China? A word, please...

The BBQ Pit
21

What gets me about this isn’t just the BS that everybody is talking about. There are always three sides to a story: what A says, what B says, and what really happened. It’s the fact that each of the six Chinese nationals that I’ve talked to just parrot the official Chinese goverment version of the events.

And these are Chinese students trying to earn Ph.D.s. Doctor of Philosophy–I would think that this degree would require the ability to think independently.

I work directly with two Chinese grad students and according to them whatever one reads or sees in the American media is just anti-Chinese propaganda while the State-controlled Chinese news media reports the factual story. The fact that the American media isn’t a tool (OK, that could be debatable in certain situations) for the US goverment, and that the Chinese news seems to be, is lost on them.

They hear that our lumbering spy rammed a highly manuverable jet fighter and it must be true. Since the plane was within 200 miles of China, it was in their airspace. We should apologize because the whole incident was the US’s fault and China is the ‘helpless’ victim of American intimidation (something there, but not in the way that they comprehend).

When the discussion is expanded, I’m told that the Tibetans and Taiwanese are ungrateful troublemakers and that Tianamen Square was the result of domestic ‘terrorists’ taking advantage of student sheep to overthrow the goverment.

When I ask them “Does China spy on the US?” I’m told of course not. This, evidently, is a one-way crime perpetrated by the US on China. It reminds me of when George Will asked a Chinese talking-head about spying between the countries. Will said something like: “It’s a given that the US does spy on China, and China does spy on the US.” The Chinese official was like: “AHA! You admit the that US is spying on China!!!” Like this was some shocking admission of fact. Will’s response was: “We had better be.”

So what gets me is not the the debate of the actual facts of the incident, but that the Chinese I’ve talked to (a very small number, I admit, but I’m not conducting a survey) all think the facts are what their government tells them they are.

When I ask them if it’s POSSIBLE that the Chinese jet ran into the US plane, I’m told NO. When I say that I don’t believe everything that the US government tells me and then ask why they believe everything that their government tells them–I get blank stares.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that China doesn’t want a population that can think for themselves.

And, it is unfortunate that the Chinese pilot was lost and now there is a widow and fatherless child, but I don’t think that was caused by the Chinese version of events. But, I can admit the possibility that maybe it was the US plane’s fault–my government may not be giving the media all the facts; I’m pretty damn sure that the Chinese people aren’t getting them from their government.

22

I certainly hope that degree is not in aerospace engineering.

Or if it is, I hope they do not go to work for any company that is going to build a plane I am going to ride in the future.

23

My answer in short: China held my people hostage, for an apology which was not required, and continue to hold, examine, and steal technology which was designed to monitor nations such as China, which my country considers dangerous, unpredictable and undemocratic.

My answer in medium: My country might fit the same bill stated above, but it’s mine own country, and we watch China for a very, very good reason.

They’ve got their own rhetoric. I have mine, but this situation also broke the irreparable barrier whereby two nations deal with each other based on past agreements. I work with treaty law every day, and here in America we hold such agreements as unassailable. Yes, we have violated them, but we also attempt to hold ourselves responsible. China chose to ignore those agreements and instead play by the rules which best suited them at the time. I don’t see any reason at all why I cannot hold China responsible for those indiscretions.

Fine by me. All bets are off now. America holds a material, industrial, economic, and diplomatic advantage over China, and since they have chosen to blow a ridiculously contrived incident into hostage taking and industrial and military espionage, I see no reason at all why America cannot respond in kind, and my drop in the bucket will respond in kind, by not buying Chinese products, by not supporting Chinese contracts, by not supporting further trade initiatives, by being a vocal antagonist, by supporting both arms shipments and official recognition of Taiwan, and by informing my representatives of my wishes in the hope they will concur. Here, believe it or not, my voice counts.

As far as chicken feet go, cutting off all trade with China today would net my country at least thirty billion dollars a year, due to the trade deficit that we currently do not very much enjoy with China. Tyson, I think, could handle the loss by moving back into the fish-food industry.

Note that my ire is not directed toward the people of China, but the despots who control the nation. They’ve pissed me off, and I’ll no longer support them. Ever, until their government changes radically and for the better, in my personal opinion. And for the record, I never did support China since Tien-an-menh, but obviously I’ll need to become more vigilant in the future.

24

FWIW, the technology that China is stealing/has stolen from the plane I don’t hold against them… if that was a Chinese plane that landed on one of our bases, we would have taken it apart, photocopied/replicated EVERYTHING, put it back together again, and sent it back to them (probably within 2 or 3 days)… as I said earlier, I believe that any secrets they uncover will be obsolete within a year or so anyways; so no big loss for us!

But, my God! What fucking jerks!!

25

Hey Sofa King, since you are talking about agreements between two sovereign countries (China and the US) and work with treaties on a daily basis, can you enlighten me what treaties or agreements that China is a signatory to and broke? Or are we talking a lot of so-called international laws, treaties or conventions that China never signed but you think they should follow anyway just because America signed them? I think there is a huge difference if you signed an agreement and then broke it versus not conforming to the accepted practice of the US. Case in point would be how far international borders extend out to sea. I don’t think the Chinese are right in claiming the Spratleys (or Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and Manchuria for that matter) or however far out to sea they say their border is, but I am pretty dubious that the People’s Republic of China has ever signed an international treaty on this issue. If that is correct, then you can call the Chinese a lot of uncomplimentary things in this incident, but treaty breaker is not one of them.

As for a boycott, how serious are you? Are you going to boycott American companies that “give aid and comfort to the enemy?” Lessee, does that mean you won’t use Microsoft or Intel products since the Chinese military uses these to keep the police state running. Better not plan on flying anywhere since Boeing and all the other major plane builders sell planes and technology to China. Give up going to McDonalds since I personally witness Chinese military personnel chowing down on Big Macs all the time. Ditto for the Coke. I mean, if you’re really serious about boycotting goods produced in China and US companies that help drive the Chinese war machine or provide comfort to the enemy, then I might be impressed. But if all your boycott means is that you’ll brag that the Nike’s you’re wearing are made in Indonesia instead of China, then maybe you should rethink this plan of individual action.

What you, Bush and American foreign policy don’t understand about China is the overwhelming global need to bring them into the international playing field. It’s kinda like an expansion team – it will change the game and may necessitate rule changes. That’s neither good nor bad, just the reality of the situation. For goodness sake, get them into the WTO. Then trade disputes will be trade disputes and not political pissing contests in congress. Enforcement will be a bitch, but at least there will be a reference point to start from rather than vitrolic finger pointing from two sides so far apart they can’t even agree on where they disagree. It’s easy to confront China but it’s a lot tougher to engage. I would argue that America’s long term national interest would be best served by engagement. Engagement also means playing hardball behind the scenes, gathering information, and being prepared for confrontation should that become necessary after first exhausting other options. Engagement in the 1950’s might have prevented China’s entry into the Korean war. Aren’t we better off engaging Russia now than we were during the cold war confrontation?

26

Hmmm… I don’t know nuthin’ about politics or international relations, but I gotta admit that China Guy had a point or two that makes me think…

At the risk of having this moved to GD (can that happen? Can a pit thread go to GD?:confused: ), can anyone with knowledge of treaty law, Sino-American relations, etc. address China Guy’s points so that I might read and be educated?

27

Well, I’m not personally involved in this event any more than any other Canadian - you’ve been eating up my real-news time on CNN with this debacle, this pathetic tempest in a teapot for almost 2 weeks. I know the pit is usually meant for more vitriolic commentary than what follows, but I’ll add garnish as I go along and see how it works out. Bear with me. :slight_smile:

I don’t see what China did wrong… does anyone honestly think that the USA would do it differently? I mean, we can’t blame the Chinese for the accident - miltary stupidity happens… or have we forgotten the sinking of that Japanese boat by the US sub?

As for the military personnel being detained, that seems standard to me. I wouldn’t expect them to be on the first flight back to the motherland - they’re foreign spies on your territory! I’d want to hang on to them long enough to find out if they’d gathered any information that was sensitive enough to be problematic.

Asking for an apology? That’s kinda gauche, I suppose, but I don’t see why the Cowboy didn’t just say ‘Yeah, whatever. Jesus. It’s a real shame your gung-ho meatball pilot Mach-7ed into the side of our spy plane, dipshit. That’s what you get for cross-wiring your missile targeting and navigation systems. Gimme back my boys!’ (I’m sure it’d gain some diplomacy in the translation).

As far as I’m concerned, China was acting in its own best interests - Imagine! A nation looking out for #1! Alternatively, I’m not surprised that some Americans are pissed off. They’re looking out for #1 too. Both countries have shown some diplomatic deficiencies… China should have probably given in quicker, and OilBoy’s advisors should have told him to apologize quicker. If he was afraid of losing face, he should have apologized, then held a large conference upon the return of the troops to say ‘In light of new information garnered from the troops that China returned, we’ve reevaluated the situation and believe China was entirely at fault.’ Boom. Ticker-tape all around.

FD.

As an afterthought, I don’t mean this to sound totally insensitive regarding the detainees (woohoo for preview reply). I understand their families had to be completely besides themselves with fear; objectifying them makes looking at the situation easier, and unfortunately this is a frequent occurrence in military situations. My heart did go out to the families of the detainees and the dead Chinese pilot. I’m glad the American families are able to finally have peace.

28

FD: Are you on crack, or maybe some even more worthless drug that’s affected your critical reasoning?

I really don’t recall the US Armed Forces holding the survivors of the Greenville/Ehime Maru collision hostage. I don’t recall said survivors being kept awake by armed guards at all hours. I don’t recall the US Navy not proceeding with a judicial investigation (yes, Article 32 and other such investigations can lead to Courts-martial; therefore, the use of the word “judicial”). I don’t recall the United States Government saying, “You better say it’s your fault, Japan, or we’re not going to release the survivors to you.”

What China did wrong was:

  1. Harass a flight over international waters. It’s not their territory, anyone can fly there, and if they don’t like it, tough.

  2. Send a poorly trained pilot to do that harrassing. The PLA doesn’t get their pilots as much flying time as the US Armed Forces do for theirs, thus less training.

  3. Board a stricken aircraft, which had declared an emergency (“may day”), with members of the PLA.

  4. Kept the crew of the stricken aircraft and the aircraft itself hostage.

What FD has done wrong in this thread:

  1. Forgot to remove anterior from posterior.
29

Well, Monty… by your first assertion, the Chinese jet had equal right to fly there.

Am I arguing that the pilot was well trained? Not unless his mission was to hit the plane, in either case he gets a gold star for being a knobgobbler (you want me to hit the other plane? No thanks. That’s why we arm fighters).

I should have clarified; I don’t see the political error that China made. I assumed we could all agree that ramming another country’s aircraft in midair isn’t being very neighbourly.

And who exactly do you want this judicial investigation to condemn? Who would conduct it? If the Chinese government conducted it, unless the results were ‘China sucks ass, we’re totally backwards on this communism thing, and our entire administrative branch has been killed, introduce your choice of leader!’ there would just be more arm waving and bellyaching. The pilot is dead. His superiors I’m sure have completed a significant amount of ass-covering, and I doubt a judicial inquiry is about to find anything wrong with Chinese governmental or military process. China still suffers from that ‘let’s not let them know this really isn’t working’ attitude; there’s no sense trying to change it, you have to work around it.

Unless I’m mistaken, the boat that was hit by the submarine wasn’t a military vessel; therefore there would be no advantage in holding these people hostage.

As far as I’m concerned, the USA would have INDEED boarded a downed enemy spy plane if it showed up at LAX unannounced, and if a US pilot was dead there would be a metric ASSLOAD of explaining demanded. While the USA might not demand an apology, you can’t seriously be telling me that they would hand the flight crew back to the offending country right away? That’s a pile of shit. China didn’t harm the crew in the least - they were kept awake by armed guards? Well first of all, I wouldn’t expect them to be overseen by unarmed guards, do you? Being kept awake is a discomfort, but for the love of Christ, you make it sound like they were hog tied and shot with salt guns for the entire stay.

This is just an international diplomatic incident; the US is losing perspective on how insignificant this event really is.

FD.

30

FD: You are purposely ignorant.

I, for one, couldn’t care less if the PLA internally investigates their loss of an airplane competently or not. What I obviously objected to was their modus operandi in the recent case.

Nor did I mention jack about the PLA’s right or lack thereof to fly in international airspace, you moron. It’s obvious that they have every right to do so. There is no right to do so in such a manner as to cause a hazard. That’s akin to me attempting to drive “donuts” around you whilst we’re both driving at about 65 mph on 101. I’ve a right to drive there and so do you. On the other hand, I do not have a right cause a hazard.

As to the political error: That’s pretty obvious. They pissed off a good number of people from one of their main trading partners. Not by the collision itself, but by their handling of the incident.

And yes, the US would, and has, done it differently in the past with collisions and even defections with military equipment. We have not held the defectors hostage, and even when whole planeloads of people end up here (or in any other western power), the passengers are not forced to stay.

Regarding “unannounced”: Wrong. “May day” calls sent out. The PLA meet the aircraft on the ground in force, thus showing that they were well aware of its impending landing.

Doesn’t seem to be an insignificant event to the Chinese leadership, either, does it? Looks to me, and many others, that it’s quite a serious incident between two superpowers. Get back to me when you guys are one, will you?

31

On one hand, yes, we’d board the plane, and have. Someone here cited the MIG-25 in Japan back in the Seventies. We boarded and later sent back the plane to the Russians, albeit in crates. (What’s the difference? We had no illusions of being one of the USSR’s prime trading partners; the Chinese, though, want us to give them unqualified preference despite their military belligerence. Look at how steamed they recently got over one US official’s remark about them being a competitor [not a “partner”]. If they want to be a partner, they damned well should behave like one.)

One the other hand, FD, this wasn’t an unannounced landing. Quite the opposite. The American crew declared an emergency and the Chinese refused to grant landing privileges. That’s a violation of international law quite separate of any issues about who caused the collision in the first place. A willingness to violate international law in one aspect of the incident would lead me to believe they were willing to (and did) violate the law in other aspects of the incident, too.

A ridiculous and disingenuous conclusion.

32

I admit to ignorance about aircraft, but I don’t think whatsisname’s plane was up to the task of taking out the spy plane. Also, am I remembering correctly that in the early reports, there were some claims that he had a camera outside the cockpit, presumably aimed at the spy plane? He may have been there for reconnaisance, to spy on the spies, so to speak, but trying to take it down would have had the same result as what did happen.

33

monkykong, what is your sig?

34

According to the following site:

http://www.stats.gov.cn/yearbook/1999/q07e.htm

exports from the U.S. to China amounted to all of 16.96 billion in 1998 (the last year they have available). This is a vanishingly small amount of the U.S. economy.

Somehow, if all trade with China were to stop tomorrow, the U.S. would, I suppose, find a way to muddle through without that 16 bil.

Imports, (defined as exports on the chart, since this is from the Chinese point of view) were almost twice that, at 37.98 billion.
I have a feeling that figure is somewhat larger in relation to the Chinese economy than it would be to ours. Somehow, once again, I don’t think we’d have too hard a time finding other places to replace most of that ridiculously small amount.
China is one of those countries that is a country of the future, and always will be. Militarily, they’re a threat, and we should treat them as such. Economically they’re a joke, and we should treat them as such.

35

To update the perception of the incident held by my Chinese co-workers: they tell me that the video footage taken in Jan. of the Chinese jet flying a few feet off the wing of the US spy plane that has been recently released by the DOD might be some sort of Hollywood production.

After all, if the US movie industry can make dinosaurs come back to life a la ‘Jurassic Park’, faking this footage would be child’s play for the US goverment.

Yep, it’s still the US spy plane’s fault (because the US plane rammed the Chinese jet) and we still should apologize (although we already have, according to their news media).

If I hadn’t already known their perceptions of Tianamen Square, Tibet, and Taiwan; their ability to close their eyes (and minds) might have been an eye-opener for me.

As it stands, I’m reminded of the monkey with its hands pressed against its ears–HEAR NO EVIL.

36

I believe Chinese exports to the US largely consist of US-owned factories in China transferring their goods back to their US corporate owners for sale here. I suspect the US government’s kid-glove treatment of China has more to do with the desire of big US corporations to move their production to China (which requires a stable, cooperative Chinese government) rather than future possibilities of a big Chinese market for US goods (which is only speculation).

37

According to Bloomberg: Chinese exports to the U.S. rose 22 percent in 2000 to $100 billion, while U.S. exports to China amounted to $16.3 billion. More food for thought, many billions of that trade surplus with China comes back to the US in the form of financing the US Government’s budget deficit. That’s right, the People’s Republic of China buys billions of dollars of treasury bonds every year. This is a gross oversimplification of economy theory, but the PRC does help keep US interest rates low.

It’s also a lot more complicated than a few companies like Nike coming to China and setting up sweatshops to export goods to the US. For example, Nike sells a helluva lot of shoes here in China (I have no cite for you, but just check out the kids in most cities and all of the Nike chain shops) and exports a lot to the US and elsewhere. You wanna buy American sport shoes, I’m not even sure if you can any more. Chinese companies also make up a big chunk of the export pie.

So, you’ve got companies such as Procter and Gamble, Anheiser-Busch, GM and Hershey’s that have factories in China and sell into the Chinese market. These numbers don’t get into the export/import calculations. You’ve got companies like Nike that manufacture in China for domestic consumption and to export to the US. There are other US companies that source goods in China and export to the US. There are Chinese companies that do the whole export chain.

Fact of the matter is that it is complicated. For chrissakes, China’s got 1.3 billion people. China has a population of floating workers from the countryside that go to the big cities to support economic growth and provide cheap labor for the export industries that is certainly in the hundreds of millions and may be greater than the entire population of the US. Think about it, something like 2-300 million people are in a floating, migrant worker population. This is unparalleled in the history of China and in the world. That these people can earning cash income and remit it back to the countryside is the greatest support for economic freedom and blow to an authoritarian government that can be provided.

One thing I’ve noticed from reading this thread and others is that most people’s perceptions of China are anywhere from 5 to 50 years out of date.

Care to rethink that boycott again or should we take this to the great debates?