U.S. President’s Personal Envoy in China to
Present the U.S. Government’s Report on
Its Investigation into the Bombing of
The Chinese Embassy in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
The Chinese Government Emphasizes that the U.S. Side Must Give A Satisfactory Account and Explanation of the Incident
On June 16, U.S. President’s Personal Envoy and Under Secretary of State Thomas R. Pickering presented in Beijing to the Chinese Government a U.S. Government’s report on the results of its investigation into the U.S.-led NATO’s bombing of the Chinese Embassy in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan and Vice-Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi met and had talks with the U.S. special envoy respectively. Pickering said, President Clinton and the U.S. Government have expressed apologies to the Chinese Government and people for the incident of the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The U.S. side realizes that no amount of explanation would make up for the personal tragedy suffered by the dead and injured and their loved ones. He has come to China at the instruction of President Clinton as his personal envoy to present to the Chinese Government the U.S. Government’s report on the results of its official investigation into the bombing incident. The U.S. investigation shows that multiple factors and errors in several parts of the U.S. Government were responsible for the “tragic mistaken bombing” of the Chinese Embassy. The different parts of the U.S. Government had three basic failures:
First, the technique used to locate the intended target was seriously flawed. The U.S. intended target was the headquarters of the Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement (FDSP). To locate physically the address of the intended target, two maps produced by Yugoslavia in 1989 and 1996 respectively and a 1997 National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) map were used. None of these maps had any reference to the FDSP building. And none had accurately identified the current location of the Chinese Embassy. The 1997 U.S. Government map shows the Chinese Embassy in Old Belgrade. In the process of locating the target, a U.S. intelligence officer, in breach of operational rules, employed techniques that are used in the field by the Army. These techniques involve the assumption of target locations of a street by comparing the pattern and numbering system of its parallel streets, and they can only be used for general geographic location, but are totally inappropriate for precision targeting for air attacks. Using this process, the intelligence officer mistakenly determined that the building of the Chinese Embassy was the FDSP headquarters.
The second major error stemmed from the flawed U.S. databases. Despite the fact that U.S. officials had visited the Chinese Embassy at its new address on a number of occasions in recent years, the new location was never fed into the U.S. intelligence or military targeting databases. These databases had not been duly updated and still identified the location of the Chinese Embassy in Old Belgrade. Therefore, when the incorrect location of the FDSP building was fed into several U.S. databases for review, none of the databases had detected the error. The U.S. satellite imagery photos did not indicate any clear markings of the Chinese Embassy either.
Third, the target review process failed to detect and correct the afore-said two mistakes. While this target of what was believed to be the FDSP facility came under review, the system of checks that U.S. and European command forces had in place to catch target errors did not at any level reveal the mistake. No one, at any stage in the process realized that the bombs were aimed at the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. As the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was not connected in any way to the U.S. intent to strike the FDSP headquarters, no one had ever tried to consult those who knew the address of the Chinese Embassy. Under these circumstances, the air strike then proceeded as planned. At 2146 Zulu on May 7, 1999, one of the fleet of B-2 bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base (AFB) in Missouri dropped 5 JDAMs- 2000 pound all-weather GPS-guided bombs on the wrong target of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. The air crew had no way of seeing the national flag in front of the Chinese Embassy or any such identifying markers at night and at the speeds and altitudes at which the U.S. planes were flying, neither had they got any idea that they were in fact bombing the Chinese Embassy. The CIA and the Defense Department of the United States are, Pickering said, continuing to interview individuals in the field who were involved in various aspects of the decisions that led to the bombing. Because the NATO air campaign against FRY has only just concluded, it has not been possible to debrief fully every person involved and to reach conclusions regarding responsibility for mistakes that led to the bombing. The internal reviews are still going on in the United States. When these reviews are completed, it will be determined whether any disciplinary action will be taken.The Chinese side pointed out that on May 8, the U.S.-led NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, causing huge human casualties and severe damages to the premises of the Embassy. It has thus trampled on the UN Charter and the basic norms governing international relations and constituted a gross violation of China’s sovereignty. Following the incident, on behalf of the entire Chinese people, the Chinese Government has lodged the strongest protest with the U.S.-led NATO, demanding that the U.S.-led NATO bear full responsibility for it, officially and openly apologize to the Chinese Government, the Chinese people and the families of the victims, undertake a comprehensive and thorough investigation into the incident, publish in detail the findings of the investigation and severely punish the perpetrators. We have taken note of the apology extended to the Chinese Government and people by government and leaders of the U.S. and some of the other NATO member states. We have also taken note that the U.S. side has conducted investigation into the incident. However, it must be pointed out that the explanations that the U.S. side has supplied so far for the cause of the incident are anything but convincing and that the ensuing conclusion of the so-called mistaken bombing is by no means acceptable to the Chinese Government and people.
First of all, it was impossible for the U.S. side not to know the accurate location of the Chinese Embassy in FRY. The U.S. side claims that it made an error in locating the FRY FDSP building due to its use of old maps published by Yugoslavia in 1989 and 1996 and by NIMA of the U.S. in 1997 that had not accurately identified the correct location of the Chinese Embassy. The Chinese side finds it difficult to believe why the U.S. side put so much value on and faith in the out-dated maps published by Yugoslavia. The U.S. side also acknowledges that there are many maps which show the correct location of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia. Why then did the U.S. side not use these maps? In its recent statement entitled Chinese Embassy Bombing, NIMA pointed out that “recent news reports regarding the accuracy of NIMA maps have been inaccurate or incomplete”. Therefore, the argument that the NIMA map contributed to the mistaken bombing doesn’t hold water. What’s more, the Embassy building is of a distinct traditional Chinese architectural style with such clear markings as the national emblem on the facade of the main building and a sign plate at the main entrance. And the FDSP is a public agency which many foreign diplomats have visited. There is a long distance between the FDSP and the Chinese Embassy and there is virtually no exterior resemblance between the two buildings. Equipped with a full array of the most sophisticated reconnaissance means, the United States could not possibly have mistaken the Embassy building for the FDSP building.
Second, everything points to the fact that the U.S. side knew full well the overall layout of foreign missions in Belgrade. As is known to all, the United States had been planning for the strikes against FRY for a long time. Long before the military actions against FRY, it had been photographing, mapping and surveying all parts of Yugoslavia, Belgrade in particular, by various high-tech means. In the many rounds of bombings against FRY targets in central Belgrade, efforts were made to avoid bombing foreign embassies in Yugoslavia that were located in a short distance of only dozens or hundreds of meters from the targets. This shows that the United States was clear about the intended targets and the no-hit targets.
Thirdly, the U.S. claim of locating the FDSP, an intended target for air strike, by employing a method that is used in the field by the Army is not logical. The U.S. side admits that all other targets have been located with other more accurate target locating techniques, why was the army technique of land navigation used to locate what the U.S. believed to be an important target? According to the presentation made by the U.S. side, it took the U.S. military command and its intelligence community and NATO a long time to plan and identify this target. How could they explain that an American intelligence officer would suddenly adopt a totally different target-locating technique in violation of the operational rules? The U.S. explanation is not convincing at all. According to the on-site inspection made by the Chinese side after the bombing, five bombs hit different parts of the Embassy building with 100% delivery accuracy. This proves that the U.S. side had a very detailed knowledge of the building structure of the Embassy and that it must have conducted careful and accurate reconnaissance over it in advance. Fourthly, the U.S. targets databases are updated frequently with clearly distinguished target list and no-hit list. The U.S. argument that the Chinese Embassy was mistakenly fed into the databases as the FDSP does not hold ground.Fifthly, the explanation given by the U.S. side that its review process failed to detect and correct the intelligence errors is inconceivable. Many people in the U.S. know the locations of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade and the FDSP. How could the U.S. intelligence authorities fail to consult any of them? This is against military operational rules and common sense. For the target list, the U.S. side has a whole set of stringent review procedures throughout the process of reconnaissance, identification and final selection. The technical departments concerned would not determine the nature of the intended targets, whether to launch a strike, and if so, how to go about it unless they have no doubt. They would verify, review and modify the target package in the light of changes. With such strict review procedures, it is impossible for errors to occur at every stage and without any of them being corrected?
The Chinese side emphatically pointed out that by bombing the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia, the United States not only encroached upon the state sovereignty and national dignity valued most by the 1.25 billion Chinese people, but also seriously violated the fundamental human right to life. It has thus seriously hurt the national feelings of the Chinese people. The Chinese people sternly condemn and strongly protest against this action. The just position of the Chinese people has gained extensive sympathy, understanding and support from the international community and peoples of the world. The U.S. Government must give full recognition to the serious nature of the bombing incident, give serious. attention to the Chinese Government’s solemn position and demands, conduct a comprehensive and thorough investigation and severely punish the perpetrators so as to give, with concrete actions, a satisfactory account and explanation to the Chinese Government and people.
The Chinese side pointed out that the bombing of the Chinese Embassy constituted an act of international unlawfulness on the part of the United States. The Chinese side demands that the U.S. Government should take full compensation responsibility and make prompt, adequate and effective compensations for the Chinese loss of lives, injuries and loss of property.Pickering stated that the U.S. side understood the feelings of the Chinese Government and people over the bombing of the Chinese Embassy and that the U.S. side recognized its responsibility to report the results of the investigation to the Chinese side. He said, the U.S. side is willing to settle the issue of the Chinese loss of lives and injuries and loss of property and is ready to hold discussions with the Chinese side over this issue. He emphasized that President Clinton and the U.S. Government attach great importance to U.S.-China relations and remain committed to the development of the bilateral relations.
The Chinese side made it clear that the Chinese Government had always attached importance to the improvement and development of China-U.S. relations. But principles must be upheld in developing Sino-U.S. relations. That is, their improvement and development must be based on the basic norms governing the international relations, especially on the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. It is up to one who tied the knot to untie it. Whoever started the trouble should end it. The U.S. side must face squarely the severe consequences that its bombing of the Chinese Embassy has caused to China-U.S. relations, take practical action and handle this incident properly, so as to create necessary conditions and atmosphere for the bilateral relations to come back to the normal track.
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
