Taiwan can respond to assassination of unarmed fisherman by the Philippines

[Fsjal]

The real question is: what were the Taiwanese doing in Philippine waters? Is that not relevant at all? The incident could have been avoided had they fished on their own waters.

Well, if you think for a while, the fishermen had no navigation maybe. Anyway, why did the coast guards fire at them?

 

[Bienvenido]

Well, if you think for a while, the fishermen had no navigation maybe. Anyway, why did the coast guards fire at them?

With their GPS, the Taiwanese knew that they strayed into Philippine waters. Perhaps they were thinking "nah, these Filipinos won't do anything if we fish in their waters, we've been doing it a long time." There are risks when one travels to a foreign country.

 

[WuMaoCleverbot]

The Perils of Dealing With Taiwan
June12, 2013 Chito Sta. Romana

The tragic death of a Taiwanese fisherman from shots fired by Filipino Coast Guard personnel on an anti-poaching patrol last May 9 quickly triggered a crisis that threatened the relations between the Philippines and Taiwan.
The ensuing Philippine-Taiwan row showed clearly how a single untoward incident could easily escalate into a situation that could spiral out of control.

It also highlighted the “diplomatic triangle” that encompasses the Philippines, Taiwan and China within the context of the Philippine’s “One China policy.” The policy binds the three in an intricate triangular relationship that seems like a touchy “ménage a trois” in the realm of diplomacy.

When the Philippines and China established diplomatic ties in 1975, Manila agreed to the “One China policy” that recognized Beijing as China’s sole legal government, with Taiwan viewed as a part of China.

As a consequence, Manila broke its formal ties with Taipei but maintained economic, trade and cultural ties on an unofficial basis through a non-governmental body known as the Manila Economic and Cultural Office.

WORKABLE SET-UP

This set-up worked fairly well for more than three decades as trade and economic ties flourished, with trade volume reaching $10.9 billion in 2012, and Taiwan enjoying a surplus of $9 billion. Taiwanese companies have also invested more than $2 billion in the Philippines.

Moreover, about 87,000 Filipinos are employed in Taiwan, mostly as workers in factories exporting electronic components and products, and they remit $600 million annually to their families.

Taiwan’s GDP of $474 billion, though dwarfed by China’s, is almost double the size of the Philippine economy: in terms of living standards, as measured by its per capita GDP of $20,328, Taiwan’s is much higher than China’s or the Philippines.’
“Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou’s demand for a “formal apology” from the Philippines for what he described as the “cold-blooded murder” of the Taiwanese fisherman smacked of a diplomatic trap.”

DIPLOMATIC MINEFIELD

But this set-up eventually turned into a diplomatic minefield as an economically prosperous and confident Taiwan sought a wider “international space” in pursuit of an improved international status. It wanted to break out of its international isolation and escape from the constraints of the “One China policy.”

In this context, Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou’s demand for a “formal apology” from the Philippines for what he described as the “cold-blooded murder” of the Taiwanese fisherman smacked of a diplomatic trap. President Aquino and his advisers sought to avoid it by expressing the apology for the “unintended loss of life” of the Taiwanese fisherman “on behalf of the Filipino people”—and not the Philippine government.

It was a distinction that President Ma and other Taiwanese politicians could not miss, and so Taiwan rejected the apology as “insincere,” though its spokesman focused more on the non-admission of the intent to kill to explain the rejection.

Taiwan’s demand for fishery talks sounds reasonable enough since the May shooting was basically about who could legally fish in the waters between Taiwan and the Philippines. But again it will be a challenge for the Philippines as it seeks to protect its interests and maintain its balancing act between Taiwan and China in the process of sorting out the issue of fishing rights.

OVERLAPPING ZONES

When Taiwan and Japan signed a landmark fishery agreement last April after 17 long years of negotiations, China objected and called on Japan to act in line with the “One China policy.” A similar reaction can be expected from Beijing if and when the Philippines and Taiwan work out a fishery pact. But an agreement is still doable as long as it is done on a non-governmental basis and does not directly challenge the “One China policy.”

But it can be a complicated process since it will involve the issue of overlapping exclusive economic zones (EEZ) between Taiwan, the Philippines and also China. Since China views Taiwan as its province, albeit one that is not under Beijing’s direct control, it will also consider Taiwan’s EEZ as part of China’s EEZ.

It’s worth noting that China and Taiwan share similar territorial and maritime claims in the South China Sea represented by the 9-dash line. In fact, China’s official map show a total of 10 dashes, with the 9th line crossing the waters between Taiwan and the Philippines and the 10th line right beside Taiwan.

Since Taiwanese fishing fleets are much more technologically advanced than their Filipino counterparts, their quest for more catch impels them to sail farther away from home and closer to the waters off Batanes, which is bountiful in tuna. With the big demand for tuna among Taiwanese consumers, their fishermen can earn higher incomes from such catch.

JUST 39 MILES

The May shooting incident happened 164 nautical miles from the southernmost tip of Taiwan, but just 39 miles from Batanes. The Taiwanese claim that their fishermen were operating in disputed waters where the EEZs overlap will not hold water under closer scrutiny since international law calls for observing an equitable median line in such overlapping areas. This incident certainly transpired way below the median line that applies in this case, and thus very much beyond what is permissible under the UN Law of the Sea.

But the tragic death of a Taiwanese fisherman certainly calls for a serious review by the Philippines of the rules of engagement employed by its maritime and naval units. The results of the probe into the shooting will show if there was excessive use of force and the responsibility of those involved.

Since the Philippines shares the same maritime space with China and Taiwan on its western and northern borders, similar incidents could happen whenever the annual fishing season is at hand. And it is almost inconceivable what the consequences would be if ever the victim is a fisherman from the Chinese mainland.

Indeed, firing a single bullet, whether intentionally or accidentally, can lead to a full-scale crisis, if not war, in the troubled waters surrounding the Philippines.

The Perils of Dealing with Taiwan — Positively Filipino

 

[WuMaoCleverbot]

it's amazing why some Filipinos defy the findings of their own NBI. PCG had no right to shoot! That's the END! what more do you guys want? Your own investigators said that PCG was WRONG! all that diplomatic jousting was just delaying the inevitable, and what everyone knew (including the 14 U.S. Congressmen who condemned the shooting). Let it be a forgone conclusion that it was a wrongful act to shoot a fisherman, trespassing or not. now the question is whether it was intentional -- another forgone conclusion by any means.

I doubt the findings of the NBI....our Philippine gov't is withholding the shooting incident video. The Taiwanese gov't already has a copy since May 31. Why is it both the Philippine gov't and Taiwanese gov't are not making the shooting incident video public???

 

[sdjd2013]

DOJ prepared an honest to goodness report while Taipei prepared with supporting evidences all questionable since Taiwan is infamous for counterfeiting.

What kind of stupid rumor are you trying to spread? what evidence do you have to support your spurious claim?

Is that why Apple and Microsoft entrust their technologies to FoxConn and HTC (both Taiwanese owned)??

That's like saying Taiwan Semi Conductor is infamous for selling counterfeits, or PH is infamous for clean hookers.

 

[sdjd2013]

I doubt the findings of the NBI....our Philippine gov't is withholding the shooting incident video. The Taiwanese gov't already has a copy since May 31. Why is it both the Philippine gov't and Taiwanese gov't are not making the shooting incident video public???

I know this is futile, b/c most of you are incorrigible, and are stuck in your intransigence. PH and Taiwan want to publish their findings at the same time, so as not to draw criticism from the public that the first to publish is trying to sabotage the latter. Can you not understand this? This is an attempt by both gov't to maintain goodwill, b/c they both have realized the uproar amongst the citizenry in both countries. Again, this attempt to maintain goodwill will fail, b/c most PH citizens cannot understand the gravity of harm in shooting an unarm citizen of another country by a government agent. Thus, your question that how can whether the fisherman crossed the border be irrelevant is proof, that you do not understand the principle that you cannot shoot an unarmed, defenseless person under any circumstances, as most of you Pinoys on in this forum are incapable of understanding, contrary to the conventional wisdom of the world, and embarrassing yourselves and your country in the process.

you guys are so OBTUSE.. how can your news mention the Japan - Taiwan Fishery Agreement but not the DETAILS of it??? A fishery agreement has nothing to do with border disputes. It is a reciprocity allowing fishermen from both countries to conduct business in DISPUTED waters. it has nothing to do with the disputes between China, PH, and Taiwan. Get it through your thick skulls, man.. SIGH..........

Taiwan is ready to publish, but we are waiting for NBI to finish, since DOJ and NBI cannot agree on whether to charge the shooter with murder or not.

 

[sdjd2013]

Honestly, how many Pinoys does it take to screw a light bulb? Why are Latino brains more expensive than Asians?
If you don't get it, then you will never understand the conclusions rendered by NBI, your DOJ, and Taiwan.

 

[WuMaoCleverbot]

I know this is futile, b/c most of you are incorrigible, and are stuck in your intransigence. PH and Taiwan want to publish their findings at the same time, so as not to draw criticism from the public that the first to publish is trying to sabotage the latter. Can you not understand this? This is an attempt by both gov't to maintain goodwill, b/c they both have realized the uproar amongst the citizenry in both countries. Again, this attempt to maintain goodwill will fail, b/c most PH citizens cannot understand the gravity of harm in shooting an unarm citizen of another country by a government agent. Thus, your question that how can whether the fisherman crossed the border be irrelevant is proof, that you do not understand the principle that you cannot shoot an unarmed, defenseless person under any circumstances, as most of you Pinoys on in this forum are incapable of understanding, contrary to the conventional wisdom of the world, and embarrassing yourselves and your country in the process.

you guys are so OBTUSE.. how can your news mention the Japan - Taiwan Fishery Agreement but not the DETAILS of it??? A fishery agreement has nothing to do with border disputes. It is a reciprocity allowing fishermen from both countries to conduct business in DISPUTED waters. it has nothing to do with the disputes between China, PH, and Taiwan. Get it through your thick skulls, man.. SIGH..........

Taiwan is ready to publish, but we are waiting for NBI to finish, since DOJ and NBI cannot agree on whether to charge the shooter with murder or not.

When did it became the shooting incident video became synonymous with the Philippine and Taiwanese findings??? I'm not asking about the findings...I'm asking about the video.

Here read this:

Notes on the Taiwan-Philippines Dispute by Ming-Sung Kuo

Legally speaking, the issue is whether the use of force is necessary for the Philippines Coast Guard to enforce its rights under Article 73, paragraph 1 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Preventing suspect poachers from 'fleeing' the jurisdiction of the coastal state concerned, including the disabling of suspect vessels by the use of arms, is a legitimate means to that end. Whether the said Taiwanese vessel attempted to flee, which would be a crucial factor in determining on the legality (ie necessity in this case) of the Philippines Coast Guard's use of force, cannot be answered until all legal procedures, including a thorough investigation, are completed.

The View from Taiwan: Phils/Taiwan Mess Round Up: Links-n-stuff

 

[Fsjal]

I doubt the findings of the NBI....our Philippine gov't is withholding the shooting incident video. The Taiwanese gov't already has a copy since May 31. Why is it both the Philippine gov't and Taiwanese gov't are not making the shooting incident video public???

Because Aquino and his cronies are hiding something.

Conspiracies. Gotta get my tinfoil hat first

Honestly, how many Pinoys does it take to screw a light bulb? Why are Latino brains more expensive than Asians?
If you don't get it, then you will never understand the conclusions rendered by NBI, your DOJ, and Taiwan.

None, since they have no electricity.

Back on topic: the NBI and DOJ are hopeless. Anyway, did Taiwan finish their investigation?

 

[sdjd2013]

When did it became the shooting incident video became synonymous with the Philippine and Taiwanese findings??? I'm not asking about the findings...I'm asking about the video.

Here read this:

Notes on the Taiwan-Philippines Dispute by Ming-Sung Kuo


Legally speaking, the issue is whether the use of force is necessary for the Philippines Coast Guard to enforce its rights under Article 73, paragraph 1 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Preventing suspect poachers from 'fleeing' the jurisdiction of the coastal state concerned, including the disabling of suspect vessels by the use of arms, is a legitimate means to that end. Whether the said Taiwanese vessel attempted to flee, which would be a crucial factor in determining on the legality (ie necessity in this case) of the Philippines Coast Guard's use of force, cannot be answered until all legal procedures, including a thorough investigation, are completed.

The View from Taiwan: Phils/Taiwan Mess Round Up: Links-n-stuff

Article 73
Enforcement of laws and regulations of the coastal State
1. The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to
explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive
economic zone, take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest
and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the
laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention.
2. Arrested vessels and their crews shall be promptly released upon the
posting of reasonable bond or other security.
3. Coastal State penalties for violations of fisheries laws and
regulations in the exclusive economic zone may not include imprisonment, in
the absence of agreements to the contrary by the States concerned, or any
other form of corporal punishment.
4. In cases of arrest or detention of foreign vessels the coastal State
shall promptly notify the flag State, through appropriate channels, of the
action taken and of any penalties subsequently imposed.

Above is the full text of Article 73, now where does it say you may shoot AN UNARMED FISHING VESSEL to disable it? Either the professor is an idiot, or he is a fake. However, the article does say in paragraph 3 that "imprisonment" is not allowed as penalty in the absence of an agreement. PH has been violating this rule for last 20 years. SMART GUY...

 

[sdjd2013]

Besides, the UN convention is so vague it does not take into account the conflict of laws between nations. Taiwan may not be recognized as a nation, but it still has a right to protect the lives of its citizens, including the use of force to repel unauthorized and inhumane treatment.

Ma didn't overreact. His demeanor and measures are appropriate to elicit a prompt and proper response, given how PH has ignored a similar incident in 2006. Even if Ma doesn't react, do you think the rest of Chinese will sit idly while Taiwanese fishermen are being harassed and shot at by PCG?

If Taiwan was clearly on the wrong side, then there should be no outrage or condemnation expressed by U.S. congressmen.

 

[sdjd2013]

Because Aquino and his cronies are hiding something.

Conspiracies. Gotta get my tinfoil hat first



None, since they have no electricity.

Back on topic: the NBI and DOJ are hopeless. Anyway, did Taiwan finish their investigation?

of course they did, even if they said not yet due to necessity of conferring with PH counterparts. Taiwan has toned down and being diplomatic.

 

[WuMaoCleverbot]

Article 73
Enforcement of laws and regulations of the coastal State
1. The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to
explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive
economic zone, take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest
and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the
laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention.
2. Arrested vessels and their crews shall be promptly released upon the
posting of reasonable bond or other security.
3. Coastal State penalties for violations of fisheries laws and
regulations in the exclusive economic zone may not include imprisonment, in
the absence of agreements to the contrary by the States concerned, or any
other form of corporal punishment.
4. In cases of arrest or detention of foreign vessels the coastal State
shall promptly notify the flag State, through appropriate channels, of the
action taken and of any penalties subsequently imposed.

Above is the full text of Article 73, now where does it say you may shoot AN UNARMED FISHING VESSEL to disable it? Either the professor is an idiot, or he is a fake. However, the article does say in paragraph 3 that "imprisonment" is not allowed as penalty in the absence of an agreement. PH has been violating this rule for last 20 years. SMART GUY...

Where in article 73 will you read that it excludes the use of force to prevent suspect poachers from 'fleeing' the jurisdiction of the coastal state concerned??? ANSWER: NONE.

 

[sdjd2013]

Where in article 73 will you read that it excludes the use of force to prevent suspect poachers from 'fleeing' the jurisdiction of the coastal state concerned??? ANSWER: NONE.

It's a matter of interpretation. HOw do you extrapolate from "Boarding, inspection, arrest, and judicial proceedings, to shooting at an unarmed fishing boat indiscriminately?

Does fleeing constitute resisting arrest? Can a cop shoot indiscriminately at a fleeing arrestee anytime?

the U.S. would never do what PCG has done, unless U.S. believes the fleeing boat poses a public threat, such as a contraband trafficker.

That professor guy missed the point by a mile. I think he was better off keeping his stupid mouth shut.

 

[Zero_wing]

It's a matter of interpretation. HOw do you extrapolate from "Boarding, inspection, arrest, and judicial proceedings, to shooting at an unarmed fishing boat indiscriminately?

Does fleeing constitute resisting arrest? Can a cop shoot indiscriminately at a fleeing arrestee anytime?

the U.S. would never do what PCG has done, unless U.S. believes the fleeing boat poses a public threat, such as a contraband trafficker.

That professor guy missed the point by a mile. I think he was better off keeping his stupid mouth shut.

Really? now i think you forgot ramming!