Safe harbour refused

#1
The refusal of the PRC to allow safe harbour in Hong Kong to American warships during a storm could be in breach of maritime law. On top of the denial of access to the fleet for Thanksgiving Day one can only wonder what is taking place in Honkers. Probably saved the boys a load of money plus avoiding a dose of clap. Certainly flexing their muscles it seems . Maybe pulling out of next years Olympics would be an appropriate response by Uncle Sam but a future avoidance of the port may be a good idea too.


"Senior US Navy officials have also expressed concern that China recently refused permission for two US minesweepers to take refuge and refuel in Hong Kong during a tropical storm"


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7118161.stm
 
#2
I remember a whiles back safe harbour was refused to US warships by the New Zealand govt on account they would not state if they where carrying nuclear, with Kiwiland being none nuke they where told to go sail a kite.

Uncle Sam was none to happy and shouted big words.

Perhaps things have changed now that was many moons ago.

Regarding PRC. You can pick your friend's and you can pick your nose but you can't pick your friend's nose.
 
#3
There is something in the Maritime Law about Safe Harbour but can't remember off the top of my head what it fully states
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#4
I believe the 'safe harbour' obligation only refers to stranded migrants who do not have the ability to return to their port/counry of origin, but I am struggling to find the appropriate legislation...
 
#5
sgtpepperband said:
I believe the 'safe harbour' obligation only refers to stranded migrants who do not have the ability to return to their port/counry of origin, but I am struggling to find the appropriate legislation...
I think it because of semantics... "Safe Refuge"

http://194.196.162.45/Safety/mainframe.asp?topic_id=746

http://194.196.162.45/Legal/mainframe.asp?topic_id=194

http://194.196.162.45/Conventions/contents.asp?topic_id=257&doc_id=647

International law recognizes the right of States to regulate entry into their ports (UNCLOS, Article 2, refers to the sovereignty of a coastal State over its land territory, internal waters, archipelagic waters and the territorial sea).

The right of a foreign ship to stop and anchor in cases of force majeure or distress is explicitly referred to by UNCLOS in the case of navigation in the territorial sea (Article 18(2)), straits used for international navigation (Article 39.1(c)) and in archipelagic waters (Article 54).

The right of a foreign ship to enter a port or internal waters of another State in situations of force majeure or distress is not regulated by UNCLOS, although this constitutes an internationally accepted practice, at least in order to preserve human life. This, however, does not preclude the adoption of rules or guidelines complementing the provisions of UNCLOS.
 
#6
tommo said:
There is something in the Maritime Law about Safe Harbour but can't remember off the top of my head what it fully states
Something along the lines of, 'Any port in a storm!'

(It's what I keep telling my missus, but she's not having any of it!)
 
#7
WOW! After SSE you've certainly done your homework. What appeared to be a fairly straightforward isue suddenly becomes very murky when browsing the legislation. Given the condition of some vessels and their cargo I suppose such precautionary measures are now essential. With the American ships however , apart from the nuclear possibility , there appears to be some form of hidden agenda. On one hand the PRC is seeking access to the world markets and has secured the 2008 OGs yet , despite the welcome mat, has chosen to snub the USA. Muscle flexing it could be but a familiar pattern throughout history of a commercial take-over followed by a military style action. Your move Uncle Sam ?
 
#8
hobbit said:
WOW! After SSE you've certainly done your homework. What appeared to be a fairly straightforward isue suddenly becomes very murky when browsing the legislation. Given the condition of some vessels and their cargo I suppose such precautionary measures are now essential. With the American ships however , apart from the nuclear possibility , there appears to be some form of hidden agenda. On one hand the PRC is seeking access to the world markets and has secured the 2008 OGs yet , despite the welcome mat, has chosen to snub the USA. Muscle flexing it could be but a familiar pattern throughout history of a commercial take-over followed by a military style action. Your move Uncle Sam ?

Something doing the rounds in the news that the Chinese are miffed cos the US Congress did something congratulatory regarding the Dalai LLamma

Mind you on the other hand they may be miffed on the state of the US
dollar and its value recently--the Chinese have billions of them!!


:nemo: :nemo:
 
#9
That's it Greenie, 'they' were certainly PO about the DL and any country that dared welcome 'him' was insulting 'them'.Still a tit4tat situation I suspect. I would like to see Honkers wiped off the world trade map though and all the business directed to Singas. Much better place IMHO, yeah!
 
#10
hobbit said:
That's it Greenie, 'they' were certainly PO about the DL and any country that dared welcome 'him' was insulting 'them'.Still a tit4tat situation I suspect. I would like to see Honkers wiped off the world trade map though and all the business directed to Singas. Much better place IMHO, yeah!
Tiger I know it well!!
 
#11
Backpacker1uk said:
hobbit said:
That's it Greenie, 'they' were certainly PO about the DL and any country that dared welcome 'him' was insulting 'them'.Still a tit4tat situation I suspect. I would like to see Honkers wiped off the world trade map though and all the business directed to Singas. Much better place IMHO, yeah!
Tiger I know it well!!
Yes, fifty cents a pint in '57 , five bucks and rs
 
#12
Greenie said:
hobbit said:
WOW! After SSE you've certainly done your homework. What appeared to be a fairly straightforward isue suddenly becomes very murky when browsing the legislation. Given the condition of some vessels and their cargo I suppose such precautionary measures are now essential. With the American ships however , apart from the nuclear possibility , there appears to be some form of hidden agenda. On one hand the PRC is seeking access to the world markets and has secured the 2008 OGs yet , despite the welcome mat, has chosen to snub the USA. Muscle flexing it could be but a familiar pattern throughout history of a commercial take-over followed by a military style action. Your move Uncle Sam ?

Something doing the rounds in the news that the Chinese are miffed cos the US Congress did something congratulatory regarding the Dalai LLamma

Mind you on the other hand they may be miffed on the state of the US
dollar and its value recently--the Chinese have billions of them!!


:nemo: :nemo:
Spot on Greenie. Those poor people who travelled from America for nothing , what a pack of childish bastards, the PRC. Luv to see the Uncle Sam tell 'em to jam the games.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iy0FS-ag63JKi0qu6sZQEVwpn0rQD8T7DNGG1
 
#13
Spot on Greenie. Those poor people who travelled from America for nothing , what a pack of childish bastards, the PRC. Luv to see the Uncle Sam tell 'em to jam the games.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iy0FS-ag63JKi0qu6sZQEVwpn0rQD8T7DNGG1
I think ethically and morally the games should be boycotted on a matter of principle, but because big business have their hand in the tills, it will never happen, but I would love to see the Chinese lose huge face if it happened, they love to tweak everyone else's noses when it comes to diplomacy...
I actually think the US will ratchet up their trade tariff demands prior to the games with threats to the Chinese.....the imbalance is huge and the US administration will look for anything to appease the voters in the up coming elections...

All foreign ports should close their harbours to all Chinese military vessels...see how they like it then... :rambo:
 

skimmer

Lantern Swinger
#15
I think it was probably a mistake like the Chinese Amassador said.U.S. war ships had a visit here earlier this month & the R.N. was here a couple of Months ago.
 
#16
Re the Kiwi refusal mentioned earlier. I recall one of our own CVS's refused entry into Australia some years past because we would not confirm or deny the ship was holding buckets of sunshine. If I am not mistaken it was over a Crimbo period and caused much grief on board as not only was the visit cancelled but lots of families lost the chance of a holiday in Oz.
 
#17
OldSparker said:
Re the Kiwi refusal mentioned earlier. I recall one of our own CVS's refused entry into Australia some years past because we would not confirm or deny the ship was holding buckets of sunshine. If I am not mistaken it was over a Crimbo period and caused much grief on board as not only was the visit cancelled but lots of families lost the chance of a holiday in Oz.
I vaguely recall that incident OS and believe it was the port of Darwin. There was concern as the port was not equipped for any accidents involving nukes . I suggest this was not a case of safe harbour from the vessel's point of view but those responsible for the safety of the port. Although I can understand the feelings of the crew and families I repeat the suggestion it was not a matter of safe harbour but as a former twelve year RNer I do get the point.
 
#18
"gong hei fat choy" It appears it may be a real Happy New Year for the Dragon and the CNY for 2008 is the year of the Rat. Just a bit of sabre rattling at the moment although the latest below seems a bit more direct with a restriction on the Taiwan Strait. Could be interesting. Let's hope Uncle Sam has got the 'balls' to place HK on the black list. Plenty of other good ports for the crews.


Rowan Callick, China correspondent | December 06, 2007
A ROW between China and the US over port visits to Hong Kong has extended into a renewed move by Beijing to prevent foreign naval vessels sailing through the 180km-wide Taiwan Strait.

The first of a series of incidents causing friction between the countries came last month, when two US minesweepers, the Patriot and the Guardian, were caught in a tropical storm in the South China Sea.

They sought shelter in Hong Kong's deep harbour, but their request was rejected.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22875855-25837,00.html
 
#19
AfterSSE said:
Spot on Greenie. Those poor people who travelled from America for nothing , what a pack of childish bastards, the PRC. Luv to see the Uncle Sam tell 'em to jam the games.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iy0FS-ag63JKi0qu6sZQEVwpn0rQD8T7DNGG1
I think ethically and morally the games should be boycotted on a matter of principle, but because big business have their hand in the tills, it will never happen, but I would love to see the Chinese lose huge face if it happened, they love to tweak everyone else's noses when it comes to diplomacy...
I actually think the US will ratchet up their trade tariff demands prior to the games with threats to the Chinese.....the imbalance is huge and the US administration will look for anything to appease the voters in the up coming elections...

All foreign ports should close their harbours to all Chinese military vessels...see how they like it then... :rambo:
I think that the games should have been boycotted because of PRC human rights issues. The problem is because they have no legislation regarding health & safety then the West is making the most of it and taking advantage of the cheap labour and the fact that China doesn't care how much polution it causes in the manufacture of the goods the west wants. It doesnt just mean boycotting the games but rejecting all the good that we have made there on the cheap!

I vaguely call that incident OS and believe it was the port of Darwin.
Not sure about the incident Hobbit but when I was there in 86 Darwin is a one horse town and the week we were there the bastard was on leave. I'm not sure it could cope with a CVS let alone nukes .. they could only just cope with a 42!
 

Similar threads