Law of the Sea – USA Gov Policy

Largely unreported by the American media, Russia and China, the world’s most powerful military alliance, have developed the coordinated naval power more than sufficient to challenge not just the previously dominant position of the U.S. Navy, but the entire framework of international commerce and freedom of navigation.

Reaction to The Hague Tribunal decision, which ruled that China’s maritime aggression is illegal, has illuminated an extraordinary threat faced not just by regional nations but by the entire world.

In response to the decision, Russia and China have ramped up their naval threats. The Sun reports that Russia and China will hold joint naval drills in September in the South China Sea.

Moscow backs Beijing’s unlawful claims, not just with words, but with the growing power of its own navy. The two oceanic superpowers have coordinated their efforts in recent years.

Last year, the two held a joint naval exercise, entitled “Joint Sea 2015 II.” The Russian news source RT quotes military personnel from both nations calling the exercise an “unprecedented show of military cooperation.” RT reports that it involved 22 ships, 20 aircraft, 40 armored vehicles, and 500 marines from the two countries, “including the Varyag missile cruiser, flagship of the Russian Pacific fleet; and the Shenyang destroyer, the Chinese flagship… The drills were held in Peter the Great Bay not far from the port-city of Vladivostok in Russia’s Far East, as the vessels conducted their training operations in both Russian territorial waters and neutral waters in the Sea of Japan. The joint naval exercises included anti-aircraft drills, drills to counter submarine attacks and sabotage, as well as simulations of attacks on enemy ships, while close air support featured the Varyag’s key asset – the Ka-27 strike helicopter. Russia’s flagship is also equipped with Russia’s legendary S-300 air defense system, and carries 64 interceptor missiles on board.”

The maneuvers didn’t just take place in the Pacific region. The U.S. Naval Institute notes that Chinese warships, including the frigates Linyi and Weifang left the Black Sea along with a Russian Navy guided missile corvette to begin the first ever round of Chinese and Russian naval exercises in the Mediterranean.

China has purchased some of Russia’s most advanced military equipment, while also developing its own naval weapons systems, some of which are unmatched anywhere, including a missile which, launched from land, can disable ships almost 1,000 miles away.
Signs Kleine Levin cheap sildenafil tablets syndrome is a not usual dysfunction. High demand of these pills is accredited viagra großbritannien to the dysfunction of brain chemicals and prescribed treatment can assist with such state. The treatments depend on psychological, physical levitra canada prescription causes. So why pay 8 times more discover over here cheap viagra for a medication that can undo the side effects of diuretics and beta-blockers, and give you a sustain erection long enough for them to enjoy a sexual life.
Beijing already has a larger number of submarines than the U.S. Navy, and its overall fleet will exceed America’s by 2020.

Beijing’s growing naval power has given it the confidence and ability not just to ignore international law. Reuters reported in June that Chinese spy ships have shadowed the U.S> aircraft Carrier USS John C. Stennis.

It’s not the first time the U.S. Navy was openly challenged by China. In 2007, the Daily Mail reported that “American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk – a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board. By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier. According to senior NATO officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy. The Americans had no idea China’s fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.One Nato figure said the effect was “as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik” – a reference to the Soviet Union’s first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.”

Other nations are being drawn into the Russian-Chinese axis.

As Turkey, a NATO member, moves further away from its western allies, it has moved closer to China. USNI reports that “The Chinese and Turkish air forces also exercised together in 2010 in central Turkey, which is the first time Chinese units had exercised together with a NATO country. More recently, Turkey decided to acquire a new air defense system from China, causing concerns in both Washington and in allied capitals in Europe about the interoperability with NATO and U.S. air and missile defense networks.”

Iran has purchased advanced Russian equipment, including anti-aircraft missiles, and continues its regular threatening actions against U.S. naval forces in its region.

The world’s most dangerous maritime dispute is awaiting a ruling from the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.China has unlawfully laid claim to almost the entire oceanic area known as the South China Sea, and which the Philippines call the West Philippine Sea. It encompasses a 1,400,000 square mile region from Singapore and the Malacca Straits to the Strait of Taiwan. A third of the planet’s shipping transits through it, and huge deposits of oil and gas, as well as a wealth of fish, are contained within.The Philippines initiated proceedings against Beijing in accordance with the United Nations Law of the Sea. International Law would classify maritime features, including hundreds of very small uninhabited spots, many of which are now questionably claimed and some occupied by China’s military, as rocks, low tide elevations, or submerged banks, but not islands, which overturns China’s claims to use those already disputed sites as a way to extend its claims over ocean areas.The Philippines simply seek to have the right to operate within its own exclusive economic zone restored and have access to its key offshore areas without Chinese harassment.China has already stated that it has no intention of abiding by the results, and rejects the jurisdiction of The Hague. In other related disputes in the area, Beijing has not been cooperative in attempts to negotiate the issue through regional talks, preferring to deal separately with each national claimant, a tactic that allows it to use armed intimidation as an effective tool. China’s General Luo Yuan said his nation should be prepared for “war at all costs” to enforce its claims, according to a commentary posted on china.org.cn.

Writing in the Asia Times National Security author Bill Gertz writes that “China’s takeover of the South China Sea is nearly complete and Beijing is now stepping up its sophisticated information warfare campaign in preparation for an expected unfavorable ruling from an international tribunal affecting its island claims… The strategic goal of China in the South China Sea is to solidify control over the waters without firing a shot, in much the same way as Russia was able to do with its military annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea in March 2014. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) refers to this as the use of “military soft power.”

During the past several years, unrestrained by a weakened American navy and an irresolute President, China has laid claim to most of the South China Sea region. The basis of China’s claim is what it describes as a “Nine Dash Line,” which, according to U.S. sources, is “a Chinese map of the South China Sea showing nine line segments that, if connected, would enclose an area covering roughly 90% [of the entire region.] …The area inside the nine line segments far exceeds what is claimable as territorial waters under customary international law of the sea… and includes waters that are within the claimable [and internationally recognized] (and in some places are quite near the coasts) of the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Vietnam.”

Under the Obama Administration, little of substance has been done to discourage China’s aggressive actions. The White House has refused to side with America’s allies such as the Philippines or Japan when China engaged in provocative actions against those nations. Even as China used force in furtherance of its goals, all the U.S. Administration did was to encourage a “peaceful resolution,” an act which some has said was a betrayal of allies, and a complete denial of the rule of law which objective observers note rejects Beijing’s claims.

President Obama has emphasized what the Administration describes as a “pivot to Asia” of U.S. armed forces, in response to China’s actions. However, the substance of the pivot involves comparatively little force, since the U.S. navy is now a shadow of its former size, the smallest it has been since before World War 1, and China, in contrast, has dramatically built up the size of its forces. It now has more submarines than the U.S. Navy, and its fleet will outnumber America’s within four years. Beijing also has extraordinary new land based weapons, such as the DF-21missile which can destroy American naval vessels at a distance of 900 miles.

The President has concluded agreements with Vietnam as a means to stiffen regional resistance. However, speaking in Hawaii, Mr. Obama denied the deal was aimed at China.

There are various reasons that are responsible the buy cialis for sexual breakdown for the person. levitra 60 mg Temporary tattoos serve a number of purposes. No one needs to passively accept the loss of generic viagra pharmacy sexual function in men who aged between 40 to 70 years old. Some kind of this disease used to cure nocturnal emission: Kapikacchchu or Mucuna Pruriens This viagra fast herb used as nervine tonic.

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/