Hyperreality: The U.S-China Standoff

For more than a week now, two of the world's superpowers have been nose-to-nose, endangering not only global security but their own valuable and increasingly important economic relationship, because one culture can't apologize for an obvious accident and the other culture insists that only an apology can end the crisis. Anyone who still harbors Utopian fantasies about the Virtual State -- you know, the Net and Web, global community, the digital economy and interactivity all combining to shatter existing boundaries, etc. -- should find the current U.S.-China confrontation finishing them off. The state is hyperreal -- it operates like software. It seems stable enough while the power is on and it hasn't run into any major bugs, but interrupt the power supply or corrupt it, and the state falls apart. (Read more.)

"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.

Comments

Official China News Site/propaganda (link)

[Brian Stretch]

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.

What's to apologize for?

[thermo]

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.

Re:What's to apologize for?

[Alien54]

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.

A few extra items that might be relevant.

1) In Chinese culture, an apology inclludes the idea that the version of the story told by the other person is the truth. not yours. this can get sticky, because this is not the viewpoint of apology in the west. In the West, the statement of sorrow is very often separated from the investigation of thetruth of the matter
2)The internal politics of China in this are very important. There has been speculation in the fringe press that this incident was set up by the Chinese Military for their own goals. While this is speculation, if true, this leaves them (the Chines Military) with a win/win situation. If the USA backs down, then they win in the international arena. If the USA does not back down then The Military gets to strengthen their position inside China.

The road out of this mess would be delicate, and maybe requires some technology, etc. as follows:

1) A video/computer simulation of the accident, as believed to have happened, showing and highlighting the obvious manueverability (sp?) of the jet vs the prop plane, and the difficulty of controlling the prop plane when the jet wash hits the props. Demonstrate how the jet can throws the prop plane out of control, and what happens when the jet gets too close.
2)Praise the obvious bravery of the Chinese pilot in the pursuit of patriotism for his homeland. Note that what he probably wanted to do was something that should be reserved for the mosty highly skilled pilots. The Pilot was obviously trying to intimidate the American plane, and throw the American plane out of control.
3) We can say something like "The american pilot was not skilled enough to keep control of his aircraft when it was upset and disrupted by the suprisingly powerful engines of the Chinese Jets nearby, and we will work on improving the skill of our pilots.

ecetera. We build up the strength of the Chinese military in the PR lines.

Of course, if other means are needed, then planning would have to work to take everyone by surprise, instead of giving everyone and their grandmother time to prepare a defense, increasing casualties, etc.

Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip

Re:What's to apologize for?

[wiredog]

What would the USA do if the chinese kept flying planes up the cost of California

The Soviet Union used to do that frequently. Their aircraft would be met by US fighters, which would get close enough to take pictures, and would "escort" them all the way down the coast. But there were never any collisions. The US understood that a collision would be a Bad Thing in terms of international diplomacy. The US rarely, if ever, complained when the USSR shot down military (as opposed to KAL 007) aircraft that penetrated Soviet airspace.

As a side note. KAL 007 was a Korean Air Lines 747 passenger jet that penetrated Soviet airspace accidently and was shot down. It is interesting to note that its course matched what a recon penetration would look like, and a 747 on radar looks just like an E-2 (military 707). That said, the Soviet pilots got a visual ID before they fired, so they knew it was a civilian aircraft.

Re:we will never.....

[finkployd]

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

Apologies are important

[Shotgun]

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.

Dear Mr. Katz

[CAIMLAS]

You sir, fail to see the issues at hand and at the core of the conflict.

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

An Apology

[Golias]

Dear China,

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.

Three sides to the story

[mks113]

As usual, in any disagreement there tends to be three sides to the story. In this case, it is the American side, the Chinese side, and the truth. I'm Canadian, and have had enough international experience to know that there is more going on here than the US press is letting on.

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!

------------------------------

The cocky pilot's name.....

[canning]

was Wang. does anyone else find this funny??
If someone shot down my wang, I'd want an apology too.

Let Me Apologize

[portforward]

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.

Re:China said they were in international airspace

[rho]

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."

Diplomatic reasons not to apologize.

[Remus Shepherd]

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.

Re:America's future - as a former power.

[mperrin]

I agree with you that China's power is only likely to continue to grow. However, there's no way I can welcome them.

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.

It's not that simple

[Illserve]

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.

Missed the point again, Katz...

[deefer]

1) This isn't about apologies. It's about political manoevering by China or the US to use as a bargaining chip in any forthcoming negotiations.

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.

Re:Why Apologize?

[DrgnDancer]

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.

They were.

[Golias]

The tables were turned once. Here is what happened:

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.

Why Apologize?

[Moridineas]

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

Obvious accident?

[mikethegeek]

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.