The Council of Agricultural Affairs has demanded that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs lodge a protest against Tokyo after one of Japan's coast guard patrol boats chased, intercepted and fined a Taiwanese fishing boat, the Tsengchinshun No. 168, based out of Ilan County.
I believe, however, that the government should first thoroughly investigate the incident, as the matter risks upsetting Taipei-Tokyo relations, and could even have a negative impact on the next round of Taiwan-Japan fishery talks scheduled for March.
Where the Tsengchinshun No. 168 was operating will be crucial to determining the legitimacy of Japan's action against it. If it was operating outside Japan's exclusive economic zone (EEZ), then Japan's interception and inspection of the boat was a violation of international law.
Each state has exclusive jurisdiction over boats that carry its flag on the high seas. Other nations can exercise jurisdiction over foreign ships on the high seas only when there are other treaty regulations that have precedence, or if the ship is suspected of slave trading, drug smuggling, illegal broadcasting or piracy.
Conversely, if the boat was operating within Japan's 200-nautical-mile (370km) EEZ, then the Japanese patrol boat was indeed entitled to intercept, check and detain it, and deal with it in accordance with domestic Japanese law.
If the boat was illegally fishing within Japan's EEZ and fled to the high seas after it was discovered, then, according to international law, the Japanese patrol boat had the right to chase the boat.
In fact, it could chase it to Taiwan's territorial waters up to a distance of 12 nautical miles (22.2km) off the coast.
In the late 1980s, a US patrol boat followed a Taiwanese fishing boat suspected of illegally catching salmon off the coast of Seattle. The pursuit continued all the way to the edge of Taiwan's 12-nautical mile territorial waters.
If the Tsengchinshun No. 168 was equipped with an automatic location communicator and entered the details into its log as it was required to, the data can be used to prove where the boat was operating.
However, the ship asked another Taiwanese boat, the Hsintungchuan 168, to pick up 10 of its 30 fishing nets that had been carried by the current into Japan's EEZ. This, together with the attempt to flee and to refuse an inspection by the Japanese patrol boat, has caused some to believe that it was doing something illegal in the region. Therefore, we have to confirm and clarify where the Tsengchinshun No. 168 was operating.
If the Ministry of Foreign Affairs cannot confirm that the Tsengchinshun No. 168 was operating within the Japan's EEZ, it must consider whether it is appropriate to lodge a protest against the Japanese government.
If the council and the ministry are able to determine that the Tsengchinshun No. 168 was operating outside Japan's EEZ, then the government should not only lodge a protest with the Japanese government, but also file claims against the Japanese government for damages.
The question is whether the Tsengchinshun No. 168 was, as Japan has claimed, operating within the EEZ of Japan's Parece Vela Island, the very southern tip of Japan.
In the past, this island was so tiny that it was literally uninhabitable. However, over the past 10 years, Japan has reclaimed land on the island, built a weather station and erected a landmark in an attempt to expand its EEZ.
This is a violation of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning claims for a 200 nautical mile EEZ based on islands, reefs and the continental shelf.
It is understandable that Taiwanese fishermen are dissatisfied with Japan's attempt to protect fish in waters 200 nautical miles around Parece Vela Island.
However, the call by Ilan County's Suao fishing association for fishermen to "blow up" the island was a bit too emotional. Therefore, the government should study the feasibility of bringing this issue to an international court of law or even the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
The government should also study the possibility of emulating the US and passing a law to render assistance to Taiwanese fishermen who have been detained and fined by the Japanese government when working in waters near Parece Vela Island.
If the government remains silent on this issue, it will be indicating that it tacitly accepts Japan's behavior.
This would constitute a precedent and would only jeopardize the rights of Taiwanese fishermen working in the region.
The government should play a more active role in this matter and study the feasibility of bringing it to the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for deliberation.
Song Yann-huei is a research fellow in the Institute of European and American Studies at Academia Sinica.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with