I agree that this is more of a blunder than anything else. The US and
China thankfully have close trade ties that should prevent overt
hostilities. China's foreign minister has apparently said that the US
plane crashed into a Chinese fighter, forcing the Chinese fighter to
crash. This rhetoric indicates that China expects a quid pro quo: the
American plane and its crew in return for something. But, what? Who
knows, but China's concern is well known regarding Bush's intention to
provide Taiwan with new military equipment. It's likely they will
expect a curtailment of this policy. An interesting alternative would
involve the CIA bribing the immediate Chinese officials in charge. The
regime is corrupt enough to take such a bribe. All we really know is
that the price won't be cheap, whether it is paid in dollars, or
diplomatic and political capital. This is the Bush Administration's
first major foreign policy challenge.
The other wild card is that George W. Bush is unable to call on any
ex-president to serve as an emissary, like Clinton called on Carter to
resolve the Korean situation in 1994. Ford is too old. Carter isn't
trusted by the conservative-in-chief. Reagan can't do it. George H. W.
Bush could do it, but wouldn't be trusted as an intermediary between
President Bush and the Chinese regime. Clinton could do it, but
domestic politics prevents Bush from using him. That basically leaves
Henry Kissinger.
Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 11:59:18 +0100, Chris Burford wrote:
>I know I should be clearing up the garden, and others have warned me
>against watching too much CNN, but the astonishing news has just broken
>that there is a damaged US navy plane with 24 uninjured crew, under
>Chinese custody on Hainan island!
>
>Perhaps this is just a product of the new realism in Bush's foreign policy.
>Perhaps it is part of his strategy to make China the number one world
>enemy. But if so, it somehow doesn't have the impact of the Gulf of
>Tongking incident. Indeed judging from the studiously nonchalant report
>released by an amiable navy spokesman to CNN, even more nuanced than the
>main CNN story about the arrest of Milosevic, it looks more like a blunder
>than the start of world war three.
>
>As I say, just released (interesting to check whether the time would be
>such as presumably to avoid all the Sunday morning US newspapers) it all
>sounds a slight mishap among friends. A US navy plane was over the South
>China Sea. It was intercepted by two Chinese fighter planes, one of which
>had a slight collision with it. The US plane felt obliged to put out a
>Mayday call, but was able (or required?) to land on Hainan Island.
>
>When the spokesperson was asked if there is a hotline between Beijing and
>Washington to deal with such an incident he replied that both sides are
>trying to set this up. Rather quickly one would think.
>
>He expressed studiedly routine assumptions that normal conventions would be
>respected between the two states, without a hint of hostility, fear, or
>aggression in his pleasant low-key voice.
>
>But one does wonder how the cost of this presumably large US navy plane,
>compares with the cost of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade which was blown
>up for passing on Yugoslav signals during the Kosovo war.
>
>And perhaps even more interesting, when the Chinese take every detail of
>this plane apart bit by bit, will they ask the assistance of, or share the
>information with, an ally?
>
>Of course we do not know what is going on off screen. We do not know if
>there is a nuclear alert. But as of this morning, the Bush administration
>might just have failed to start World War Three.
>
>The US may be the richest, dirtiest, most arrogant, state in the world, but
>it cannot always prevent itself looking foolish in front of world opinion.
>
>Chris Burford
>
>London
>
>
