Nice Job
In keeping with the low-key style of the new administration, we’d just like to say, “Nice job, guys.”
The Bush Administration appears to have had four main objectives in its negotiations with China: to free the crew; to retrieve the airplane; not to apologize for anything we didn’t do wrong; and not to agree to limit future American operations in the region. (Notice that a Nobel Peace Prize was not among them.) Three down, one to go.
In keeping with the low-key style of the new administration, we’d just like to say, “Nice job, guys.”
The Bush Administration appears to have had four main objectives in its negotiations with China: to free the crew; to retrieve the airplane; not to apologize for anything we didn’t do wrong; and not to agree to limit future American operations in the region. (Notice that a Nobel Peace Prize was not among them.) Three down, one to go.
It was appropriate for the President to express “sincere regret” over the death of the pilot, who was also a husband and father. But the U.S. took no responsibility for his demise. That lies with the Chinese government, which sent him over international water to buzz our planes. This is the same dictatorship that has been responsible for killing millions of other Chinese husbands, fathers, mothers and children. We sincerely regret all of their deaths.
It was appropriate for Ambassador Preuher’s letter to acknowledge that, “We are very sorry the entering of China’s airspace and the landing did not have verbal clearance…” But he did not accept the Chinese contention that the plane was inside Chinese airspace while on its reconnaissance mission, only after it was “severely crippled” and making an “emergency landing after following international emergency procedures.”
The administration won the short-term game, hands down. The long-term game begins on April 18, with a U.S.-China meeting which, according to Amb. Preuher, will include “discussion of the causes of the incident, possible recommendations whereby such collisions could be avoided in the future, development of a plan for prompt return of the EP-3 aircraft, and other related issues. We acknowledge your government’s intention to raise U.S. reconnaissance missions near China in the meeting.”
The first two are easy: if the Chinese government didn’t send its pilots out to harass American planes doing legitimate reconnaissance over international water a) the incident wouldn’t have happened, and b) it won’t happen again. The third is a matter of serious principle for the U.S. – our equipment, like our personnel, should be returned to us.
As for the last point, if the Chinese government plans to raise an issue about which we are currently at loggerheads (the right to fly missions over international waters), the U.S. should bring its agenda as well: the case of Li Shaomin, a naturalized U.S. citizen currently “detained” in China; the threatening and destabilizing buildup of missiles opposite Taiwan; the proliferation of missiles and missile technology; the building of military facilities on territory owned by the Philippines, and more.
The Chinese government has taken the measure of our President and surely has noticed that this administration will be far less likely to ignore problems than its predecessor. We might all be well served by a new era in U.S.-Chinese relations in which these points of contention are the subject of ongoing discussion and negotiation rather than flashes of crisis.