The economic situation of Argentina means that there are not enough funds to control de coast. So these ships go in and out at the 200 miles that limit the international waters. It’s easy to see by satellite, but hard to control with a small and under equipped coast patrol.
I sometimes hate humanity as a species. How can a living thing be purposefully so destructive towards it's own planet? The only one it has and will ever have (at least for now we haven't infested any other planet). This is one of the many things that makes me angry knowing there is nothing that will realistically be done to stop it. We will suffer the consequences and these people will then go and fuck up some other sea area until there is nothing left anywhere in the world.
All of it? I mean hate towards globalization that helped China and other hegemonic dictators with no regards for rule of law continue to do what it does is one thing. Blatant hate for humanity is another.
That said we have to realize as a whole that our current way of living is not sustainable and will result is us screwing over future generations that will have to live in an incredibly polluted, and ecologically damaged planet. We have to use our intellect and capacity of achieving anything we put our mind towards and take real, meaningful steps to solve this problem. Before it's too late. There are also many other important global issues that need our attention as a society but that's past the scope of this comment.
This is what humans have been doing for a long time. The problems were just much more acute for the next generations. Until very recently, most humans were born into scenarios without good shelter, solid water supplies, solid food supplies, general safety, or any medical protection from trivial things like infection let alone anything more complicated.
What’s happening here is this poor Chinese fisherman are still dealing with the acute issues (feeding existing family, etc) so the trade of returning home empty handed vs breaking boundaries is too difficult for them to come out on the right side of.
So, I do see your viewpoint, but looking at individuals is one small slice of the problem, not the whole by any means. We can't count on individual goodness, not when greed or desire is allowed to motivate our leaders so heavily.
To quote Wiki: <<Formerly the fourth largest lake in the world with an area of 68,000 km2 (26,300 sq mi), the Aral Sea began shrinking in the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Soviet irrigation projects.>>
As I understand, most of the diverted water was used to grow cotton.
That harm was done during the Soviet Union. Most would agree, the Soviet system was less capitalistic than the current Mainland Chinese system.
All types of governments can cause environmental ruin, and all types of governments can clean it up. Also, not all environmental ruin is permanent. The United States, UK, and Japan had extensive, wide-spread industrial pollution in the 1960s and 1970s. They spent the next 30 years cleaning up, and did a pretty good job.
We might not be there yet but we are going to be the first species in the history of the planet capable of protecting the biosphere from the inevitable assault from the cosmos.
Everyone that talks about how horrific a cancer the human race is on the planet is a hypocrite because they are still alive themselves. If they really meant it they would take action by ending their own lives. They don't because what they really mean is everyone else is a cancer on the planet except for them. It's a selfish and narcissistic attitude.
The cognitive dissonance they feel turns into downvotes rather than deeper thoughts on why they aren't an integral part of the "problem" they complain about.
Or do you prefer the idea of future environmental dystopia?
If you hate humanity then beauty is pointless, because humans are the only ones who appreciate beauty for beauty, rather than "beauty" just being an evolutionary signal to fuck.
This is incorrect - see e.g. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150511-why-are-animals-so-b... or https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/magazine/beauty-evolution...
One of the unattractive human attributes is our self-centered arrogance. And unfortunately, combine with our other traits this results in some pretty bad behaviors that have a terrible impact on other species. The question of whether the planet would be better off without humans is not so obviously answered in the negative.
But arrogance lifted to these levels would probably not exist if we weren't here.
The universe doesn't care about us. The universe doesn't care about the things you think are "beautiful". Tomorrow a planet-busting asteroid could collide with the earth and destroy every last bit of life on it (except maybe Tardigrades). The only thing that could possibly ameliorate that is humanity continuing to expand and grow, being a space-faring species, etc. That way some life (and therefore beauty) could be saved when we take those things with us into the stars.
Unless and until we find other intelligent species that are better stewards than us, we're all the universe has got, no matter how shit we are at the job.
After you are born, you need to eat.
What solution can you think of?
Other countries have in the past literally board and scuttle trespassing fishing vessels.
Do that, even only a couple times, and few foreign boats will risk the trip. It is cheap to do.
Once bribes, 'personal cuts', etc. have been made/taken, there's not much left. Not to mention the kind of culture that breeds.
Sending the Chinese Navy into territorial waters off of South America to secure theft of Argentinian natural resources would be a completely different move, and arguably an act of war.
Unfortunate that it's literally called The South China Sea. This dispute will likely never go away.
Even China would not bother.
In reality, Argentina would either need to buy or build a respectable navy (too poor), OR publicly ally with the US AND petition that the US Navy enforce Argentina's territorial rights (the US military and its navy are overstretched already).
Why does Argentina need the US navy? Why not Brazil?
Unless people are getting paid off to look the other way?
Game-theoretically, it seems preferable to sink them without any warning.
Consider: the fines would only be paid if they are less than the cost of acquiring a new ship. So if they have to pay fines of 90% of the value, you're still saving them 10% compared to getting a new ship. And if the fines are >100%, they would just ignore it and leave Argentina with the ship.
Unless Argentina can turn it into a revenue stream, sinking them unconditionally seems preferable. The Chinese fishing boats don't have anything to give them in a negotiation. All they have to give them is leaving the area, and that is accomplished by sinking the boats too.
"The military of Country X is firing on and sinking our country's vessels" is much more likely to lead to retaliation. China may not have the navy or willingness to project power across the Pacific, but I guarantee they have the capability if focused to utterly destroy the computing infrastructure of the country - and while enthusiastic private parties may not get involved in civil penalties, "Argentina just declared war on us!" is a hell of a rallying cry.
Edit: also keep in mind that even governments are not monolithic entities with a single mind. Those costs are coming out of someone's budget.
Of course you gotta cut a lot of economic ties before you start poking pooh bear.
This sounds a lot more like "selling back".
Which makes a lot of sense if you don't have anything better to do with it... just make sure you're selling it back for enough money to make a good profit.
I guess Argentina can offer to host a US military base in exchange for taking care of Chinese fishing vessels.