Slashdot Mirror
Hyperreality: The U.S-China Standoff
"U.S. and China Look for a Way to Say 'Sorry'," was the striking headline on The New York Times front page Monday. Some of the world's most senior diplomats have been fussing for days over how to phrase sentences in English and Chinese that will stroke both nation's egos, even though no sane person could believe anybody meant this incident to happen. The sticking point is China's public demand for an apology -- "dao qian," a legalistic and formal verbal idea that dates back to its imperial past.
Second to none when it comes to macho military posturing, the U.S. can't say it's sorry for the accident and bring everybody home. Various grim-faced U.S. officials, from the President and Vice-President to the Secretary of State, have been rushing around in their big black limos, and issued guarded expressions of concern and sadness, but nobody can quite bring himself to say the magic words.
Maybe these people could get on IRC and flame each other, then apologize and sort the whole thing out. Think of the money that would be saved.
If anything highlights some of the bankrupt, outmoded practices of the nation-state, and also the reason we will never be so lucky as to see it wither away, it's this incident -- taken quite seriously by the popular media, whose talk shows are full of soundbite-spouting eggheads, military experts and grave government spin doctors.
This all makes Jerry Everard, author of Virtual States: The Internet and the Boundaries of the Nation-State look prescient. In his book, published last year by Routledge Press, Everard challenged the idea, long advocated by digital utopians, that the Net would ultimately break down the national barriers and boundaries and render them both useless and obsolete. If states are hyperreal, then so are agreements and understandings between nationalist governments.
That won't happen, wrote Everard, a professor at the Australian National University, because the new economy is promoting inequities and resentment in many cultures, and because people don't realize that nation-states have two economies: the goods and services economy, and the identity economy.
"While the state's role in the first may be diminishing, its role in the latter is stronger than ever. In today's climate of change and uncertainty, people are turning to nationalism and engaging in regional conflicts over identity," he noted. Identify resulted from the boundary-making process; it was a way of identifying the national Self from the Other, establishing an us-versus them.
The spy plane flap underscores Everard's idea. China and the United States do billions of dollars in trade together, thanks in part to computer networks, and China has spent billions to develop a new communications infrastructure. The country is wiring up rapidly, eager to jump into the new networked global economy, which the U.S. already dominates. Neither country has reason to jeopardize this new relationship, which potentially democratizes China, creates new jobs, helps stabilize that region, and distributes wealth to some impoverished corners of the world.
Except that cultural identity is stronger than the virtual kind, and the nation-state can't seem to overcome some of its most primitive conventions.
Both countries seem willing to damage their relationship over arcane language and diplomatic posturing, which shows why the idea of the virtual state is so unlikely, at least for the foreseeable future. When push comes to shove, identity seems to overcome reason and self-interest. This style of identity politics crops up all over the world -- on the border between India and Pakistan, in Eastern Europe, all over the African continent, in regional and local conflicts in South America. Maybe we're lucky -- a century ago we'd probably already be at war. But this conflict is likely to be resolved eventually, maybe even by the time this is read.
Everard thinks that certain facets of governance -- the economy, research, media -- could in fact become globalized. But he doesn't see the nation-state disappearing. Seventeenth-century Europe was also turbulent, he points out, with countries popping up, disappearing and reforming as political and economic allegiances evolved, as new technologies changed the nature of war, economics and communications. And despite the Euro, it's still home to nations with fierce identities.
The U.S., birthplace of much of the digital revolution and of the idea of the virtual state, doesn't appear either fragile or hyperreal, but Americans are historically narcissistic and ignorant of other countries, blithely imposing their own traditions, values and practices on other parts of the world.
It's almost as if the more threatened these traditional boundaries are by new business models and technologies that connect people, the more these cultures need to assert their own identity, whatever the cost. The Balkans are a grisly testament to the enduring power of nationalism.
For all the new links between the U.S. and China, and for all the hype about new communications technologies bringing the world closer, neither culture seems to get the other. China doesn't fathom that a conservative U.S. president would be eaten alive by Congress and the American public if he apologized for a military confrontation that doesn't appear to have been our fault. The United States seems not to comprehend a tradition that places an enormous premium on honor, face, and responsibility.
Talk about hyperreal.
US should at least apologize for not apologizing, "I'm very, very sorry, but we're not apologizing".
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I've also read speculation that the E3 contained a "magnetic pulse" weapon, which may have been used to "discourage interception" by enemy fighters, and might have been a little TOO effective.
Yes, yes, and then there's the speculation (obviously not written by a pilot) that the Chinese pilot was attempting to spill fuel onto the EP3, and then set it off with his afterburners.
Before deciding if you want to give any creedence to speculation, you should ask a couple of questions, first of which would be:
1) Who would benefit from doing things that way?
The US wouldn't benefit from shooting down an intercepting Chinese jet unless that jet were going to fire, and if they were going to fire they'd have done so with a missle, not by playing lawn darts with an expensive airplane.
The odds are that the Chinese jet suddenly going down with complete electrical failure for no discernable reason would result in both an escalation of the crisis in progress, and some very unwanted attention after the fact, especially when the Chinese recovered their black box. If we have such a weapon (and I'm not speculating either way about that) the pilot would have to be a complete idiot to have used it in this situation.
This is especially ridiculous if you consider all the film of other similar events, which clearly show that the damn Chinese fly within meters of our airplanes every time they pull this crap, which is exactly WHY our pilots leave their planes on autopilot, so that an accidental flinch doesn't result in an international incident.
-
Whether or not you agree with either side in this situation, with regards to boundaries, spying, emergency mayday landings, or whatever, it's hard to simply look at China and say "so what."
The rhetoric that comes out of their country is largely overlooked in the US. Many of their leaders (political, social, military) have spoken openly of their expectations that the US will become a "has been" in the coming century. That China will, essentially, become the dominant force in the world -- economically, politically, socially, and militarily. They see it as their "Manifest Destiny," somewhat like we Americans saw the West as our destiny just over a hundred years ago.
Add to this mindset the fact that the political leadership took a lot of heat after their response to our accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in the Kosovo conflict, and the fact that Bush took a lot of heat during the Florida election mess, and you've got two very powerful leaders who, honestly, can't afford to look weak.
Now I can be just a knee-jerk as anyone. I'm amazed that we haven't recalled our ambassadors, declared the crew hostages or prisoners, or tried to push a resolution through the Security Council (which, if I'm not mistaken, would be quickly vetoed by China anyway -- *there* is a useful body). Hell, I'm amazed that we haven't even scaled up our presence in the waters nearby the island. It'd be great, both from a nationalistic and idealistic standpoint, to see a team of marines airdrop on the island, rescue the crew, and airlift the plane out (just try dogging MiGs when you're hanging a spy plane from a heavy-lift helicopter). But what would that really accomplish? We could probably win a War with China. But is it worth trying?
Bottom line: As much as I want to see these guys released, yesterday, and as much as this posturing seems crazy, remember that we're dealing with a BIG powder-keg here (after all, where was gunpowder even invented?), and the Chinese are more than ready to fight back for what they believe, most likely sincerely, is unfounded US aggression.
Real bottom line: This scares me. It should scare everyone. The really scary part is that it isn't scaring people as much as it should be.
(a good reference: China Debates the Future Security Environment - US GPO (out of print) -- 600 quotations from various Chinese authors since 1994 -- Defense Dept, National Defense University)
Oh, and don't forget the power that the Chinese now have over the AEgis destroyer arms deal with Taiwan
:)
What, the power to make sure we give Taiwan a 2-for-1 discount?
If our plane had landed, and they immediately said "here is your crew, here is your plane, aren't we being peaceful neighbors?" it would have gone a long way towards the US being willing to listen about how they wouldn't possibly do anything to Taiwan.
As it stands, they've only confirmed our worst fears that ehy have no hesitation in escalating what is essentially a non-incident into a full-scale international crisis. There is no way Congress will refuse to sell anything to taiwan now -- and I wouldn't be surprised to see that 2-for-1 coupon in the mail
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
...In his naive and simplistic view of the situation is that China is upset over Gore losing the election. Clinton, etc, were doing everything they could to give China what it wanted (not that administrations prior to his were necessarily much better). They could roll tanks over students with impunity and know that they would retain MFN trading status with the U.S. (after all, the U.S. needs cheap Adam Sandler Underoo's and Barbie Do-It-Yourself Navel Piercing Kits, etc). They could intimidate Taiwan (our sworn ally) by test firing missiles at them and know that at worst there would be a little mumbling and hand-wringing from the U.S. but no real response, since the Clinton administration's position appear to be the Taiwan belongs to China, period.
So what are they going to do? Make Bush look bad by putting him in a really tough situation and forcing him to either look (and be!) weak, by apologizing for China's incompetent fighter pilot, or looking like a warmonger by refusing to back down to clear aggression and escalating a diplomatic incident. Regardless of what he does, a large portion of the country will criticize Bush, because like Clinton, there is a large portion of the population who hates him irrationally and will never give him credit for anything.
Remember, the Iranian hostages were also referred to as "detainees" at first.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I'm very sorry that the state of the world has come to this, but I can't trust anyone enough to base an opinion on any facts presented so far in this incident. This is exactly what the Internet was supposed to SOLVE, but instead has made worse.
I'm American, and I sympathize with American interests. I think China is very dangerous because of their immense population, their hardline political stances, and their history of human rights violations/suppression. I'm not saying we should get into a war with China, and I'm not saying China should change to adopt our culture. Rather, I'm saying that the current situation demands a VERY delicate manner when dealing with China on foreign relations, because we strongly disagree with them on many things. Now, we've basically handed them 24 American armed forces to use as leverage so that the Chinese government can gain political power. It's as simple as that.
On the other hand, the U.S. is pretty arrogant, and that clouds the issue entirely. Specifically, we don't know what the government really knows, and we don't know what the media really knows. Since they would have the most reliable sources for the happenings of this incident, we should be able to find out exactly what happened and what needs to be done from them. But we can't trust them, not only to have a realistic opinion on the issue, but also to present the facts in an unbiased and truthful manner. We may very well be entitled to say MORE than sorry.
My gut instinct says that China is more likely at fault in this particular situation than the US, but the fact that I can't trust the facts means that I can't say that I have an informed opinion. All I know for sure is that the planes actually crashed and that the Americans are being held captive for the time being.
Now, of course, the Internet was supposed to be able to help us in these cases by being an improved provider of information in a timely, honest manner. But what happened? China filters all of their Internet access, which leads me to believe that there's nothing but propaganda on their side of the network. Over here, the media, rather than wait for news to be accurate and well-developed, chooses instead to report ANYTHING the second it comes in off the news wire. The whole Dale Earndhart tragedy/autopsy situation, the presidential elections, and even the news coverage of the Oscars are perfect examples of that... we're told things in stages as they come in. But almost none of it is verified as much as it is rushed out the door, making basically every media outlet another Matt Drudge. Plus, it's like having a scrap of the newspaper delivered every five minutes as it's progressively typed. But more importantly, it's starting to have a reputation for being unreliable... not to mention biased (read some news stories about Napster and ecstacy on Yahoo! to see what kind of one-sided treatments some of these news stories get sometimes).
Of course, people have always went for cheap, flashy, and fast in this country. It baffles me that more people eat at McDonalds still than Boston Market, especially considering the price of the meals at both places is somewhat similar. The Internet is no exception... people prefer big dumb web-portals to well-organized useful information sites, even though portals go out of business because they basically don't have much of a business to start with.
Perhaps if we just bombed all of China to get those pilots back on the first day of this "incident", everyone in the US would be happy and we would have avoided this whole mess. I'm not saying it would have been the proper thing to do (far from it); it just would have kept everyone fat and happy as usual. Bush's popularity would have been way up, just like his father's was after the Gulf War. Lots of cool TV footage of bombs going off, pictures of jet planes taking off, soldiers marching in, blah blah blah. Americans love that shit. They turn out in droves for the war victory parades. They like to see fireworks. It's fucking disgraceful.
My only hope is that the youth get sick of seeing fireworks at an early age and get bored with it all... and start pursuing more sensible priorities just because they're sick of "TRL" for the millionth time. That would be great.
If, however, we believe the (Chinese-originated?) rumor/story about how the cockpit of the fighter hit the belly of the EP-3, and then fell back while losing control, having his tail sliced up by the props, accounting for the prop and wing damage on the EP-3, I would like to ask the world...
What happened was an accident - there was no intent on either side to cause harm. BUT - if a Porsche sits in the blind spot of a semi trailer for long enough, it'll get squashed when the semi changes lanes. Yeah, that's an accident too. But don't tell me for a minute that the root cause of the accident is anything other "pilot error" on the part of the vehicle - Porsche or J-8 - that chose to situate itself in the blind spot of the larger vehicle.
Unlike our hypothetical Porsche, in the case of the J-8, (totally speculating here) perhaps he was taking pictures of the various chunks of equipment on the belly of the EP-3, and believed the risk/reward ratio justified the action. Well, he was wrong, and he paid for that mistake with his life, and damn near paid for that mistake with the lives of 24 others.
Unless and until evidence to the contrary becomes public, I will continue to believe that on the balance of probabilities, the most likely cause of this regrettable incident was poor airmanship on the part of the fighter pilot.
Although I don't fault the Chinese government for holding the EP-3 and stripping it to the bone - it's a valuable intelligence asset until proven otherwise - I can see no legitimate reason why they continue to hold its crew.
I find this to be the most disturbing aspect of the controversy. Granted, the crew is a vaulable intelligence asset too, but there's a world of difference between stripping a plane down for parts and interrogating the crew - the Chinese government is smart enough to do the former - but hopefully smart enough not to attempt the latter.
Some history about George Herbert Walker Bush, which may shape thoughts about his son, America's current President.
Bush the First was Envoy to China, doing what he could to avoid UN recognition of an official Peoples Republic of China, counter to Kissinger's willingness to deal with then-600,000 people as one unified-under-Communism sovereign country.
Bush Number One was the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. He asked Nixon to resign that fateful August, to spare the party a shred of dignity.
Bush Sr. then moved to Direct the CIA, mopping up the Watergate damage with trinkets, junkets, and some good old-fashioned spy-bustin'.
This should give you a clue as to where Bush #2 may be getting his opinions: the family looks out for Republicans First, and thinks China's leadership must be cracked.
That said, this is the only thing Bush Jr. and this Congress has done so far that I'd agree with. In order of importance: (1) stress the importance of the crewmembers, (2) the Chinese' failure to follow international standards in return of citizens and sovereign vehicles, (3) the fallout this will have on Favored Nations trading status for China. The Congress could still wimp out and give MFN again, but I'm hoping they'll stop kowtowing to the Great Bear here.
[
Highly unlikely. The US plane was on autopilot, which means the pilot could not make such a maneuver.
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I'm a private pilot; not military.
But by FAA rules, size of aircraft is not a factor in determining right of way. For fixed wing aircraft with neither under distress, the vehicles are considered equivilent (there are distinctions drawn, but only when adding airships, gliders, etc. to the equation).
For a situation where one aircraft is overtaking another, the vehicle being overtaken has the right of way. But one could use this to draw stupid scenarios. For example, the chinese fighter could move ahead of the P-3, and then decelerate. In that case, it would be the responsibility of the P-3 to avoid the fighter (by passing to the right, if we're going to stay pedantic {8^).
See FAR 91.113.
But this is really silly. A few months ago, I was on a collision course with another aircraft. I had the right of way. But he wasn't moving (likely hadn't noticed me).
I avoided him.
I'd rather that than argue ROW rules to death.
Of course, the Chinese pilot was already violating FAA rules. Specifically, 91.111.b states that formation flying requires arrangement with each of the involved pilots.
What I don't understand is why so many people say that this is clearly the US's fault, and that the US should clearly apologize?
No-one gives a fuck if we Americans say "Oops! Sorry we hit your plane! We'll try to avoid crashing our $50,000,000.00 planes into your $17,000,000.00 planes in the future!".
The "apology" that the Chinese are looking for is something along the lines of "Oops! We're sorry we routinely eavesdropping on all of your electronic communications, and send a huge stream of data back to the NSA for analysis! We'll stop doing that!". Good or bad, I can't imagine the United States making an apology of this nature. It's simply never going to happen.
Remember, the people who are pumping us full of the "China wants us to apologize for hitting the plane" bullshit were the same ones who were pumping us full of the "the votes have already been counted and recounted time and time again" bullshit five months ago.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
This troll should never have been moderated so high, clearly slashdot is still highly american biased. None the less...
It's a joke, goddammit. It's Dr. Fucking Strangelove, ported to a new decade. The real problem isn't "American bias", it's ultrasensitive kneejerk-posters like you who are so concerned that someone might be serious about a point of view different from yours, that you don't even bother to read the entire post.
For all your "objectivity", you seem so hell-bent on fixing Americans' view of themselves that you're living in a completely distorted reality-- one in which the original post was alive during the war of 1812. Wow.
I am getting really angered at the American peoples overriding desire to support everyone in the world. If you are so damn supportive of the Chinese you should move your butts over there and start working in thier factories. 14 hours a day for a few bowls of rice will teach you how bad you had it living in the terrible United States of American.
Make no mistake: Its like this in China *BECAUSE* you live so well in the states. Do you think people are lying when they tell you about how absurd American Consumer culture appears to the rest of the world? how about pollution - do you think its a lie that America is the main offender when it comes to the items the Kyoto Protocol is trying to address? Do you think the rest of the world feels you are imperialist warmongers - but we are *all* wrong about it?
Make no mistake friend, America is enjoying a good position in history at this moment, but they are by no means a testament to 'good decisions' or a model of a 'good culture'. Raping the planet, using your military to defend business interests, meddling in foreign affairs coupled with the good fortune of never having a war on your own soil - this soulnessness and ruthlessness is what put your culture at the top of the 'wealth' pile... nothing more. But I believe the latter cause would teach US citizens a great deal about where their priorities should be. You'd be surprised I bet about how adamant the citizens of the country would be about universal health care, social programs and environmental/social issues if their little 'pop culture utopia' were ever destroyed by a war on US soil. USian frivolity and hubris is beyond ridiculous approaching the surreal.
US of America would be well served to find some Tolerance, Understanding and Community - when you look at your culture's 'wealth' you may be surprised to find it is actually the most bankrupt in the things that matter. The rest of the world has some very different priorities than to slave to make a few people rich (as USians seem to do) - maybe this is why the rest of us dont have as many material good - ever think that you dont need all that crap to be happy?
The only problem is that USian greed has reached the point where they must infect the rest of the planet to continue to grow/exploit - and rest assured, the *REST* of the planet has *VERY* different ideas about how the world should be run... and many USians are even beginning to agree.
The real problem here for the politico's lies in the fact that the age old practice of "villification" won't work here.
Usually in the past when confronted with a situation or crisis, we can point to specific incidents which stir the American public to believe that the other side is at fault, that they are treating Americans unfairly, and basically, make the job of standing on firm ground alot easier on them (even if its not particularly the correct position).
In this case, however, we are left with a deplorable situation where both sides made mistakes, both refuse to accept that fact, and there is no clear villan.
Was the United States spying on its trade partner and at least tenous friend, China? Yes. However, China has been guarded in its criticism of the purpose of the plane, considering their own espionage efforts against the United States.
Were the Chinese planes perhaps flying unsafely close to the American plane? Well, until a statement by the pilots is released, or flight logs seen, we wont really know. However, there has been acknowledged evidence in the past by multiple countries that China's pilots aren't exact the best in the world, and they tend to intercept at extremely close ranges.
Are the Chinese being unfair? Yes, in the fact that (at least as far as I can read), they haven't issued their apology for dangerous interception practices. However, post-incident, they have been extremely low-key and even gracious towards the situation. Their "prisoners" are being treated well by any standards and its not as if they are threating military action for this situation.
Is the United States being hard ass? Yes, and mostly due to political climates and military attitudes than due to lack of culpability. Now, dont get me wrong. I WANT a macho armed forces. But I also want one that can admit their wrong (considering many top leaders still believe in the Vietnam effort, perhaps I'm being naive here.)
See? No clear winners and losers. That makes taking a clear stand neigh impossible. Which is uncharted waters for both countries diplomatic corps, who usually follow a political and philosophical dogma which is, at least to them, unimpeachable.
"Moving through the masses like a fish through water." syrup
Same thing for boats as well as airplanes: Big vehicle has the right of way. Period. Secondly, the average cruising speed of a MiG-21 is around 800 miles an hour, compared to the 348 MPH of the P-3 Orion based craft. WTF were they doing sooo close? Furthermore, what is this "violation of international law" that the Chinese officials keep yapping about? Other than "right of way" in international airspace, what about the "Vienna Convention on Consular Relations" (to lazy to imbed link) http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH444.txt which I do beleive gives US the right to visit detained miltary personel.
Either the US or China should declare war on the other, already. I'm sick of this crap.
It used to be that countries would declare war on each other because of petty rivalries between dukes and princes. Now, it sometimes takes an act of god to get them to go at it. How stupid is that?!?!
We're spending billions of dollars (a big chunk of our GDP) on national defense. And we never even use it! We shuffle our troops from base to base, sure, and we log our mileage and tally our days in service and hang our medals. But do we ever do anything productive? Do we ever kill anyone? Of course not.
Is it because we can't anymore? Bullshit. It's because we're afraid to. It's because we've let ourselves get castrated by the liberal media and their doomsday predictions about what might happen if one nation accidentally steps on the toes of the other.
Are we the world's largest superpower or what?!?! Is Bush to big a chump or is he just a pansy?!?!
If we don't start declaring open war on countries that disrespect our sovereignty, then foreign countries will think they can get away with pissing us off. Can you imagine FDR or Eisenhower letting the Chinese hold our American soldiers hostage like this? We haven't seen crap like this since Jimmy Carter, and let me tell you, those were some pretty sad days.
We must settle for no less than outright war. They think they have the upper hand now, but wait until we give it to them old-fashioned American style. They probably don't even have all those nukes they keep whispering about. Have we ever seen them detonate one? Well have we? NO! They don't exist.
Once open war is declared, our economy will boom. It'll be the answer to our recent economic downturn. Look at how WW2 pulled us out of the Depression. And look at how much more expensive modern equipment is. More expenses mean more contribution to our economy and our GDP. That means more funding for the military. It's a positive feedback loop.
And when we're done with China, we should go back to the USSR and show those guys what we're made of. We never bombed them for the U2 incident all those years ago, so it's time we showed them what for. That's what distinguishes the men from the Canadians.
That's very true, especially considering previous incidents with the same pilot. Supposedly this isn't the first time this pilot acted like an idiot. Apparently he pulled this same stunt on another flight, getting so close to the other plane that the american pilots could read a sign he was holding up to the window with his e-mail address written on it.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
Xinhua News Service has the official ChiCom party line on this incident and assorted other things. The site reads like an American parody of Communist "journalism". Funny as hell, in a pathetic sort of way, particularly their descriptions of the acrobatic moves our big, slow, prop-driven aircraft can do. Of course, they don't *mention* that they're big, slow, prop-driven aircraft...
Netcraft says they're running Netscape-Enterprise 4.1 on Solaris, alternating with Apache/1.3.6 on Solaris. So much for Red Flag Linux.
Anyhow, if you want to know what the Chinese people are being fed, there y'go.
The US plane was in international airspace on autopilot, the Chinese fighter pilot got cocky and accidentally hit the US plane.
The US plane was in distress and landed at the nearest airfield, which was the Chinese base.
Seems to me like the Chinese should apologize for the hot dog pilot.
later, thermo
Minor point, we DO NOT know if appologizing will get the solders home. They never said that directly, they just keep asking us for an appology. If they were to say that, it almost becoming kidnapping and extortion, so I doubt that returning the crew home is directly tied with the US admitting false guilt.
Finkployd
Many people are incredulous that such a row is made over a simple apology. I'm incredulous that they could be so clueless.
An apology in diplomatic matters such as these is the same as pleading guilty to a criminal offense. By apologizing, Bush would be proclaiming to the world that the spy plane should not be there in the first place, that the fighter pilot had the right to be buzzing an American plane in international air-space, and that China would have free go to continue such behavior in the future.
Yes we want our people back, but they are soldiers. They have sworn an oath to die for their country if called upon. An apology now, even to save their lives, would make it much more dangerous for military personnel patrolling in international waters around our eastern allies. At any point in the future, China, who is reported to have growing international ambitions, could scuttle any of our vessles and just say, "Now apologize."
Bush hasn't apologized yet. He should not. He should make it clear that the US will not be bullied. He should state the case clearly that the Chinese pilot is at fault here, and make it clear that the US will continue to spy on countries around the world from international waters. He should then demand the return of the crew and reparations for the aircraft, with threats to cut off all diplomatic relations as his club.
Anything else is giving in to a bully and will only lead to more pain in the future.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The peace between China and the US has never been one of mutual friendship; it has always been one of strained political ties in order to reap the economical benefits. Thus, America aided China in becoming more economically stable, and China provided the sweatshops for American industry.
Something you must understand, Katz (make your time!), is that Communism is the arch enemy of Commercialism, in the eyes of the US and the eyes of China (and other Communist countries). This makes the US the sworn enemy of China. You simply can't keep going around spouting your idealist slashdotist ideals - they're cultish and removed from reality. Please correct this.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
On behalf of all Americans, let me say that I am sorry.
I am sorry that we dared to fly a plane in international waters without your permission. We will be sure to check with you next time.
I am sorry that we were trying to keep an eye on a communist dictatorship who has ICBM's targeted at our cities. I don't know what we were thinking.
I am also deeply sorry that we crashed into your ran into your little fighter jet with our big, lumbering 4-prop spy plane. I'm sure that the jet pilot had absolutely no chance of getting out of the way, and the accident is entirely our fault.
Oh yes, and I would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused by the trouble of holding 24 of our people. Please allow us to reimburse you for all the food that these freeloading hostages have been eating at your expense.
Lastly, let me assure you that the next time we hold a vote over Most Favored Nation status for China, and when we vote about China's admission to the WTO, and when China is considered to host the 2008 Olympics... I sincerely promise you that we will, at that time, say "fuck off and die you damned red commie bastards!"
I hope this apology makes our feelings clear.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Here is what I see:
The American plane was flying in an area that the Americans claim is International airspace. The Chinese claim that it was Chinese airspace. The conflict was not about where the plane was, but about who Really owns it.
The US plane was intercepting electronic communications originating in China, i.e. spying.
The chinese know damn well what they are doing, and don't like it, but the americans are sufficiently outside the recognized territory, that they can't do much other than make sure the american know that they know.....
The Chinese pilots shadowing the E3 were hotdogging, as fighter pilots are prone to do.
The americans decide to teach the fighter pilot a lesson and do a little wing waggle or the like to give him a scare. Nobody here has ever had the temptation to pull on their car's emergency brake while some idiot is tailgating, right?
The American public, due to cultural reasons and media induced propaganda won't stand for an apology, as it was obviously solely the responsibility of the Chinese pilot. I have heard no mention of the acceptability of the spying mission.
The Chinese public, due to cultural reasons and government induced propaganda won't accept anything less than a full apology. They hold the cards, they can push a little.
Both sides have a tremendous amount to lose by pushing this too far. It appears to me that it is stretching the governments control on the whole issue now that the population and media is getting pretty worked up. So far the American government has been trying not to inflame public opinion, which they could easily do. The Chinese government is doing their best to inflame public opinion (or so we are led to believe).
My guess is that the Fighter jock was trying to scare the bejesus out of the americans, and the americans reacted somewhat predictably.
I expect to see the Americans move closer to the apology that the Chinese want, get the crew and plane back, then launch a full fledged propaganda war, still being carefull not to damage trade too much.
An interesting situation to follow, but lets try not to get too worked up about it. Wars have started over less, and we don't need any more of those!
------------------------------
If someone shot down my wang, I'd want an apology too.
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
To the great and all wise leaders of the People's Republic of China. My country, The United States of America, has done you a great harm. Since my foolish leaders have not apologized for the latest airplane incident, let me do it on behalf of the American People . . .
I'm sorry that no other country in the world recognizes that as China airspace.
I'm sorry that this particular pilot flew so close on previous occasions that our pilots could get his email address.
I'm sorry that you took no corrective action when we complained about this pilot before.
I'm sorry that you think that a turbo prop plane the size of a 737 can hit a fast, highly manueverable MIG fighter on purpose.
I'm sorry that you think that the US can give an apology without an inquiry first, by fully debriefing the crew or reading the flight recorders (black boxes) to gain an accurate picture as to what has happened.
I'm sorry that your air traffic controllers ignored the pilot calling "mayday - mayday".
I'm sorry that you are holding 24 Americans as hostage, and have violated american sovereign territory by boarding our plane.
Furthermore,
I'm sorry that you have killed millions of your own people in your cultural revolution and great leaps forward.
I'm sorry that you persecute religious minorities such as the Fulan Gong, Christians and Muslims.
I'm sorry that you feel you can impose your will on the people of Tibet and Taiwan.
I'm sorry that you regularly detain scholars who disagree with your policies.
I'm sorry that you use prison labor and export those products to my country.
Please note our sincere regrets and we humbly await your gracious forgiveness.
Make no mistake: Its like this in China *BECAUSE* you live so well in the states.
Balderdash -- it's like that in China because of the Chinese, not Americans. Bob and Martha aren't forcing the Chinese to use slave labor, but they'll take advantage of it if the Chinese make it available. As will the Russians, the Vietnamese, the Japanese, even the Kenyans.
You don't like the American consumer culture -- that's fine. In fact, I'll join you in casting dispersions on it. However, I will not allow you to make distortions of the truth.
Raping the planet, using your military to defend business interests, meddling in foreign affairs coupled with the good fortune of never having a war on your own soil.
Unmitigated nonsense -- "raping the planet" is a nice phrase, but not true. Americans make a mess, sure -- and we're the only country to clean up after ourselves. If you don't believe me, go eat some Cherynobyl vegetables or take a nice long drink out of the Volga.
Using the military to defend business -- this beats hell out of using the military to keep you and your cronies in gold lame' PJs (a la Danny Ortega).
And we had a pretty damn bad war on our soil -- the Civil War killed more Americans than any other war.
The only problem is that USian greed has reached the point where they must infect the rest of the planet to continue to grow/exploit - and rest assured, the *REST* of the planet has *VERY* different ideas about how the world should be run... and many USians are even beginning to agree.
Yep -- there's always one fox who thinks they should stop burrowing because it makes life so hard for the hounds.
The *REST* of the planet is trying their damndest to get Madonna and McDonalds in their countries as fast as they can. The LEADERS in other countries have a ton of ideas about how the world should be run -- all of them bad. American doesn't want to rule the world, they just want to have a good time on Saturday night.
Which is better -- people who just want to have their Big Macs and Budweisers, or people who want to control the lives of every other person in the world for an idealized goal only definable by a handful of people? Your answer will define you better than anything else.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
The American reluctance to apologize for this incident isn't just stubbornness. There are real diplomatic reasons not to apologize here.
First and foremost is China's imperialistic stance toward the China sea. We claim the aircraft was in international airspace, but China claims it was in their airspace. The reason we disagree is because China claims the Paracel islands, which would increase their airspacea good 500 miles into the China sea. No other country in the world recognizes China's claim to those islands, and Vietnam and Indonesia also claim them. If we were to apologize, the US would be officially recognizing China's claim to these islands.
There is also the matter of blame for the accident, which in diplomatic circles carries real responsibility. The US could be forced to pay reparations for the fighter plane and the missing pilot if we apologize, regardless of whether or not we caused the incident. Failure to do so will harm the US's status at the UN, and further cement China's claim on the China sea.
This incident was an accident, and we should not apologize.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Go do a Google search on China and human rights abuses. Or go read the State Department's report on human rights violations.Go read about how they've jailed four university professors in the past three months, including three with US citizenship or residency, for no crime greater than spreading ideas against the state. They also jailed for a month the husband and 5 year old son of one of the academics, failing to inform the US that they had done so, even though both of these people are US Citizens! (This is a major violation of international law.)
Read about how they brutally suppress religions, including everything from Falun Gong to Christianity. Read about what they've done in Tibet. Not expansionist? Read about how they backed the establishments of Communist governments in Korea and Vietnam, and how they want to take back Taiwan after 50 years of independence.
Read about the silencing of free speach in Hong Kong, the crushing of student demonstrators in Tienanmen square, the censorship of the Internet throughout China, the control and manipulation of public opinion through their state news agencies.
Go read all that, and then tell me that you welcome China.
Or maybe it's simpler. International diplomacies often seem to have the undercurrent of grade school recess. But the truth is, if our country appears to have weakness in the eyes of China, this could be taken as a sign of weakness, which will negatively impact future dealings. The political climate in China is complicated and (as I understand it), partially under the control of military interests.
I think the US government is aware of this, and is aware of just how important it is to deal with this situation correctly.
Sure, to those of us on the outside, it seems like an idiotic impasse. Just say you're sorry and no harm done, or is there?
While I admit our government doesn't often act in global best interests, and has become increasingly self-centered in recent years, I'm not willing to judge them on this manner. The emerging political dynamic between the US and China is extremely complex and this incident is going to be very influential in shaping our relations for years to come.
Maybe it's a sad state of affairs that countries can't just apologize and be done with it, but it's the way things are, and there are legitimate reasons that things are this way.
2) The internet will not democratise China. The internet will not democratise China. The internet will not democratise China. Say it with me again, Katz, the internet will not democratise China. There are far too many inroads into China for western culture, but the internet is the smallest and easiest controlled. Wonder where those "billions" of dollars are going on "infrastructure"? I'd bet a pound to a penny you could get a good Echelon-type system together for even one billion...
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
You're right, and that is exactly the problem. I think Katz has hit on something here, but you have to understand the history and culture of both countries to really grasp it. This situation was most likely not the fault of the US, and we would NEVER apologise for something that was not our fault. As Katz says, Bush would be eaten alive by congress and the electorate. We have a culture that does like to aplologise, but hates and loathes to apologise for something it doesn't believe it did. You might convince Bush to say he was sorry if he thought it was our fault, but he doesn't and isn't likely to be convinced (for once I agree with him).
China has a very different culture. As far as the the Chinese Gov't is concerned, bad things are NEVER the fault of the the Chinese gov't. When Governments are to blame for bad things, the mandate of Heaven that allows them to rule is in jeapardy, and that is very serious. China will insist on an apology. They could find a black box from the Chinese plane in which the pilot says "Damn, how foolish of me. I have run into a defenseless plane over international waters, because of a boneheaded manuver on my part. This entire incident is my fault and I must die now as my plane hits the water." and the Chinese would still demand an apology. They have to... to do otherwise shows unconciousable weakness, and admit fault (which is of course impossible.) It is also typical of Chinese culture for the weakest party in any confillct to apologise for it, again, regaudles of fault. This means that in addition to admitting to making mistakes (impossible), the Chinese gov't would also have to admit that they are the weaker party (never going to happen).
In short, what we have here is a US gov't that cannot apologise (it doesn't need an apology from the Chinese, it's willing to deal with a "no fault" situation), and a Chinese gov't that HAS to have an apology (a determination of fault being needed for the Chinese to show their relative strength, and to prove that they AREN'T at fault). This immpass would be relativly trival of course, if their weren't a US aircrew stuck in China waiting for a resolution. That's what this article is about... Cultural norms getting in the way of practicle resoltion. China is risking it's increasing standing in the international community by insisting on an apology it probably has not right to. Why? cultural norms insist on it. The US is risking the lives of its service members instead of just mealey mouthing a quick "I'm sorry" it doesn't really mean. Why? Cultural norms. Ironically, though I see this, I still agree with the US position. Why? Because I am affected by the same cultural norms. Until someone bends (or the aircrew croaks which will cause a whole new set of issues), this situation will continue.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
During the cold war, a Soviet spy plane (spying on America from International waters) had to make an emergency landing in Alaska.
How did we handle this? Did we snoop around in the plane? Detain the pilots as hostages? Demand an apology from the Russians?
No. We refueled their plane and sent them on their way.
I think that answers your question.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
What I don't understand is why so many people say that this is clearly the US's fault, and that the US should clearly apologize? From just about every news source I have read, military experts from around the world say that the chinese scenario of the EP suddently swerving into the smaller and faster chinese jet is ridiculous.
The pilot of the particular jet has even had a history of doing hotshot manuevers such as coming up from beneath the splyplanes directly in front of them, giving them a jolt--a move perfected by the soviets originally. So we have a slow lumbering jet on AUTO-PILOY! and a small, limber, and fast jet being flown by a hot-shot--where do you think the fault lies?
The US has offered to help look for the downed pilot--the offer of help has indeed been extended several times, and has been rejected several times by the Chinese government. If they really cared about the downed pilot, wouldn't they want all the help they could get--I know I would? Instead they criticize the US government being too cowardly to apologize. Apparently having the US kowtow to Beijing is more important than the life of their downed man. But of course they also work the Chinese public up to frenzy over him, thanks to the Xinhua government owned news agency and other propaganda machines.
So in short, I see no reason for the US to apologize for an accident that almost definitely wasn't their fault, and especially to a government whose actions reek of insincerity and sheer politicing as much as those of the communist chinese do.
Scott
I don't think Mr. Katz has a full understanding of the facts.
1. This incident occured over 60 MILES from Chinese territory. The international boundry by treaty is only 12 miles out from shore! So the US plane was clearly in international airspace, where it had every right to be.
2. Trying to hit a fighter jet capable of Mach 2 flight with a lumbering DC-3 like prop plane (planes like the "spyplane" were used for NY to DC air service back in the 1950's!) is rather like trying to deliberately hit a speedboat with a sailboat. It just doesn't happen, unless the pilot of the jet plane either did something foolish (which Wang Wei, the pilot in question, has a documented history of being a hot dog) or else the pilot of the jet was in such a position that the prop plane pilot could not see him or detect his location.
The very fact that this incident occured SOLELY because of the interference with the US plane by Chinese jet planes, in international territory, would lead any logical peson to the conclusion that the fault must certainly rest with the Chinese.
Just as in the laws of sea navigation, it is incumbent on a powered craft to steer clear of a sailing craft, jets have to avoid prop planes that are nowhere as fast or manuverable.
3. International law and treaty (which China is a party to) hold that ALL nations have an obligation to give safe harbor and lend assistance to a disabled aircraft. Back in the 1980's, a Soviet spy plane had trouble and was allowed to land in Alaska. After it was repaired, the crew was allowed to leave, completely unmollested.
4. China is, without any legal, ethical, or moral cause, holding 24 American servicepeople hostage, according to ANY treaty that has ever been ratified by both the US and China.
China is messing with forces that it does not understand, being that their government is incestuous, closed, autocratic in nature. They are lucky that our govenrment so far has been VERY leniant and been going out of it's way to inflame the wrath of the American people.
However, if China does not release the hostages soon, this will change, and leave the control of our own government. And China needs our markets to sell their goods to far more than we need to allow our wonderful and patriotic corporations the bility to export factories and jobs to their slave labor market.
Americans react poorly to Americans being held hostage. As well we should.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance