There’s No Map to Chart This Territory

The Sunday morning collision between a U.S. EP-3 surveillance aircraft and a Chinese navy fighter jet over the South China Sea continues to roil the Sino-American diplomatic waters, with no evident end in sight.

Senior officials posted to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing have now met with the crew of the damaged U.S. aircraft, thereby alleviating mounting concerns about the well-being and safety of U.S. personnel. But the two sides seem far apart in their declared positions, with the Chinese laying out a long bill of particulars to both domestic and international audiences, thereby reducing their flexibility and room for maneuver. The Bush administration has wisely opted for a more prudent stance and has avoided escalatory public rhetoric.

However, the prospect of a protracted standoff seems real enough and could portend a serious degradation of bilateral relations. Even as the facts pertaining to the collision remain subject to serious dispute, the fuller context of the recent events continues to be obscured. Despite the daily reports from Washington and Beijing, the fuller story is playing out in the tropical island province of Hainan, until now more renowned for its pineapples, splendid beaches, free-wheeling commerce and corruption scandals than as a locale for a serious Sino-American military incident.

It is not only U.S. officials, though, who want to learn what may have transpired early Sunday morning. Beneath the veneer of facts, allegations and expectations levied against the U.S., Chinese officials must undertake their own investigation of what went wrong over the South China Sea. Though leaders in Beijing have given naval and air force units much more permissive guidance in monitoring U.S. surveillance activities, it defies credibility to believe that the military leadership sought such an incident. By allowing their fighter pilots more latitude over their operations, the risk of dangerous incidents has increased measurably, and senior military leaders must bear definite responsibility.

It is impossible to determine whether China’s leaders are undertaking a reassessment of recent decisions that have now resulted in the evident loss of life of a Chinese pilot and--based on the serious damage to the Navy EP-3--could have easily resulted in the loss of two dozen American military personnel. Indeed, a truly credible investigation would need to be jointly undertaken, perhaps suggesting a path out from what threatens to become a dangerous test of wills between the U.S. and China. But such possibilities will require candor from all involved parties, including the second Chinese naval aviator in the incident and his military superiors. What did that pilot report? How did the two Chinese aircraft come so dangerously close to a slow-moving U.S. aircraft undertaking a routine surveillance mission? How permissive were the pilots’ orders? How did the flight error occur, and what did the remaining pilot report to his superiors upon landing on Hainan minutes before the crippled EP-3?

All these questions beg answers. Yet in the sharp pronouncements emanating from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with clear expectations of political and perhaps financial compensation for the loss of life and equipment, credible compromises are rendered far more difficult and could well become hostage to an inflamed domestic mood within China. No doubt the Chinese continue to rankle over the fact that the U.S. is able to closely monitor its military activities and communications, and leaders in Beijing have clearly been prepared to raise the stakes. But the full ramifications of this course of action have now become evident.

Is the central leadership in Beijing prepared to allow fighter pilots with limited experience in such dangerous operations continued latitude and freedom of action? Are they prepared to countenance other such episodes in the future? Are the central authorities ensuring adequate guidance and control of the activities of their aviation units?

For such questions, we have no answers, but they must be posed. Thus, despite the tensions of the moment, the U.S. and China as great powers must recognize their shared responsibilities to ensure that such episodes and even larger potential crises do not become the stock in trade of military activity in the west Pacific. Both countries are venturing into uncharted territory with one another, and there is not the luxury of time or ready trust. Perhaps far sooner than leaders in Beijing and Washington had anticipated, there is an opportunity and necessity to deal credibly and candidly with one another. This process must begin now amid the beaches and palm trees of Hainan, as implausible a venue for U.S.-China crisis management as could have been imagined only a few days ago.