South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

joshuatree said:

As for fishing issues with South Korea, there's more than what you post. Evidence that civilian agreements are constructive and producing results.

Click to expand...

But the authorities can't control them. If you want numbers from Korean side: there were more than 10000 Chinese cutters conducting illegal fishing this year until November. From that number South Korean had caught 'only' around 450 of those. The Chinese fishermen tactics is going into South Korean EEZ in swarms of around 200 cutters at the time. It's coordinated and you just can't catch them all because dealing with a single one takes considerable amount of time and there's not enough South Korean CG manpower to cover it around the vast areas of the seas. Those numbers should show you how big the problem is for Koreans and it's not a great PR action for PRC in South Korea for sure.

As for the Japan and whales - I think that everyone has their own view on that matter and there's not much to add to convince anyone that it's bad/good. And I wouldn't call that illegal as well. Calling it 'brute', 'ugly' etc is OK with me but that's another issue and won't threaten the species or people who live from fishing.

Janiz said:

But the authorities can't control them. If you want numbers from Korean side: there were more than 10000 Chinese cutters conducting illegal fishing this year until November. From that number South Korean had caught 'only' around 450 of those. The Chinese fishermen tactics is going into South Korean EEZ in swarms of around 200 cutters at the time. It's coordinated and you just can't catch them all because dealing with a single one takes considerable amount of time and there's not enough South Korean CG manpower to cover it around the vast areas of the seas. Those numbers should show you how big the problem is for Koreans and it's not a great PR action for PRC in South Korea for sure.

Click to expand...

No disagreement, but there's a difference between the Chinese authorities being unable to effectively regulate all of them them, versus not making an effort or having insufficient resources to regulate all of them.

I don't think anyone would disagree that illegal poaching is generally a bad thing, regardless of who does it or where it occurs... the difference is in whether individuals are only seeking to condemn them or whether we appreciate the economic, social and political reasons behind it.

I myself can appreciate why Chinese fishermen poach in the locations you've discussed, as well as why poaching in Africa occurs of all kinds of animals, or why whaling occurs... or in a similar vein, why deforestation in developing nations occurs or why so many developing nations are high polluting and so on and so forth.
But I try to avoid or castigating them, because the individuals and groups conducting these behaviours more often than not are under the influence of economic and social and educational constraints in their environment.
Fundamental attribution error is a thing, and awareness of it means greater empathy and appreciation of other side's circumstances and I think it makes opposing groups to be capable of resolving differences in more amicable ways, or at the very least it avoids excessive and unhelpful vilification.

Janiz said:

But the authorities can't control them. If you want numbers from Korean side: there were more than 10000 Chinese cutters conducting illegal fishing this year until November. From that number South Korean had caught 'only' around 450 of those. The Chinese fishermen tactics is going into South Korean EEZ in swarms of around 200 cutters at the time. It's coordinated and you just can't catch them all because dealing with a single one takes considerable amount of time and there's not enough South Korean CG manpower to cover it around the vast areas of the seas. Those numbers should show you how big the problem is for Koreans and it's not a great PR action for PRC in South Korea for sure.

Click to expand...

And that's where civilian agreements will play a big part. The link I posted earlier was only an agreement reached this past Oct. Too little time to start seeing results. But provisions such as below is what will start help reduce the quantity of illegal fishing.

In addition, the country will create a database on repeated offenders and provide it to China so they can take necessary action. The two countries then concurred on the creation of a sea check point through which all fishing vessels must cross after catching fish that will make it easier for officials to check if rules were followed.

Click to expand...

Janiz said:

As for the Japan and whales - I think that everyone has their own view on that matter and there's not much to add to convince anyone that it's bad/good. And I wouldn't call that illegal as well. Calling it 'brute', 'ugly' etc is OK with me but that's another issue and won't threaten the species or people who live from fishing.

Click to expand...

The ICJ ruled against Japanese whaling in the Antarctic. To my knowledge, nothing has changed regarding that ruling. So when Japan resumes "reduced" whaling as planned early next year, it is illegal. In addition, the defiance from this planned action will make all accusations about China not complying with whatever decision the PCA (not the higher regarded ICJ), may hand out fall flatter.

joshuatree said:

The ICJ ruled against Japanese whaling in the Antarctic. To my knowledge, nothing has changed regarding that ruling. So when Japan resumes "reduced" whaling as planned early next year, it is illegal. In addition, the defiance from this planned action will make all accusations about China not complying with whatever decision the PCA (not the higher regarded ICJ), may hand out fall flatter.

Click to expand...

You really need to read the ICJ rulings, NO Japanese scientific whaling in the Antarctic are condoned by IWC and all research obtained through those expeditions. The Minke whale population is around 500,000~750,000 with 95 percent certainty and IWC can remove the moratorium any day without the risk of endangering the Minke whale. The only reason they don't is because the anti whaling party is stonewalling the votes which was suppose to be held in the previous century. This is all off topic by the way and has nothing to do with illegal poaching that PRC fishing militia is doing in the SCS which is banned by UN as the vid had clearly stated.

Blackstone said:

Did the Aussies prearrange a "FON" flight over China's islands in the SCS with Beijing?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The whole point of a Freedom of Navigation Exercise, is specifically designed not to ask Beijing for permission. A FON is a act designed to send the message that a nation doesn't recognize the Territorial claims of another country. Asking Beijing permission would therefore weakens the act. Its like asking permission to cut a hole in a wire fence.
Beijing wants territorial rights over the Islands, the US, Australia and others do not recognize such and other then a safety of navigation buffer of a kilometer or so to avoid running aground, the navies and air forces will enter and operate in close hand to the facilities despite Chinese protests.

SamuraiBlue said:

You really need to read the ICJ rulings, NO Japanese scientific whaling in the Antarctic are condoned by IWC and all research obtained through those expeditions. The Minke whale population is around 500,000~750,000 with 95 percent certainty and IWC can remove the moratorium any day without the risk of endangering the Minke whale. The only reason they don't is because the anti whaling party is stonewalling the votes which was suppose to be held in the previous century. This is all off topic by the way and has nothing to do with illegal poaching that PRC fishing militia is doing in the SCS which is banned by UN as the vid had clearly stated.

Click to expand...

It is from reading the ICJ's rulings that I see that court has ordered Japan to cease and desist its JARPA II as well as refrain from issuing any further permits for so called research purposes. There is a commercial ban on whaling. It does not matter what size the Minke whale population is. The court ordered a halt to these "scientific killings" and unless that changes, defying it makes it illegal. Afterall, that's the argument made about "international law" and complying with court rulings. So this isn't off topic but directly related. The environmental argument being made in the SCS is another tactic being used by other claimants. But if Japan defies an ICJ ruling and wants to espouse "international law" in the SCS, then it speaks volumes about double standards. Furthermore, if these other SCS claimants remain quiet and do not openly denounce Japan on such actions for fear of undermining budding alliances, it's another blow to the SCS environmental argument and the whole legal spiel because it reflects disingenuousness. The issue of environmental law in the SCS does not happen in a vacuum.

The court did not halt scientific killing they only stated that the saw discrepancies in the amount that was filed and the amount that was actually harvested. This was when SSC was blocking Japan's research and Japan had to fall back so to obtain safety. They then ruled that the numbers that had been filed is not realistic and ruled that Japan should reconsider the amount in which Japan did and filed the revised research plans to IWC which was accepted and Japan is doing research whaling today.

This is off topics having nothing to do with SCS and does not belong on this thread.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The whole point of a Freedom of Navigation Exercise, is specifically designed not to ask Beijing for permission. A FON is a act designed to send the message that a nation doesn't recognize the Territorial claims of another country. Asking Beijing permission would therefore weakens the act. Its like asking permission to cut a hole in a wire fence.
Beijing wants territorial rights over the Islands, the US, Australia and others do not recognize such and other then a safety of navigation buffer of a kilometer or so to avoid running aground, the navies and air forces will enter and operate in close hand to the facilities despite Chinese protests.

Click to expand...

Statecraft is seldom that clear or simple. Australia has demonstrated many times in recent times it wants no trouble with China, not diplomatic, not economic, not commercial, and not military. That's why it's entirely possible, maybe even probable, Canberra explained its so-called FON flights with Beijing beforehand, and PRC's relatively mild response also suggests some kind of modus vivendi was reached.