"Somewhere
in the South China Sea does lay,
A Chinese fighter pilot by the name of Wang-wei.
How is it he has chosen in that place to stay?
Did he take a wrong turn and go the wrong way?
"For,
you see, Wang-wei, he so loved to play,
With recon planes who came out to survey,
What China was planning, to see what may,
Occur in the future with Taiwan in the way.
"So,
he thought to himself,
'These American spies, how dare they,
Intrude into our waters – now they must pay!
I will show them, surely, the Chinese way,
They will remember me on this momentus [sic] day.'
"He
was filled with bravado, as he buzzed around the plane,
The American crew, they just thought him insane,
'What is it with this guy, has he no brain?
He has everything to lose and nothing to gain.'
"But
Wang-wei was determined to be remembered that day,
For his bravado, his flashy and flamboyant way,
He soared 'neath the plane, then in front with his
spray,
Spewing fumes in their faces as if to say,
To every American who dares to spy China's way,
'I'm here, I'm there, I'm always in your way,
I'm the Tom Cruise of China, I'm the great Wang-wei!'
"Yeah,
Wang-wei, he went down on that very day,
In the daredevil game that he so loved to play,
He went down for his country, or so they say,
To remind to all recons who again spy China's way,
'My life's in the balance, it is that you now weigh,
Do not spy on dear China or else you must pay,
For that I went down to the place I now lay,
The occasion [sic] by which you will mark this day!'"
I
venture to guess that this is some Chinese kid, perhaps
one of the students who showed up at the US embassy in
Peking with signs denouncing "US imperialism" – and
was hustled away by Chinese police, who
have put a damper on all such protests. Pretty good
for someone whose native tongue is not English. I daresay
our own youngsters – who
can barely read English, let alone Chinese –
could not do half as well.
NATIONALISM
VERSUS COMMUNISM IN CHINA
In
any case, although a few Americans on the message board
were challenging the Chinese contention that the incident
represented a violation of China's sovereignty, the rest
of the messages were from Chinese imbued with the same
nationalist spirit that animated the author of the "Ode
to Wang-Wei" – a deeply outraged sense that the US
was interposing itself in their own back yard. Yet the
Chinese authorities are horrified by the prospect of nationalistic
students protesting in the streets, for this would be
seen as not only a threat to the Communist party's "leading
role," but also as a move to box the Chinese leadership
in by keeping up pressure on the Chinese Foreign Ministry
– popularly known in China as the "sellout ministry"
– to stand up to the Americans. In Beijing, military
police turned away three flag-waving protesters near the
US ambassador's residence, in the first hint of anti-US
protest since the crisis began. Reuters
reports that "two men and a woman, described by witnesses
as students, were stopped by at least seven Chinese military
police on the road near the residence and left peacefully."
The Chinese leadership, committed to globalization and
entry into the WTO, would just as soon settle this without
a formal apology – but doesn't dare go up against
the strong nationalist sentiment that has welled up as
a consequence of this incident.
BUSH'S
DILEMMA
George
W. Bush is in roughly the same position as the Chinese
leaders: his own anti-China wing of the Republican party
is hot under the collar, and every minute that those 24
hostages are "detained" – yes, let's use the "h"-word:
after all, as Drudge points out today [Sunday], this is
"Day 8" – the rhetoric of the 'Hate China' lobby
rises by several decibels. Rep. Henry Hyde was the first
Republican leader to use the "h"-word in public, and this
past Saturday he
railed on CNN's Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields
that "We ought to be demanding that they apologize
for surveilling our planes and flying so closely to them."
Does Hyde realize how utterly deranged this sounds, not
only to rational Americans but to anyone who lives anywhere
else in the world? As
Charles Lane points out, "the United States itself
has imposed a 200-mile zone off its coasts within which
foreign military aircraft must identify themselves or
risk interception." So how is it that the US arrogates
to itself the "right" to spy, unmolested, within a range
of 70 nautical miles off China's coastline, where the
incident took place? This is a question that one almost
never hears in the American media – to my knowledge,
Lane is the only one to make this point in a veritable
outpouring of commentary on this incident – but it
is one well worth asking.
THE
KEY QUESTION
There
are several other key questions that need to be asked,
first and foremost: why did the American plane choose
to fly the 70 miles to Hainan's military airport –
the epicenter of Chinese military power in the region
– rather than take a chance and fall into what the
US defines as "international waters." That would have
risked the lives of crew members, true, but isn't that
what being in the military is all about? We are told that
this plane was stuffed to the gills with super-secret
ultra-hi tech gizmos, and that their capture by the Chinese
is an absolute disaster for the US. So why wasn't it better
off at the bottom of the South China Sea, rather than
on the tarmac at a Chinese military airport near the town
of Lingshui? With all the billions upon billions that
we spend on arming our Pacific fleet, do you mean to tell
me that the US was incapable of launching a rescue operation
within minutes of splashdown?
ACCIDENT
PRONE, OR INTENTIONALLY CARELESS?
Of
course, this could be chalked up as yet another in a long
series of recent military accidents, of which the sinking
of the Ehime Maru was only the most spectacularly
careless and damaging – until the Hainan incident,
that is. To say that our military has been accident-prone
lately is a bit of an understatement, to say the least.
But consideration has to be given to another theory, that
it was a deliberate provocation on the part of the US
– a possibility buttressed by our government's own
statements. For certain military chieftains have let it
be known that this wasn't the first time the issue of
our spy planes buzzing the Chinese had come up: in January
and February the issue had been raised by diplomats of
both countries. We are told the US pilots had come to
know Wang-Wei quite well: the Pentagon claimed to have
photos of him, the story went out that he was "reckless"
and he is said to have flashed
his email address as a way of taunting the Americans.
This, then, is the context in which the US sent a spy
plane into a disputed zone without a fighter escort,
and with the expectation that the relatively slow reconnaissance
plane would surely be intercepted.
THE
RUMSFELD FACTOR
So,
what's up with that? The Chinese generals must
be asking themselves the same question about what one
news story called this "gift
from the sky." When in doubt, inject a little Rothbardian
truth serum into the discussion by recalling your Latin
long enough to remember what is meant by "Cui bono?"
This is the question my old friend and mentor, the late
Murray Rothbard,
used to ask in order to develop (or test) a hypothesis:
Who benefits? Employing this method doesn't always
lead you to the answer immediately, but it generally puts
you on the right track. In this case, it just so happens
that, a week before the incident, secretary of defense
Donald Rumsfeld announced his new "Pacific strategy" –
based on the idea that China, and not Russia, is the "principal
threat" to US interests. This announcement came in the
midst of numerous reports that Rumsfeld, the resurrected
cold warrior and much-touted hardliner, and the relatively
moderate Colin Powell are locked in a intramural power
struggle over who really controls US foreign policy. Then,
all at once – ka-boom! – and it's Day
8 of another hostage crisis. As long as the US is trying
to make a deal – with the US State Department and
the Chinese foreign ministry trying to put off resolving
the escalating conflict by schluffing it all off on some
bi-national "commission" – then Powell is in charge.
But if that fails, then not only are the hardliners vindicated,
but the military begins to get in on the action –
and Rumsfeld moves to the fore.
THE
MYSTERY
Now,
I'm not – repeat: not! – saying the whole
thing was a setup, and that the US spy plane was deliberately
handed to Beijing on a silver platter. But certainly secretary
Rumsfeld did nothing to discourage routine spying operations
along the Chinese coastline, in spite of the obvious risks,
and almost certainly he and his staff had calculated the
odds of an aerial confrontation with the Chinese. They
apparently found it a risk well worth taking. What they
didn't count on, perhaps, was the decision by the plane's
commanding officer – or whomever – to
land at Lingshui airport, smack dab in the middle of the
most highly sensitive Chinese military base in the region.
This is a mystery that will only be cleared up by the
crew members themselves – but when we next hear from
them, it may well be in the dock of a Chinese courtroom.
AT
LEAST THEY DIDN'T SHOOT IT DOWN
That
would be most unfortunate. But when you think about what
really happened, in objective terms, then the wonder is
that the Chinese refrained from shooting the plane down.
For what would have happened if a Chinese military plane,
containing god-knows-what – atomic weapons, botulism,
a new and highly offensive television series cooked up
by Rupert Murdoch – was detected on our radar, headed
straight for a major military base? The Chinese claim
that our spy plane not only invaded their airspace, but
refused to communicate with Chinese air traffic
control; US authorities contend that the plane sent out
a "Mayday" signal, but have said little else on the subject.
So the Chinese plane is coming straight at us, silent
in the face of repeated inquiries – if we wouldn't
shoot such a plane out of the sky, then why oh why do
we have a military at all? For once, in that case,
the US military would be performing its only legal and
constitutional function: defending the country from attack.
POLITICS
OF THE STANDOFF
This
is precisely what Wang-Wei was doing when his fighter
plane crashed into the sea: defending his homeland from
what he and his countrymen considered an attack. This
is why the "Ode to Wang-Wei" was written, and is being
widely circulated over the Internet by Chinese students,
and why he is being hailed as a hero not only by the official
media but by the Chinese people themselves. The two, for
once, are in synch. This presents the Chinese leaders
with a unique dilemma: for any attempt on their part to
back down is bound to provoke an internal reaction, and
this could lead to major political and economic instability
down the road. On the American side, George W. Bush is
facing the same dilemma: back down, and face the wrath
of the China-haters – or quite possibly share the
fate of poor old Jimmy Carter, who was driven from the
White House by the Iranian hostage crisis.
THE
YELLOW PIMPERNEL
The
US government's official position – that they have
the right to intrude to within 12 miles of the Chinese
coastline, but reserve the right to intercept foreign
intruders within 200 miles of their own territory
– is only one of many absurdities associated with
this incident, but it is the most telling. For this is
the imperial style: pompous, overbearing, lumbering, and
generally without a clue. Up against this clueless colossus,
Wang-Wei, the Scarlet
Pimpernel of Chinese nationalism, risked his life,
and lost it. But in losing it, he won a moral victory:
he died a patriot, and the youth of his nation sing his
praises. But what of American youth: are they out
in the streets demanding the release of the 24 hostages?
Do the police have to restrain them, as in China,
do their professors have to intervene and forbid all demonstrations,
as recently happened in Beijing, in order to prevent the
general outpouring of their rage? Of course not. There
is no rage – and this goes for their elders as well
– but only the sinking feeling that our government
has f*ck*d up yet again. There is plenty of time to build
up some orchestrated rage, of course, or else what's a
"free" media for, but time is not on the side of the US
government.
INQUIRING
MINDS WANT TO KNOW
For
the longer the hostages are held, the more details of
the US spy operation will come out, and the closer we'll
get to the central mystery in all this, the answer to
the persistent question: why did a highly-prized
spy plane choose not to take the risk of a sea rescue,
and at least take measures to prevent the plane from falling
into Chinese hands? Why, instead, did they land on Hainan?
Inquiring minds want to know, and the longer this drags
on the more opportunity there will be for some real inquiries
to be made. Yes, even our own brain-dead pro-government
media will begin to ask questions, if only for the sake
of getting ahead of the competition, and then things could
start to get really interesting.
JUST
AN OVERSIGHT, I'M SURE
As
it is, we know next to nothing about what happened over
the South China Sea that fateful day, except that a collision
occurred: aside from the conflicting stories about the
circumstances that led to the mid-air collision, the US
has been strangely silent on exactly what happened after
the spy plane was hit. Surely they didn't lose all communication
with one of the most technologically advanced planes in
the US arsenal, one that specialized in communications
(intercepting them that is). The damage sustained by the
US plane was extensive, but not so bad that it couldn't
limp all the way to the Lingshui airport. There must have
been some kind of communication between the plane and
those who were giving the orders. What was said? Did the
plane proceed to land at Lingshui on orders from higher-ups,
and, if so, why? If the US government will release the
transcript of the last communication with the spy plane,
perhaps we will get a clearer picture of just what did
happen. We're supposed to be such a free and "open" society,
compared to those nasty old Commies: I'm sure the US government
will have no problem releasing this information,
and of course it's just an oversight that it hasn't done
so already. [Sarcasm off]
HE'S
HERE, HE'S THERE, HE'S EVERYWHERE
We
hear much about how the Hainan incident is a test of which
country will turn out to be the paramount power in the
region – but the "region" we are talking about is
separated from the continental United States by the friggin'
Pacific Ocean. That the US aspires to be the Number One
regional power in Eastasia may have the Chinese thinking
that what they need is an Asiatic version of the Monroe
Doctrine. Just as the newly-freed American colonies declared
to the powers of Europe that the Americas must be free
of their interference, so the Chinese are now declaring,
in no uncertain terms, that Asia must not be ruled from
Washington. What is frightening to the Americans is that
the echoes of this defiance are to be found not only in
China, but in Japan, Korea, and throughout Eastasia –
but that is a subject for another column. For now, let
us contemplate the words of the anonymous poet, whose
ode to Wang-Wei ought to serve as a warning:
"Spewing
fumes in their faces as if to say,
To every American who dares to spy China's way,
'I'm here, I'm there, I'm always in your way,
I'm the Tom Cruise of China, I'm the great Wang-wei!'"
AN
AMERICAN LAKE?
For
the US to insist that it has "hegemony" in Eastasia is
as dangerous, and absurd, as the Chinese proclaiming that
they must dominate the Caribbean. The Pacific Ocean is
not an American lake, and to make it so would require
more troops and treasure than any nation could be expected
to sacrifice. The natives, however, are willing to sacrifice
everything in their fight to prevent this, as our
anonymous poet makes all too clear:
"Yeah,
Wang-wei, he went down on that very day,
In the daredevil game that he so loved to play,
He
went down for his country, or so they say,
To remind to all recons who again spy China's way,
'My
life's in the balance, it is that you now weigh,
Do not spy on dear China or else you must pay,
For that I went down to the place I now lay . . ."
THE
DEATH OF A PATRIOT
Conservative
Republicans, slavering for war against the "Red Chinese,"
have to recognize that this is what they are up against:
not Communism, but Chinese patriotism. In that sense,
even they must bring themselves to admire the spirit of
Wang-Wei, a patriot who gave his life for his country.
It is no disrespect to the 24 American crew members being
held by the Chinese to acknowledge as much. But what the
China-haters must also bring themselves to acknowledge
is that, while the behavior of the Chinese side was all-too-predictable,
the actions of our own side both before and after the
crash are a mystery waiting to be uncovered.
THE
TRUTH LEAKS OUT
At
least part of the mystery may have been cleared up by
a story published by the South China Morning Post
just as I put this column to bed: according
to the SCMP, the pilot of the remaining Chinese
fighter asked for permission to shoot down the spy plane:
"After
seeing the loss of Wang's plane, Zhao radioed ground control
for permission to shoot down the US plane, but this was
refused, they said. 'The officials at ground control were
cool-headed,' one source said. 'Zhao could have shot the
plane down but that would have meant the death of 24 US
airmen. It would have been an act of war, whereas the
collision was an accident.' The sources said that after
the collision, the spy plane attempted to fly to the northeast,
away from China. However, Zhao maneuvered to prevent this
and forced the plane to land at Hainan's Lingshui base,
where it was immediately surrounded by Chinese military."
A
MYSTERY PARTLY SOLVED
So
now we know why the Chinese didn't shoot the spy plane
down – they were too smart to fall into that trap.
What this proves is that the Chinese, far from being aggressive,
have showed considerable restraint. In continually harassing
China, and constantly provoking her air defenses, the
US played a dangerous game – and lost. Instead of
whining about how the inside of a spy plane on the tarmac
in Lingshui, on Hainan island, is somehow "sovereign"
US territory, the US needs to make a much broader statement.
Instead of framing the debate in terms of whether or not
to issue a meaningless "apology," the US should simply
announce that it is no longer going to engage in this
sort of surveillance – of China or of any other nation.
That would no doubt win the release of the 24 crew members,
without losing face or sacrificing some essential principle.
We need to give up the idea that the US can do whatever
it likes without regard or respect for the sovereignty
and dignity of other nations – and that will be no
loss. For such a ruthless, even barbaric policy is not
in our interests, and can only lead to widespread resentment
of America.
BUSH'S
BUNGLE
What
is also clear from this late-breaking story – even
if it isn't the whole truth – is that the US government
has been less than forthcoming about what really happened
to our spy plane, and why. As the real facts become known,
and the details begin to be filled in, a picture of an
incredibly bungled spy operation comes into focus. The
result of this major blunder on the part of the Bush administration
is that 24 American servicemen, including three women,
are being held captive, and could be put on trial. Since
they are paying the price for a needlessly provocative
policy, any apologies issued by the Bush administration
need to be directed to them and their families. As for
the Chinese, they'll settle for a new policy: one based
on mutual respect for the concept of national sovereignty.
It
was Wang Wei's 
