The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) on Nov. 18 passed a resolution cutting Taiwan's total allowable catch of bigeye tuna by 70 percent next year. It is estimated that the fishing industry will lose NT$2 billion as a result. This has got the media on the case of both the fishermen, who have tarnished the nation's image in the international community, and the government, who have failed to negotiate a satisfactory agreement with the ICCAT. They are calling for the government officials responsible to step down.
Taiwan only has observer status within the ICCAT, where it is a "cooperating, non-contracting entity or fishing entity." During this year's commission meeting, Japan proposed economic sanctions against Taiwan, which included slashing the nation's Atlantic tuna quota and requiring member states to refrain from buying tuna caught by Taiwanese fishermen. However, even though Taiwan's Fishery Administration failed to completely resolve the crisis, it is unfair to call this a dereliction of duty.
In fact, the crisis has existed for a long time, and Taiwan has long been a point of contention in the ICCAT. Last year, the commission passed a resolution to place Taiwan on its over-fishing watchlist and gave the government a year to improve, or else stricter measures would be implemented.
We cannot but wonder why agencies such as the Fishery Administration have failed to get a grip on, or even resolve, the crisis within a year. Have they simply been unable to carry out their duties, or did they encounter insurmountable problems? Or was it too difficult given the number of government agencies that needed to be coordinated? Whatever the case, we should seek to clarify who should assume responsibility, and seek a solution.
It is believed that the massive cut in the tuna quota had been the result of blatant over-fishing by Taiwanese fishermen. How are we to deal with these fishing boats and their owners, who have violated international fishing regulations? Is there any way we can punish them by law to prevent this from happening again? The Fishery Administration should quickly come up with an appropriate strategy and deal with the matter.
For the moment, the government should concentrate on damage control. First, the reduced quota will have a definite impact on Taiwan's fishing fleets, and whether they will attempt to travel to other waters will have implications we would do well not to ignore.
Second, since many of the fishermen affected by this resolution use their own vessels, with each owner usually having just one boat, a distinction should perhaps be made between these fishermen and the big players who control whole fleets. The government should consider the pros and cons and take appropriate measures to protect the benefits and livelihood of the fishermen.
As fish stocks dwindle across the Atlantic every year, all nations concerned have to cut down on fishing. Japan took the initiative and offered to considerably reduce its quota; Taiwan, on the other hand, was the only country over-fishing in the region and had the biggest quota as a non-member state of the ICCAT, making it the nation with the largest catch. We should have paid more attention to this, instead of continuing in the same vein, which has ultimately led to our current predicament. Whether or not we can successfully weather this crisis depends on whether we can truly understand what is happening with Taiwan's deep-sea fishing.
If the government does not face the problem and take action, we will be facing reduced quotas not only in the Atlantic, but also in other ocean waters.
Chiang Huang-chih is an associate professor of law at National Taiwan University.
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing