China's got our men and our plane

Great Debates
221

Jab, you do know that Korea, Japan, and Taiwan all consider the American military to be vital for the stability of Asia? Without American troops in Asia they would have had several wars by now…N Korea vs S Korea, China vs Taiwan, Japan vs everyone else.

Without our troops over there, lots of people would be dead. Yes, it is inconvenient. But don’t you think it is worth it, to prevent wars? And if we are going to station our troops overseas, we MUST carry out reconnaisance. Every country in the world does this. But, like they said, the best way to conduct reconaisance of the US is to watch CNN and buy a few newspapers.

Let me ask you, are private investigators immoral? How about the cops? They can invade your privacy with no more that probable cause!

This assertion that spying is immoral is ludicrous. I don’t see how something essential to our survival can be immoral.

222

God damn it, this is starting to get annoying. To accept the Chinese point of view, you have to accept the following things:

  • China has a right to claim a fifty-plus mile boundary into the ocean. Or,

  • China has a right to claim the entire South China Sea, a vital trade route, as their territory.

  • China has a right to endanger the lives of foreign nationals by flying fighter jets so close to a lumbering propeller driven aircraft that they either hit them or, if the elephantine aircraft diverts its course in any way, it will hit one of the fighters. Sure, we haven’t figured out what happened yet, but it was one of the two.

  • China has a right to abrogate treaties–which they were required to sign in order to participate in the UN–which guarantee safe harbor to ships and aircraft, and their occupants, in times of distress.

  • China has a right to equate surveillance, an internationally accepted practice, with spying, a severe offense.

  • China has a right to not follow signed agreements that allow detained American citizens to meet with American Embassy officials within forty-eight hours.

  • China has a right to hold those American citizens hostage in return for an official apology which recognizes all of the above.

Bullshit. I don’t care if one out of six people in the world are led by a small cadre of despots and cleptocrats. My small cadre of despots and cleptocrats can kick the living shit out of theirs. Those sonsabitches want to spout rhetoric, fine. But now they’ve got my people, and unless this isn’t the America I was born in, we will get them back, the right way, or the wrong way. I am becoming increasingly inclined to do it any way, and I hope our Chinese friends are reading.

223

Narrow answer: “excuse me” implies some measure of responsibility. Regret implies sympathy. I can regret that you were rained on, Jody; I wouldn’t say excuse me, and I wouldn’t apologize.

More broadly, I’d recommend this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/07/world/07APOL.html

Having read it, I am now an expert on Chinese culture. :wink:
Recall that the US initially demanded that the plane be treated as sovereign territory. Right. The Chinese responded by asking for an apology. Uh-huh. Apparently the latter is an old Confuscion technique of shaming the other party to a dispute. Within China apparently, adversaries often use the method to assert moral superiority. (Thus, it appears that your initial instincts -we should only apologize if we are culpable- were well grounded.)

The softening from “apology” to “excuse me” might be seen in this context.

I would also add that the relations between an established power and a rising power are likely to be prickly, even setting aside the cultural gulf. The Chinese are not apt to accept reconnaisance planes 20 miles from its coast, just because the US and USSR militaries considered it routine.

I hope that when the history of the 21st century is written that a recurring theme will be, “Cooler heads prevailed”.

224

FLAWBORK –

Several things:

  1. “Excuse me” does not to everyone imply any measure of responsibility, beyond polite and pro forma regret for having caused some small discomfort. Running into some one on the street is not the equivalent of running down someone on the street and killing them. “Excuse me” is appropriate for the former; “I’m sorry for your loss” (regret) or “I’m sorry I did that” (apology) is appropriate for the latter.

  2. Thank you for recommending the N.Y. Times article; I had already read it, however.

  3. I realize that it is traditional in the Chinese culture to demand apologies. Theirs is not the only culture involved. Our culture does not offer apologies for incidents for which it is not to blame.

  4. It may be that relations between a rising power and an established one may be prickly; however, neither China nor the U.S. can be considered a “rising power” on the world stage.

  5. “The Chinese are not apt to accept reconnaisance planes 20 miles from its coast, just because the US and USSR militaries considered it routine.” I believe you meant “65 miles from its coast,” and recon flights are not limited to just the U.S. and the former U.S.S.R.

  6. I do not believe that “cooler heads” ought to include apologizing when it has not been shown that we have done anything wrong.

225

Right on Sofa King. The photos that have been released speak volumes to the relative capabilities of the two nations. On the one hand, you have the washed-out, grainy and blurry photo of the aircrew provided by the PRC…

Then there’s the photo of the plane provided by the US. It’s kinda grainy too, but that’s probably a deliberate effect to conceal the true resolving capability of the equipment. In any case, the focus and exposure are spot-on.
And oh, yeah, they took the photo from orbit. Probably would have had it ready sooner had there not been cloud cover. Bet the PRC wish they could do that.

The perfect, understated propaganda move.
Ahem. Serious debate aside for a moment. With apologies to Flyboy and Chique and others more directly involved than myself, who probably don’t find any humour in this situation, I just have to share this little riff. My father and I were talking about the situation, and how amazingly far out from reality the PRC is on this issue. We start talking like a pair of US policy makers…

“Well, it’s been two weeks, and we still don’t have our crew back.”

“Time to cut of all trade with China. But who’ll sell us cheap plastic trinkets and shoddy consumer electronics?”

“Hmm… lesse… how about Taiwan?”

“That might work. But imagine the size of the trade deficit!”

“Yeah, we’ll have to sell them something really big and valuable. I wonder if they’d be interested in buying an aircraft carrier or two?”

226

Funny typo.

And cause is the issue here. To me, “cause” implies, “some measure of responsibility”.

True. But I suspect that Jiang was looking for construction between “regret” and “apology”. The sort of diplomacy that any NYT reader is familiar with. And let’s not forget that his remarks could have been interpretted as an “analogy” or a “signal”.

From my reading, and I’m no expert, offering an apology to the Chinese would give them a leg up in the more substantial negotiations concerning appropriate military surveillance, within the context of both American and Chinese culture. Again, I think your initial instincts were correct: absent further investigation, I can’t see what we would apologize for. (If pilot error was involved, I suppose we could apologize for that, although I confess ignorance of these sorts of diplomatic protocols.)

OK, it’s getting late. The US is an established power. China is a rising power on the world stage, as reflected in their rapidly growing economy. In 1980 they were the 10th largest economy in the world. Now they are 7th, and may overtake Britain within the next decade.

Right. So you appoint a joint commission. Or you maneuver towards any one of a number of standard diplomatic solutions.

227

dave99, no apology necessary. The guys are (from what I understand) staying in a nice place, probably eating awesome Chinese food every day, sleeping in… heck, I think I’d be up for that rather than flying 11-hour missions every day! And did you see SNL last night? 2 whole skits devoted to the crisis, and I laughed my ass of the whole time.

So crack as many jokes as you want. I’d rather hear that than people like jab1 spewing nonesense.

228

FLOWBARK –

Again, “excuse me” is a polite and pro forma expression – bordering on the meaningless, just as “pleased to meet you” doesn’t necessarily mean the person is really pleased to meet you – and who caused what does not enter into it. It is a far less worthy phrase and “regret,” which we have already offered.

No, what he is looking for is some expression that he can then construe as us taking responsibility, which he manifestly cannot imply from “we regret your loss.” I do not need to take his comments as a signal; I am keeping my eye on what his government is actually doing – which is to continue to demand an apology. Again, I fail to see why all the movement towards reconciliation in the matter must be on the Americans’ part – especially since if and when we do get around to assigning blame, the largest measure will quite likely fall to them.

Of course. It would also allow them to save face. But it is not warranted, and therefore should not be given.

China has the population, economy, and military means to be considered a formidable power right now, not ten years from now. As the 10th largest economy in the world ten years ago, they were not a “rising” power, they were and have been a significant force for most of the 20th century. To consider giving them any concessions because they are a “rising” or “developing” power is IMO silly. (Not that you have suggested we should do so.)

I don’t care if they appoint a committee to study the feasability of convening a conference to determine the propriety of setting up a commission. In the meantime, however, China should release our airmen, who are in its territory only because of unavoidable circumstances (like that the alternative was to crash into the Pacific). It should not continue to hold them hostage – yes, hostage – to attempt to strong-arm from the U.S. concessions to which they are not entitled – up to and including an apology.

229

In Diplomacy, no word “borders on the meaningless.” Every single word used in a diplomatic exchange between nations has both meaning and consequence. That’s why diplomats speak and write quite unlike a newspaper reporter.

230

Thanks for that update, MONTY. I would have thought it was obvious that I was talking about “excuse me” as used in the vernacular. That’s why my example was two people meeting on the street, not two national representatives meeting for talks in Geneva. I apologize if I confused you.

231

Jodi v. Monty: With all due respect Jodi, I thought you were talking about the phrase “excuse me” within the context of a current diplomatic standoff. If you were simply making a comment about the meaning of the word “excuse me” in common usage, then perhaps that might be discussed in another thread.

Jodi:
Looking over your post, it appears that you are want the Chinese to be conciliatory, drop demands for an apology, concede to intensive surveillance across the Chinese/Taiwanese strait and release the 24 US flight personnel. Me too. I’d also like them return our aircraft in one piece without further inspection. In short, China’s total capitulation on all points would be very convenient for the US.

However, back in the real world, I think that this spat is a matter for negotiation, and that both sides have much to gain from an mutually acceptable, if not completely amicable, settlement. Among other reasons, maintenance of peaceful and neighborly relations with China would substantially advance our mutual prosperity. If Britain and Germany can get along with France, I trust that the US can find a way to accomodate itself with China. (I put that analogy forward only to underline the essential give-and-take nature of international diplomacy.)

Though given that I have repeatedly agreed with your central contention that a US apology, absent evidence of wrongdoing, is problematic, the exact nature of our apparent disagreement eludes me.

Powers that be:
Ok. China was a big power in 1980, relative to the rest of the world. China is a bigger power in 2000, relative to the rest of the world. In 2010 it will be a still bigger power, etc. etc. That makes China a “rising power”. Jeez, in 1980 they had a smaller economy than Spain; little Taiwan was almost a third of their size. Now, China is well over ten times larger than the so-called renegade province. No, I’m not saying China was “small” in 1980. Nor was, say, Brazil.

I might add that, aside from my attempt at substantiation, this general observation is not especially controversial (or original for that matter): it’s been made within the past week by both the Economist and the New York Times.

232

FLOWBARK –

My point is that “excuse me” is in Americanese considered a basic, polite, essentially meaningless mouth noise that has little, if any, blame associated with it. If the Chinese President understands it similarly, it is an odd thing for him to request – as if it is more meaningful than an expression of regret which, as generally understood and used, it is not.

Two for four. I do not particularly care if they wish to “concede to intensive surveillance,” (and surely you meant accede?) because (a) I don’t consider the actions in question to constitution “intensive surveillance,” (2) they will never in a million years say it is okay anyway, because to them it is not, and © the issue of whether such flights should or should not continue is in my mind entirely separate from the matter of holding our people and equipment – unless they intend to hold them hostage to acheive concessions. And I don’t particularly care if they are “conciliatory;” they can release the people in good grace or bad, so long as they let them go. (At this point, I personally don’t care whether they keep the plane or not.)

Obviously. Just as the U.S.'s total capitulation on all points would be very convenient for China. I have never said that anything less than total capitulation by China is unacceptable, and you have seriously misread me if that was your impression.

Obviously. Who has posted here that you feel is arguing for ratcheting up hostilities?

I don’t believe I’m disagreeing with you on the big picture. I just do not feel (as you apparently do) that “excuse me” is an expression by which responsibility is accepted, or that China is some unsophisticated emerging power that is not the U.S.'s equal in this problem – if not its tactical superior, since they have our people to use as a bargaining chip. Yes, any power that is on an upward-trajectory may be considered “rising,” but in the world of international affairs, the “rising” powers are those that have not yet “arrived,” so to speak. That does not include either China or the U.S. Under your definition, the U.S. is a “rising” power, too.

233

Jodi: You did not confuse me. Apparently you have confused yourself with someone intelligent and honest.

234

Well, to be frank, your comments weren’t clear at all, given "vernacular’ is not really relevant to the issue, now is it?

Further,

Concede as in to make concessions. Surely Flowbark knows this as well.

And,

Let me expess my puzzlement. Insofar as my poor little self spends much time reading this sort of literature, I will hazard the opinion that one generally sees China ref’d to as a “rising power” both in a regional sense and in the global sense. It’s all rather subjective of course, but if one wishes to go with common usage, I have to say Flowbark’s usage strikes me as ** far ** more typical. Argumentation for its own sake.

Finally,
Flowbark wrote:

Let me add that the Economist’s issue of 7-13 April contains some excellent material on the whole affair (rather superior I’d say).

235

MONTY – You might take note that (a) I have not truly taken issue with anything you have said, except for your unnecessary clarification/nitpick; and (b) the forums have specific rules that you are expected to observe and abide by, one of which is to refrain from directly insulting other posters in Great Debates. If you wish to attack my honesty or intelligence, take it to the Pit. In fact, chances are about 50-50 on any given day that I’d take it there myself, but this attack is so manifestly unwarranted that I frankly don’t care enough for your opinion to even feel offended.

In any event, I’m not sure what crawled up your butt and died, but you may want to see if you can have it removed, since it evidently causes you so much discomfort.

236

COLLOUNSBURY –

Yes, actually, it is, because the Chinese president’s comments were specifically couched in terms of what one says when one bumps into someone else – in other words, the exact situation wherein “excuse me” might be offered “in the vernacular.” To say that “excuse me” has some other, “I’m responsible” meaning in the world of diplomacy is largely irrelevant, since the context in which it was used by the person using it was the vernacular, not the formal. If the phrase “excuse me” is used in the context the Chinese President cited, then it is largely meaningless – and therefor largely useless.

My assumption is that the Chinese president says “when you bump into someone you say excuse me” – as if this is such a simple manner, to which responsibility need not attach – but if we were to actually say so – excuse us – it would be interpreted as an admission of wrongdoing. So either “excuse me” is a polite sweet nothing and not worth offering, or it is the functional equivalent of an apology and should not be offered. Is that explanation clearer?

237

orignally posted by jab1

So I suppose, using your logic, things like driver’s licenses, passports, border guards, airport security checks, heck, even birth certificates, are immoral violations of privacy. whatever

We agreed to surrender a bit of our privacy in exchange for those things. When did the Chinese people agree to let us eavesdrop on them? I don’t think they ever did.
[/quote]

But we perform reconnaisance missions for the very same reasons as we have passports, border guards, etc., to protect U.S. interests. And, we have treaties and laws that require the U.S. to aid the defense of Tawain, Japan, and South Korea among others. Should we take reasonable steps to make sure the Chinese aren’t up to no good? Yep, it’s only common sense that we do so.

238

(Just trying to quote what is most central). Glad we share overlapping views, albeit from different POVs. On to the minutia:

  1. China is clearly giving mixed signals; Jiang’s formulation, “I have visited many countries, and I see that when people have an accident, the two groups involved always say `excuse me.’” ,when made as an informal remark (if I’m correct), should be seen in this context. If I understand their current official position correctly, it’s that “…the US should take up its responsibilities for the incident”, which as far as I can tell is one step removed from the Government Press’ formulation that the US should apologize.

  2. In my vernacular world, I occasionally execute some sort of social faux pas, which prompts the response, “Well, excuse me!”. To which I reply (in effect), “Oh, sorry I didn’t say ‘excuse me’ to begin with. I understand that it is the sort of social acknowledgment that one does when one bumps into another person. If it was wholly meaningless, you wouldn’t take offense.” Actually I say, “Oh, sorry”; the former is rather implicit. The point: politeness matters and is rarely a sweet nothing, especially in international affairs.

  3. Following up, from the Chinese perspective, they have repeatedly expressed their annoyance at the US’s surveillance, which the US regards as routine for any country but itself, if I understand the press clippings correctly. Then there was a crash of as yet indeterminate cause. Now frankly, I believe that US surveillance should continue, but that China’s movement from “apology” to “excuse me”, is a positive sign. (Movement from “accept responsibility” to “explore causes of the crash with a view to determining errors” would be even better, of course.)

  4. By my definition (for better or worse) the US would actually be a “falling power”: its economy as a share of world GDP is falling and geopolitically it will have to manage the transition from a unipolar world to a multipolar world. But I’m more comfortable calling the US an “established power”. Again, I don’t think this is too controversial.

239

Colin Powell was quoted on Yahoo:

``We have expressed regrets, we’ve expressed our sorrow, and we are sorry that a life was lost,’’ he said.

There was no immediate sign of whether that would satisfy China by allowing it to spread the word around the angry country that Washington had used the word ``sorry.’’

Hopefully, this will do the trick to get the crew released. Would have been more timely had this been right after the accident instead of over a week later.

240

More timely, perhaps, but wrong. I don’t think we should have used it at all.