The fisheries agreement recently reached between Taiwan and Japan has given Taiwanese fishermen the right to operate in waters close to the disputed Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台) and although it has not resolved the issue of the islands’ sovereignty, the deal means that the territorial spat is likely to cool down, which can only be a good thing. The reason the countries were able to reach the compromise on fishing rights is that they both adopted a pragmatic approach and were prepared to make concessions.
Some observers have said the agreement is the result of Taipei increasing pressure on Tokyo over the sovereignty of the islands — known as the Senkakus in Japan — in combination with the potential support of China, which caused Japan to drop its previous refusal to sign a fisheries agreement because it feared cooperation between China and Taiwan on the matter.
While an unwillingness to see cross-strait cooperation on the issue certainly played a part in Japan’s decision, Tokyo would have had no interest in discussing the fisheries agreement with Taipei had the Taiwanese government continued to play hardball over the islands. It was because Taiwan abandoned its previous confrontational brinkmanship and publicly announced three reasons why it would not cooperate with China over the Diaoyutais, along with the fine that was issued to activists that landed on the islands last year, that Taipei was able to regain credibility in Japan’s eyes. This allowed those in Tokyo who advocated a more pragmatic approach to the fisheries issue to set the agenda, paving the way for the signing of the agreement.
The US also played a constructive role.
However, the real challenge begins now, after the agreement has been signed. The waters around the Diaoyutais have not been the traditional focus of fisheries disputes between Taipei and Tokyo. This means that — in addition to the two parties having to be clear on what is required to respect the agreement — if these waters are included in the agreement, the risk of conflict will increase.
If there is a lack of regulations or tacit agreement on how to deal with disagreements, the chances of achieving a consensus decrease and could instead lead to more disputes.
China poses another challenge. Beijing reacted very negatively to the fisheries agreement, with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs demanding that Japan respect the “one China” principle and raising concerns that the agreement would create “two Chinas.” China’s Taiwan Affairs Office reminded the Taiwanese government that it had a responsibility to protect the sovereignty of the Diaoyutais and the rights of fishermen from both sides of the Taiwan Strait operating in the area.
Given Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) attempts to define China as a great power in the Asia-Pacific region, the fisheries agreement, which covers an area that Beijing sees as a core interest, is tantamount to directly challenging China’s prestige. If China does not react, its credibility as a great power will suffer and Beijing therefore feels forced to take action in order to maintain its authority.
Given this, what should Taiwan do if Chinese fishing boats enter the area around the Diaoyutais? Will the Coast Guard Administration expel Chinese surveillance ships or fishing boats from the area? What will Taipei do if Beijing requests that it protect Chinese fishermen in the area? Will the government be able to resist Chinese pressure or will it compromise with China in other areas — the South China Sea for example — in exchange for Chinese goodwill? These are issues that require careful observation.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of the Taiwan Thinktank.
Translated by Perry Svensson
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday last week held a debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty. The issue of the retention or abolition of the death penalty often involves the conceptual aspects of social values and even religious philosophies. As it is written in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the government’s policy is often a choice between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods, and it is impossible to be perfect. Today’s controversy over the retention or abolition of the death penalty can be viewed in the same way. UNACCEPTABLE Viewing the