As the 11th Our Ocean Conference (OOC 11) in Mombasa concluded on June 18, international delegates celebrated billions of dollars in new pledges and the newly signed Mombasa Declaration on fisheries transparency and combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. Concurrently, various forums hailed the impending implementation of the newly minted Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Treaty) to establish marine protected areas. Yet, behind this diplomatic pageantry lay a chilling precedent for global scientific cooperation.
Under intense pressure from Beijing, the Kenyan government abruptly revoked the approved electronic travel authorizations of the Taiwanese delegation led by the Ocean Affairs Council (OAC). Defending the exclusion to international media, Kenyan Foreign Ministry Principal Secretary Korir Sing’oei claimed that individuals carrying Taiwanese passports lack valid travel documents. “Any person purporting to hold a Taiwanese passport would ordinarily not be allowed through our borders for lacking proper documentation and would not in any event be part of a formal state meeting convened by Kenya government,” Sing’oei said.
More alarmingly, a Taiwanese scholar who had already arrived was denied entry to Kenya, with their passport and phone confiscated for over 20 hours before the entire delegation was forced to withdraw.
The incident represents a dangerous wake-up call that demands high vigilance from the international community. The OOC, initially launched by the U.S. Department of State, has long functioned as a vital Track 1.5 to Track 2 platform. It was designed specifically to bypass rigid geopolitical gridlock, allowing governments, scientists, and NGOs to collaborate on pressing ecological crises. By extending its political veto into a functional, non-U.N. scientific arena, Beijing has signaled its intent to weaponize global ocean governance, prioritizing political warfare over the survival of marine ecosystems. Kenya’s attempt to reframe a flexible Track 2 platform as a restrictive state-only event under the pretext of the One China principle sets a destructive precedent for multilateral environmentalism.
Taiwan is an indispensable stakeholder in ocean governance. It has transformed from a historical trouble-maker accused of laundering fish into a vanguard against IUU fishing, directly advancing the Mombasa Declaration. Globally, IUU fishing inflicts an astronomical economic toll of up to $50 billion annually, devastating coastal livelihoods and fueling severe human rights abuses through forced labor. Catherine Chabaud, France’s minister delegate for the sea and fishery, noted that transparency must become the universal norm in the fisheries sector, as international cooperation is paralyzed without it.
Through the Fisheries Agency’s aggressive digitization, Taiwan can offer the international community robust verification of catch data. By aligning with the Mombasa Declaration’s core mandates – modernizing vessel registries, publishing fishing authorizations, and strengthening information-sharing – Taiwan can deploy cutting-edge artificial intelligence into its Vessel Monitoring Systems to provide predictive AI tracking that detects anomalous vessel behavior and unauthorized transshipments in real-time. This tech capability is vital for conserving marine genetic resources under the BBNJ framework.
Due to ecological connectivity, designating isolated marine protected areas is insufficient if IUU fishing – characterized by operations that bypass regional fisheries management organizations and domestic laws – is allowed to compromise connected marine legal frameworks. By evading monitoring, IUU fishing paralyzes the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and stock assessments essential to BBNJ, creating a critical data black hole in ecological baselines. Taiwan’s AI enforcement and aggressive digitization offer the exact “fisheries transparency” championed by the Mombasa Declaration, bringing high-seas fishing back into a regulated, rules-based order to safeguard this dynamic global ecological baseline.
However, this crisis also underscores the urgent need for Taiwan to maximize its internal governance in the face of unprecedented external exclusion. Under the BBNJ framework, establishing marine protected areas and conducting EIAs require a dynamic cross-referencing of harvesting pressures against ecological vulnerabilities. For Taiwan to fully realize its potential as a global ocean steward, the state-of-the-art AI monitoring data held by its fisheries authorities regarding vessel ownership and supply chains must be seamlessly integrated with the rigorous scientific baselines developed by the National Academy of Marine Research (NAMR).
Eliminating domestic data silos and consolidating cross-agency marine intelligence is no longer just an administrative task; it is a geopolitical necessity. By transforming fragmented technological prowess into a unified, accessible maritime data network, Taiwan can more effectively project its scientific capabilities and offer undeniable proof of its readiness to contribute high-stakes solutions to global ocean governance.
Taiwan’s forcible exclusion from the Our Oceans Conference exposes a flagrant violation of the principle of effective jurisdiction and the rule of law. The undeniable legal and maritime reality is that Taiwan exercises sole, sovereign, and effective jurisdiction over its vast surrounding waters, far-seas fishing fleets, and law enforcement networks. Beijing’s administrative reach does not extend an inch into Taiwanese ports or research vessels. Forcing international hosts to exclude Taiwanese scientists based on a fictional geopolitical narrative ignores the factual reality on the water and undermines the integrity of multilateral environmental agreements.
If the international community tolerates Beijing’s expansion of its geopolitical veto into Track 1.5 or Track 2 scientific platforms, the future of the rules-based maritime order is bleak. It signals to authoritarian regimes that political leverage can buy the censorship of key scientific actors. To safeguard the oceans, like-minded partners – including the United States, Japan, and Australia – must look beyond standard diplomatic condemnations and actively counter this form of bullying in the multilateral scientific sphere. When both formal and secondary tracks are compromised by bilateral coercion, these nations should integrate Taiwan’s research capabilities directly into robust, decentralized scientific coalitions.
We cannot allow political exclusion to dictate the terms of ecological survival. The ocean knows no borders, and ocean science must no longer tolerate geopolitical blackmail.