China is right.

Great Debates
1

China is right. Would we allow a foreign country to spy on us so close up? Wouldn’t we do everything we could to stop them?

Why should the Chinese not be very concerned at the amount of spying we are doing - even if there are not direct overflights.

Even Henry Kissinger said he expected (and said it would be normal) for them to examine our top secret plane.

Bush wants the plane returned. It can’t fly so how do you return it?

The main point is that our spying is just as unfriendly as anything that the Chinese are doing.

2

China is wrong. This plane was over international waters (while China considers the South China Sea Chinese territory, the international community does not recognize that claim, nor does it recognize China’s claim over the Spratly Islands). This plane, over international waters, apparently accidently collided with a Chinese jet, damaging the plane to the point that it, unless it landed within about half an hour, it would be unable to operate. The plane then emitted a distress call, then landed at the nearest possible airbase, which was a Chinese one. The Chinese are bound, by treaty and convention, to offer assistance and ground clearance to a severely damaged plane in their airspace that requests it. However, because this is a United States military plane, and we are not at war with China, the plane is itself considered part of the territory of the United States, and can not be legally entered by the Chinese without United States permission.

3

China is right and wrong. They are right in detaining possible spies and checking out what our military is describing as the most technologically advanced, informationally sensitive spy plane in our fleet. However, they may be wrong in believing our government and media. Who knows how many levels of reverse psychology may be at play here? Maybe the plane isn’t the best we have and we just want them to think it is. Maybe the info the Chinese find on board was switched for fake stuff before the plane landed. Maybe the plane is as advanced as we’re saying it is, but we know that the Chinese will think we’re using double reverse psychology and assume it’s not. Or maybe they know we’d think they would assume that and so we’re using triple reverse psychology.

4

China is wrong. Also dumb and arrogant.

It is absurd to consider any explanation which puts the US at fault for the accident. The American plane was flying in international airspace. Fair enough, China has no sovereignty over that area. The Navy plane was monitoring Chinese communications. Fair enough, China doesn’t own the airwaves, either. China’s response was to send up fighter jets to monitor the spy plane. That’s fair too, they’re also allowed in international airspace, and military planes shadow each other all the time.

But as for the collision, it can only be the fault of the Chinese jet pilot. The Navy plane is huge, slow, and unmanoeuverable, and therefore utterly incapable of swerving to ram a fast and nimble fighter jet. Never mind the unlikeliness of the American pilot deciding to risk his expensive plane, his high-tech equipment and his 24 crew members in a game of chicken.

The Chinese pilots were being reckless and belligerent, as they have been in the past, and this time they accidently zipped by too fast and too close. While certainly they didn’t intend to collide and lose their plane and pilot, the accident was clearly their fault.

This is the point where a responsible nation apologizes immediately and makes amends. A nation with any respect for international law and common sense would have resolved this situation easily.

“We’re sorry about the accident, we’ll have to be more careful in the future. It certainly is fortunate that we had an airbase nearby, which we immediately made available to your plane when they declared ‘Mayday’. Your crew landed safely, and having declined our offer of emergency assistance are still on board. You can come pick them up at your convenience, and take your plane back while you’re at it. There may not be much of it left by the time you arrive, since the crew seems to be tearing it apart from the inside.”

“And by the way, while we’re profoundly embarassed and ashamed about the whole incident, we would be very grateful if you could help us search for our downed pilot.”

5

berdollos, I have read elsewhere that China IS conducting electronic surveillance on the US, using ships with electronic equipment outside our 12 mile limit. We allow them to do this because we are obeying international law.

Note that this sort of surveillance is done openly. It’s not the same as “spying”, which could involve secret agents, use of bribery, unlawful entry, contact with traitors, etc.

Why do you write “*even[/] Henry Kissenger”? Do you consider him to be extreme in some way? Do you object to him because he is a Republican? a foreign policy expert? a Jew? German born? pro-American?

My suspicion is that you may be one of the many Americans who take pride in believing the worst about their own country. (If so, you’re in good company. My spouse is in that group.)

As Captain A pointed out, China abrogated its requirements under international law and under specific treaties. I wonder if you object to the US building an anti-ballistic missile system, because it arguably violates our treaty with the USSR. If so, why aren’t you even more concerned when China violates its treaty obligations to us?

6

By dave99:

So if I want to spy on you while I stand on the side walk, that’s OK? I technically wouldn’t be on your land, I’d be on the side walk so it’s public property.

It seems to me that a lot of people that are worried about the government moving towards a 1984 type situation and would oppose the gov’t (or someone else) camping outside their home keeping tabs on their “personal” lives; they’re the same ones that think America is totally free of blame.

7

Absolutely, that’s OK. You and I have no right or expectation of privacy when what we’re doing can be observed from the street. If the police can hear me committing an act of domestic violence from the street, they are well within their rights to break down my door and arrest me. The same would hold if they could see through your basement window that you were dealing drugs. If I want to take pictures of you and your family in your living room, I have every right. What would be illegal would be trespassing on your property, breaking your window and pushing aside your curtain to take pictures of you.

I’ll presume you are American and that you have Constitutional protection against many forms of electronic surveillence from your sidewalk or elsewhere, but Chinese citizens and military units do not enjoy the same rights.

Anyway, I’ve pushed this analogy far enough. Sorry for the wierdness.

You also use the pejorative term “spy”, which suggests illegal and secretive activity. Monitoring radio communications is a completely legal form of surveillance and the US never made any attempt to conceal their activities.

8

December:

Interesting. A cite would be very helpful. Tuesday’s New York Times suggests otherwise, but I suspect that all the facts have not come out:

(Emphasis added.) I don’t begrudge the US for trying to extend Cold War military practices to Chinese coastal waters. And I don’t begrudge the Chinese for not accepting such arrangements automatically.

9

Dignan – International disputes can’t be anayzed by an analogy to someone looking at another person.

However, following your analogy, suppose you were peering at my house from a car parked in front of it. Would I be justified in taking you prisoner by force and tearing your car apart?

10

China is a Communist nation. Don’t let that PRC (People’s Republic of China) confound you, it is not a government for of or by the people. It is an aggressor nation that would run its tanks through the streets of Taiwan just as easily as it did over people in Tiananmen Square, if we did not support the democratic government in Taiwan.

We have become so socialist in our leanings that we cannot comprehend how repulsive those forms of government are nor how individual freedom is totally alien to them. This is only some of what it is doing: http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/countries/china?OpenView&Start=1&Count=30&Expandall&ft=S317.htm

We are not the only ones spying on them. The French are, the Germans are, the Brits are, any government that enjoys what liberties they have inside their borders want to know what the Chinese are up to. We have the technological ability to look down their throat and this they hate.

Simplistic analogies of Peeping Toms and the like just don’t cut it when we are talking about the survival of ideals and freedoms.

11

Parked in front? No. Stuck from yard farming (or some other activity)? Seems fair.

We don’t want them spying on us, they don’t want us spying on them. It goes both ways.

Well suppose I’m sitting outside your house then, which you’ve said is OK, but I have some type of surveillence equipment. I can listen in on what’s going on, what phone calls you make, and suppose you’re in the process of building something that you want to get patented, can I go ahead and steal info on that as long as I’m on public property?

I’m not trying to defend China here (although it might seem like it), I’m trying to point out that we’re not free of guilt here.

12

Really, now. We’re all guilty here, but this analogy has gone far enough. Please let’s drop it.

All nations spy on all other nations to the extent of their capabibilities, whether through devious or open means. Flying outside China’s territorial limits and listening to their transmisions is perfectly legal, whether they like it or not. They have no legal or moral right or expectation of privacy in this regard.

China, not having the funds or technology for this kind of surveillance, prefers to steal and bribe to gather information about weapons systems, nuclear warheads, etc.

13

Here’s the way I see it.

  1. The American servaillence plane is the size of a 737. The Chinese position that it veered suddenly is more than rediculous; a plane that size (it’s not even a jet) is not maneuverable.

  2. This was not even a secret mission. The USA has been flying these missions for years in full view of the Chinese and other nations.

  3. The US plane was flying in international airspace. China claims sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, but no other nation, nor the UN, recognizes that claim.

  4. By international agreement (and just plain common decency) a nation must allow a plane or ship in distress to make an emergency landing on their territory (assuming the nations are not at war). The plane must be treated as territory of that nation and not violated. If the situation were reversed, I am confident that the US would respect those rights. First, because the US is much more prone to follow internation protocol than the communist Chinese, and second, because the Chinese likely do not have anything worth looking at.

  5. The only reason the Chinese are keeping these crewmembers is so they can look at the plane. I hope the crew took the time to destroy the crypto devices and keys.

14

Do you have a cite for this? And not what some Republican politician says ought to be done, but the letter of the law? 'cause last I heard, the territorial rights of the plane are trumped by the territorial rights of the nation it landed in – Bush’s claim that China doesn’t have a right to board the plane is just hot air.

Snort! I don’t know what’s worse here, your stereotyping of Chinese technology levels or your blinding patriotism at work. Consider a quote from this article by former US Air Force Captain Dale Brown:

15

While certainly they didn’t intend to collide and lose their plane and pilot, the accident was clearly their fault.

We can’t be too sure of this. Mid-air military collisions can be an effective strategy to attack an aircraft if firing upon it would be considered an act of war. Also, not to credit anyone with too much talent here, but it is likely that the Chinese calculated the plane to land in their hands. Chinese intelligence would have figured a 4-prop airplane to have plenty of time emergency land, not risking a long flight home leaking fuel. Also, I would not readily believe that a Chinese pilot was lost–not saying he wasn’t, but they could offer this information to demand an apology and millions of dollars regardless (maybe they never seriously looked for him for this reason?). Americans tend to believe official reports, because we’re culturally condititioned into trusting the basic premise as offered, but not necessarily the conclusion unless we agree. We mostly already accepted that the pilot was missing.

Also, in case anyone was wondering, all sensitive data aboard the aircraft was toasted. Special flares even melted the electronics and chips onboard. They train all crews to destroy everything if need be in a matter of minutes. The plane is now 100% worthless and is scrap metal. We just want to know what they took from it.

16

Impossible! No matter the relative size of the planes, if there is a mid-air collision both planes will be damaged at least enough to require immediate landing.

Why would a deliberate collision not be considered an act of war, since it’s only a different method of achieving the same goal of knocking the plane out of the sky?

Besides, the only deliberate military mid-air collisions I’ve ever heard of are the gentle “tipping” of German V1 rockets by British Gloster Meteor jets near the end of the Second World War. If you know of any other examples of this “effective strategy” I would be very interested to learn them.

17

Bill Safire in today’s NY Times points out that there was no way that the slow American propeller plane could have intentionally hit a jet fighter capable of nearly 3 times its speed. He then speculates on the cause of the accident:

“What does make sense is this: The jet plane in front slowed to obstruct the Americans’ observation of what may have been a new destroyer purchased from Russia. But the F-8 was not designed for such slow speed, and probably stalled; the U.S. plane behind then ran into it.”

He also lists seven specific things that the PRC has done wrong:

“(1) Blame the U.S. for killing its reckless pilot.
(2) Assert that the collision occurred within its territorial waters although it happened over 50 miles out to sea.
(3) Complain that our crippled plane failed to get permission to land when it radioed “mayday” and put down at the nearest airstrip.
(4) Hold our crew incommunicado and then, against all civilized custom, treat them as prisoners.
(5) Take our plane apart to steal what computer secrets our crewmen were not able to destroy.
(6) Insist we halt surveillance of its coastal patrols and oil exploration.
Finally, the most significant Chinese reaction at the highest level was:
(7) Humiliate the United States in Asian eyes by demanding an official apology.”
link: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/05SAFI.html

IMHO this list is a reminder of a contradition. The PRC is behaving like a rogue nation or an enemy while asking to be treated as a civilized friend.

18

December, I’d agree with all those points except #5. Sure, it would be nice if the Chinese didn’t take apart the plane. But realistically, even an allied nation such as Israel might not be able to resist. We’d get the plane back, but it would be after a few days of delay due to fumigation, customs, so sorry, so sorry.

Of course, the other points are true, expecially holding the crew hostage.

19

dave99, I believe that during WWII the Russians rammed German planes with old Yak fighters because they didn’t have ammo and they could easily bail out of their planes. This may have been around Stalingrad.

20

i see a lot of statements that the collision happened in international airspace. cites?? how about some independent cites. ie non-american, non-chinese, non-close ally of either, non-news agency from same.