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.
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.
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.
Best Slashdot Co
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