The current crisis over the US spy plane serves to highlight the difference in the world views of the leaders in Beijing and Washington. As the crisis drags on, it also becomes quite clear that many in the West simply do not understand how the PRC's leaders think.
At times, it actually seems as if the two nations are speaking past one another, so great is the communication gap. This may be a surface phenomenon, driven by the need for the leaders in both capitals to pander publicly to their own constituencies, and may mask behind-the-scenes interaction or even cooperation. But even if the leaders are merely pandering to the expectations of the masses, the very different spins they are placing on the crisis still reveal how differently the Chinese and Americans view the affair.
To the Americans, this whole incident is rather straightforward. Their plane was flying in international airspace while engaged in routine electronic surveillance of southern China. If the PLA had the capacity, the US would fully expect them to attempt similar operations off the coast of the US. Indeed, the PRC has conducted surveillance operations in both US and Japanese waters, using intelligence-gathering craft disguised as fishing boats in lieu of aircraft. If China did use aircraft, the US would also likely react in the same manner as the PRC, launching interceptors to "encourage" the foreign aircraft to move away from their airspace. This was a popular game played by the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War era, and rules were established early on to avoid accidents like the one that occurred off Hainan.
Technology limitations during the Cold War usually meant that surveillance planes had to pass very close to or actually enter enemy airspace. This is no longer the case, and the American planes can carry out their missions from the safety of international airspace. This is a source of irritation to the Chinese, and of late they have been getting overly aggressive in their intercepts, leading to near-collisions on several occasions.
From the US point of view, however, the PLA fighters had no right to approach its plane in international airspace, and the resulting accident was clearly attributable to Chinese recklessness. In keeping with the American belief in the rule of law, they argue that their plane had every right to be where it was, and its subsequent landing on Hainan was fully in accordance with the international rules governing aircraft and sea vessels in distress.
Those rules also stipulate that such vessels, when forced to seek refuge in another country, are considered sovereign territory and cannot be interfered with without the consent of the owners. From the American legalistic standpoint, the Chinese are required to treat the whole incident as a regrettable accident, and promptly return the crew and plane intact, just as they would if it were a stranded commercial Northwest Airlines flight.
The Chinese have a very different take on the whole incident. They very much resent the fact that the US carries out routine surveillance flights with impunity simply because of an invisible line on a map. This resentment is further fuelled by a deep-seated inferiority complex. The former USSR was able to match the Americans in intelligence gathering by launching its own forays into North American airspace, but the PLA currently lacks the technology to carry out such retaliatory surveillance.
RSS