18 April 2001
L.F.

The coverage of the Sino-US standoff over the spy plane incident is a typical example of how mainstream British media has appallingly failed its duty to inform the public in a fair and objective manner, especially on issues related with China.

China's insistence on a formal American apology has been repeatedly misinterpreted and ridiculed by "Today" on Radio 4, "Newsnight" on BBC2, and virtually all the 'quality' national newspapers, despite the fact that very few people know at this point exactly what happened on April 1.

Washington claimed the mid-air collision happened in international air space, and therefore the USA has nothing to apologise for. Most people believe this because the collision reportedly happened some 60-70 miles off the coast of Hainan Island. Yet nobody has asked whether there was a smaller Chinese island, a coral reef, or a Chinese naval vessel immediately below the collision? If so, would it still make it international air space? It is highly unlikely that the Americans would let a Chinese military aircraft fly unchallenged over one of its aircraft carriers even if it were over international waters.

Even if we were to assume that the collision did happen in international air space, we should not forget that it took 15-26 minutes before the EP-3 crash-landed on China's Lingshui air base. While they flew into Chinese airspace, they were still conducting surveillance and transmitting data back to USA (the last communication being that the plane had landed safely and all 24 military personnel on board were uninjured). Does China not have the right to investigate this if nothing else?

Moreover, the Chinese claimed that the spy plane landed on the military air field without asking for permission. What prevented the Americans from requesting a clearance for landing, which after all is not a totally unreasonable demand even in an emergency situation?

Fearing that the Chinese would 'steal' their secrets, America declared promptly that the spy plane was US territory that it should be granted sovereign immunity. The legality of this claim went unchallenged and was even championed by some sections of the media. It took five days before the media reported that both American and British lawyers disagreed with this assertion.

Finally, at the heart of matter is the crucial question of who caused the collision? Even the New York Times conceded that "it has not yet been conclusively established whether the accident resulted from the actions of the Chinese fighter pilot, the crew of the American reconnaissance plane, or both". This being the case, is it reasonable for America to demand an "immediate" release of their crew without allowing for a proper investigation? And if the American crew were indeed proved to be at fault, would it still be acceptable behaviour for America to refuse any apology?

The Chinese demanded an apology because THEY BELIEVE, rightly or wrongly, that the Americans should bear full responsibility for the "accident" or "incident", just as the Americans refused to apologise because THEY BELIEVE they have done nothing wrong. Can anyone tell me why the Chinese are singled out here for their "rigidity", "prickliness", and "unreasonable even childish attitude", while the American attitude in the story has received no such treatment? What does this say about the attitude of those British journalists who are supposed to be impartial and unbiased in their reporting?