A long-standing dispute with Japan over a fishing zone has reached a new climax, with reports of Taiwanese fishing boats being forcibly expelled from the disputed area. This is not the first such incident. Similar disagreements with other countries, such as the Philippines, have also occurred in the past. Unfortunately, the government's handling of such disputes has been weakened by the country's unique international status.
The disputed fishing zone in the Yellow Sea and East China Sea is in an area which Taiwan, Japan and China each claim to be within their 370km exclusive economic zones. Under normal circumstances, the three countries would have to engage in trilateral negotiations to resolve their overlapping claims. But Japan and China have negotiated a bilateral fishing pact, leaving Taiwan out in the cold.
The Sino-Japanese fishery pact took effect last June. In the pact, the two countries agreed that the disputed water will be deemed "intermediate water," in which the vessels of other countries are prohibited and for which the vessels of both countries will have to seek permission from the other before entry.
The agreement is not binding on Taiwan, which is an independent sovereign country. China has no right to negotiate on Taipei's behalf. Since bilateral negotiations between Japan and Taiwan are continuing -- even though the last round was in August 2001 -- the status quo between the two nations should be maintained. This means that Taiwanese fishermen should be allowed to fish in the disputed area. After all, putting aside the issue of overlapping economic zones, the area is a traditional fishing ground for Taiwanese fishermen.
It was totally inappropriate for Japan's coast guard to intercept Taiwanese fishing boats and to expel these vessels by firing water cannons and shooting paint bombs.
It is high time that the government took a firmer stand in such disputes. But the government's dilemma in handling the dispute is complicated by several factors. One is that many Taiwanese have traditionally felt a special tie to Japan. The second is that, pragmatically, Taipei cannot substitute diplomatic sanctions and pressure with economic ones -- the way it can with countries such as Thailand or Indonesia. After all, this country is still economically dependent upon Japan.
The same helplessness has long been reflected in the government's handling of its sovereignty dispute over the Tiaoyutai Islands.
The government must break this pattern of meekness and lose its inferiority complex over the country's international status. Begin to make loud noise, and take on a firm attitude in demanding amicable and fair resolution of such disputes. Insist on re-initiating bilateral negotiations with Japan to clearly map out Taiwan's fishing zones. Taiwanese fishermen have threatened to stand up to the Japanese coast guard themselves if they don't see any concrete action by the government. If that were to happen, the dispute would quickly escalate out of control.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US