get this straight... the US and the UK are allowed to deploy aggressive escorts when unfriendly vessels pass by in international waters; but Iran is not allowed the same in international waters?

This double standard thing you got going is pretty amazing; doesn't sound like a respect for "international law" at all.

As to China and the int. court. The court is dependent upon the UNSC for any enforcement; China is a permanent member of UNSC. The verdict is absolutely unenforceable. Might as well tell the moon its illegal for it to be grey.

[Sixstrings]

6, So... let me get this straight... the US and the UK are allowed to deploy aggressive escorts when unfriendly vessels pass by in international waters; but Iran is not allowed the same in international waters?

Can you cite any times, in recent years or decades, when either the US or British navy have done that?

This double standard thing you got going is pretty amazing; doesn't sound like a respect for "international law" at all.

Well, show me where the US has done similar things as Russia and China and Iran.

I'm talking about:

* annexations (Crimea.. we can all give Russia a pass on that ONE time, but just no more)
* illegally claiming oceans (what China wants to do, would be like the US just announcing the Caribbean Sea is ours, and we don't care about what all those other countries in the Caribbean think about it. And then building artificial islands, etc., and just saying it's all ours now.)
* coming up onto other nations' fleets in international waters, and running boats in them to interfere and forcing them away

There was one case, where Iranian Hezbollah navy launched a darn rocket and it landed in the water next to a Navy ship.

The verdict is absolutely unenforceable. Might as well tell the moon its illegal for it to be grey.

And telling the US Navy to get out of the south china sea, when the Philippines has been the Pacific line of defense ever since Teddy Roosevelt, is also like saying the moon shouldn't be gray.

And the verdict IS enforceable, through iternational pressure and peaceful consequences, if China refuses to work an agreement out with the Philippines.

Also, thanks to this ruling, other nations in the region can take China to court. Like Vietnam. And that is their RIGHT -- China has promised "talks" before with these places, but then China just always backs out and the talks never happen, meanwhile they're building these gargantuan islands with huge bases and lighthouses and flagpoles.

That's why Philippines finally took them to court, they'd already tried talking.

[Sixstrings]

Singapore urges 'self-restraint' from all parties after South China Sea ruling

Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs' statement is as follows:

"Singapore has taken note of the Award made by the Arbitral Tribunal convened under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on 12 July 2016 on the case between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China. We are studying the Award and its implications on Singapore and the wider region.

Singapore is not a claimant state and we do not take sides on the competing territorial claims.

However, we support the peaceful resolution of disputes among claimants in accordance with universally-recognised principles of international law, including UNCLOS, without resorting to the threat or use of force. As a small state, we strongly support the maintenance of a rules-based order that upholds and protects the rights and privileges of all states.

Singapore values our long-standing and friendly relations with all parties, bilaterally and in the context of ASEAN. We urge all parties to fully respect legal and diplomatic processes, exercise self-restraint and avoid conducting any activities that may raise tensions in the region.

Singapore supports the full and effective implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea and the expeditious conclusion of a legally-binding Code of Conduct in the South China Sea."
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-urges-self/2951484.html

[Sixstrings]

A Chinese editorial, probably state communist party line:

S. China Sea arbitration: A US-led conspiracy behind the farce

Since U.S. President Barack Obama took office, "Pivot to Asia" has become one of Washington's political pursuits and military strategies. The disputes between China and the Philippines over the South China Sea, which was provoked by former Philippine President Aquino III, came just in time as it offered Washington a good excuse and easy approach to return to the region.

In January 2013, the Philippines unilaterally initiated arbitral proceedings on the South China Sea issue. To circumvent the law, it secretly changed relative concepts, deliberately separated the Nansha Islands, and asked the tribunal to issue an award over the legal status and maritime claims of some of the islands and reefs that belong to the Nansha Islands as a whole.

What Aquino III did was a clear violation of international law. However, Washington chose to ignore the facts and the law, giving full support to its flunkey in Asia without hesitation.

So, we can tell that Washington has taken sides from the very beginning. What has it done before and behind the curtain then? Generally, it took four kinds of actions.

First, colluding with its allies to rubbish China.

Regarding the South China Sea arbitration, U.S. government officials and media have expressed many negative opinions of China, so as to portray Beijing as a "violator" of international order. U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter used to say in public that China's activity in the South China Sea could lead to a "great wall of self-isolation." Japan, as an ally of Washington, was also active and enthusiastic in helping the U.S. to suppress China.
Second, showing off military force and putting pressure on China.

The U.S. has been stepping up military actions in the South China Sea recently. Particularly, in the middle of June, two U.S. aircraft carriers, the USS John C. Stennis and USS Ronald Reagan, launched joint operations in the South China Sea, staging a show of force aimed at China.

In the meantime, Japan also launched joint military exercises with the Philippines and conducted arms sales with the latter, which is meant to put pressure on China. On July 8, Washington and Seoul jointly announced the deployment of the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) systems in South Korea, and the ulterior motive behind it was obvious enough.

Third, playing China and ASEAN countries off each other.

Chu Yin, a research fellow at the Center for China and Globalization said that "the U.S. escalates the tensions in the South China Sea with an essential purpose of containing China." For the U.S., sabotaging the relations between China and ASEAN countries is an effective way to hinder China's development, apart from being a best solution with low cost and high efficiency to increase Southeast Asian countries' dependence on it.
Fourth, manipulating the international arbitration tribunal and complicating the South China Sea issues into a "dead knot."

Once the arbitration tribunal makes a verdict against China, it will amount to fulfilling the U.S. purpose, putting an end to the tranquility in the South China Sea. In that case, the prospects for China-Philippine disputes to get resolved peacefully will be reduced.
In addition, the United States has been calculating the timing and progress of the arbitration.

Initially, the U.S. had the press leak the message that the arbitration result would be announced on July 7, making all involved parties tense. Later on June 29, the secretariat of arbitration tribunal said July 12 would be the date when the verdict on the concrete issues of the Philippine-led arbitration on the South China Sea would be made public.

The timing of the announcement totally reflected the U.S. calculations as June 30 was the date that the new Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was to be sworn in. Picking this date to announce the verdict represents no more than a backing up of the new Philippine government, a move that the U.S. hopes will minimize the possible improvement between China-Philippine relations.

The U.S. actions near China, particularly those on the South China Sea issues, are part of its Asia-Pacific Rebalance strategies. Its intentions are no more than containing China to preserve its interests in the Asia-Pacific region and its global hegemony.

The U.S. motives are apparent to the world, especially to the Chinese people.

The current China is nothing like the country it was one hundred years ago. Any act that tries to violate China's territorial sovereignty will fail.
http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0712/c90000-9085051.html

So pretty much, it's a lot of complaining, and saying the trial was rigged and unfair, and it's all an American plot and conspiracy, and they complain about "America's global hegemony," and that the Philippines is "Washington's flunkey."

They also complain about Japanese relations with the Philippines, that Japan sold them arms. And they complain the US sold missile defense to South Korea. They complain about American aircraft carriers, being around the Philippines before.

They say it's all America's fault, that China has no friends, that the US sabotages Chinese relations within ASEAN. I guess by implication, if it weren't for the US, then everyone in the Pacific would love China. (which isn't true, all of China's neighbors have some issues with China, that's got nothing to do with us.. maybe if Beijing were NICER, their neighbors would like them more.)

[Sixstrings]

Australian government reaction:

South China Sea: Stephen Conroy accuses China of 'bullying' over territorial dispute

"China's been engaged in an aggressive and at-times bullying performance, and has now been called out by the international court," Senator Conroy told Radio National this morning.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has warned China that it must heed the ruling handed down in The Hague, saying that "to ignore it would be serious international transgression, there would be strong reputational costs".

She said Australia would continue to exercise its right to Freedom of Navigation in the region, but would not confirm whether Australia would conduct patrols within 12 nautical miles of China's artificial islands.

"Australia will continue to exercise our international law rights to Freedom of Navigation and overflight, and support the right of others to do so," she said. ...

"Australia should authorise its forces to both sail and fly over the areas of the South China Sea."

Senator Conroy said actions involving the Australian Navy and Air Force should not be telegraphed in advance.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-13/conroy-accuses-china-of-bullying-over-south-china-sea/7623712

Testing the Rule of Law in the South China Sea

Nations in the region have often gone wobbly in the face of pressure from Beijing. At this critical moment, despite competing interests of their own, they need to join the Philippines in endorsing the tribunal decision and then proceed, if necessary, with their own arbitration cases.

The United States, which is neutral on the various claims, can help ensure a peaceful, lawful path forward. The Obama administration has said that disputes should be resolved according to international law, a position it now reaffirms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/opinion/testing-the-rule-of-law-in-the-south-china-sea.html?_r=0

[AgentR11]

Can you cite any times, in recent years or decades, when either the US or British navy have done that?

Brits usually make a huge deal of their aggressive interception of the Kutsenov whenever it makes a North/South transit; and just recently they went batty nuts intercepting a new Russian sub headed for its first deployment in the Black Sea.

This double standard thing you got going is pretty amazing; doesn't sound like a respect for "international law" at all.

Well, show me where the US has done similar things as Russia and China and Iran.

* annexations (Crimea.. we can all give Russia a pass on that ONE time, but just no more)
* illegally claiming oceans (what China wants to do, would be like the US just announcing the Caribbean Sea is ours, and we don't care about what all those other countries in the Caribbean think about it. And then building artificial islands, etc., and just saying it's all ours now.)
* coming up onto other nations' fleets in international waters, and running boats in them to interfere and forcing them away

1) Kosovo, Texas, Hawaii

2) You misunderstand China's claim; its an assertion of territorial waters, based on the Islands that they believe are their sovereign territory. I think they are overreaching, but it is far from settled, and will only be resolved through bilateral negotiations.

3) We do it to the Russians all the time. See above.

There was one case, where Iranian Hezbollah navy launched a darn rocket and it landed in the water next to a Navy ship.

If I recall the incident, Iranian Navy was doing an exercise, openly declared, and the missile landed in the declared safety box. Problem is of course the lack of space in that area, and so any impact point is easily described as "next to a, whatever".

The verdict is absolutely unenforceable. Might as well tell the moon its illegal for it to be grey.

And telling the US Navy to get out of the south china sea, when the Philippines has been the Pacific line of defense ever since Teddy Roosevelt, is also like saying the moon shouldn't be gray.

They, and we, are allowed to TELL anyone, anything we darn well please. The US Navy will ignore their instructions; just as the PLA Navy will ignore instructions from the US.

ps: I didn't use the word "shouldn't" with regard to the moon. Anyone is allowed to say the moon is pink anytime they want. I said "illegal", as in pass a law that makes the moon not-grey. Obviously, regardless of what the law says, the moon will remain grey. Its a pointless, futile waste of time.

And the verdict IS enforceable, through iternational pressure and peaceful consequences, if China refuses to work an agreement out with the Philippines.

Nope. Not enforceable. The US can do something of course, but its not the court enforcing a verdict. Enforcement does not require consent of the subject of enforcement. Pressure, such as we can apply, is design to acquire consent of the subject. Learn what the word means. Pressuring Bob to do X, is NOT enforcement.

We can pressure China to do X; and they can say "buzz off". Which they will.

That said, negotiating an agreement with the Philippines is EXACTLY what China wants to do, and is advocating as the proper way to resolve the issue. I understand that you disagree with this assertion, citing previous failed attempts; but that's what its like when you negotiate with China; its just annoying, slow, and frustrating. But a win-win result is certainly attainable with patience.

Also, thanks to this ruling, other nations in the region can take China to court. Like Vietnam. And that is their RIGHT -- China has promised "talks" before with these places, but then

They can take China to court till the end of time, and nothing interesting will happen. China will keep on building. In fact, just HOURS ago, China did test flights with civilian airliners to two new airports in the Nansha Islands. They are building, RIGHT NOW, with maximum effort and will continue to do so, regardless of any court.

[SeaGypsy]

It's probably already approaching a done deal. The stumbling block is that concession by the Philippines toward China is extremely unpopular. The usual course of Presidency in the Philippines since the people's revolution in 86, is rapid descent to overwhelming unpopularity. They have elected a Muslim Royal firebrand who is a sympathiser of the Communist CPP, granting members four cabinet positions, without negotiation of ceasefire. Chinese gangsters flood SE Asia with methamphetamines which cost about the same as aspirin to produce but retail for up to a million dollars a kilo even where wages are $10 a day. Duterte already said he's not going to war with China, so it's just wait for the announcement of a deal. Buy shares in joint venture O&G players active in the region now.