China's got our men and our plane

Great Debates
101

A couple of points

For those advocating that the crew should have ditched the aircraft. The P3 is not a fighter jet but a pressurized aircraft. Trying to exit it in flight would be equivalent to opening the door on a 737 at altitude.

Further damage to an aircraft in flight:

It is universally accepted that in case of equipment failure, or collision that you land the plane immediately. Not all damage that occurs to a plane can be determined from inside the craft. Especially structural.

One more before I go:

Though the Navy has been operating the P3 for thirty years. These are not the same as the models we once used for chasing subs. The version of the plane that is in China has a very new electronics package. However it appears that the Navy crew may have been at least partially succesful in carrying out a destruct order, as evidenced by the missing nose cone. See here for the EP-3

102

Hi GB…nice to hear from you again…first off I’m not dissing the gov per se just the current administration. Seems the Ancient Republicans only know cold war tactics and Daddy’s Boy only knows what he’s told.

You’re right. China is an imperialist nation. Didn’t a Chinese guy wright “The Art of War”? Perhaps Bush should study that instead of the 12 Step handbook.

When I accused America of imperialism I was really making a little joke. I know Taiwan is a democracy. But don’t we have an awful lot of business interests in Taiwan? Doesn’t that usually mean we have a lot of MONEY tied up there? Isn’t it part of OUR HISTORY to be just a little bit selective about who’s freedom we are concerned with globally? Correct me if I’m wrong but we don’t usually get so strenuously involved in other people’s business unless our business is tied up there too. We didn’t bat an eye about what was going on in Eastern Europe until someone hollered HYPOCRITE! Even now some people don’t think we should have ever gotten involved. Did we do anything at all when black folks in Africa were hacking away at each other? Nope don’t think so.

That’s the point I was making about Taiwan. We’re over there messing around and get caught at it. Right on the tail of a bunch of other embarassments. Should our new cowboy be pretending he’s Wyatt Earp? That’s my point.

Needs2know

103

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2000 our trade balance with China (the PRC) was -83,810,000,000(that is, the PRC sold us more goods than we sold them). In contrast, our trade balance with [Taiwan](http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5830.html) (the ROC)in 2000 was -16,133,900,000. This means, N2K, that Taiwan makes more money from us than we do from them, so there goes your idea of favoring Taiwan for commercial reasons. We do have significant trade ties to Taiwan, but they are outweighed by our trade with China. We have sold weapons systems to Taiwan, but we have, with the exception of 1992,decreased the amount we have sold each year.

U.S. policy regarding Taiwan is extremely complicated. During the 1950s and 1960s, we used the 1954 U.S.-ROC Mutual
Defense Treaty as a bulwark against what we perceived as the Red Menace. In 1979, Jimmy Carter shamefully abrogated that treaty and dropped diplomatic relations with Taiwan in favor of recognition of the Mainland Government. Both Taiwan and Mainal China have maintained that there is only one China and that each, respectively, is the real government and the other is an usurper. Until 1988, Taiwan and China were both dictatorships, but there was a steady democratization under Lee Tung-Hui, who succeeded Chiang Ching-Kuo, Chiang Kai-Shek’s son. In 1999, the election of Chen Shui-Bian marked the first time that an opposition candidate overthrew the ruling KMT, marking Taiwan’s transition into true democracy.

China will not entertain for one nanosecond the idea of an independent Taiwan, so we can’t be seen to favor that. At the same time, the Republican Congress remembers the shelling of Quemoy (Kinmen) and Matsu, so they don’t want to abandon Taiwan as an ally. Thus, we have had to play a very careful balancing act between the two.

104

**
Talk about a knee-jerk Bush basher.

Do you honestly think our military wasn’t operating surveillance flights off the coast of China during the Clinton administration?

What “cold war tactics” have been employed by the Bush administration since this occurred? Bush was rather diplomatic when he called this an “accident,” and he has made no reference that I know of to a Taiwanese report that the second jet forced our plane to land in China by firing near it.

Was Bush being a bad-assed cowboy when he said China should let us see our service men and women that they are holding illegally right away? Would this have been handled differently by another American president? Do tell me how.

And as far as “Ancient Republicans,” anyone I can think of with diplomacy experience with China, who would be helpful and I would want involved on a situation like this, from Kissenger to Bush the Elder, is a Republican. Can you name some Democrats that I’m not thinking of?

Apparently some yearn for the foreign diplomacy of recently bygone years, where nothing is accomplished long-term, but there are photos and sound-bites that frequently look good on the evening news.

But then, I’m not the one introducing partisanship to an international incident that has nothing to do with it.

105

Just to further underscore the potential for ugliness, you might like to check out the forces of the Seventh Fleet. I particularly note the fact that the status page indicates that Kitty Hawk, Boxer, and Essex are all underway at the moment.

Those last two are amphibious assault ships, the likely platforms from which an extraction mission would be launched. Boxer may or may not be carrying 2100 Marines of the 7/11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, who are some very tough customers.

If Kitty Hawk is indeed proceeding to the area, Essex may also be with her. This could prove to be a very sobering message on the part of the United States. I think the business end of the Seventh Fleet can travel about five thousand nautical miles in a week.

I’m not trying to say anything more than this: I believe that within a week’s time or less, the United States could assemble in the vicinity of Hainan a force marginally cabable of projecting point-superiority for a few hours over part of Hainan in order to extract the “guests.” In other words, the United States is not without its own teeth.

The thought gives me pause.

106

If it’s so routine, why was the Pentagon’s top concern whether or not the crew destroyed the equipment and data? “Oh, don’t mind us, just a routine flight, please ignore all the super-sensitive equipment we’ve got in the back…”

And personally, I think this mess could be resolved very quickly if the two nation’s leaders would just sit down and be polite about it. Unfortunately, Dubya’s recent antagonizing of China as a “competitor” (pre-crash) and his hard-line announcements (post-crash) haven’t been helping matters any. Get this moron outta the White House before he makes things worse…

(And am I the only one who thinks the reason Bush is being such an asshole towards China is because the conservatives are out to paint China as the next Big Evil Bad Guy™? Guess Saddam is too busy to play that role this time around…)

107

Too bad Jimmy Carter didn’t pause a bit when mulling over Desert One–but you can bet that the experience of 1979-1980 will be at the forefront of Administration thinking if this ever does become a “hostage” situation.

I think this case really will go down in the history books as a case of cultural misunderstanding–which is not to minimize its danger by any means. Facts and common sense all indicate that the US has nothing to apologize for. However, facts and common sense may be a non-sequiter to the Chinese in this case–it doesn’t matter whether the recon plane was in international airspace or not.

Milo, you want to know what the Chinese are thinking? I would bet it runs something like this:

*The point is that we’ve endured humiliation after humiliation from you Americans, we’ve stomached outrage after outrage, and now we’ve shown you that we have teeth too. We’re a major power worthy of respect, and you’d better recognize it. At home, even when I’m in the wrong, does my son or daughter dare to speak back to me so that strangers can hear? No, because the point is that I’m their father, and the loss of face they’d cause me would be much, much worse than whatever trifling matter they are accusing me of–and accusing me accurately or not. We have a similar case here. Who cares whether plane A bumped into plane B, or vice versa? Why do you care so much to contradict our version of events? Why did you make this whole affair public so quickly, when we could have easily resolved it quietly between ourselves? Were you deliberately trying to make us lose face again?

And now look what you’ve done. That pilot of ours that was downed–if you had respected us, consulted with us quietly, given us time, and given us a few concessions, that pilot’s family never would have known what happened to him. And now look. The whole nation is raising him up as a martyr, and is crying for you Americans’ blood–and if we don’t join them, the people will be crying for our blood.

So we’re going to play the only ace we have. You Americans care so much for the lives of your own soldiers, you’re willing to concede so much and restrain your forces so much to ensure that they don’t come to any harm, this makes us sure that you’ll come to your senses and finally come to respect us. It only makes sense. So much luxury has made you Americans soft and weak, we really don’t think you have the stamina to keep playing the neighborhood cop in what is rightfully our domain of influence. And so you need a little lesson in who’s in charge in the South China Sea.

And if you still haven’t learned your lesson from this regrettable incident, well, nobody likes a spy–and go on and split your hairs on whether this mission was “routine” or not, whether they were over “international waters” or not–the point is, they were poking around in a corner of the world where they have no business. Our corner of the world. And if it takes a trial of these 24 spies, and 24 sentences to labor camps, to make you realize this all the more quickly, so be it.

Oh, and the plane? You want it back? Go on and pull the other one, it’s got bells on.*

108

Thanks GB I knew you’d be good for a history lesson noun and verb with dates and everything! Yeah, I was aware of the “will the real Chinese government please stand up” problem. I’ve also felt that our presence in the Pacific was an important part of our own national security. I also know that we’ve been spying on the Chinese for a long damned time. (Why must we always mention Clinton just because someone criticizes Bush?) I still maintain that this administration is handling their foreign affairs every bit as ham-handedly as they are their domestic.

News today says that Putin gave his “state of nation” address this morning and deliberately did not mention the United States, something that hasn’t been done in decades. That’s fine with me too, I grew up listing to the Soviets this and the Soviets that. I guess I can go back to fearing the Red Horde if I have too. What I’d rather we do is show a little leadership in diplomacy. It’s always served us well in the past, especially with potential enemies that might acutally have the were-with-all to give us a good run for our money.

Needs2know

109

NEEDS2KNOW, I am genuinely curious to see if you have any specific complaints about how the Bush Administration is handling this incident, or if you are just full of it – knee-jerk anti-Bush rhetoric, that is.

My understanding is that the Bush Adminstration has said that it “regrets” the loss of the Chinese jet and pilot (Colin Powell) while simultaneously refusing to apologize for an incident that arguably is not our fault, and certainly has not been shown to be our fault, given the irreconcilable differences in the American and Chinese versions of what exactly occurred.

I am curious as to what, precisely, the Administration has done thus far that you object to, or what they have failed to do that you believe should be done.

110

What I object to:

THIS His only comment should have been “it woudn’t be prudent for me to comment on this matter.”" (good think I previewed, I’d left off the end quotes) Wring speaking now: Pisses me off.

Now, on the other hand, that’s pretty much what I think Bush should have been saying those first days, instead of repeated public demands to release our planes and personnel (one report had the comment that he’d made these public calls twice within an hour). The comment should have been “I’m sure this can be worked out, Our people are working with the PRC to achieve a positive outcome”. in public, and whatever he wanted to behind closed doors. That’s IMHO, of course.

111

Powell has, indeed, expressed regrets over the downed pilot.

Wow! A commercial satellite photo of the plane sitting on the runway. In color and detailed enough to pick out individual trees.

BTW, if you go to that link and scroll down about one-third of the way, you’ll see a link in the right-center of the page that says “Look: Inside the EP-3”. Click on that and a javascript window will open showing a photo of the plane next to an interior diagram. Click on the seats in the diagram and you’ll see photos of the plane’s interior and you find out who sits where.

Slate has a “Spy Plane FAQ.” Alfred Rubin, professor of international law says

112

Back in the good ole days, the President would have sent some delegates over to palaver with the Chinese delegates and they’d sort out this little incident over some tobaccer and buffalo steaks.

I think this is still the best way to handle it.

Am I being simplistic? I don’t think so. We’re not at war with each other and I don’t think either of us want to fight. So we should sort it out like civilized gentlemen and women.

Should they continue holding out for weeks on end, we can re-think our strategy.

113

Ok Jodi here goes…their guy is dead our guys are alive I think that in itself just might warrant an apology. You say there is no proof that we did anything wrong. Well we were spying weren’t we? Is that wrong? Perhaps not, but we were buzzing terribly close to THEIR AIR SPACE. They were not farting around over here in ours. We Americans get terribly upset if one of ours gets killed in the line of duty. Why shouldn’t they. Oh and did I hear correctly the first reports that our plane rammed theirs? Isn’t there a picture of the plane circulating with a smashed in nose cone? Hey, my facts could be wrong. I know one fact that isn’t wrong. The Chinese government says that we are behaving “arrogantly”. Perhaps the Chinese aren’t the only ones that think so.

Yes, dearie my knees are killing me. Got any Ben Gay.

Needs2know

114

jab1 wrote:

[nitpick]
I’ll bet you dollars to donut-holes that that’s a taxiway the plane’s sitting on, not a runway.
[/nitpick]

115

Seems to me you only posted the part of what I said that supported what you hoped to prove, while ignoring the rest. I also addressed the question a water landing or a bail out in order to keep the plane out of Chinese hands, and happily at the bottom of international waters. While a water landing might carry the chance of death, it’s not certain death. Ditto for a bail out.

Thank you for misrepresenting my views, though.

Read The Enigma of Japanese Power for some cultural insights. I found it enlightening.

116

Wow, what wonderful racial slurs you can make.

And no, I’m not brave. I’m also not in the military because I KNOW I’m not brave. Those people who ARE in the military have knowingly taken the risk that they may not come back. When you’re a spy, you try to ditch the plane, rather than handing it over to the people that you’re spying on. It’s not a job for everyone. And it’s certainly not a job for me. But when you sign up for a job, you’re expected to complete it.

117

Where to begin?

**
Uh-uh. It might warrant an expression of condolences, which is what they’ve received from our Secretary of State. We also offered to help search for the missing pilot, and China never responded.

I’ll take it a step beyond what others are saying about an apology not being warranted - an apology would be bad. An apology implies we were doing something wrong by being in internationally accepted airspace. Given what we all know* about China’s vastly overreaching claims of territoriality in the South China Sea, and the long term threats posed by the reasons behind their claims, we need to be very careful and very resolute about not recognizing those claims. Our allies in that part of the world are counting on it.

(* What we all should know, if we read the linked report from the U.S. Navy web site on Page 1)

**
Glad to see you’ve answered your own question. Every powerful nation plays spy vs. spy. Our allies spy on us, and we spy on them. You want to somehow criticize Bush for this?

**
What exactly does that mean? If we weren’t in their airspace, we weren’t in their airspace.

I came terribly close to running a red light today, stopping only at that thick white line below the traffic light until it turned green.

**
Who’s saying they shouldn’t? Their actions, coming out to our plane that was in international airspace, led to the whole thing, however.

**
Did you get that from Radio Un-Free Beijing?

This has been addressed ad nauseum by me and others. Big plane big, slow. Little jet little, fast. Big plane not engage little jets; little jets engage big plane. If big plane move and hit little jet, little jet way too close.

If common sense continues to get in the way of the partisan criticisms you want to levy, just let us know, and we’ll stop wasting our energy trying to make the elementary make sense to you.

A couple people have asked what has been arrogant about the U.S.'s response to this. You’ve offered nothing here.

wring offered something, but I’m not sure what she’s getting at. Her link goes to a news article saying Clinton, from India, hopes the matter gets resolved in a way that doesn’t permanently mess up U.S.-China relations. I’m sure former presidents Bush, Carter, Reagan and Ford feel the same way. So? I’m sure current president Bush wants to get our personnel and plane and move on as well. What, you don’t think so?

Again, what was a terrible diplomacy gaffe? I think calling for allowing us to immediately see our crew - that’s being illegally detained - isn’t inappropriate. In that before we’d seen them, we didn’t know for sure what their condition was, what was being done with/to them, etc.

118

NEEDS2KNOW:

Regardless of fault? If you rear-end my car and are killed by your own actions, why does my family owe an apology to yours? We may say we “regret” the incident – and the U.S. has said as much – but that does not mean an apology is in order, especially since it is unclear what happened.

We were not “spying” in any active sense; we were conducting what is being characterized as a “routine reconnaissance flight,” such as virtually every country with the capability to do so also carries out – including, one assumes, the Chinese. Now, it may be true that the nature of the plane’s mission is being played down – it is too early to tell that, and we may never know. But, no, such recon missions are not generally understood to be “wrong” or hostile.

See, here’s the problem. China has decided that virtually all of the South China Sea is THEIR AIR SPACE, regardless of conventional international understanding to the contrary. International air space everywhere else starts around twelve miles off the coast; this plane was approximately 65 miles out at the time of the incident. How can that be construed as “terribly close to THEIR AIR SPACE”? Only if you use their definition. What if they claimed the whole Pacific? Should we then stay out of it as well?

That is the Chinese version of events, which appears to be contradicted by common sense – meaning, that it would be very difficult for the large, unmanueverable recon plane to “ram” a fighter jet – which, as the smaller, faster craft is generally assumed to have the obligation to get out of the way in any event. Why would you believe the Chinese version over your own government’s? Even if it is not yet known which is in fact correct (and it isn’t, though one is far more likely than the other), why would you assume your government was in the wrong?

Not that I have seen. The pictures I have seen show a missing nose cone and damage to the left wing – and those pictures, taken from the front, reveal nothing about how damaged the craft might be in the rear.

Not only could be wrong; appear very likely at this early date to be wrong. And, moveover, all of this is criticism of the plane being there in the first place; it is not criticism of the Administration’s handling of the incident, which is what I specifically asked you about.

Again, I ask you: What specific action has the Adminstration undertaken that you personally consider so massively arrogant as to justify your position?

No, but then I don’t need it; my knees don’t jerk that often, or that far.

119

I guess I could have been clearer (seems I say that alot):

The missing nose cone, is indicative of the crew’s attempt to destroy sensitive equipment. That section (the radome) contains the Foward Looking Infrared Radar (very new) and is ejectable.

super head Attempting a water landing in a P-3 would be tantamount to suicide, especially after it had already obtained structural damage. See alaska airline crash.

120

I’m not a Bush fan – or, more accurately, I think the man’s a disgrace. However, I would really like to know what some of you guys are so pissed off about. He’s demanded that we get our people and our stuff back. What should he have done, exactly? Tell China to keep the plane and kill the airmen? Apologise when he sees nothing wrong with what we’ve done and no evidence that the spy plane intentionally rammed the Chinese jet? Seriously, guys. If our criticisms of Bush are to carry any weight, we have to blame him when he actually screws up.

And wring, what is it that Clinton said that you onject to? To paraphrase, he said “This is for the administration to handle, not me. I hope everything works out and that U.S. - China relations are not irreparably harmed by this incident. It’s really not my place to say any more.”

What’s your beef? That he expressed a desire for peace?