The Chinese have flotillas of hundreds of illegal fishing boats that travel across the globe to devastate local fish populations. They recently illegally entered the area surrounding the Galapagos to terrible effect.[1] So as sensible as this concept is, it needs enforcement, and at this point I’m not sure what, shy of direct violence, will get this to stop.
Fish are a resource to be colonized at gunpoint like anything else. It's just that this (fortunately) produced a set of ludicrous little skirmishes rather than the Royal Navy turning up and shelling Reykjavík.
Oh, no, absolutely; it is just quite surprising to me that these were relatively modern events. (It’s also a fun case study where negotiations failed spectacularly, with interesting/unexpectedly underlying causes.)
Except absolutely nothing in the world would be lost, in reality, no aspect of human existence, no reduction of joy, if people fished less and fish was more expensive, or whatever crap, in retrospect, people were collecting into their bellies or as stupid fashion for history.
The whole focus on Chinese fishing in foreign EEZs is a red herring (excuse the pun) compared to the real goal behind subsidizing a large deep water fishing fleet.
Most Chinese fishing takes place right outside the EEZ in the high seas, and after the 2017 fiasco with a Chinese ship caught in the Galapagos EEZ they've been very careful not to actually enter its 200nm limit. The linked article has some great maps of AIS data that clearly show this. There may still be scattered instances of ships with AIS transponders turned off being sent into the EEZ or transfers from non-Chinese flagged vessels to Chinese ships, but according to the article "In most cases, what is detectable may not be illegal, and care is clearly being taken by the Chinese fleet to give the appearance of legal compliance with national and international laws."
The real bombshell is this here: "A task force report published in 2010 by Chinese government, industry, and academics argued that countries that have a longer history of using the ocean have more power in determining how resources are distributed and thus receive a larger share of those resources: occupying brings about rights and interests"
China is subsidizing a large deep water fleet so they become the largest fishers on the high seas outside of the 200nm EEZs and so can write the future rules for high seas fishing. As stated in the article, of the regional fishery management organizations that operate in the area very few Chinese ships are registered with the IATTC (founded 1949) despite China being a member. Rather, the ships are all registered with the SPRFMO (founded 2012). It's a lot easier to write organization rules when you're a founding member than when you join decades later. In international politics possession (in this case precedence) is 9/10ths of the law and you can be sure in any future negotiations over fishing quotas in the currently loosely regulated high seas China will have the largest voice because they have the largest fleet and largest historical catch.
While everyone's still back in the 80s guarding their 200nm UNCLOS EEZs China's already got the first mover advantage on everything outside those EEZs.
If countries want to preserve their fishing stocks for local fishermen they'll have to set fishing quotas or no fish zones within their EEZs like the article suggests. But fish have no conception of EEZ boundaries and the moment they wander outside they're free game for Chinese DWF fleets. From China's view, if foreign countries want big EEZs, they can shoulder the cost of maintaining the fishing grounds inside.
Looks like the real solution is to genetically modify fish so they always stay within 200 nm of land.
Humans alive today don't have much worse lives because of our killing of the Mammoth, the dodo, or the giant sloth.
Humans alive in 2000 years also won't have much worse lives. It'll be a sidenote in biology class "Did you know, there used to be many different types of animal roaming freely, but now there are just two types left, cats and dogs.".
Humans who don't have something don't know how great it was or what they're missing.
Perhaps your ancestors could have told you how awesome it was to ride mammoths into the sunset... But those ancestors are no longer around and we think of them as mostly theoretical creatures.
as someone who aspires to be deeply knowledgeable in many random areas -- you mind me asking how you came to know so much about this Chinese deep water fleet?
Sadly, the guy who wanted to “get tough on China” was an idiot, which may set back that policy agenda by 20 years. Wish we had an actual tough guy President like Putin to wage the inevitable total war against China.
Why has everyone forgotten that China has nuclear ballistic missiles? Total war against China would involve the destruction of most major cities on both sides.
What is need is anti-fishing equipment mines, that destroy nets brought into a protected area. A solar powered drone-sub with a "gnaw"-wire-saw near the towing cables should do.
Fishing is a dying "industry" as is old school electricity- every time fishing goes into decline, fish-farms grow.
Interesting Trivia by the way: Fish farming is one of the cheapest ways to generate protein besides insects. Fish living in a weightless environ and requiring very little body heat, help to that.
This may be a dopey question, but my understanding was that gun ownership basically didn't exist in China. The one instance of going shooting in China of which I've heard involved going to a special range in a major city in which rifles were chained to the table at the firing line. How do boats get away with this?
Sometimes countries have a problem with something used domestically, but zero issue when the same is done exclusively for export.
> China permits the sale of hemp seeds and hemp oil and the use of CBD in cosmetics, but it has not yet approved cannabidiol for use in food and medicines. So, for now, the bulk of Hempsoul’s product — roughly two tons a year — is bound for markets overseas.
Chinese fishing boats that are illegally harvesting in other countries' maritime regions spend a great deal of time outside Chinese territory, where Chinese law is not enforced.
And that's ignoring the possibility of collaborating with the Chinese state.
Not that this is happening, but I don't see any large barriers to it.
If they're fishing in the Gulf of California, they might be able to get guns from some Mexican cartel, but they'd better not try to get them back to China.
Though I'm not sure whether that's really happening, since a search for "chinese fishing boats fired" https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chinese+fishing+boats+fired exclusively returns results where coast guards of other nations fired at Chinese boats. If Chinese boats had guns, you'd think they'd use them and we'd get to hear about it.
Why is actual violence not a solution? How many fishing ships would need to be sunk by the Chilean Navy before they wouldn't enter their territorial waters?
They would not sink boats. Even for some of the largest fishing boats, the marine would just sent a larger military boat and board it, transport the sailors to land and give them to the police for dealing with. The fishing boat would be confiscated.
Actually sinking of boats is highly unnecessary and not something people do unless the other boat has cannons and rockets, which a fishing boat is unlikely to have.
> unless the other boat has cannons and rockets, which a fishing boat is unlikely to have.
Well, you say that, but they have been known to use bombs.
> Sea Shepherd said fishermen threw rocks that broke the ship’s windows and tossed gasoline bombs that briefly ignited a fire on the Farley Mowat’s deck. [0]
Is not the Chinese navy in the sense of Chinese government. Is Chinese mafia or Chinese big private company or Multinational Big company. For each one you close there will be more to come as long that is profitable. The Chinese (or Japanese or whatever) government will protest and try to retaliate of course
But is not necessarily government. Is "wery well known japanese car maker" storing frozen tuna for speculating with the market prices in a sort of "gold" substitute, but more profitable than gold market. Yes this has happened and is probably happening now. We know it because the 2011 Tsunami destroyed the hidden storages. Japan, Not China (in this case).
Is Totoaba prices in the Chinese market being falsely promoted as miraculous remedy for all stuff and prices manipulated to the point of making small fortunes, where the pirate local fishermen are paid in peanuts. You wipe the pirate locals has the same result as wiping the small drug dealers.
And in the other part of the warfield, we have a bunch of environmentalists without any real money. People that can be overpowered, crushed by lawyers or assasinated selectively. What will be more convenient.
Neither Ukraine nor Chile are NATO members. In fact the invasion was triggered due to membership being on the table -- I am going to avoid touching this subject further though here.
A simpler method would be satellite observation[1] coupled with a universal "you catch it, you land it" rule - no more throwing by-catch back into the sea.
All State authority is backed by violence. If you wish to enforce an international decree, be prepared to use violence when an entity decides they are above the law at the expense of the planet or greater society.
If S.H.I.E.L.D. waltzes into Wakanda and steals a ton of vibranium from their mines, is that not an act of theft/violence? Or is plundering another nation's resources not considered violence?
Well actually, violence is not just physical in nature.
You can be fiscally violent, i.e. harsh sanctions/trade wars, you can be emotionally violent, why you can commit unspeakable acts of violence without ever striking another person.
Theft of resources to a point of detriment is always violence.
Stealing an apple from Farmer John so you can eat is not violence.
Destroying the ecosystem which Farmer John uses to grow his apples, so that you can have more apples, is violence.
Overfishing in or near territories to the point of resource scarcity is 100%, always violence.
How do you plan to get others to go along with your interesting definition of violence? It sounds very much like something coming from fanatical "meat is murder" folks - at which point, it becomes hard to place trust in what the person is saying because one begins to doubt his/her motives.
I like how this works. Just make claims and they become true.
There are other words to describe different concepts. If you want to conflate disparate things, I still don't see how you intend to have others go along with you. I'll wait till I hear news of a violent offender where the accusation was of consuming too much of a resource.
I still stand by the analogy I used. This is no different than taking a word that people associate with something negative and expanding its use to refer to something else. I did not intend to "tease" your royal highness.
I'm afraid we are in disagreement again. I'm merely challenging your definition which naturally preceded my challenge as I do not yet possess unusual foresight.
Nothing more than you substantiating your claim. If it is indeed as you say, then the honourable thing for me to do would be to concede that my confidence was misplaced.
As a result of violence being such a complex phenomenon, there is no clear definition for it. Therefore, it is often understood differently by different people in different contexts - such as those from different countries, cultures, or belief systems.
While no standard definition of violence has been established, it is important, when developing effective prevention strategies, to have a clear understanding of violence and the context in which it occurs. In its 2002 World Report on Violence and Health, the World Health Organisation (WHO) proposes a definition of violence that has since become a working term for many international and South African organisations working in the field:
WHO definition of violence
“The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.”
---
Psychological violence (also referred to as emotional or mental abuse) includes verbal and non-verbal communication used with the intent to harm another person mentally or emotionally, or to exert control over another person.
The impact of psychological violence can be just as significant as that of other, more physical forms of violence, as the perpetrator subjects the victim to behaviour which may result in some form of psychological trauma, such as anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder. This includes, but is not limited to:
* expressive aggression (e.g., humiliating and degrading),
* coercive control (e.g., limiting access to things or people, and excessive monitoring of a person’s whereabouts or communications),
* threats of physical or sexual violence,
* control of reproductive or sexual health,
* and exploitation of a person’s vulnerability (e.g., immigration status or disability).
This not only leads to mental health problems, but also to severe physical problems, such as psychosomatic disorders.
---
There, I have done your research into a pre-established, publicly accepted fact which I have no obligation to do (or else I would be doing it all day!). Your welcome.
Now it's your turn to come up with reasons why this evidence of historic colloquial use will not be enough for you.
I'm afraid I am still unable to see where you have been able to make the connection in a satisfactory manner. I do concede that you have found something which says the definition is not the same for everyone. Otherwise the definition you listed in quotes is about intentional use of force. The other definition is specifically called "psychological violence" in the part you quoted. There too, I have on complaint and no disagreement. That, however, is not the same as "violence". To be able to communicate the concept you had in mind, without conflating the two, that part you quoted specifically adds the qualifier "psychological". With that qualifier, I think it's just easier to communicate and we probably wouldn't even be having this long exchange.
I used a qualifier: emotional violence. I felt like I didn't need to be redundant and use the word "psychological" as well. You are shifting goal posts and clinging to quite a small island at this point, and it's kind of sad, so I am done with this conversation.
Too expensive. Somali pirates were stopped by a private military company on their ground, not waters. Navy of several countries just couldn't keep with pirates.
Australia are great at this. They manoeuvre their armoured and armed navy vessels between Japanese whalers and whales, then say "sure, go ahead and shoot your little harpoon, see what will happen".
They do this endlessly until the Japanese give up and go home.
They do this in International waters around Australia, and it's a huge point of pride among Australians.
Fun fact: Australia ceased their own whaling only in 1978, and that was because killing off some 98% of the whales in their own waters made it uneconomical.
This is where privateering comes in... these issues existed in the past and are hard to solve. Privateers gave the state the ability to look the other way.
You might make treaties with larger nations who could use various other negotiation methods (or, failing that, navies) to try and reach a global balance.
Why would a "larger nation" such as China agree to such a treaty when they can blow you out of their waters, and you can't blow them out of yours? What's in it for them? It's not in their interest, so a treaty is a non-starter.
A big nation doesn't give a shit about a small nation unless there's something in it for them. I.e. if they're a part of some pre-existing union, or if they host their military bases, or something else. And there's zero chance a big nation will risk going to war to protect a small nation's fishing rights, unless a war was already in the cards (in which case it might be used as a rather desperate "casus belli").
maybe just destroy their fishing equipment, there will be aftermath but I can't imagine the narrative "Ecuador's military going all over to the China sea to bully civilians" makes sense to anyone.
As someone pointed out above you can board them. I suppose an argument could be made for sinking them; it would prevent reclamation of the vessel for fishing later.
You bring up a good point, they could consume all the fish. But if we can't regulate them, WE will consume all the fish. We don't need to consume all the fish.
We need to stop doing business with China period. They're going to leapfrog our knowledge industries, leading to total economic stagnation of the West.
We shouldn't do business with a country that steals, doesn't play fair, is the embodiment of 1984, and above all, commits genocide.
Get the G7 countries, Korea, India, etc. on board with the plan. Start doing manufacturing in India, Vietnam, Africa, and Mexico. Copy their Belt initiative, but make the countries that do business with us allies rather than devastatingly indebted.
Agree in unison to cancel Chinese debts owed as repayment for technologies stolen.
Defend the South China Sea for energy exploration by other neighboring countries. Defend Vietnam's water rights.
Strengthen alliance with Vietnam, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. In the extreme case, offer recognition of independence to Taiwan or even US statehood.
Brain drain China. Offer immigration packages and economic incentives to Chinese PhD students.
We have to be proactive about the situation. Xi has played the CCP's hand early, and we have a chance to nip their ambitions in the bud.
Before anyone accuses me of racism, I care deeply about the Chinese people. I also acknowledge the problems of the West - racial injustice, inequality, ongoing wars. But compared to democracy, as flawed as it is, I think the future posed by Communist China is nightmare fuel and has the potential to eclipse the future we are trying to build.
For decades, American businesses and consumers have been happy to let the Chinese government get away with anything so long as our plastic widgets could be made - and bought - for 5 cents less. But the Chinese government is an incredibly malevolent actor by any measure, and the rest of the world needs to rethink its willingness to be complicit in their actions by way of economic cooperation.
This is comically naive in the light of recent events. Trade wars will be over by the end of 2021, and _all_ of the US manufacturing capacity will move there now, unimpeded. The only thing that's stopping that now and forcing US companies to diversify are trade tensions.
The US does not have concentration camps full of religious minorities. The US media is only lightly censored, as opposed to the fully censored Chinese media. The US has not implemented a social credit system to turn its own population into a secret police. The US doesn't cover up global pandemics and then "disappear" anyone who talks about the cover up. The US is not the worlds biggest jailer of journalists. The US is not a one-party system which has outlawed protests etc. The US does not execute mass-scale non-consensual organ-harvesting of religious minorities to fuel their organ tourism industry. You should be thankful that speaking against the US government won't get you kidnapped and tortured like it would in China. If this was China, your very comment could lead to your death.
> The US has not implemented a social credit system to turn its own population into a secret police.
The US does seem to have a large misunderstanding of what the social credit system is, and the ways it differs, and does not differ from the regular credit system.
In what ways is the social credit system not a "tool for comprehensive government surveillance and for suppression of dissent from the Communist Party of China", as Wikipedia puts it?
How does this compare to something like this super trawler? [1]. I feel like this comment is just circling out what "The Chinese" are doing and neglecting the fact that Europeans are doing similar destructive things.
It’s way more than hundreds. China has has hundreds illegally off of just Galapagos, and laughably claimed they were all operating legally. This article on that incident says China has 17000 “distant fishing” boats. Maybe not all are in economic exclusive zones but I bet most operate in ways that would be illegal under US law: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/260-chinese-b...
All avenues that aren’t violent have not worked and the UN or the international court system are too slow to respond effectively. YouTube already has many videos of military ships shooting at Chinese fishing vessels. That seems like the most expedient solution.
Note that bunker fuel is likely to be a bit more environmentally friendly from a long-term climate change point of view, as being less refined, less energy is used in processing it.
The pollutants from it aren't a concern when far out at sea, as they're only a threat to local air quality. They're just a concern closer to shores.
What I’m getting at is that these distant voyages are only economically possible at a certain fuel cost. If the fuel cost goes too high, these distance voyages are no longer feasible.
They most likely use diesel fuel, given that most are probably relatively smaller vessels. But some ships are “factory ships”, with onboard processing, and those would likely be large enough to hold engines that can take bunker fuel.
Really is time to do something about the Chinese emptying the oceans. We need some subs around the Galapagos to help them and sink those Chinese vessels if needed.
Basically all of these articles tries to spin Chinese distance fishing fleets operating largely in international waters, at the edge of respective country EEZs, legally as... illegal. This article specifically:
>nothing blatantly illegal to report to the Ecuadorian navy, the Coast Guard was relegated to watching,
There is nothing to stop enforcement of isolated illegal behaviour, which actual analysis of transponder behaviour shows, is limited to handful of boats and such behaviour is consistent among other distant fishing fleet. CCP doesn't give a shit when other countries enforce on Chinese distant fishing vessels unless behavior overlaps with disputed maritime areas. Plenty of Chinese ships detained or even sunk by foreign coast guards, central government just shrugs and say tough shit. Though it's a sufficiently annoying diplomatic issue that China is trying to reduce it's DWF size in the next few years.
> devastate local fish populations
At the end of the day, China _UNDER_ fishes per capita, including the Galapagos drama. Ecuador & Peru, two countries with 1/28th population of China, captures about about 1/4 of China, who also has 1/2 the EEZ of these countries, which incidentally means China has to fish more in international waters. In fact Ecuador & Peru catches as much fish annually as US with 1/10 the population... so if anything these two countries need to fish less and China needs to fish more.
BTW top 5 DWF fleets by size: China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Spain. Adjusted per capita China would rank behind Taiwan, Korea. In terms of transshipped fishing (offloading catch to support vessels) which allows fishing fleets to fish longer with less traceability, China ranks behind South Korea, Japan, Taiwan.
[1] https://phys.org/news/2020-10-crisis-galapagos-chinese-fishi...