Diplo-speak

[Whack-a-Mole]

(This was previously posted in GQ…sorry about that Chronos)

This frequently puzzle me but the latest spat between the US and China has brought it to mind again.

Why do country’s dance around and mince words when talking to each other? More importantly, why do country’s let other country’s get away with blatant bullshit when everyone KNOWS it is bullshit?

Take the most recent case in China. A Chinese spokesman delivered the following questions and demands (among others):

1. China Demands Apology Over U.S. Spy Plane Incident

2. …why the U.S. plane veered toward the fighter

3. …why the aircraft entered Chinese airspace and landed without permission.

4. …why the United States conducts frequent air surveillance near the China coast
   The answers should go something like this:

5. Demand all you want…it ain’t gonna happen.

6. Hehe…I don’t think so. You want us to believe that a lumbering 4-engine propeller driven plane managed to tag a high performance fighter jet? That’s akin to suggesting an ocean liner ran over a power ski boat. Even a brain dead pilot flying a fighter jet should easily be able to avoid a crash unless that pilot is the one looking to pick a fight. To continue our hypothetical it would be majorly stupid for our speed boat friend to play chicken with the ocean liner. Frankly, if you insist our lumbering plane hit your speedy fighter, we should attack you now and get you out of our way because you just admitted you airforce pilots are braindead at best. Sweeping them from the skies would be child’s play. We’ll just float a C-5 Galaxy cargo plane over your country and yourpilots will all manage to crash into it!

7. Our aircraft entered Chinese airspace because it had been crashed into by some hot-to-trot fuckwad Chinese fighter jock. Our plane was now in a controlled crash…they really had little choice in the matter. Are you suggesting they wanted to land in China? Do you suppose they thought they could spy on you better from the ground assuming they could sneak their plane in to your airport without anyone knowing?

8. We conduct frequent surveillance down there because you have the habit of lining-up more and more missiles along your coast pointed at our ally. Move your missiles and we’ll consider moving our plane. What kinda dumbfucks do you take us for?

In the meantime it matters little. That plane has every right to fly in international airspace. Feel free to fly one of your planes 70 miles off of the coast of California if you wish. In the past we’ve had Russian Backfire bombers loaded with nukes making regular passes at us…we’re not going to be spooked by anything you decide to do in this regard.

You can also count on our pilots shadowing your plane to not crash into your plane and if for some reason your plane had to emergency land in California you could have it and your crew back forthwith mostly because you don’t have any technology we give a rat’s ass about. Hell, whatever technology you have in there is probably ours to begin with and its probably so old its the same shit we let our Cessna private pilots use in their planes.

In summation…give us our fucking plane and crew back! Can you honestly think, even to yourselves, that you’re fooling anyone with this bullshit? To be honest, much as we hate it, we expect you to take a look at our plane considering you won’t see anything so fancy again in your lifetime but the crew needs to come home NOW! Maybe you have to be bastards about the whole thing but you don’t have to be heartless bastards!

[Captain_Amazing]

Well, what you said the US should say is what we’ve been saying, basically. It’s just there’s a certain diplomatic language you need to follow. For example:

“Are you out of your freakin mind?! There’s no way in hell we’re going to take you into OUR silos to let you inspect OUR weapons!” becomes “We have concerns about the implementation of the proposal”

“Once your men get into the silos, we’re not going to let them sit down at the controls and start tinkering” becomes “We have definate concerns about implementation of the proposal”

“We’re not going to give you the launch codes and the commands to launch strikes of our own missles on New York, Chicago, Miami, and L.A.” becomes “We have serious concerns about implementation of the proposal.”

[Alessan]

Because diplomats never say anything they can’t back down from later. That’s their job.

[system]

Why do country’s dance around and mince words when talking to each other? More importantly, why do country’s let other country’s get away with blatant bullshit when everyone KNOWS it is bullshit?

Because niceties make it easier to do business in the future, and get past whatever current problems are rubbing nerves raw. International relations is all about repeated games.

Take the most recent case in China. A Chinese spokesman delivered the following questions and demands (among others):

Ah, it’s just posturing.

But,

4. We conduct frequent surveillance down there because you have the habit of lining-up more and more missiles along your coast pointed at our ally. Move your missiles and we’ll consider moving our plane. What kinda dumbfucks do you take us for?

This is a dumb answer. One, the incident occurred far away from Taiwan, which China and until recently Taiwan’s ruling part both considered an integral part of itself. As such, in point of logic, the Chinese have perfect rights to threaten a dissident part of itself. Of course, that’s not something I would accept as a matter of policy per se, but your answer is silly. All the more so since this occurred to the West of Hong Kong.

You can also count on our pilots shadowing your plane to not crash into your plane and if for some reason your plane had to emergency land in California you could have it and your crew back forthwith mostly because you don’t have any technology we give a rat’s ass about.

Well, back in the good old days of the Cold War, I’m afraid that’s not precisely how things would have happened. And, if China had the capacity to project power to the West coast and was doing little listening runs and happened to have an accident — lots of ifs here — I am fairly certain we would at that point have some interest in their material’s actual configurations. As such, I except we’d play a similar game in some respects. Cool it. It’s all a game.

Hell, whatever technology you have in there is probably ours to begin with and its probably so old its the same shit we let our Cessna private pilots use in their planes.

Shrug. Venting. Well, should be done now and again.

the crew needs to come home NOW! Maybe you have to be bastards about the whole thing but you don’t have to be heartless bastards!

Think of it this way, they’re still pretty upset about the Yugoslav embassy issue, plus their pilot. Let em have their little fun. The crew is reported to be fine. Chill.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Collunsbury wrote:

This is a dumb answer. One, the incident occurred far away from Taiwan, which China and until recently Taiwan’s ruling part both considered an integral part of itself. As such, in point of logic, the Chinese have perfect rights to threaten a dissident part of itself. Of course, that’s not something I would accept as a matter of policy per se, but your answer is silly. All the more so since this occurred to the West of Hong Kong.

[/quote]

Yes…my answer is silly but it was meant to be seeing as how this is the Pit and I wasn’t striving as hard for facts as I might otherwise. Nevertheless your assertions are sillier than mine.

If you check your history books you’ll see that Taiwan only belonged to China for about 5 years in the last century (1945-1949). Indeed, since China’s government fled to Taiwan to escape the Communists the Taiwanese could probably make a claim to China rather than vice versa. That’s silly as well but not realy any more so than China laying claim to Taiwan. China’s claim barely rises to the level of tenuous in this case thus making their “rights to threaten a dissident part of itself” questionable at the very least.

The whole incident has a different flavor than those of the past (between the USSR and the US). China caused an international incident. What the US was doing is perfectly legal and is what dozens of countries do every day. If we had screwed-up then sure…I’d expect the Chinese to take advantage of it even if I didn’t like it.

However, the Chinese fuck-up and have the balls to blame the US when it is OBVIOUS that it was their fault! When the US zapped the Chinese embassy at least we owned up to it immediately and paid reparations to the Chinese government and the families of the dead.

The Chinese are in no way taking any responsibility for this. That is what I object to and why I don’t understand the kid gloves diplo-speak. I’m not suggesting going to war over this but a good tongue lashing seems in order.

[Saint_Zero]

Perhaps the Chineese are ticked they paid all that good money and their canadate lost the election for President of the US?

[Drastic]

All that I can add is that this whole incident has added a weight of profound social commentary to the bit in Army of Darkness where Ash mutters, “But maybe, just maybe, we can take 'em. Yeah. And maybe I’m a Chinese jet pilot.”

[Coldfire]

In my search for a little background of this story, I found this, errr, interesting website. Some people seem to think WWIII is around the corner because of this incident.

My opinion is as follows. It’s highly unlikely that an Orion deliberately managed to hit a jet fighter. Why would they even TRY, so close to Chinese airspace? Why would they compromise the lives of 24 crewmen?
What puzzles me is this: did China give the aircraft permission to perform an emergency landing or not? That appears to be instrumental when you’re talking about “giving the crew and plane back”. I’m reading contradictory reports so far.

[system]

*Originally posted by Jeff_42 *
Nevertheless your assertions are sillier than mine.

Well, no. Your misreading of what I said may be, but…

If you check your history books you’ll see that Taiwan only belonged to China for about 5 years in the last century (1945-1949). Indeed, since China’s government fled to Taiwan to escape the Communists the Taiwanese could probably make a claim to China rather than vice versa.

First, you will note that I said that the prior Taiwanese government (i.e. the Nationalists who fled) and China both held Taiwan to be part of China. I made no comment on the factual value of such claims, which I am well aware to be founded on the usual nationalistic quicksand.

I might add that factually speaking, the Nationalists fled to Taiwan, taking it over for China as it were – or continuing the post-1945 occupation. As such, it’s a Chinese claim on the Taiwanese or was until the recent elections booted the Natiolasists.

So, once more, I refered to the mutual claims, not the factual nature of the same claims.

That’s silly as well but not realy any more so than China laying claim to Taiwan. China’s claim barely rises to the level of tenuous in this case thus making their “rights to threaten a dissident part of itself” questionable at the very least.

Question of sovreignty. Insofar as both governments accepted, and at least in public continue to accept the one country two systems position, they’re internal issues. Of course this is all polite fiction, but while the Nationalists were in power it was something a little more since they ostensibly layed claim over the mainland.

China caused an international incident.

Shrug. It was an accident. No different than any dozen of cold war incident caused by accidental collisions and the like.

What the US was doing is perfectly legal and is what dozens of countries do every day. If we had screwed-up then sure…I’d expect the Chinese to take advantage of it even if I didn’t like it.

We did, the pilots landed in Chinese territory. If anyone was expecting the Chinese not to take this opportunity, they must have been smokin some bad crack. We would too, given a similar position.

The pilots might have chosen to ditch, or perhaps they felt they could trash the important stuff.

Anyways, they get a little vacation in China and everyone gets to make speeches.

However, the Chinese fuck-up and have the balls to blame the US when it is OBVIOUS that it was their fault! When the US zapped the Chinese embassy at least we owned up to it immediately and paid reparations to the Chinese government and the families of the dead.

Yes, the United States is better than they are. On the other hand we don’t have the full story. As pointed out in another thread, any number of scenarios present themselves. Anyways, none of the American aviators are dead, the Chinese get to play around with some electronics and annoy the easily annoyed.

End of story.

The Chinese are in no way taking any responsibility for this. That is what I object to and why I don’t understand the kid gloves diplo-speak. I’m not suggesting going to war over this but a good tongue lashing seems in order.

Diplomatic language eases the burden of relations. One doesn’t need to speak in plain language since the whole game is understood by the responsible parties. It’s really not a difficult concept. No reason to get all riled up.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Coldfire wrote:
What puzzles me is this: did China give the aircraft permission to perform an emergency landing or not? That appears to be instrumental when you’re talking about “giving the crew and plane back”.

As I understand it (so far with admittedly incomplete information) is that the Chinese did not give permission for them to land. I did hear, however, a bit of a discussion on the radio about craft in distress and other’s responsibilities to help them out. The little I heard seemed to suggest that, by international agreement, China was supposed to let them land…refusal not being an option. I have no cites for that since, as I said, I heard only a fragment of a report. Take it as you will and rip it as you please.

I heard this morning that the plane was much more damaged than originally thought. The opinion of those who saw it was that they were surprised the pilot managed to fly the plane 60-70 miles to land at the island. It was clear to them that the plane was in major distress and in need of help after the crash.

Collunsbury wrote:
Shrug. It was an accident. No different than any dozen of cold war incident caused by accidental collisions and the like.

You seem to be taking me to task for making a big issue out of nothing and on the face of it I would agree with you. This incident should have faded from the US and Chinese radar screens rather quickly with the return of our plane and airmen and women. The Chinese could even have dragged their heels for a day or two for a good look at the plane. Unfortunately the Chinese seem to want to make something of this. I do not feel I am out of line responding to their shenanigans.

The pilots might have chosen to ditch, or perhaps they felt they could trash the important stuff.

Anyways, they get a little vacation in China and everyone gets to make speeches.

This might be the case and no big deal but I doubt the families of those aviators are so cavalier in their opinion of this situation. More and more that crew is seeming like hostages rather guests of the PRC. Going over our plane is one thing. Going over our crew is quite another. Unless China has the intent of trying the crew for espionage why else would they hang on to them? My guess is this will all eventually blow over but were one of my family members over there I’d be very worried anyway.

Diplomatic language eases the burden of relations. One doesn’t need to speak in plain language since the whole game is understood by the responsible parties. It’s really not a difficult concept. No reason to get all riled up.

That diplomats understand their own language is all well and fine. However, there is the court of public opinion as well. Why doesn’t a US official come on TV and say, in diplomatic language, that there is really no conceivable way in hell that our plane smashed into theirs and we really don’t see how China can expect an apology from us? Simple, to the point and the ball is in China’s court. They now need to come up with a plausible scenario for how it is the United State’s fault or admit they were ‘hasty’ in their assessment of the situation and would like to see it resolved quickly and amicably.

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by Jeff_42 *
**[ Why doesn’t a US official come on TV and say, in diplomatic language, that there is really no conceivable way in hell that our plane smashed into theirs and we really don’t see how China can expect an apology from us? **

Well, but on April 1, Adm. Blair basically said just that in his press conference.
http://www.pacom.mil/speeches/sst2001/010401blairplane.htm

[system]

*Originally posted by Jeff_42 *
The Chinese could even have dragged their heels for a day or two for a good look at the plane. Unfortunately the Chinese seem to want to make something of this. I do not feel I am out of line responding to their shenanigans.

Of course they do. If the situation was reversed so would we. Big deal. It’s not that serious.

Anyways, they get a little vacation in China and everyone gets to make speeches.

This might be the case and no big deal but I doubt the families of those aviators are so cavalier in their opinion of this situation. More and more that crew is seeming like hostages rather guests of the PRC.

Hostages? Eh, they’re just stalling. They seem to be in some relatively swanky digs, hardly a prision. Barring any changes, I assume China simply wishes to underline their (understandable) annoyance. So they do. And we keep up the game. Same old same old.

Unless something actually outrageous happens to the airman, other than forced vacation in a hotel, I suggest everyone just cool it.

Unless China has the intent of trying the crew for espionage why else would they hang on to them?

To annoy us. You’re blowing this out of proporation given present knowledge.

That diplomats understand their own language is all well and fine. However, there is the court of public opinion as well.

It hardly pays to whip up public opinion when you’re trying to deal with problems rationally.

Why doesn’t a US official come on TV and say, in diplomatic language, that there is really no conceivable way in hell that our plane smashed into theirs and we really don’t see how China can expect an apology from us?

Insofar as in diplomatic language that’s more or less what we’re said what’s your point? Of course, it may be that there is more to the accident than meets the eye, but that will come out.

Simple, to the point and the ball is in China’s court.

Shrug. Not really, they got the plane and the folks. If they want to needle us, they will. I’m sure the Forbidden City could care less if some folks in the USA are a little riled over this. They get a chance to rib the big bad Americans a little, so why not?

They now need to come up with a plausible scenario for how it is the United State’s fault or admit they were ‘hasty’ in their assessment of the situation and would like to see it resolved quickly and amicably.

That’s not how international relations work. This ain’t Kansas.

[Whack-a-Mole]

1. Nations can say whatever they wish regardless of the truth or how obvious that truth is to onlookers.

2. A nation may not mention the actual truth in anything approaching a direct manner as that is considered antagonistic and bad form as it closes the door to further prevarication on the part of both parties.

3. Points 1 & 2 are ok because every nation understands this diplo-code and this allows them to all engage in it. It is not necessary for the general population to grasp these concepts.

4. Detaining foreigners is ok as long as the foreigners are kept in comfort.

5. Foreigeners may be detained indefinitely in accordance with points 1 & 2. Rules for regaining detained citizens are as follows:

6. Armed conflict is to be avoided at all costs unless the other nation can be 100% proven to be the bad guy that instigated it and forced the other’s hand (fortunately this almost never happens except through extreme stupidity – See: Saddam Hussein).

7. Undue antagonism can only help to support the other side and lead them closer to proving 100% that you are the actual bad guy since you clearly are uninterested in resolving the issue amicably (see point 2 as this regards telling the truth).

8. Economic retaliation is allowed only in so far as it does not hurt campaign contributors or cause any significant distress to either country (significant distress to some peasants or low to middle-class workers with no stake in the conflict is acceptable).

9. Hi Opal! (Don’t ask me why…I don’t know…I’m just a lemming following the crowd)

10. Public opinion screws all of these rules up so it should be studiously ignored at all costs. They aren’t really entitled to an opinion anyway and methods for depriving them of their opinion are being looked into.

[system]

Sigh, misreadings upon mirsreadings.

*Originally posted by Jeff_42 *

1. Nations can say whatever they wish regardless of the truth or how obvious that truth is to onlookers.

This is a new realization? Of course truth is often a bit subjective, but leaving that aside.

2. A nation may not mention the actual truth in anything approaching a direct manner as that is considered antagonistic and bad form as it closes the door to further prevarication on the part of both parties.

Aside from the fact the US, to lift the viel from your statement has given its version of the truth, this might or might not be useful.

However, since we’re not in a playground, impulse shouting from the rooftops is usually not reccomended.

3. Points 1 & 2 are ok because every nation understands this diplo-code and this allows them to all engage in it. It is not necessary for the general population to grasp these concepts.

True enough I suppose. But the general population in countries with free presses don’t really need government pronouncments, now do they?

4. Detaining foreigners is ok as long as the foreigners are kept in comfort.

No, but getting all worked up about it is not terribly called for after a mere three days, given the circumstances.

5. Foreigeners may be detained indefinitely in accordance with points 1 & 2. Rules for regaining detained citizens are as follows:

And of course now you’re just being silly.

6. Armed conflict is to be avoided at all costs unless the other nation can be 100% proven to be the bad guy that instigated it and forced the other’s hand (fortunately this almost never happens except through extreme stupidity – See: Saddam Hussein).

No armed conflict is to be avoided unless it serves your rational best interests and you can’t find another, less expensive way of dealing with the issue, as modern armed conflict is awfully expensive.

7. Undue antagonism can only help to support the other side and lead them closer to proving 100% that you are the actual bad guy since you clearly are uninterested in resolving the issue amicably (see point 2 as this regards telling the truth).

Assuming you know the meaning of undue, why yes.

8. Economic retaliation is allowed only in so far as it does not hurt campaign contributors or cause any significant distress to either country (significant distress to some peasants or low to middle-class workers with no stake in the conflict is acceptable).

Rubbish, economic sanctions rarely work and often hurt little guys much more than big guys who can relocate to export platforms (third parties) with relative ease.

10. Public opinion screws all of these rules up so it should be studiously ignored at all costs. They aren’t really entitled to an opinion anyway and methods for depriving them of their opinion are being looked into.

Rolling me eyes here. Insofar as public opinion on delicate diplomatic matters is rarely well informed, slavishly following ignoramuses calling for war of course is not well-advised, but one shouldn’t ignore the general thrust. On the other hand, part of being a leader is also not slavishly following public opinion when you think it is wrong, but educating the public to come around to your POV. Hopefully if one is truly right, they will.

Otherwise, there’s always a career in consulting or in oil.

[Whack-a-Mole]

And of course now you’re just being silly.

Uhhh…yeah. To all of this actually. This is the Pit…not GD. My comments are intentionally flip and sarcastic to illustrate a point.