Public outrage over the killing of a Taiwanese fisherman by a Philippine government vessel last week is more than a national sentiment. The tragic event is a reminder of the dangerous situation Taiwanese fishermen have faced over the years operating in disputed waters, and adds a new incident in ongoing conflicts over the South China Sea. President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration must take a tough stance to protect our fishermen’s rights and resolve fishing disputes between the two countries.
Under pressure from the public, Ma on Saturday issued an ultimatum to the Philippines, demanding that it arrest those responsible for the death of the fisherman, issue a formal apology, compensate the victim’s family and launch negotiations on fishery agreements with Taiwan.
Ma said that if Manila failed to respond to these demands within 72 hours, the government would freeze Philippine worker applications, recall the Republic of China (ROC) representative in Manila and ask the Philippine representative in Taiwan to return to Manila to help in the investigation.
In view of Manila’s defense of the shooting as having been carried out while trying to prevent illegal fishing in its waters, the ultimatum will hardly pressure Philippine authorities to take responsibility for the incident. Tougher efforts are needed to protect Taiwanese fishermen’s rights and maintain national dignity.
Rival territorial claims in the South China Sea among competing nations vying for valuable fishing and energy resources have caused tensions for years, and Taiwanese fishermen have been arrested and detained by the Philippines in the past.
By opening fire on the Taiwanese fishing boat and killing the fisherman, the Philippines has violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which bans use of force against any unarmed fishing boat. The Ma administration should not passively wait for “positive responses” from the Philippines.
In addition to intensifying patrols in disputed waters to protect fishermen’s fishing rights, the government should demand that Manila immediately start negotiating a fishery agreement.
The newly signed Taiwan-Japan fisheries agreement covering the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), which allows fishing vessels from both countries to operate in a large area within the designated zone without being subject to the jurisdiction of the other side, should serve as a model for a pact with Manila.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Saturday gave Philippine Representative Antonio Basilio a copy of the Taiwan-Japan fisheries agreement, but the Philippine government has yet to respond to the proposal.
The Philippines’ adherence to a “one China” policy has been a major political obstacle to signing fisheries agreement with Taiwan in the past, and tensions in the South China Sea have been raised in recent months due to China’s claims of its sovereignty over the area.
The government’s success in concluding 17 years of negotiations with Japan and expanding fishing rights in the East China Sea came at a time when diplomatic tension between China and Japan has escalated.
In the attempt to negotiate an agreement with the Philippines, the government should consider the leverage we can use and create more advantages if it seeks to follow the negotiation model of the Taiwan-Japan fisheries agreement.
After the Ma administration issued its ultimatum to the Philippines, one thing was clear: The public demands a tough stance from the government. The authorities must show their determination. It must bring more pressure to bear on Manila to negotiate and ensure there will not be a repeat of Thursday’s incident.
Unless Hollywood movies like Greenland, Deep Impact, and Armageddon have predictive powers and a rogue space rock is heading our way, stopping Chinese Communist Party expansionism is likely to prove the single most challenging and dangerous problem of our lifetimes. How can the United States, Taiwan, and other liberal democracies prepare for and prevent attacks from China? How can Washington bolster Taipei’s confidence when it doesn’t recognize Taiwan as a real country and, so far, lacks the political will to make major adjustments to its ossified China policy and Taiwan policy? How can Taiwan make itself heard on the world stage when
Hypersonic weapons are defined as armaments capable of traveling at speeds faster than Mach 5 and can be broadly classified into two types: hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV) and hypersonic cruise missiles. The former are launched into the upper atmosphere by ballistic missiles. The vehicle is then separated from the booster to maneuver, or glide, toward its target. The latter can be launched from a jet plane or rocket to reach supersonic speed before igniting a scramjet engine to achieve hypersonic speeds. As the US engages in a great-power competition with China and Russia, all three countries are racing to field hypersonic
The number of people emigrating from Hong Kong has been rapidly increasing, Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department data show, with the territory’s population dropping by 110,000 people from 2019 to this year. China’s imposition of a National Security Law has clearly triggered a massive population outflow. However, not only people but also foreign businesses are leaving Hong Kong. For example, Vanguard Group, the world’s second-largest asset management company, VF Corp and Sony Interactive Entertainment have moved their top regional management from Hong Kong to Singapore. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton, the world’s largest luxury goods company, has also relocated staff
Oppression is painful, and not being able to express it increases the pain 10-fold. This level of pain is something that Uighurs, Tibetans and Mongolians understand all too well. A question often posed to Uighurs in the international arena is: “You say you are facing genocide, but why don’t we see corpses, like in Rwanda and in Bosnia?” If you were a Uighur, what would you say? What if you replied: “The source of the problem is your lack of vision. It’s an indication of your weakness and China’s strength, and it is not a matter of our sincerity.” Such a harsh response would