However the Philippines chooses to account for the fatal shooting of a Taiwanese crewman on board the Kuang Ta Hsing No. 28 by the Philippine Coast Guard last week, it will not be able to explain away the purposeful nature of the shooting.
In 1995, when the Philippines began expelling Chinese fishing boats operating in its territorial waters in the South China Sea, its policy was to detain their crews. Later on, as the sheer number of Chinese fishing boats it had to contend with made this impracticable, it took to ramming the boats, a practice which resulted in the sinking of two ships and the deaths of several Chinese fishermen.
Last year, when the Philippines and China had a standoff over Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島), the Philippines reverted back to expulsion and detention. Over this extended process, a Philippine vessel opened fire on a Chinese boat on only two occasions, once in 1999 and then again in 2001, and there were no reported injuries in either case.
By contrast, the Philippine Coast Guard often opens fire on or detains Taiwanese fishermen operating in the waters around the Bashi Channel, irrespective of whether they have crossed the maritime boundary line, and in many cases fishermen have been injured. Clearly, the Philippines has a different policy on dealing with fishing boats operating in what it claims to be its maritime waters, depending on whether they come from China or Taiwan. This is a very serious matter.
There are two reasons for this rather barbaric treatment of Taiwanese fishermen at the hands of the Philippines. First, because the Philippine government feels that Taiwan is weak and will not retaliate. Second, because arresting Taiwanese fishermen can be very lucrative: In the past, Taiwanese fishermen have been willing to hand over huge fines to secure their release. Had the crew of the Kuang Ta Hsing No. 28 been detained last week, they would likely have had to pay a fine. Instead, the Philippine ship opened fire to intimidate the crew, with tragic results. The Taiwanese government has to take all this into account and deliver a strong response to ensure that this type of incident does not happen again.
It has been reported that Philippine naval authorities have said that the vessel in question only opened fire on the Taiwanese fishing boat when it entered Philippine territorial waters and then attempted to ram the Philippine ship. Make of that what you will, but the important thing is that all of the Philippine announcements of the definitions of its archipelagic waters — issued in 1961, 1978 and 2009 — unilaterally extended 200 nautical miles (370km) from the outlying islands.
It must be understood that the Philippines has never officially declared the exclusive economic zones between it and Taiwan, or the continental shelf boundary line it has unilaterally designated. The submission the Philippines presented to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in 2009 referred only to the continental shelf boundary east of Luzon. The submission did not mention anything about the continental shelf boundary line to the north of the island. Therefore, the Philippine argument that the Taiwanese fishing boat had crossed into its territorial waters does not hold any weight. Manila should provide Taipei with the charts showing the official exclusive economic zone north of Luzon.
It is also worth noting that according to the Treaty of Paris signed in 1898 to end the Spanish-American War, Batanes islands do not actually belong to the Philippines, as the Spanish did not cede these islands to the US. For all these years, the waters around the Batanes archipelago and the Babuyan islands have been traditional Taiwanese fishing grounds, and according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Philippines, as an archipelagic state, must recognize traditional fishing rights of other states within their archipelagic waters when they are designating maritime boundaries.
There is no getting around the fact that there is going to be an overlap in the exclusive economic waters of the Philippines and Taiwan, and that the issue of Taiwanese fishing rights in their traditional fishing grounds around the Batanes archipelago and the Babuyan islands needs to be resolved through talks between the two countries.
However, since Taipei and Manila cut diplomatic ties, the Philippines has consistently used the fact that no diplomatic relations exist as an excuse to refuse to sit down to talks. If Manila insists on maintaining the exclusive economic waters that it has announced as its official protected fishing grounds, it stands to reason that Taipei can adopt a similar approach.
If Philippine President Benigno Aquino III insists on respecting the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and wants to refer South China Sea disputes for arbitration to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, he should take a leaf from Japan’s book, and open talks with Taiwan to settle maritime issues.
Should the Philippines fail to come up with a response to this unfortunate affair that demonstrates sufficient goodwill on its part, the Taiwanese government needs to consider whether it should refer this dispute over fishing rights, caused by overlapping maritime zones, to the international tribunal for arbitration.
Chen Hurng-yu is a professor at Tamkang University’s Graduate Institute of Asian Studies.
Translated by Paul Cooper
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS