The chains, if any, are purely metaphorical. There is no evidence that the 24 crew-members were mistreated. Let’s also not forget that much of the Law of the Sea applies explicitly to noncombat personnel only.
Drawing false parallels is a real concern. However, the US has claimed that their plane is “sovereign territory”:
My understanding (from a link somewhere on the SDMB) that a Tufts expert on international law basically replies to this contention with the words: “Nice try”.
If a US aircraft in China is sovereign territory, then a Soviet aircraft in Japan is sovereign as well. Different situation, same underlying principle.
Finally, while I see little wrong when politicians make vague appeals to international law, if I’m going to take some arguments seriously I to see the law quoted chapter and verse, as it were. So if you’re saying that a military plane becomes sovereign territory when it is forced to land in an emergency situation in the land of a “strategic competitor”, (and not when it is delivered by a defector) I’d like to see a cite.
Another aspect here is that the plane is the main evidence of a crash involving a Chinese jet. Sorry, but the 737 has to stay until the end of the investigation. What, China doesn’t have the right to investigate evidence of incidents involving them directly? Where is that written?
nice dodge of the question. capacitor is correctly reminding us that the plane, in addition to calling out mayday and needing emergency landing, had just been involved in a mid air collision with one of their planes.
I can’t imagine that we wouldn’t (under the same scenario) demand to ‘investigate’ the collision by checking out the plane and questioning the witnesses.
Lemur866, in a spirited and, IMHO, accurate defense of the practice of intelligence gathering, began with:
The bolded part is what no one seems to be taking into account. The (a) simple truth is that gentlemen do not open other people’s mail. Another simple truth is that those who do the intelligence gathering are not gentlemen. I say this, not to impugn their honor, but merely to observe the fact that there are certain necessary functions that gentlemen, simply by virtue of being gentlemen, are disqualified from carrying out. Yet another simple truth is that the Head of State is, by definition, a gentleman.
In other words, in the universe of International Relations, at the Head of State level, everyone is supposed to PRETEND that spying, surveillance, and intelligence gathering don’t happen. Now, I’m just so bitter and angry for the past 74 days, and I have every expectation of remaining so for the next 1387 days, that I can only take about two seconds of Dubya’s voice before my ulcer starts acting up. Therefore, as a matter of self-preservation, I don’t hear what Mr. Bush League says (yes, I know. Real mature). But what I have gleaned thus far from second- and third-hand reports does not lead me to believe that Dubya has been even trying to pretend. Can anyone clarify whether he has demonstrated any understanding of the value of the pretense?
In relation to the pertinent parts of international law (not to mention, you know, ethics) the situations are very similar and the parallel is entirely justified. The Mig-25 was Soviet property (all irony aside), and they wanted it back. It was not the pilot’s to give to us. Since there was nothing they could really do to get it back, we took certain liberties with their property. I suspect the Chinese will do much the same with our plane, under the plausible but ultimately insubstantial auspices of an investigation. As for the crew, I’d be greatly surprised if they were not home within a few days, week tops (and yes, of course, they should be returned as soon as possible).
Some of the accounts of Munich that I’ve read are really sad, in a way. It’s hard not to empathize with the Czechs as they waited, quite literally, outside the door while their country was being carved up. Anyway, like I said, I don’t think there was much more Chamberlain could have done. Hitler wasn’t looking for a negotiated peace, he was looking for his war right then and there. He was apparently furious at Chamberlain for meddling, and feared that something similar would happen on the eve of the invasion of Poland. It wasn’t a matter of Hitler playing Chamberlain to get him to hand over the Sudetenland at the bargaining table.
Actually, if anyone was slavishly devoted to Hitler, it was Stalin. He genuinely feared a German invasion, was convinced that the allies were trying to coerce him into a war with Germany (to get rid of Bolshevism and Fascism in one swoop), and even continued to send huge shipments of raw materials to Germany when it was stupifyingly obvious that they were about to invade. Apparently, he refused to believe the first reports he received about the invasion.
While I’d agree that we shouldn’t “sell out” Taiwan, I’m not sure that this situation is at all related. They’re going to return our men, they’re going to inspect our plane, and there isn’t a whole lot we can or should do about it.
VarlosZ, I’ll concede that the parallel between the MiG incident and the current one may have more relevence than I originally argued, but I think we must note that if the MiG incident is in parallel with the P3, then China has taken it upon itself to redefine its relationship with America in a pretty fundamental way. As I said before, that MiG was an aircraft of a clearly defined enemy. If that’s the analogy we should apply to China’s seizure of our P3–i.e., they have undertaken an action that’s characteristic of an enemy country–then that’s something we shouldn’t overlook.
And I stand by my argument that the US would not effectively hold a foreign crew hostage like China appears to be doing. (If the entire crew isn’t released within the next day or two, I think this view will become increasingly prevalent.) I believe it’s utterly disingenuous to say, as rjung did, that [t]he Chinese are simply applying the same hard-nosed tactics that we would apply to them." No, they aren’t–up to now, at least, we haven’t treated them as an outright enemy, we wouldn’t detain and hold incommunicado a Chinese crew in these circumstances, and we certainly wouldn’t issue shrill calls for some ill-defined “apology” from the other side when we were clearly at fault.
Well, I think the Taiwan question is part of a larger picture, the character of which has been fundamentally altered by the Chinese. The return of our men (and women) and even of our plane will not unmake this event or patch over China’s underlying tone of aggression. With China now possibly being our quasi-enemy, concessions on Taiwan or other issues could be destabilizing.
And yes, Bush said beforehand that he regards China as a strategic competitor, but I think it’s now clear that this was merely an accurate observation of how things really stand with that country–a view that’s now been pretty well publicly confirmed by China itself.
That’s a good point, though I still have the impression that Allied passivity toward Hitler–both at Munich and in the early days of the war (the “sitzkrieg”)–convinced him that he was on his own against the Germans. As for today’s Russia, how stable is Siberia these days? Might Putin be worried about Chinese encroachments into his country’s weak Eastern flank? Again, I recognize the folly of historical parallels, but if there is an aggressive new regional power emerging, Russia once again has the most to lose.
(Apologies for not yet knowing how to do that cool quote thing).
All I’m saying is that the Chinese I know view the English word “regret” and it’s translation into Chinese as almost insulting. However, the word “apology” and subsequent translation into Chinese is pretty acceptable.
You know, something along the lines of “The US people regret there was an incident and a Chinese pilot is missing and presumed dead.”
You can argue all you want about what this means in terms of “international law” and the like. However, the Chinese would like to see the word apology. For some reason, baby Bush has a problem with it.
From a Chinese point of view, then it becomes a matter of face. From Bush’s point of view it is a matter of face. Okay, let’s translate that into an American context. It becomes a big pissing contest.
Now, I am probably the last person on this planet to agree with the tenuous territorial claims that China has to half of China, much less the Spratleys, the Diaoyutai or the Natuna Oil Fields. The Chinese on the other hand do feel that it is their sovereign territory. To my understanding, there has never been an international conference, meeting or agreement, where the Chinese have agreed to what is or is not Chinese sovereign territory. So, you can argue all you want that “international law”, say’s it’s international territory and not part of the middle kingdom, but one of the parties in this debate has never signed off on that statement.
Hey, it’s their point of view.
As I said before, the Chinese I know here in Shanghai are like their American counterparts, they don’t want anything screwing up their beloved stock markets and the ability to get rich quick. And you think the communists are running this country?
Amen China Guy!!!..I’m all for my country when I think they are doing the right thing. But here we are on the SDMB arguing that “recon missions” aren’t spying! Please my side hurts already from laughing at that one. We’re also saying we did nothing wrong. Well it’s quite obvious now after watching last night’s news what China thinks we are doing wrong. WE ARE SPYING ON THEIR LOAD UP NEAR THE TAIWANESE BORDER! That’s why they’ve been buzzing our “recon” planes. This is also the Taiwan that they have never recognized.
Let me ask you this? Why do we have to spy for Taiwan? Can’t they do their own spying? They’re an ally I assume. We were getting ready to sell them some more arms. Why can’t they do their own recon work and if things get hairy they can call us? Do we have to police their borders as well as our own? Oh that’s right we’re keeping an eye on an evil empire! Holding back the Red Tide. Seems to me like this evil empire did something in regards to Tibet awhile back. Why didn’t we care about that?
The Chinese have let us step in our own shit. They, contrary to what some people here might think are not stupid. They may not have spent the last 50 years using most of their resources and energies to develop as much weaponry as us and the Soviets but they are not dumb when it comes to waging war. They have waited for us to make a mistake, maybe even teased us into it a little. Just so they can pressure us into some kind of declaration that will we stop peeking in their back door.
Not gonna happen of course because we are the Americans you know. We are the World’s police force and entitled to keep up with who’s doing what. That is as long as it serves our own interests, especially monetary interests.
N2k,
Do you honestly believe that the Chinese do not check up on the US; why do you think the Chinese plane was buzzing ours? Every nation spies on every other nation, it’s the way that each nation makes sure nobody else is planning anything untoward. Don’t you think that if we had the aerial surveillance available in 1941 that we might have been prepared for the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor,or in 1950 we might have been prepared for the North Korean invasion of the South, instead of being surprised in both instances?
A. The Chinese invasion of Tibet happened in 1950, when our post-WWII drawdown had left our forces dangerously weak, as the rout of our troops down to the Pusan Perimeter in the Korean conflict showed.
B. Tibet was (and is) a sparsely inhabited high-altitude desert with little strategic value
C. It’s in the middle of the bloody Asian continent. How do you think we’d get troops in and out?
Again, not so. Do you even read any of the posts here? China has as much as declared hegemony over the South China Sea,
including the Spratly Islands, possibly oil-rich reefs in the South China Sea much closer to Vietnam and the Philippines than China. China is the aggressor in that part of Asia, not us.
N2K, I already debunked that with Federal trade statistics. Our volume of trade with China is much greater than with Taiwan, and both nations are making much more money off us than we are off them. That is what a trade deficit means. Go back and look up the cites I provided.
**
And I would think the point of view of the rest of the world is, it doesn’t particularly matter how China feels about it. Respect for the borders and rights of our allies in that region, the economic viability of that region, and many other factors compel us and the rest of the world to not accept China’s definitions of its territorial waters and airspace. Doing so would very much destabilize the region.
On another point, and this may be way too fundamental to even point out, but if releasing our service men and women is tied to some deal on not selling weapons to Taiwan, or other considerations, those people will officially become hostages, and we will officially be negotiating with terrorists.
GB…I’m not trashing the US. I live here. I love my country. I do not however always agree with their policies. And yes, I do appreciate the fact that I’m allowed to say so. Do you think my assumptions here are wrong? Isn’t it pretty much a fact that the US has observed a build up in mainland China directed toward the Taiwanese? My understanding of this is not complete of course but it does seem that we have a special interest in protecing certain countries from threat and not giving a shit about others. I’ve always equated it with money. Please don’t tell me money (or resources) doesn’t make the world go 'round.
I’m also not siding with China really. I’m just trying to put this in perspective from an outside of the good old USA point of view. We have not always been honest and above board in our dealings with other contries. Some of them hate us and have good reason. Of course there have been times when we have attempted to make good our promises, keep our treaties, and work toward the greater good.
What I’m saying is that this is a potentially embarassing situation for the US. One of our spy planes has collided with a Chinese fighter. Now they are using some pretty typical (perhaps ancient) tactics on us. What would be really interesting is to see how the rest of the world views this incident. Not only that, is it really our “right” to go around the globe and police everyone? Do we have to have our finger in everyone’s pie?
What I find ironic and what the rest of the world may find just a little strange too is that the new admistration has been backing away from some of our other concerns. He’s been distancing us from the Middle East problem, the Soviets and said no to the Kyoto thing. Now we’re caught spying on the Chinese. Sure everyone knows we do it but it’s isn’t often we get caught. Sort of like “don’t ask, don’t tell”. As long as we aren’t out there creating an incident with our “information gathering” then it isn’t an issue.
Ok then O Wise One (And I don’t mean that as nasty as it sounds, you are obviously much better educated and informed at this than I.) Am I wrong in thinking that this incident is a potential spring board for ire from those that dislike our policies already?
I’ve already provided you with cites showing you that you are wrong in this instance. If you persist in holding on to your preconceived notions, even in the face of conflicting evidence, there’s not much point to having a debate.
You don’t agree with the United States Policy? They run into us over international waters. I don’t like that. I hate to tell you, but we aren’t in the wrong. We’re not in the wrong for anything even if we are spying on their country. Just remember, without spies, spy planes, and cnn…lol…there would be no United States. It allows us to stay a step ahead of everyone else. So, lets quit putting down the government. Dang liberals…
Actually I concede GB…I might even be guilty of ascribing a more sinsiter motive for China’s reaction to this incident. Last nights “experts” and pundits were hinting around that they are demanding apologies and the like in a kind of “saving face” measure. I’ll just keep quiet and see how things go. I do think that if this administration had used a little more tact two days ago it might have helped a little. Guess no one realized the Chinese would dig their heels in so deeply. We can wait and see what their real motives are all about. Doesn’t look like this is going to end today, although it would be nice.
Oh yeah, and BTW…just one more question. Why are we so concerned with the affairs of China and Taiwan? Am I wrong in observing that we are often very selective in who we concern ourselves with, if it isn’t about money what is it?
Ideology. The Republican Congress is caught in a 1950’s timewarp when it comes to Asia. Heck, Jesse Helms, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, still calls it “Red China.” They remember Taiwan being derecognized in 1979, and still see it as America abandoning a brave ally, which is pretty much the case.
In addition, there are delicate balances of power and influence in Asia. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan, however unlikely the prospect, would seriously destabilize those balances, with dangerous and as yet unforeseeable consequences.
Not to mention I had a great time in my visits to Taipei,and I would like the Chinese not to bomb my favorite bars.
He has a problem with it because in the United States there is a presumption (which is becoming more entrenched in an increasingly litigious society) that to apologize for something is the accept responsibility for it. To say
“I regret (or I’m sorry) that your mother died” is far different than “I apologize (or I’m sorry) for your mother’s death.” Everyone has shown great deference for the Chinese belief that an apology is culturally appropriate; I would like to see at least an acknowledgement of the American belief that an apology is culturally inappropriate – because it has not been shown that we have done anything wrong. In America, people do not apologize for occurrences for which they are not to blame. They may regret them, but they do not apologize for them. This may truly be a cultural thing, or it may be that the Chinese, fully appreciating the distinction, are pushing for an apology in order to force the U.S. to accept blame. Either way, it is over-simplistic to act as if (a) this is some minor cultural thing of the Chinese (and not the United States) and (b) there is not good reason (at least in American eyes) to refuse to apologize for an incident we did not cause. And the incident damaged our plane and very nearly cost the lives of 24 servicepeople – are the Chinese planning on apologizing for that?
Again, I ask: What if the Chinese decided to assert the right to all of the Pacific as their sovereign territory, or at least as much of it as they can grab? As has been pointed out, they have done so in the past – Tibet, Japan, Korea. No country is justified in extending its “sovereign” territory with impunity, all international conventions notwithstanding, and then, when it is shown they are violating international law, saying “well, we never agreed to that.” Maybe not, but it is the law recognized by the majority of the rest of the world, and they ought to at least acknowledge they are violating it. Would the U.S. violate international law under similar circumstances? Maybe. At some level, the standard becomes “you can do what you can get away with” – and China, at its size, can get away with a lot (as can the U.S). But let’s not for one moment pretend that China’s actions do not violate generally accepted international conventions regarding the measurement of territory. At least we can call a spade a spade.
NEEDS2KNOW –
Brilliant. Just a few news broadcasts and you managed to grasp that, huh? Look, there is a huge difference between the Chinese asserting we did something wrong and us having actually done something wrong. I am not saying that it is out of the realm of the possible that we did, but it is far too early to tell – especially since we can neither inspect the plane nor even speak to our personnel. So I ask again: Why are you so eager to assume that the Chinese are right and your government is wrong? Maybe this time you’ll actually answer.
This is unproven bullshit, which I am rapidly coming to expect from you. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN THAT WE WERE TO BLAME FOR THE INCIDENT. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN THAT WE WERE DOING ANYTHING WRONG IN BEING WHERE WE WERE. What part of this do you not get? It is one thing to conclude that we have “stepped in our own shit” when you have the facts to make that determination, but you flat-out don’t. You just don’t. If you disagree, then maybe you would like to take a shot at defending your ad hominem attacks, because this is the position your posts appear to take:
The U.S. has no right to conduct reconnaissance flights to gather data on other nations – even though such flights are understood to be routinely done by many nations, and even though such flights might lead to information crucial to the defense of the U.S. and/or its allies (like, say, the massing of Chinese troups for an invasion of Taiwan).
The U.S. should leave its trading ally, Taiwan, to twist in the wind and be reabsorbed into China because the Chinese asserts that it “owns” the island. Though the people of Taiwan do not wish to be part of China so long as it is Communist, you are willing to hand them over anyway – granting China the right to determine who flies, not just over, but even near, Taiwan.
The U.S. must take the blame for a collision involving its big, slow plane and a smaller, faster Chinese jet, even though it is totally unclear how the incident took place or why the smaller faster plane (which is understood to have the obligation to stay out of the way) was close enough for a collision to occur.
And that thing about the the smaller, faster plane staying out of the way . . . we’ll ignore that too, since it doesn’t support the Chinese version, which we are obliged to accept as true.
The U.S. must accept the Chinese assertion of where its “air space” begins, even though it is a distance far greater than that claimed by other nations, or generally understood to be reasonable for defense, and even though by so doing, we are both (a) tacitly admitting that every nation can just take as much air or sea as they want and (b) surrendering to the Chinese airspace that actually belongs to all of us (hence the term “international”).
The Chinese have the right to not only hold our equipment but our PEOPLE, without substantive access to U.S. officials, much less the right to leave, and to “interrogate” them about the incident – as they have now announced they intend to do.
I have yet to see you cogently defend any one of these points. But you’re great at making them.