US apology partially ends spy-plane crisis

Columnist HUMERA NIAZI gives a detailed description of the incident in the air off Hainan Island.

The recent diplomatic standoff, which lasted eleven days, arose from an accident, in the air between US Navy’s unarmed propeller driven surveillance plane, EP-3 with a Chinese F-8 jet fighter, sent to intercept. Although the incident was unintentional in nature, it proved to have a potential for a deeper crisis. With that it caused a forceful response from China, something the US may not have expected. In turn, it found a visibly troubled Bush administration, with its hard-line posture, striking on a more sensible note.

The episode, brings to the fore, other important dimensions, within the perspective of a new US policy of containment and an approach to China’s growing military prowess.

The incident being merely accidental, the intervention of human error. It brings the realization that the realities on the ground, appearing after the event, would require the US and China to work on a more cautious footing. There has to be wisdom in understanding that China is an upcoming military power regionally. Whereas the US has its own defined role, in the power game, the ground rules of which should have “responsibility” as the key word. Supporting this, it would be apt to quote Bates Gill (of Brookings Institution)- “This episode should be a wake-up call to all involved Conflict with China is not inevitable, but in the absence of active efforts to manage contentious differences, “minor incidents”, will quickly escalate to larger crises”.

What remains of great consequence, is the solution. It seemed a test for both US and China to prevent things from getting out of control. Since this could threaten relations between US and China taking a bad turn; and that holds significant. This incident appears to have brought the relations of both countries, to a point of brinkmanship. But this was not the worst scenario, concerning the relationship. And that should not happen. In fact there was a positive aspect, of the eleven days of the standoff. As it provided time to rethink attitudes and understand how dangerous things could get.

It was an apology, in the right sense, by the US. It were the play of words, with the use of “very sorry”, twice by Washington, in reply to the Chinese demand for an apology by the US. Fxrom “regret” to “very sorry”, Washington has shown an effort to take some responsibility. It clearly indicates, there was some fault on their part. And then, “Sorry”, should mean ‘sorry’, which implies an apology. Because the definition of the word ‘sorry’, cannot mean something else, in the super power dictionary. Or serve as a face saving stance by the US.

It is ‘important’ to note, that what was internationally seen as an apology from Washington, ending the standoff, has not been quite acceptable to China. There has been an immediate clarification from Beijing, stating that the US should bear, ‘all responsibility for the incident’. This means that the US EP-3 SPY-Plane violated Chinese airspace. The crew was released on humanitarian grounds. What holds ‘very significant’ is the question of ‘the return’ of the surveillance plane which possesses advanced spying equipment. The return of the plane is subject to comprehensive investigations which China wants to conduct. Suggesting doubts about the landing of the US Plane so close to China, stating it is by no means an ordinary plane. But a meeting, of military experts from both countries shortly, could help in the crisis.

It seems that China has had a diplomatic ‘win’ this time in maintaining a firm approach. Whereas the US had to change its initial attitude of ‘no compromise’; such a posture by the US, arose from a growing concern, that China is on its way to be an assertive power in Asia.

In fact the apology issue appears ‘important’, having an inner meaning. That which, prevented the US to apologize for so long, in a situation which required that. Not merely ‘super power arrogance’, but by offering an apology it would establish the fault lies with the US for intruding China’s security zone. Whereas the US says it was in international air space and a ‘complete apology’ would mean that future US reconnaissance flights should not penetrate the area. And that the US does not want to do. In the past, it is worth noting, that US tendencies showed more significance to US citizens only. An example for that being, that when ‘one’ US soldier gets killed in Somalia, a hue and cry is made. But the downing of a civilian Iranian airplane, in the eighties, shot down by the US, killing 275 on board, called for no apology. Going by humanism, it should be for all. Analysts, are pointing out that a number of incidents from the ’90’s to 2001, between the US and China, create the possibility of ‘a new cold war’ in Asia. In the backdrop of the spy-plane incident is the episode of US missile rattling near Taiwan, which resembled gunboat diplomacy. The incident really caused a stir, seeing two big powers getting involved in a ‘too close for comfort’ situation. There also have been allegations by the US of espionage on China’s part. Then in 1994, was the Kitty Hawk episode. This was when a Chinese sub was tracked, in international waters by US Navy planes, after being detected by US aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk. This was resented strongly by Beijing. To add to this in 1999 the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia was bombed by the US, claiming it to be an accident. This should have served as the writing on the wall, that things were really bad. But that did not happen. That is why we have another ‘incident’.

A ‘Crisis’ of scoring points’. It appears that the US, China mid-air collision, had found both countries being caught in message sending exercises, although the situation had been dangerously poised. And the messages from both sides appeared tough and hardened.

Although, the incident was an accident, but it reflected a hard-line attitude by the US such a posture, comes from a growing concern that China is on its way to be an assertive power in Asia. And to prevent that from happening (‘a Greater China Status’, in the offing), the US is strengthening itself in Asia.

The two countries immediate argument is, when China says its plane was hit by an erratic move (a sudden turn) made by the surveillance plane, which caused it to lose its fighter jet, with its pilot missing. A layman’s understanding of what the camera showed, was a ‘move’ on the part of the plane EP-3. There ‘was’ something and the Chinese fighter went down. It is difficult to say ‘how’ precisely. The US version is, that it was the fault of the fighter jet for getting so close that it could not ‘take’ the turn made by the other. Further quoting, Admiral Dennis Blair, Commander-in-Chief of the US Pacific Command, as saying, “the faster more nimble Chinese jet had struck the slower, larger US aircraft, which is about the size of a Boeing 737 Commercial jetliner”. Nonetheless it remains an accident.

After taking a softer stance by the expression of a double ‘sorry’, the US has again returned to its hard-line approach (with the crew being released). This is seen when it says that it was not spy-planes fault, but that of the Chinese pilot. To prove a point, the US reportedly, is sending a US aircraft carrier, headed towards the South China Sea. This carrier could launch fighter jets to protect US reconnaissance flights off China’s coast, when those flights resume.

“The United States wants to under score its view that the flights are not acts of underhanded espionage, but legal and overt movements, through international airspace.” (Reuters)

Such an approach by US does not bode well, because China has taken a serious view of it, also the ‘nationalism’ factor in China could get ‘ignited’.

Although, the incident was an accident, but the US spy plane venture comes close on the heels of a US decision, this month, on the sale of high tech weapons to Taiwan. This is a concern with China, resulting in anti-US sentiment over there.

What is important is how will US and China settle the issue of the return of EP-3 US spy plane and the question of whether the US should be making surveillance flights, off China’s coast ‘at all’? If such questions are positively settled it would augur well for US-China relations which are at a dangerous point. The US reportedly, is sending 200 reconnaissance flights a year, near China’s coasts, which China claims to be too close. This poses a difficult and important question.

Then there was concern by the US, that the Chinese would inspect their plane which has advanced intelligence equipment (which they feel would have been destroyed by the crew, though) Washington from the very outset declared China’s decision to hold the crew incommunicado, as unacceptable. Further stating, the plane has sovereign ‘immune status’. Then the present US government, faces internal pressure, for getting ‘soft’ on the issue. It goes back to an attitude reflected by the Bush administration for calling China ‘a strategic competitor’ and not ‘a strategic partner’. What causes concern is, the reality, that there is growing ‘nationalism’ in China. And a feeling within, that the US does not like to see China increase its power in Asia. The aspect of Chinese nationalism, was recently seen on the internet. Cyber power, has reflected the feelings of the Chinese. Messages (Sino. Com) conveyed, ‘that it was a war’. Probably it was the same sentiment, which caused the Chinese pilot to become very daring, while flying. The situation standing as such, is something that needs careful handling.

It is time the US and China, should think on more serious terms, to avoid’ ‘friction’, in the future as the results could be dangerous. They would have to work harder, to better US-China relations, keeping in mind the present ground realities. A realization is already there, this time.