|
The U.S. and China:
Perspective
With James P. Rubin
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs and
Chief Spokesman, State Department
Wednesday, April 11, 2001; 4 p.m. EDT
China said Wednesday it would release the 24 crew members of a U.S. surveillance plane it has held for 11 days. The end of the stalemate came after a letter was sent from the Bush administration saying the United States was "very sorry" for the plane's unauthorized landing and the death of a Chinese pilot.
Former State Department chief press spokesman James. P. Rubin will be online Wednesday, April 11, at 4 p.m. EDT, to discuss the incident.
Rubin served under President Clinton as Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs from 1997 to May 2000. He later became the State Department's chief spokesperson. From 1989-1993 Rubin served as a staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was senior foreign policy advisor to Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.)
Now Rubin lectures at the London School of Economics and is a regular commentator for the Financial Times, the BBC, CNN and other American television networks.
A transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Arlington, Va.:
How do you feel about the resolution of the stalemate? Did it all come from the department of state?
James P. Rubin: I think the resolution is good for getting the air crew out without requiring any kind of phony acceptance of responsibility by the United States. I do think that once Secretary of State Powell was given the lead in resolving this issue that he and the Department of State worked out a reasonable diplomatic compromise.
Washington, D.C.:
How will this incident affect the U.S. reputation around the world? Does it seem like the U.S. stepped down?
James P. Rubin: I don't think the U.S. compromised on the basic point. The U.S. was quite right to regret the loss of life but that's not the same thing as accepting responsibility for causing the problem. As far as America's internatinal reputation is concerned, I think we came out of the crisis in reasonably good shape, except for a widespread perception that the Bush administration needlessly antagonized China in the weeks and months prior to this incident.
Washington, D.C.:
How would this incident have been handled in the Clinton administration?
James P. Rubin: I think the difference if it were the Clinton administration would be twofold: First, the Chinese would have known that the Clinton administration had worked long and hard to treat China with respect, disagreeing on matters like human rights and Taiwan, while working together on trade and non-proliferation issues. In other words there would've have been a strong basis of cooperation that the Chinese would've understood at the beginning of the crisis.
Secondly, the Clinton administration probably would have realized right away the magnitude of the incident and its potential to spin out of control.
Portland, OR:
It seems to me that the Chinese have committed an act of war by trying to bring down our plane through aggressive flying tactics, forcing it to land under threats of attack and then holding our servicement by focre. Shouldn't they properly be labeled POW's? Shouldn't it be China who issues an apology?
James P. Rubin: I think the loser in this crisis is the Chinese government. Not only did they hold the air crew incommunicado the first couple of days, but they also illogically demanded that the U.S. accept responsibility before the incident was fully investigated. So their reputation in the eyes of the American people has been severely damaged. They did treat these air crews as virtual prisoners in the first couple of days, but just as we shouldn't accept responsibility for causing the incident, we can't jumpt to conclusions as to what happened until there's a full investigation or else we will be as guilty as the Chinese for putting the cart before the horse.
I do think the Chinese behaved badly in the first couple of days in holding the air crew incommunicado, but given their system, I wouldn't expect them to apologize.
Cincinnati, Ohio:
If the word apology does not mean I am sorry, what does it mean? The linguistic shadings are surely not that different between China and America, and in my opinion, the Chinese are now poised to take advantage of us in the future, now that we have submitted to their request.
Also, where was our apology for the detainment of the hostages? We were clearly set up in this horrendous spin of words.
James P. Rubin: I think the Bush administration carefully avoided any wording that would entail accepting the Chinese claim that our air crew and airplane was at fault. All the administration did was be sorry that something bad happened and one of their pilots died, so we did cowtow to the Chinese but I do think that their treatment of the air crew in the first couple of days was wrong and harmed their reputation.
San Jose, CA:
How do you think this incident will affect US-China relations? Are Asian countries now more wary of China or are they pleased to see that the "arrogant" US has been humbled?
James P. Rubin: I do not think the U.S. was humbled. I do think that Asian countries have been troubled by the antagonistic rhetoric coming from Washington toward China in recent months. And I also think that those in the administration and in Congress who have long been suspicious of China will have their hands strengthened in the continuing debate over American policy toward China.
King of Prussia, PA:
How is the United States viewed in all of this in Europe? We believe that performing flights such as this one fundamental to our intelligence gathering for our national security. Do you think our friends in Europe see it the same way?
James P. Rubin: I have been somewhat surprised that European and international support for the American position in this crisis has been muted. I suspect that the muted reaction is the result of considerable anxiety that there has already been as spying flap with the Russians, with the Chinese, that the administration repudiated the efforts of South Korea to improve relations with North Korea that the administration repudiated the international environmental agreement that the rest of the world supports. The combination of these statements out of Washington have weakened and alienated our allies in their normal support for America. However, when it comes to the intelligence question, I think most European countries understand that it is necessary for the U.S. to monitor the potential conflict between China and Taiwan through these kinds of reconnaissance flights.
Rolla, MO:
Is it your sense that the Bush team relied on the advice and counsel of their career folks as Powell had suggested would be his approach or did they circle the wagons and go with the political inner circle?
James P. Rubin: My assessment is that the first couple of days the statements by President Bush were not based on the advice and counsel of the administration's China experts, but were driven by the political need to seem in charge and seem tough on China. After they realized that they risked boxing in the Chinese, my sense is that they turned to the China experts at the State department to allow the American ambassador who happens to be a former commander of the Pacific forces and Secretary Powell who, together, seemed to do a a good job of navigating a diplomatic solution.
DC:
What impact do you think the resolution of this issue will have on the American University professor who's been held in China since February?
James P. Rubin: My guess is that that case like many others, will not be subject to American pressure for some time. During the Clinton administration, the only time we were able to pressure China to release people they regarded as political prisoners was during a period of improved relations, prior to a summit, for example. So because it will be some time before U.S.-China relations can get back on track, I'm worried that these kinds of cases will languish. On the otehr hand, if China realizes the damage it has done to its friends in Congress, in the adminstration and throughout America, then maybe they will see the need for some gestures in human rights cases. But I'm not optimistic.
New York, New York:
I have recently heard that K-Mart was inundated with consumer calls of complaints regarding goods made in China? How much of the United States apology is directly related to our consumerism and reliance on China for cheaper labor?
James P. Rubin: I was also struck by that report because it's the first time that the American people have used their consumer power to express opposition to Chinese policies. But I don' think the Bush administration was driven to express regret about the incident of economic or trade reasons. They did what they thought they needed to do in order to get the air crew released--and for no other reason.
fredericksburg virginia:
will the u.s. levy any reprisals at the chinese either diplomatically or politically
James P. Rubin: That's a very good question. My guess is that those who feel strongest about taking a more confrontational posture with China will be strengthened in their arguments in the administration. I wouldn't be surprised if the relationship languished and some steps were considered to retaliate for the way in which China held the crew incommunicado during the early days.
Fairfax, Virginia:
Oh stop gushing on about how much better Clinton would have handled it. This incident never would have happened in the last Administration; Beijing knew their campaign contributions would have prevented any sort of dispute from getting out of control.
James P. Rubin: In fact, I said that I thought the Bush administration handled the crisis reasonably well and the logic of linking a case like this to campaign contributions escapes me in the question. I suspect that both administrations would have handled the crisis itself quite similarly and that's what I said.
Rockville, Md:
What do you think about a report by CNN that Chinese has all along been in total control of the standoff. The report says that China had only wanted some kind of contrition from US. The seemingly tough demand by them was played to its people and the rest of the world and was used as a tactic to presure US. The way President Bush changed from initial strong position to "regret" to "sorry" and to "very sorry seems played right into the hands of Chinese.
James P. Rubin: As I said earlier, I think the loser is not the Bush administration, but China because they have harmed their reputation in America and around the world. But people should also know their decision-making in China is not a monolith and I think it will take some time to determine how they made their decisions during this crisis.
washingtonpost.com:
That was our last question today. Thanks to James Rubin, and to
everyone who joined us.
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
