The capsizing of a Chinese boat fleeing the coast guard off Kinmen on Feb. 14 has increased cross-strait tensions. Chinese civilian vessels intruding into other country’s restricted waters, part of Beijing’s “gray zone” tactics, have created new potential flash points that escalate disputes and set up risky confrontations in international waters.
In the Kinmen incident, the Chinese boat lacked registration information and proper documentation. Two of its four-member crew died when it capsized. Although the fishers’ families and the coast guard have given different accounts of what happened, the incident is unlikely to escalate into a military conflict. Both sides of the Taiwan Strait have so far shown restraint and sought to resolve the matter in accordance with judicial probe.
Nevertheless, it is unsurprising that Beijing has used the case to further reject the legitimacy of Taiwan’s restricted areas in the Strait, while the China Coast Guard announced it would increase patrols in waters near Kinmen County. That move is obviously part of a deliberate strategy to claim it controls the area to change the “status quo” in the Strait. China has long sought to expand its “gray zone” tactics in international waters to further its ambitious expansionist agenda. Aside from its deployment of military jets and ships across the Strait’s median line, China has encouraged private vessels, such as fishing boats and dredgers, to illegally enter Taiwan’s waters. Those incursions have significantly affected the area’s marine resources, and are intended to test Taiwan’s ability to defend its territory.
From 2016 to last year, the Coast Guard Administration drove off more than 9,100 Chinese fishing boats that illegally entered Taiwan’s restricted waters, stopping 400 vessels and expropriating 80, agency data show. From 2008 to 2016, under former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, the coast guard detained more than 10,856 illegal Chinese boats. Under President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), the coast guard seized only 403, showing more prudence to maintain steady and peaceful order in the Strait.
The Chinese intrusions contravene the UN Convention on the Law of Sea, under which the 160km-wide Taiwan Strait — at its narrowest point — has been defined as international waters, with China and Taiwan each drawing 24 nautical miles (44.4km) of restricted territory off each other’s coasts.
China’s “gray zone” activities have not only targeted Taiwan, but have long and increasingly been used in the East and South China seas and the Pacific Ocean to aggressively expand its territory in international waters with the use of its civilian fishing boats, which have been dubbed China’s “maritime militia.” Hundreds of Chinese civilian boats, which are often accompanied by Chinese warships, frequently gather to assert China’s jurisdictional claims in the South China Sea, leading to escalating disputes and confrontations between Chinese and Philippine forces. South Korean reports showed that it has detained at least 1,704 Chinese fishing boats illegally entering its restricted waters between 2016 and 2019.
While illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is a worldwide problem, Chinese fishing vessels have also become an issue for the US, Japan, India and Australia.
China is expected to increase its coast guard patrols in waters near Taiwan’s outlying islands to further pressure president-elect William Lai (賴清德), who is to take office in May. As Lai has vowed to thoroughly study the Kinmen case and allocate more personnel and resources to improve the coast guard’s law enforcement capabilities, Taiwan should accelerate maritime cooperation with neighboring countries, not only to enhance its ability to confront illegal incursions, but also to show the region that cross-strait disputes are of international concern. China’s attempts to unilaterally challenge the “status quo” in the region might force countries to join forces to push back against Beijing’s ambitions.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS