Long Debate over the US Challenge } 655
passes that the pilot of the PLA fighter had been using to harass the EP-3. Nor
did they fully inform the leadership of the flight characteristics of the large,
heavily laden, propeller-driven US aircraft compared to those of the PLA in-
ceptor. Initial local reports apparently said the US aircraft had turned sharply
and suddenly toward the Chinese plane while the two were flying parallel.
Special-effect animations showing this version of the collision were shown on
Chinese television. The US side insisted that the EP-3 was proceeding straight
and level on automatic pilot when slammed by the reckless Chinese pilot’s
aircraft.
Washington’s handling of the collision struck Chinese, both the political
elite and ordinary people, as arrogant, bullying, and crude. The US side was
the first to publicly divulge the incident, at 5:30 p.m. on April 1, the day of
the collision. According to Sheng Lijun, there had been a number of similar
confrontations in China’s EEZ (more than twenty in 2000 alone), which had
been handled confidentially by the two sides.^30 The Chinese side made its first
statement only five hours after the American one. From Beijing’s perspective,
breaking from previous practice and announcing the incident unilaterally
and without consultation with Beijing was an insult and a manifestation of
hostility. The US announcement made it imperative (for domestic reasons) for
China’s government to take a tough stance. Initial US statements were also ac-
cusatory and full of demands and implied threat. Bush’s initial statement, for
example, called tor a “timely Chinese response” to the US request for access
to the crew. The next day Bush said “it is time for our service men and women
to return home,” adding the threat that “the accident” had the potential to
“undermine the productive relation between our two countries.” Bush also
insisted on the swift release of the plane “without further damage or tam-
pering.” US representatives, including members of Congress, were quick to
raise threats of what might happen if US demands were not quickly complied
with: weapons sales to Taiwan, opposition to Beijing’s bid to host the 2008
Olympics, revocation of China’s Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR)
status, cancellation of Bush’s planned visit to Shanghai for an APEC meeting.
From Beijing’s perspective, this was simple bullying and power politics. It
was China that had been injured and transgressed against, and yet the United
States was making stern demands backed up by threats.
Beijing responded with tough policy. Beijing demanded that the United
States accept full responsibility for the crash. The immediate cause of the
crash, Chinese media asserted, was a sudden turn by the EP-3, resulting in
its crashing into the Chinese plane. The root cause of the episode was the fre-
quent spy activity conducted by US planes along China’s coast and within its
EEZ—all of which was unacceptable and must end, Beijing said. The United
States should apologize to the Chinese government and people, and deliver
to the Chinese government a full explanation of the incident. In spite of US
demands and threats, Beijing held the twenty-four crew members for ten