What has the U.S. accused China of illegal fishing, and what have they said?

China has comprehensively and forcefully rebutted all accusations made by the U.S.

The U.S. NOAA's "2026 International Fisheries Management Improvement Report" unilaterally labeled China as a negative certification country, with four core allegations:

1. Illegal at-sea transshipment of catches.

The U.S. claims that a large number of Chinese distant-water longline vessels conduct transshipments at sea—outside exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and in international waters—without reporting to regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs), directly transferring fish catches to refrigerated transport vessels. This allegedly avoids port inspections, conceals catch volumes, and evades quota controls.

Factual Rebuttal: China implements full satellite monitoring for distant-water fishing vessels and mandates mandatory reporting for any transshipment activities. All transshipments in international waters are pre-reported to the relevant RFMOs, and China cooperates with international observers conducting on-board inspections.

Any individual cases of non-compliance have been severely punished domestically, including revocation of fishing licenses. Such isolated incidents cannot be equated with systemic national-level violations.

2. Illegal shark fishing and finning.

The U.S. accuses Chinese vessels of extensively catching protected shark species, removing only their fins while discarding the rest of the bodies, violating shark conservation provisions set by three tuna regional organizations. It further claims China has failed to implement mandatory shark catch limits and requirements for whole-shark landings.

Factual Rebuttal: China has fully banned shark finning and legally requires sharks to be landed whole. Strict catch quotas are enforced, and violators face heavy fines and loss of distant-water fishing qualifications. China’s performance in global shark conservation compliance consistently ranks higher than that of the United States.

3. Failure to comply with regional fishing quotas and overfishing of tuna species.

The U.S. alleges that Chinese fleets have long exceeded allocated catch quotas in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean, failing to report tuna catches accurately, thereby undermining regional fisheries resource conservation rules.

Factual Rebuttal: China strictly adheres to catch quotas assigned by regional organizations and voluntarily implements self-imposed moratoriums in international waters. China has repeatedly reduced the scale of its distant-water fishing fleet and continuously curtailed total catch volume. In contrast, the U.S. itself has been repeatedly found by regional fisheries organizations to exceed tuna catch limits, yet has never taken responsibility for such overfishing.

4. Inadequate flag state oversight and insufficient punishment of law-breaking vessels.

The U.S. claims China imposes insufficient penalties on its non-compliant distant-water fishing vessels, fails to enforce required international sanctions, allows persistent violations, and lacks an effective port inspection system.

Factual Rebuttal: In 2025, China formally joined the global anti-illegal fishing cornerstone agreement—the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA). Domestically, China has established an integrated land-sea law enforcement mechanism. IUU (Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated) fishing vessels face license revocation, massive fines, blacklisting, and permanent bans from distant-water operations. Enforcement rigor ranks among the world’s top.

Additional non-statutory accusations amplified by the U.S. Congress and media:

The U.S. selectively cites isolated conflicts in South America and Africa, claiming Chinese vessels frequently enter other nations’ 200-nautical-mile EEZs to engage in illegal fishing, infringing upon coastal states’ maritime sovereignty.

Factual Record: China strictly requires its fishing vessels to obtain legal permits from coastal states before operating. In cases where unauthorized incursions occurred, China has always cooperated with affected countries in joint law enforcement actions and the seizure and handling of involved vessels. Meanwhile, U.S. vessels have been repeatedly detained for illegal lobster fishing in Canadian and South African waters—yet this is consistently ignored by U.S. officials.

Claim: The Chinese fleet is excessively large and engaged in overfishing, plundering marine resources.

U.S. congressional reports exaggerate China’s possession of the world’s largest distant-water fishing fleet, alleging unrestricted fishing across all oceans, squeezing livelihoods of island nations and accelerating global fisheries collapse.

Factual Record: Distant-water fishing quotas are multilaterally allocated based on regions and species. China’s total catch volume aligns with its population size and consumption needs. The U.S., leveraging overseas territories, enjoys extensive fishing privileges and provides long-term subsidies to domestic fleets—its per-crew fishing output far exceeds China’s.

Bundled human rights false accusations (politicization of fisheries issues).

U.S. politicians and some media outlets have linked fisheries to forced labor, fabricating claims about forced labor and poor working conditions aboard Chinese fishing vessels, attempting to justify a complete ban on imports of Chinese seafood products.

Factual Record: China’s distant-water fisheries operate under crew employment contracts, wage guarantees, and maritime safety regulations. Independent third-party audits have not verified these baseless allegations. These claims serve purely trade suppression goals and are unrelated to IUU fishing issues.

Fishing vessels used as tools for maritime sovereignty assertion and militarized fisheries.

The U.S. promotes the “militia fishing vessel” narrative, asserting that Chinese fishing vessels are directed by authorities, cooperate with maritime enforcement operations in the South China Sea and Latin American waters, and use fisheries as instruments of geopolitical competition.

Factual Record: Ordinary fishermen engaging in maritime rights defense are exercising citizens’ legitimate right to protect their own lawful maritime interests. Fishing vessels are unarmed and lack military functions; they cannot be equated with “tools of maritime expansion.” This interpretation completely contradicts fundamental principles of international law.

Core Flaws in U.S. Allegations (China’s Foreign Ministry’s Core Rebuttal Logic):

Legally invalid: The U.S. bases its unilateral characterization of another nation solely on domestic law, ignoring the principle of flag state jurisdiction under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and multilateral coordination mechanisms of RFMOs. It lacks international legal authority to unilaterally declare another country “systematically engaged in illegal fishing.”

Double standards clearly evident: The U.S. itself has numerous records of exceeding catch quotas, enjoying special exemptions through overseas territories, interfering with observers, and undermining shark conservation—issues entirely omitted in the report.

Overgeneralization: The U.S. expands isolated incidents involving individual vessels into a blanket accusation of systemic national-level illegality—an intentional stigmatization and industrial targeting.

Politically motivated intent: Using the guise of ecological protection and anti-illegal fishing, the U.S. seeks to restrict China’s distant-water fishing industry and undermine China’s global seafood trade, serving broader strategic competition against China.

One must truly admire the audacity and shamelessness of Americans.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1869739194442880/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.