Two mainland Chinese fishermen who survived the Kinmen incident were recently repatriated to Fujian. Earlier, the Taiwan Coast Guard had been claiming that the mainland Chinese fishing boat capsized during a chase due to high-speed zigzagging, a lie that has now been exposed. According to the accounts of the two fishermen, the truth is that the Coast Guard deliberately collided with the fishing boat during a high-speed chase, intentionally causing it to capsize and resulting in casualties. There are opinions in mainland China that such actions are tantamount to murder.
After the incident, the Taiwan Coast Guard continued to falsely claim that there was no video footage due to the haste of the situation. It now seems more likely that the footage was intentionally destroyed to conceal the collision, or possibly existed but was destroyed to cover up the collision after it occurred.
To shift blame, Taiwan authorities released information stating that the Coast Guard in Kinmen conducted three separate interrogations with the two surviving fishermen, and later, prosecutors from the Kinmen District Prosecutor’s Office conducted two separate interrogations with each person as a witness. Both individuals stated that they had no objections to the Coast Guard’s law enforcement procedures. Now, it appears that these statements were likely made under duress.
From the above facts, the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council of the mainland strongly condemned Taiwan’s “violent law enforcement and deliberate concealment of the truth,” demanding the disclosure of the truth, strict punishment of those responsible, and an apology to the families of the victims, which is not unreasonable. Taiwan authorities only admitted after being exposed that it was the collision of Taiwan Coast Guard vessels that caused the mainland Chinese fishing boat to capsize and casualties. Even after admitting this, they continued to make various excuses and evade responsibility, making it impossible for the mainland to accept the truth being obscured.
Following the incident, the mainland’s response has been notably restrained. The Taiwan Affairs Office only expressed “strong condemnation” of the actions of the Taiwan Coast Guard on the day of the incident and on the 18th stated “strong indignation.” Although the mainland’s statement on the 18th indicated that there was no existence of a “prohibition or restriction of waters,” they still demanded that Taiwan “release ships and people,” “handle relevant responsible parties,” and “reserve the right to take further measures,” indicating a clear escalation. The Fujian Maritime Police began regular patrols in the Xiamen-Kinmen area on February 18th and inspected a Kinmen tourist boat for 30 minutes on the same day, but several major mainland media outlets and other Taiwan-related departments besides reposting the Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson’s statement did not comment on the matter, nor did the military make targeted statements.
In line with the principle of “both sides of the strait being one family” in handling cross-strait issues, it is evident that the mainland is unwilling to see the already highly tense cross-strait relations further disrupted due to this sudden incident, which can be considered as benevolent. This has been noticed even by local Taiwanese and some international media outlets focusing on cross-strait dynamics, widely seen as a “low-key” response from the mainland.
Unfortunately, while the mainland’s response has been low-key, Taiwan’s response has been far from accepting. The Taiwan Mainland Affairs Council shifted blame after the incident, claiming that the mainland had long tolerated “three noes” (no ship name, no ship registration certificate, no registered port) vessels engaging in illegal fishing activities. Taiwan stated it would continue to enforce the law sternly and prudently. The Mainland Affairs Council also claimed that mainland vessels are not allowed to enter Taiwan’s restricted or prohibited waters without permission. To safeguard fishermen’s rights, the competent authority will expel or detain trespassing vessels in accordance with the law, and “this was the case in the past, is the case now, and will continue to be the case in the future.”
Furthermore, even the United States has recently begun to intervene. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller, when asked whether they are concerned about escalating tensions, stated on the 20th, “The United States is closely monitoring Beijing’s actions and continues to urge restraint, urging against unilateral changes to the status quo.”
After the incident, some mainland influencers who rely on patriotic sentiments claimed that Taiwan was capitulating. Their reasoning was that the Taiwanese military showed a non-intervention attitude towards the inspection of Taiwan tourist boats by the mainland Coast Guard. From Taiwan’s response, it is still uncertain whether this judgment is accurate.
From the statements of the Taiwanese military and the highest authorities, it appears that Taiwan does not want to escalate the situation further. For example, when quoting the views of Lai Ching-te, a spokesperson for the Democratic Progressive Party, Wu Zheng stated that they would “continue to work hard to prevent similar situations from recurring.” Taiwanese leaders are likely aware of the risks that further escalation of the incident could bring. However, judging from the statements of the Mainland Affairs Council and the involved Taiwan Coast Guard, they do not seem to show much remorse, and their tone remains quite firm.
For the mainland, whether they can effectively protect the lives, property, and legal rights and interests of fishermen, hold responsible parties in Taiwan accountable, apologize to the families of the victims, and avoid similar incidents, remains to be seen. It is also uncertain whether the routine patrols by mainland maritime police in the relevant waters will change the current situation of control between the two sides in this area. (Hang Ziya)