THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MARINA KOLBE, INSIGHT (voice-over): Air, but no apology.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We do not understand any reason to apologize. The United States did not do anything wrong.
YANG JIECHI, CHINESE AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: We say that the U.S. side should make an apology, and I think people here in your government know how to say it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KOLBE: Washington and Beijing face off over a spy plane and its crew but fail to see eye to eye.
(on camera): Hello, and welcome to INSIGHT. I'm Marina Kolbe, in for Jonathan Mann.
The collision of a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet has become the first major international test for United States president George W. Bush. It is also straining U.S.-China relations to the limit. Washington wants the 24 crew members of the plane back. Beijing wants an apology, saying the United States is responsible for the mid-air crashed that caused the disappearance of one of its fighter pilots.
So far, both sides are talking tough but choosing their words carefully. On INSIGHT today - "plane language." We begin with U.S. State Department correspondent Andrea Koppel.
Andrea?
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: Marina, with no deadline per se, but with a definite sense here that time is rapidly running short to resolve this standoff before it has any sort of long- standing impact on the U.S.-China relationship, diplomatic messages had been flying today between Washington and Beijing.
In Beijing earlier today, China's president repeated his demand for an immediate apology on the part of the U.S. after the loss of that not only the fighter plane, but the loss of a fighter pilot whose body is as yet to be recovered.
Meantime, here in Washington, on several levels, including at the highest level here at the State Department, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said that an apology was not necessary. But he did say this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLIN POWELL, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We regret that the Chinese plane did not get down safely. We regret the loss of the life of that Chinese pilot. But now we need to move on. We need to bring this to a resolution, and we're using every avenue available to us to talk to the Chinese side to exchange explanations and move on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KOPPEL: The Bush administration recognizes, Marina, that it doesn't have an awful lot of room in which to maneuver. But it also recognizes that this is an extremely difficult situation. It's an extremely important situation that they want to resolve as quickly as possible for no other reason beyond the fact that they have 24 Americans who are being detained - that's the word that they're using now, detained - against their will on Hainan Island.
It's a message that's sure to be repeated in the next half hour, 45 minutes, when China's ambassador to Washington comes here to the State Department for another meeting.
KOLBE: Andrea, how much does the United States government know about the facts, exactly what happened in that mid-air collision that they can thus make the decision not to apologize to the Chinese, that they were not at fault?
KOPPEL: Well, in point of fact, both sides have recognized and acknowledged that this mid-air collision took place in international waters. The U.S. says that the plane itself - their plane, this EP-3 surveillance plane - was flying in international airspace when two fighter jets came upon it, Chinese fighter jets. And one of them bumped it.
Their rationale was that this is a very big cumbersome plane, and it couldn't move rapidly to one side or the other as easily as a fighter jet could. But having said that, Marina, the U.S. believes that with 24 Americans that are being held against their will after having made an emergency landing on a Chinese island, they feel that they are not in a position to apologize.
They feel that they didn't do this on purpose. They say it was an accident. And they are open, having said that, to an investigation. They would be happy to sit down and discuss with the Chinese exactly what happened. But the U.S. says the Chinese are digging in their heels and insisting on an apology as a prerequisite to any kind of talks.
KOLBE: CNN's Andrea Koppel reporting.
A short time ago, CNN's Frank Sesno sat down with the Chinese ambassador to the United States for his first interview about the standoff. They began by talking about Beijing's demand for an apology.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FRANK SESNO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Would it be sufficient and acceptable for the United States to say that this was a regrettable incident and it regretted the loss of the pilot and the Chinese plane? Does that constitute an apology?
YANG JIECHI, CHINESE AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: I think, first of all, the American side should face the facts squarely and should obey international law. And we say that the U.S. side should make an apology. And I think people here in your government know how to say it.
SESNO: Does the Chinese side acknowledge or recognize that this was an accident? Or do you feel that this was deliberate?
YANG: Well, the American side has yet to make an explanation to the Chinese side.
Why should the United States send its reconnaissance airplanes, as described as spy airplanes by many of your newspapers, to the coastal areas of China, and despite repeated representations from the Chinese side? And let's say that if a Chinese airplane or Chinese airplanes should do the same, up and down the eastern seaboard and western seaboard of the United States, we lost our airplane -- you lost your airplane, you lost your airmen. And so, you have to -- you would demand an explanation from the Chinese side. We would not do anything like that.
SESNO: And you have not heard anything. You have not heard anything. The Chinese side has not heard anything sufficient to an explanation to be able to take this to the next step?
YANG: Well, what we've heard, so far, is that, "You are to blame. Our plane wouldn't do anything like that." But we have all the facts to show that the American airplane made an abrupt turn.
SESNO: I asked you a moment ago, and I'd like to follow up, and that is - is this apology, this explanation, the key to the departure of the 24 crew members?
YANG: Our side has said it very clearly that the U.S. side should shoulder all the responsibility and should apologize to the Chinese side. Of course, that's very, very important, and I would not like to go into the details.
SESNO: As you know, the U.S. side has said that plane is effectively sovereign territory. We are also reporting on CNN that that plane has been boarded by Chinese security officials and perhaps some of the equipment taken off. What can you tell us about that?
YANG: This airplane is your sovereign property if it's in the United States. But it took some dangerous action to cause the destruction of a Chinese airplane, and then it went into -- intruded into China's airspace and then landed in China.
Of course, it's not a sovereign entity anymore, according to international law. Of course, it has no immunity. Of course, China has the right to do all the necessary investigation in connection with the incident.
SESNO: And does China have the right to remove equipment from that plane, in your view?
YANG: Well, I have said that China has all the right to do all the things necessary in connection with the incident, with the investigation.
SESNO: What we're hearing, Mr. Ambassador, here in Washington from many is that if China is interested in the positive relationship that you, yourself, have spoken about, that the vice premier, Qian Qichen, spoke about when he was visiting the United States just a short time ago, that China must help find a way to find intermediate steps to navigate a way out of this situation. Do you accept that? And what might China do, for its part, to help bring this to a close?
YANG: Let's say that, as a principle, both sides should work hard for better relations between our two countries. But in this case, it's the United States which has done injury to China. China is the injured party. So, first of all, the responsibility issue must be clearly defined.
As regard to interests between our two countries, I think we have to pay great attention to them. A good relationship between China and the United States is in the interest of our two countries and in everybody's interest. And it's not a one-way street. It's not a favor from one party to another. A good relationship is in our common interest.
And besides, you know, countries, they have to first think about their sovereignty.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KOLBE: After the break, a look at the stakes and the statesmen involved in the diplomatic impasse. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KOLBE: Welcome back.
Chinese president Jiang Zemin will be in Latin America in the coming days. But he leaves behind a nation that appears to be firmly behind his stand on Washington. Security has been tightened outside the U.S. embassy in Beijing just in case demonstrators try to voice their frustration.
So far, the Chinese government is trying to keep protests at bay while stoking nationalist pride at the same time. Here is Mike Chinoy.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MIKE CHINOY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was October 1999, the 50th anniversary of China's Communist revolution. President Jiang Zemin and other leaders presided over a lavish celebration. Its central theme -- Chinese national pride.
Indeed, as China has faced the wrenching dislocations of its transition to a market-style economy, the government has consciously stoked nationalistic fervor to bolster its own authority as fewer and fewer Chinese believe in Communism and to deflect public opinion from problems like unemployment, corruption and the lack of political freedom.
Now, nationalistic sentiment appears to be the driving force behind Beijing's uncompromising stand on the spy plane standoff with the United States. For a government whose main claim to legitimacy is its patriotic credentials, showing weakness towards Washington is simply not an option.
JOSEPH CHENG, CITY UNIVERSITY, HONG KONG: The Chinese leaders must not be seen as kowtowing to the strongest power in the world, namely, the United States.
CHINOY: That's especially true in view of the Bush administration's moves to adopt a tougher posture towards China, and it's made even those leaders most associated with better Sino-American ties -- President Jiang Zemin, Premier Zhu Rongji, and Vice Premier Qian Qichen -- vulnerable to pressure from hard-liners in the military and security apparatus suspicious of greater engagement with the U.S.
But all Chinese leaders recognize the dangers of appearing too soft. They remember history, how the May 4th movement in 1919, which helped lead to the creation of the Chinese Communist Party, was the result of public anger over government weakness towards other nations; how chairman Mao Zedong's 1949 revolution was as much the product of nationalistic sentiment as popular support for Communism; and how humiliated and angry China felt after the NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade two years ago.
(on camera): All of this helps to explain why China is acting so tough on the plane issue. What it doesn't do is provide any idea of how Washington and Beijing can resolve the standoff.
Mike Chinoy, CNN, Hong Kong.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KOLBE: On the other side, U.S. president George W. Bush enjoys public and congressional support for his stand as well. Jay Branegan, Time magazine's State Department correspondent, joins us to discuss the way each nation is handling the crisis.
Thank you for joining us.
JAY BRANEGAN, TIME MAGAZINE: Glad to be here.
KOLBE: How is the world viewing this standoff? Who, in fact, is following international law?
BRANEGAN: I think most of the people in the world would side with the U.S. in terms of the collision itself. Certainly there's a lot of people in Asia do not like China's rather aggressive view of its sovereignty which extends out to the Spratlys and most of the South China Sea. That causes a lot of trouble with China's neighbors there.
So I think that even the Chinese are starting to admit that, in fact, the collision occurred on international - above international waters in international airspace. So that, I think, is being won by the U.S.
In terms of possession of the plane, I don't think anybody even in the U.S. really seriously expects the Chinese to sit there and not go into a spy plane that falls into their laps like this.
KOLBE: In fact, would the U.S. have done any differently if a Chinese plane had come near international waters, but still near Hawaii or near the United States? That one American pilot is missing, feared dead, and then they have a top-of-the-line secret plane, would they not examine it?
BRANEGAN: Of course they would. Of course they would. I mean, we've had several - a famous case in the mid `70s when a defector brought in a Soviet plane. We took it apart. It was still Soviet property. I don't think there's really any question that whatever the legalities would be, the U.S. would certainly behave the same way regarding the actual physical possession of a plane.
KOLBE: And in fact, the United States was spying on China, are there any rules on spying?
BRANEGAN: Well, now you have to be careful, Marina. This may not have been spying. You heard the Chinese ambassador say it was a surveillance plane, and he attributed the media to calling it a spy plane. And there frankly are no rules about this. Let's face it. We can listen in. The spy satellites go overhead. They look down.
There's really no problem here. It just - it's not something that gentlemen like to talk about. But it's quite normal in international practice.
KOLBE: In George W. Bush's recent election campaign, he said humility would be the hallmark of his foreign policy. Has this been the case?
BRANEGAN: It's been a tough road. He had some bad luck and some bad incidents to deal with in his first months. He's got this incident, the incident with the Japanese fishing trawler getting sunk by our submarine. He's pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, which was considered very arrogant by our allies. He's imposing sort of a national missile defense program. He's going to push forward with that, much against the wishes of both our allies and our enemies.
So you know, he talked about a humble foreign policy. I think the world doesn't really see it that way. I think they see it as a reversion to kind of Reagan-style Lone Ranger tactics again.
KOLBE: But he has experienced people on his team - people like Colin Powell. What has been your assessment of Colin Powell so far?
BRANEGAN: I think Colin Powell, and generally the team around the president, handled this particular crisis fairly well. I think there have been some missteps in the first couple of months. I think, for instance, General Powell was caught saying one thing about the Korea negotiations - North Korea and South Korea - that the president then contradicted the next day.
There is some obvious tension, as there is in any administration, between the Defense Department, the States Department. Vice President Cheney is a big player, and he's fairly conservative, probably more conservative than Mr. Powell.
But I think in this particular crisis, they're doing well. I think they've had some missteps, and this is a tough - this is a very tough situation. There is no rule book, so I think we have to give them decent marks for the moment.
KOLBE: And what kind of advice would you give on diplomacy at this point? What should China do? What should the United States do?
BRANEGAN: I think the U.S. is doing the right thing so far, and I think the real danger is whether they can keep on doing it. I think what the U.S. has to do is make sure it provides a way for China to climb down gracefully and quickly without trying to put up too much pressure because I think that will only generate a counter-reaction from China that we don't want.
I think China has got to get its act together and realize that if it, indeed, does want good relations, and I think most countries in the world do want good relations with the U.S., it had better get its own internal act together and figure out a way to get out of this dilemma as fast as possible.
KOLBE: What does China gain by keeping the crew, the 24 members of the crew? Could they not do their investigation and at the same time let the United States have access to them?
BRANEGAN: Well, I mean, this is really the problem is that the Chinese are behaving in a very belligerent way. Part of it is probably some natural anger. Part of it is probably an inability to make the decision to see the larger picture. And presumably, the military, as you've suggested earlier, their military is very upset about this.
They've lost a pilot. They've lost a plane. They're outraged, and the military is obviously in control of the situation as far as the Chinese are concerned. So they are going to hold these Americans for whatever propaganda value, for whatever diplomatic value they think it can have.
In terms of a value, I think it's a quickly diminishing asset, and I think whatever point they wanted to make has been made. And I think in their longer term interest, it would be better to get rid of them as fast as possible.
KOLBE: Jay Branegan, we thank you for your insight.
BRANEGAN: OK, Marina. Thank you.
KOLBE: We're going to take a break, then look more closely what the spy plane was up to. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KOLBE: Welcome back.
United States Defense Department sources say the EP-3 was severely damaged in the collision with the Chinese fighter jet. They say it took the pilot five minutes to regain control of the aircraft. Then a mayday was transmitted to alert their command to the emergency. Once the plane was under control, the crew set about destroying sensitive information and equipment.
Once they were on the ground, the crew was reportedly forced from the plane by armed Chinese personnel. But what was the plane looking for, and what will the Chinese be looking for if they inspect the plane, as Pentagon sources allege?
John Pike is the director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense, space and intelligence policy organization. Thank you for joining us.
JOHN PIKE, GLOBALSECURITY.ORG: Glad to be here.
KOLBE: Now, the United States has been doing these missions for some 50 years. What happened this time?
PIKE: Well, the one very unusual, unprecedented thing that happened this time was that the air defense fighter that had been sent out to accompany the aircraft collided with it. The United States intelligence community has been flying missions like this up and down the Chinese coast for decades. We've been flying missions like this down the Russian coastline -- Iraq, Iran.
The Russians have been doing the same thing down our coastline for decades. And in all of these times, every time the air defense fighter comes out to get a look at the surveillance aircraft, they fly 1,000 feet away, take pictures of each other, and no one ever hears about it. And in this case, apparently the Chinese fighter, the American surveillance airplane got so close to each other, maybe they got caught in each other's wake or slipstream, and they collided.
The Chinese fighter apparently crashed, and the American airplane was evidently seriously damaged.
KOLBE: Now let's talk about the EP-3. This is a very special plane. So special that, in fact, the U.S. government doesn't sell it like it sells a lot of its other technology. Could you tell us about the capabilities of the EP-3? Why is it such a special plane?
PIKE: Well, the EP-3 Aries II (ph) is the most sophisticated signals intelligence-gathering airplane that the United States Navy flies. There are only about a dozen of these airplanes. They have been continuously upgraded over the last decade and a half. This is the Navy's premier means of maintaining their electronic order of battle.
Basically, if you could imagine a computerized phone book that has the locations and identities of all the air defense radars around the world, all of the army command posts, a profile - an electronic profile of all the various ships of the world's navies. And the problem is, like any other phone book, it starts to get out of date and has to be continuously updated. And that's what these Aries missions do.
They go out and see if the air defense radars are still there, see if a navy ship has a new radar, see if the army regiments are using the old radio network or maybe they have a new one that they're using as well.
KOLBE: But other countries have the EP-3. What countries have it, and is it any different?
PIKE: Well, many countries have electronic intelligence capabilities. A number of countries, in fact, have electronic surveillance aircraft. No one else, apart from the United States Air Force, has an aircraft that is sophisticated as the Aries II aircraft, and there are several reasons for that. One of them is that the United States has continuously modernized this aircraft over a long period of time.
Back during the Cold War, the Soviet Union had similar aircraft. But I don't think they've been working on them nearly as hard as the Navy since the end of the Cold War. The United States has a lot of these airplanes. They train. They fly continuously. Probably the most important thing about them, though, is that they're operating in conjunction with an enormously large American intelligence community so that it's not simply the intelligence gathered from these airplanes, but also from the Air Force Rivet (ph) Joint Jet intelligence aircraft, from all of America's reconnaissance satellites, from all of the imagery.
And it's all of that together that really makes the Aries a very potent intelligence collection capability.
KOLBE: How much of an advantage would it be for the Chinese to have access to this plane at this moment?
PIKE: Well, it really depends on how much of the airplane they've had access to. If they had access to a fully operational airplane with all the software installed, with all of the intelligence tapes, the cassette tapes of the intelligence they had collected, that would tell them a lot about American capabilities, what we know about China, what we want to know about China.
On the other hand, it does look like the crew probably erased all those tapes, erased the computer hard drives. And so now, they basically have the husk of an airplane. They're not going to be able to learn nearly as much as they would have if the airplane was fully operational.
KOLBE: John Pike, thank you for joining us.
PIKE: Thank you.
KOLBE: And that's all we have time for on INSIGHT. I'm Marina Kolbe. Thank you for watching. The news continues on CNN.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
![[CNN.com]](http://web.archive.org/web/20051118133736im_/http://i.cnn.net/cnn/images/newsnet/cnnlogo.gray.gif){kind=small}
TOP STORIES![[SI.com]](http://web.archive.org/web/20051118133736im_/http://i.cnn.net/cnn/images/main/si.logo.gif){kind=logo}
SPORTS
All Scoreboards
![[CNN Money]](http://web.archive.org/web/20051118133736im_/http://i.cnn.net/cnn/images/main/fn.logo.newsnet.gif){kind=logo}
(