On March 16, the Taiwanese fishing boat Juiyu 31 reported that its nets were entangled with those of a Chinese fishing boat, the Zhelingyu 69088 — which had entered Taiwanese waters without authorization — 17 nautical miles (31.5km) northeast of Pengjia Islet (彭佳嶼). A Coast Guard Administration boat, the PP-10018, responded to the call, and CGA officers boarded the Zhelingyu to carry out an inspection of the vessel.
The officers were held under duress by the captain of the Chinese boat, which has been met with indignation from many quarters, but the fact that these officers were unable to protect themselves is something of a national embarrassment, and has made the nation the subject of international ridicule.
What is most shocking about this affair is that it was only because the boats’ fishing nets became entangled that the coast guard were at the scene.
In the past, the waters around the Pengjia Islet were exclusive fishing areas for Taiwanese fishermen. The fishing areas northwest of the islet lie to the east — on Taiwan’s side — of the imaginary maritime border known as the cross-strait median and are supposed to be for Taiwanese fishermen only.
However, over the past several years, Chinese fishermen have taken over the area. In the crabbing season, Chinese fishing boats can be found dotted all over the area, crowding out Taiwanese boats. The presence of the Zhelingyu 69088 at the site of this latest incident means that the Chinese vessel had gone way over the cross-strait median, 24 nautical miles into the restricted waters northeast of Taiwan.
Had the nets not become entangled, would the Zhelingyu 69088 have been left to fish in peace, to return to China with a full hold? Could it be that this area has, in effect, become the exclusive fishing grounds of Chinese fishermen?
In the past, Chinese fishermen would not have dared cross the median line. More recently, they have come to ignore the line altogether, and now intrude 24 nautical miles into restricted waters northeast of Taiwan. How has it come to this, that these fishermen are working in the waters northwest and northeast of the Pengjia Islet? Perhaps the flexible way in which the law is being enforced needs to be examined.
Flexible enforcement undoubtedly has its place, especially when it comes to fishing rights on the high seas. Fishermen, wherever they come from, have a very difficult life. Bullying them around with the might of the Coast Guard Administration is not the way a civilized country should behave. However, flexible enforcement and tolerance only make the Chinese fishermen bolder. Although there are measures in place for the enforcement of the laws, it is still necessary, before the coast guard boats set out, for the crew to first collect stones and to ensure they have shields. The shields are needed to stop the stone projectiles hurled at them by the Chinese fishermen. The stones are needed so that they can “return fire.”
In this case, because of the sensitive cross-strait situation, the officers who boarded the Zhelingyu 69088 were armed only with electroshock batons and truncheons. If they wanted to be even more “flexible” in enforcing the law, they should not even bother leaving port. The toothless policy on enforcement exposes coast guard personnel in the front line to ridicule and attacks by Chinese fishermen. It is time to reinforce the measures available to them to deal with violations of the rules.
It also appears that the authorities have tried to play down the severity of this series of events. A coast guard official later “clarified” initial media reports that the boarding officers had been taken hostage by saying that no hostages were taken. It was just that the Zhelingyu 69088 had continued on its course to China and that the coast guard officers were unable to disable the automatic pilot that had been engaged and bring the vessel to a stop.
It is not difficult to imagine that the government was reluctant to have the affair escalate, concerned that it might affect the precarious peace in cross-strait relations.
This makes little sense. Had the five extra patrol boats and helicopter not been dispatched to assist with the ensuing pursuit, and had the boat been allowed to return to China, would the coast guard have been able to rely on the peaceful cross-strait relations to go and rescue the officers who had “accidentally” been conveyed to China aboard the fishing vessel?
How should the captain and crew of the vessel have been dealt with upon being brought to Taiwan? The coast guard official said that they would be fined NT$250,000 in accordance with Paragraph 2, Article 80-1 of the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例). Does this imply that the boat and its crew will be allowed to go free once the fine has been paid?
Article 32 of the act states that: “In the event that any vessel of the Mainland enters, without permission, into restricted or prohibited waters of the Taiwan Area, the competent authorities may drive it away, seize the vessel as well as the cargo and detain the persons on board, or take any necessary defensive action.”
Furthermore, the Enforcement Regulations of the Act Governing Relations Between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例施行細則) stipulate that “Any vessel seized ... shall be confiscated ... by the competent authorities upon the occurrence of ... [involvement in] ... illegal fishing concerning the Taiwan Area.”
In this case, the Zhelingyu 69088 was found to have been bottom trawling in restricted waters in the Taiwan area, which was why its nets became entangled with the crab traps put down by Taiwanese fishermen. According to the law, the Chinese vessel should automatically have been confiscated. This was not something to be left to the discretion of the coast guard officers.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) hit the nail on the head when he said that as soon as it comes to dealing with China, things go awry. This is true; things do go awry when dealing with China, even when it comes to how the law is enforced.
If this continues, Taiwan will no longer be a proper country. It will not even be on a par with the Hong Kong special administrative region.
Chiang Huang-chih is a professor of law at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs