3 ms·
Disappointed in the article. When I saw the Yale domain I thought it would be a research paper or at least something written by an expert on the subject. It app
by knolax 6y ago
Disappointed in the article. When I saw the Yale domain I thought it would be a research paper or at least something written by an expert on the subject. It appears this is written by a journalist[0] and as typical of things written hy journalists, leaves out crucial details/sources which leaves you with more questions.
> the country’s commercial fishermen often serve as de-facto paramilitary personnel whose activities the Chinese government can frame as private actions.
???? The article doesn't go any further, but how would you use a bunch of unarmed fishing vessels crewed by "illiterates" (according to the article) for anything resembling a military purpose. Later on it mentions "crowding" but doesn't really go into detail about what that means.
Plus what is a "distant water fishing fleet"? The article gives numbers for overall number of fishing vessels and then "distant water fishing fleet", but only provides context for the later number by saying the US has only 300 such boats in its fleet. If a country with coasts on two oceans only has 300 of these, it has to be some really specific category of boat right? What makes this category important?
And of course there's the framing of the article, the fishing is done by private commercial fishers but apparently their entire country is to blame. I mean you can make some arguments about subsidies but then the article itself acknowledges that other countries also engage in similar level of subsidies.
Also there's this weird fixation on North Korea, where it claims the Chinese fishing fleet is depleting North Korean waters, but doesn't really tell us about whether or not that's done with North Korea's permission. It mentions that it would be technically illegal for NK to sell fishing rights, but that doesn't really bear any significance.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Urbina https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Urbina
- sradman 6y agoFrom the linked Ian Urbina Wikipedia page: > As a journalist, his investigations typically focus on worker safety and the environment... As you point out, Urbina has an undeniable preference for international law, regulation, and treaties pertaining to oceans and fisheries. These sentiments seem to align with the values promoted by the Yale School of the Environment [1]. The article links to an investigative report Urbina did for NBC [2] which describes the evidence. [1] https://environment.yale.edu/ https://environment.yale.edu/ [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/china-illegal-fishing-fleet/index.html https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/china-illegal-fishing-fleet...
- knolax 6y ago> As you point out, Urbina has an undeniable preference for international law, regulation, and treaties pertaining to oceans and fisheries. He might have an expert level knowledge on the topic, but he is using all the standard tricks journalists use to paint a narrative. Bringing up statistics without context and without defining the thing it's measuring, using technical terminology without explaining what it means, alluding to certain things without elaborating, and citing sources(if at all) in a way such that you have to spend a lot of time hunting down an actual document supporting his claims. > The article links to an investigative report Urbina did for NBC [2] which describes the evidence. evidence of what? I'm not denying that Chinese boats are fishing in North Korea. It still seems weird that in a situation where Chinese boats are fishing in North Korea's waters, the fixation is on sanctions. I can understand this being bad if North Korea doesn't want Chinese boats fishing in their waters but both articles seem to imply that there is implicit approval, in which case who cares? Sanctions are antithetical to free trade and human welfare.