Isn’t it likely that a spy plane such as this has some setup in place for frying systems/information in case it does land in unfriendly territory?
I believe it does, but there are questions over whether the crew actually set them off to destroy the sensitive equipment or not.
“Two US military attaches and a consular official are still stuck at a hotel in Sanya, a seaside resort near the Lingshui base where the plane landed.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1256000/1256876.stm
Ah, the old “distract them with hospitality” ploy. Probably started out as “hostility” but got confused in the translation.
“‘China reserves the right to further negotiate with the US side on both the losses resulting from the incident and the US plane’s intrusion into China’s airspace and its landing at a Chinese airport without permission,’ Zhou said.” http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/history/2001/04/d1-5air.403.html
Now them’s fightin’ words.
** What was that in reference to?
My point (which several others have now made, as well), is China is doing exactly what we would likely do if we’d lost a plane in waters near our shore in a collision with another less than friendly nation.
As far as “This is far from the first provocative action” - well, we’ve certainly done things to provoke them as well (as noted by Scylla and others).
according to this, there are indications that Chinese officials perhaps do see this as an accident, not that they’re not entirely willing to milk it for all it’s worth in the meantime, of course. The ‘you can’t board our plane’ position seemed odd to me - I’m sure there’s relevant International Law, but I’m also quite confident that should the tables have been turned, we’d have boarded the other plane on the claims of ‘looking for evidence relevant to the crash’ (which is, of course, what China is claiming).
Patriotism is a fine thing Milo. But you should probably be willing to take a look at how other nations percieve our actions as well. "WTF is China doing? " leads me to believe that you aren’t currently.
Sometimes these things take a long time to work out. In 1968, North Korea held a U.S. intelligence ship, the Pueblo, for 11 months. Bush may be under pressure to match some of his “get tough with China” rhetoric, but this will probably be another case where we just slowly muddle our way through.
Barring a diplomatic solution, I say we play hardball and let the execs at McDonald’s handle the situation. My kids can live without Happy Meals but could China’s economy survive?
Thomas L. Friedman, the foreign affairs correspondent of the New York Times, makes pretty much the same argument in “The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention”, a chapter in his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree
He says that when a country reaches the level of economic development where it has a middle class big enough to support a McDonald’s network, people there would rather wait in line for burgers than fight.
Of course, Yugoslavia has McDonalds too, so I don’t know if the theory has held up since Friedman wrote that.
Somewhere or other I saw an article drawing parallels between today’s China and pre-1914 Germany, based on China’s current status as a rising power with a running neurosis over whether it’s getting “respect” from the major established powers of the day (Imperial Britain back then, the US today). Is anyone here familiar enough with Prussian history to expound on this idea?
I don’t think this incident could conceivably lead to war in and of itself, but a history book in 2050 might point to it as a harbinger of some soon-to-follow major conflict, much like the USS Panay incident in the runup to the Pacific war.
So far, Milo has said this could be a Cuban Missile Crisis-type standoff, and The Ryan worries this could be another Tonkin Gulf incident.
Are you people nuts? This incident is not going to end in a war or in the real chance of nuclear war. The U.S. is not going to attack China (they’re kinda big), and China is not going to threaten to launch (they have extremely few ICBMs). Therefore, neither precedent is relevant.
Better precedents (if this thing escalates, which I strongly doubt) are the hostage crisis and the seizing of the USS Pueblo. In the hostage crisis, the U.S. waiting some 350 days before attempting a (failed) military action, while we did nothing militarily during the 82-day Pueblo crisis. If the worst happens, and China does something like try the crew as spies, Sino-American relationship will chill big-time, and likely there will be some U.S.-European sanctions, but that’s about it.
Personally, I think what’s happening is that the Chinese simply don’t know what to do. They’re caught between the intense nationalism the leadership has cultivated in the past few years and the realization that they have nothing to gain by holding the plane and crew. In order to save face, I bet they’ll let the plane and crew go, and demand a UN investigation.
Sua
Let’s see now,
A new US administration comes in. Begins to play a hawkish agenda for domestic interests. Changes status of relationship with China from partner to threat. Proposes a missile “defense” system that happens to be pointed in their direction. China’s biggest “short term” threat to the US being an embargo on the export of plush toys.
Then one of those continual games of security brinkmanship goes wrong and costs China a plane and a pilot, but hands them a state-of-the-art spy plane and crew, essentially undamaged.
So what’ll they do? They’ll play it for all it’s worth. And they are more than happy to play it out for months. They know that the US typically lacks patience, and most of the options of precipitious action hands China more global brownie points. There might be threats to try and execute the crew for espionage. I would anticipate the crew are under a light guard in a military barracks, as much for their own protection as incarceration. It won’t be a fun time, but they should be ok. News bulletins here tonight said consular staff had met with the crew, though no further details as yet.
I could see the Chinese an offer to return either the crew or the plane. The Chinese would prefer to get the crew back asap. One bad case of food poisoning will bugger up their whole PR exercise.
The solution is to be patient, very patient and cut them some slack. So sorry, but they are holding the aces on this one. Offer to support their bid for the 2008 Olympics, offer dialogue over the Taiwanese Straits, offer to reconsider trading status. Don’t make quick concessions, that’s percieved as a sign of weakness. Apologise for violating their territory, even if you didn’t. Offer some cash for the lost plane.
Deal with them in the same manner that you would expect others to deal with you. Don’t threaten them like they’re an ignorant, insubordinant heathens who don’t know their place. It’s in both your short and long term interests, even if it does hurt the ego.
Get the flight crew back as soon as practical. The plane is just a hunk of metal. Your military probably consider the integrity of plane’s intelligence gathering capability compromised and totally refit it anyway.
And next time you feel inclined to buzz their airspace, give yourselves a bit bigger safety margin.
Maybe offer them the Sudetenland while we’re at it. It’s vital that we ensure peace in our time, after all.
Sua: I mentioned that this could evolve into a Cuban Missile Crisis-type situation “if things don’t rapidly take a different tone than they have right now.”
Namely, if the Chinese don’t allow us contact with the plane’s crew, or if they imprison them or put them on trial as spies.
wring:
I said ‘your’ when I meant ‘you’re’ in my earlier statement to Badtz.
**
I don’t necessarily disagree with that. Although I strongly disagree that we would not have allowed Chinese officials contact with their personnel for this length of time.
You, however, said (quoting again):
**
To which I (and waterj2) said common sense indicates that a much faster, much more highly maneuverable fighter jet shouldn’t be able to collide with a 737-sized propeller plane unless they are flying way too close to it.
**
If you can provide evidence that our military engages their aircraft and ships in a similar way that they do our’s and other nations’ in the South China Sea, I’d love to see it.
Military exercises with and around Taiwan isn’t quite the same thing.
**
According to this, they see it as an accident that is entirely the U.S.'s fault. Which is ludicrous.
**
An odd thing to surmise from the quoted question, which had to do with the Chinese government not allowing us contact with the plane’s crew. Wanna cite me any other countries that have a differing view on that?
And I agree with many of you, the crew will have a lot of esplainin’ to do when they get back about making an emergency landing of one of our high-tech spy planes in China.
I still assert that it is a ludicrous idea that the detention of 24 people and one airplane could possibly evolve into the brink of nuclear war, unless every single person in Beijing and Washington started taking LSD. There is absolutely no comparison between this incident and nuclear missiles sited within minutes of U.S. territory.
Sua
And although I tend to agree that nuclear war isn’t necessarily the threat that it was 40 years ago, the idea that a military conflict between the U.S. and China might not develop if the Chinese were to try or convict as spies U.S. military personnel doing their duty in international airspace is, to use your word, “ludicrous.”
This Taiwan newspaper cites an “intelligence source” as saying, “The propeller-driven EP-3 plane had attempted to fly away after colliding with one of two Chinese jet fighters . . . [and] the EP-3’s attempt to fly away [afterward] was aborted after the second jet fighter opened fire with its machine gun as a warning. The source – who had monitored the incident by radar and also listened to cockpit exchanges – said he believed the EP-3 was forced to land by the Chinese fighter plane at an airport on Hainan.”
I don’t know if that’s true–indeed, I hope it’s not true, because forcing down one of our planes out of international airspace could very well be an act of war.
Oh, come on! Nuclear war? Cuban missile crisis? McDonalds embargo?
It’s just one lousy plane that made an emergency landing in a country they weren’t supposed to land in!
If you landed at an airport in California with some suspicious-looking luggage, and the airport security detained you and inspected said luggage, and they found some fruit in it and detained you some more because they wanted to inspect your produce for fruit flies, would this qualify as an “international incident”? No! And if said detainment went on for a few days, would it then become an international incident? Wouldh you threaten to use nuclear weapons on the State of California?
The Chinese government is detaining the plane and its crew so that they can sort things out, and so that they can check for the national-security equivalent of fruit flies. When they are done, they’ll let the crew go. This is why this “incident” hasn’t received much press – China is not rattling a saber, they’re just being careful.
Zarathustra:
This report from a U.S. Navy web site indicates such an action by the Chinese military involving an aircraft or ship in commonly accepted international waters or airspace is far from unprecedented, especially in recent years.
It’s an excellent report that goes a long way to explaining China’s strategy regarding the South China Sea.
** well, it would be speculation on both our parts anyhow. Your answer about ‘who’s at fault’ is that one plane is more maneuverable than the other. Certainly. That’s not China’s point - their point is that our aircraft shouldn’t have been where they were (and yes, I understand that you and other countries don’t necesarily accept that). My point was to attempt to get you to see that neither of us are in possession of** all** the facts at this point, and it would be prudent to attempt to avoid placing blame in the meantime.
Provactive actions are not limited to military engagements, and direct piece by piece comparisons are rarely ever available. But I’m sure you know that Milo(especially since you seem to be attempting the point that this is near bay of pigs like). My point was that China has much to be complaining about with us, n’est ce pas? (that whole ‘sorry about your embassy’ thing for instance). And here’s another example (to their eyes) of the US playing big dog and a Chinese national is missing.
** Perhaps not from their eyes. From their perception, the US, once again is nudging up to their sovreign space, solely for espionage purposes, and in the process, another Chinese national is missing, perhaps dead and their property is destroyed.
This is yet another of those cases, IMHO, that the “black/white we were in the right, they’re totally ludicrous” stance is not only not productive, but a dangerous stance to take (especially with the Chinese), in that it will make negotiations difficult.
How other nations see it? Well, many are hoping that this blows over quickly, since no one seems to relish the idea of the two giant dogs in the neighborhood going at each others’ throats. here are some examples
A NATO official is quoted as urging China to comply with International law, while British editorials range from urging China to not pick a fight over this incident to
Not exactly the ringing endoresment you believe is universal.
Minor hijack in process…
I’m not an expert, but this doesn’t sound like a great comparison to me. Rather than being an up-and-coming power pre-1914 Germany was well established, and went to war in 1914 based on the idea that she could win a war then but might not be able to win a war (considered inevitable) a few years down the road.
Without having read the article you mention I’d suggest that pre-1914 (or pre-1941, for that matter) Japan might be a better parallel - a rising power that felt she was being denied her rightful place of power and influence in the world.
Ned wrote:
What?! Impossible. The international boundary was out at 12 miles offshore long before 1988. I have an aeronautical chart of the San Francisco area from 1984, and the line marking the border of international airspace is in exactly the same place on that chart as it is on a modern chart.