• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

State Department Noon Briefing

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

MONDAY, APRIL 2, 2001 - 12:35 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

Q: Richard, do you have any confirmation whether Chinese authorities
have boarded our plane?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't.

Q: Are we checking on those reports?

MR. BOUCHER: I think you'd have to get information - as I read the
reports, you'd have to get information from the Pentagon about that.

Q: Can you tell us what the diplomats now in Hainan are doing and an
update on their contacts with the local authorities or whoever they're
contacting?

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, let me try to go through the whole thing.

Clearly, as the President just said, our first priority is to get
access to our people, speak directly with our crew members. We have
been told that they are safe. We want to talk directly to them. The
Chinese have told us - late morning Washington time, they told us in
Beijing in the Ambassador's meetings that we will have access to our
people tomorrow.

Now, the President made clear that we were troubled by the lack of
prompt access, made clear that we were troubled by the lack of prompt
response, first of all, and then second of all by the lack of prompt
access. It is already Tuesday in Beijing, so we'll see what happens,
but clearly access to tell us that we may have access tomorrow is not
a complete response. We look for early access, as the President said;
we look for prompt access, and we will keep pushing to have that
prompt access tomorrow as early as possible.

The people that we have down in the area are the military attaché from
Beijing, one of his staff, our consular chief from the Consulate
General in Guangzhou. They arrived in Hainan Island on Monday, China
time. We have been having meetings with the Chinese to - as the
President said - to press for prompt access. Our Ambassador met with
Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Zhou Wenzhong in Beijing yesterday.
Under Secretary Grossman called in the Chinese Ambassador in
Washington yesterday afternoon, and Ambassador Prueher met again this
morning with China's Assistant Foreign Minister in Beijing - this
morning our time, so this afternoon. Our Ambassador met again today in
Beijing with China's Assistant Foreign Minister.

We have told the Chinese very clearly we want prompt access, as the
President said. We told the Chinese, as the President said, we expect
them to respect the integrity of the aircraft. We have told them we
expect them to provide for the well-being and safety of the crew in
accordance with international practice, to expedite any necessary
repairs to the aircraft, and to facilitate the immediate return of the
aircraft and crew.

Q: Richard, you said they said you would have access tomorrow, meaning
Tuesday China time?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, they have told us that we may have access, I guess,
tomorrow --

Q: May or will? I mean, there is a difference.

MR. BOUCHER: I guess they told us --

Q: Allow them to.

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, that we --

Q: Oh, may have access?

Q: Right.

MR. BOUCHER: Whatever. That we will be allowed to have access
tomorrow. But I think the point is that is a fairly vague formulation,
as the President made clear in his statement. We continue to press for
prompt access. Tomorrow is just starting in China. We would hope that
access would take place as early as possible.

Q: (Inaudible) daybreak in Hainan, which is another sort of six hours
or so. So does that count as prompt?

MR. BOUCHER: We would want to see it as early as possible. The
President made quite clear we are looking for prompt access and not
further delay.

Q: Richard, what have the Chinese told you is the status of these crew
members? How are - I mean, you are looking for prompt access under
what international standard?

And also, I'm also very confused about this claim that you guys are
making that this plane is somehow territorially the United States? How
do you make that argument that this is - that if they did board the
plane, it would be a violation of US sovereignty?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, I am not in a position to go through a detailed
legal explanation. Our view is that military aircraft have sovereign
immunity under international law and practice. We have made that view
quite clear to the Chinese.

As far as getting access to our air crew, I don't think the Chinese
have said if they are under detention or what they consider their
status to be. We consider that international air crews that make
emergency landings need to be provided with the ability to communicate
and to speak directly with their national government, and that it is
standard international practice and basic handling of an emergency
situation to get them in touch with us as soon as possible. And it is
under that international standard of international practice and law
that we would expect to be able to see them.

Q: But that is a consular access thing, correct? I mean, it would be
almost the same as if someone was arrested and --

MR. BOUCHER: Again, well, that is the question. I don't want to sort
of verge on the point of declaring these people in detention or
something like that. The Chinese - clearly they are located with
their aircraft at a Chinese airfield, and the Chinese need to permit
us to have access. We consider that access to be routine, normal,
under standard international practice. And as you have heard I think
from Admiral Blair in Hawaii, he described the way something like this
would work in Hawaii, and we have made quite clear that access would
be first and foremost on our minds.

Q: Can you confirm that each of the crewmen is being held separately,
and do you have any information from the Chinese about their
conditions right now?

MR. BOUCHER: What we have been told is that they are safe and that
they are well. And we appreciate that, but we need to speak to them
directly for us to find anything more out about the conditions and the
situation.

Q: Richard, I know you've told us about the diplomatic contacts so
far. Are there any further contacts planned today with calling of the
Chinese Ambassador in, perhaps?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any schedule at this point. I am sure that
there will continue to be contacts. Many of these contacts have taken
place over the phone. Some have taken place in person, like Under
Secretary Grossman's discussion with the Chinese Ambassador yesterday.
So I am sure they will continue, but I don't have any particular ones
to cite for you.

Q: Could these contacts be described as including the lodging of
formal protests or anything along those lines?

MR. BOUCHER: I have described them the way I have described them, and
I'll leave it at that.

Q: And the plane is going to be there until it's able to fly. Is the
United States going to, in addition to making a request for contact
with the crew, going to request permission to leave the crew with the
plane until the plane is airworthy and can get out?

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we are talking to them about the safety and
well-being of our crew, about the need for prompt access, about the
need to expedite any necessary repairs to the aircraft and facilitate
the immediate return of the aircraft and the crew. Clearly, how
exactly that occurs will depend on our judgments of the airworthiness
of the aircraft and things like that. But this process has to begin as
early as possible, and the President made quite clear prompt access
was our chief concern at this point.

Q: Richard, does the United States at this point view the incident as
an accident or as a provocation by the Chinese? Were they trying to
force the plane down somehow?

MR. BOUCHER: We see this as an accident, as a mid-air accident. That
is what we know. The Pentagon has discussed it. Obviously we had two
airplanes that suffered damage: the US aircraft that was forced into
an emergency landing and the Chinese aircraft that has gone missing.
Obviously we are as concerned about the loss of their aircraft and are
prepared to help them with search and rescue, as we've said.

Q: There was at least one report, though, that the Chinese jets had
fired warning shots. Do you have any information on that?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any information like that. Again, you can
check with the Pentagon or with the Pacific Command people about any
more details that we might know of the exact situation and the
incident. I know about the diplomatic side of things.

Q: Have the Chinese told you why they won't let the crew speak to
Washington?

MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of.

Q: Have the Chinese made demands on the US? Have they demanded an
apology? They seem - they say this is the US fault. They claim that
this was international waters. Is there anything that they have
demanded from us, and do we accept their premise that this was not in
international waters but in Chinese?

MR. BOUCHER: I think both the Chinese and the United States have said
it was some, what, 70 miles to the south of Hainan Island. I think
their numbers and our numbers were fairly close together. I don't
think there's much dispute about where the situation occurred.

As far as what they have demanded, I have seen a few things in public.
I frankly don't know what they might have said in private. I would
just make the point that we think that international practice and law
require them to give us prompt access, and that remains our chief
concern here.

Q: Richard, you say they haven't given you prompt access at this
stage, and you say it is a requirement that they do. Are there any
repercussions for China-US relations, and what consequences are there
if they - if you don't get prompt access Tuesday, China time?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we will start speculating after things occur,
rather than before they don't occur.

Q: What about the - any damage so far?

MR. BOUCHER: No, at this point, I will just say this is a very
important issue to us. We have made very, very clear our concerns
about this situation, our need for prompt access, the fact that we are
concerned and troubled by the lack of timely response and the lack of
timely access. The President has made that clear in his statements at
the highest levels of the US Government.

Q: When you say that the Chinese have to respect the integrity of the
aircraft, is there some international convention to which they are a
party that governs this kind of an incident and that kind of
situation?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, I am not in a position to do the full
interpretation of international law, but it is clearly our view that
military aircraft have sovereign immunity under international law and
practice, and that is what we consider to be a well-established fact.

Q: Has China accepted that view in the past, or is there any
indication that they have asserted it?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. You would have to ask them.

Q: Richard, I'm a little unclear on the crew itself. Do we know where
they are physically? Are they on the plane, are they somewhere else on
the base?

And secondly, could you talk a little bit more of Secretary Powell's
role in this whole thing?

MR. BOUCHER: As far as exactly where the crew is located at the
airfield, no, I don't know. I'm not sure if the Pentagon has any more
information than I do on that. Clearly we haven't spoken to them. We
haven't had the access that we think we need and that we think that we
deserve. Those kinds of concerns, those kinds of questions about their
location and condition, can be answered by letting us speak to them.
So that is another reason why we want it. We have been assured by the
Chinese that they are safe and that they are well. We certainly
welcome that news, but we need to speak to them ourselves.

Q: The promise of access Tuesday was conveyed by whom to whom?

MR. BOUCHER: By the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister to our Ambassador
this morning, late this morning Washington time.

Q: And you say that this is common international practice. Are there
any precedents you can cite where a plane has gone down in similar
circumstances, and it has not been touched by the country in which it
landed? A Russian, a Soviet plane that landed here, or Chinese planes?

MR. BOUCHER: I would have to do a more exhaustive search on that.
Maybe the Pentagon has that information.

Q: Richard, the other part of the question was: Could you talk to us
about Secretary Powell's role in this whole thing?

MR. BOUCHER: Secretary Powell's role. This Secretary has been working
on this issue throughout the weekend. I think Admiral Prueher had
counted six phone calls from the Secretary over the course of the
weekend. The Secretary has remained in close touch with him, in close
touch with the other people in this building that are working on the
issue, and talking to the Chinese Embassy, Under Secretary Grossman
and the people from the East Asia Bureau. So he has been basically
organizing our efforts on this matter, organizing our diplomatic
efforts on this matter, working closely with Dr. Rice, Secretary
Rumsfeld, on the various other aspects of the matter, and keeping in
very close touch with our representatives, with his representatives,
as they go to meet the Chinese.

Q: Richard, maybe this was covered over the weekend, but was there --
do you know of any attempts after the incident and before the plane
landed in Hainan to inform the Chinese in advance that it was coming
through diplomatic channels or --

MR. BOUCHER: Not that I am aware of. I think you would have to go back
to the Pentagon for some indication of how long it took. But they were
70 miles south of Hainan Island. They declared an emergency landing,
and they landed in southern Hainan Island, so I can't imagine there
was much time involved between the moment that they had to declare the
emergency and make the landing.

....

Q: Can I go back to the plane for one second? You said there were, I
think, three - there's the defense attaché and his assistant?

MR. BOUCHER: There are three people down on Hainan Island, yes.

Q: From Beijing?

MR. BOUCHER: From Beijing.

Q: And one from Guagzhou?

MR. BOUCHER: The consular section chief from our Consulate General.

Q: Are there plans for any more to go, or is that - would that been
seen as kind of too many cooks?

MR. BOUCHER: I think those are the people that we felt could go down
and fulfill the immediate need to speak to our crew and have access.
How things would evolve in terms of repairs and repatriation, that
could involve other people and different people.

Q: Okay, so at the moment, there are no plans to send anyone else?

MR. BOUCHER: At the moment, these are the people that are down there.

Q: Okay. And can you look into, for maybe later on in the day clarify
exactly this - how you've determined that this military plane is
territorially sovereign?

MR. BOUCHER: I think - I'm trying to be careful with the words, too.
I'm not sure whether sovereign territory and sovereign immunity are
the same thing, but we think the aircraft carries sovereign immunity
and therefore its integrity needs to be respected. And we think that
is a well-established principle of international law and practice.

Q: Can you say whether there have been - before this incident,
whether the US had been concerned about Chinese planes getting very
close to US planes in what we considered international waters and what
they did not, and whether we had gone to them to discuss a problem
that we felt existed?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, I question the premise as to whether they don't
consider this to be in international waters or international air
space. I haven't seen any dispute on that point. This practice of
intercepting our aircraft that fly in international air space is one
that we have obviously seen for some time in the past, and we have
been concerned over time about the way these intercepts have been
carried out. So we have been concerned about this fact that there is a
-- I think one of our admirals described it as a fairly aggressive
practice of intercepting our aircraft.

And we have raised this issue in the past with the Chinese. We have
raised it largely in military-to-military channels at high levels. We
have a military maritime consultative agreement that was signed last
year by the Defense Ministers, both sides. That is a forum for
discussing these sorts of things. They have discussed the Chinese
intercept practices in the past at those meetings, and there is
another meeting coming up in San Francisco in a few weeks, so we would
expect to raise it again there.

Q: Richard, I might have missed it earlier but I was wondering, have
the Chinese given us any indication why they are denying access to
these people?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any explanation for you. You'd have to ask
them.

Q: Have they expressed any?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, you would have to ask them for any explanation
they might want to give.

....

Q: Does (inaudible) have the right to question this crew or - and if
they don't, has the United States, you know, in a similar way notified
the Chinese that they're not to be, you know, put under interrogation
or questioning?

MR. BOUCHER: I guess I'd have to look. That is kind of a slight
wrinkle on what we have said that I would have to look up and find
out. I'm afraid it is just not a question I asked. I will try to find
out for you.

Q: On this question of sovereign immunity, I actually saw a report as
I was leaving my office that the Chinese had come on the plane. Do we
have any indication that they have? And if they do board the plane in
any way, that's a violation presumably of this immunity, and does it
bring any consequences?

MR. BOUCHER: I was asked that question about 15 minutes ago, and I
referred people to the Pentagon to find out the facts. And as far as
speculating on the consequences, I don't want to speculate at this
point.

Q: How are these things being handled diplomatically? Are they all
being in separate baskets; for example, the Americans that are being
held and the access to the airplane? I know there are a number of
other issues regarding sale of arms to Taiwan, the US pushing for
denunciation of China in Geneva. Is either side bringing up these
other issues, or is it just one thing at a time? You're juggling? When
the Ambassador meets with the Ambassador, does he --

MR. BOUCHER: It is kind of a hard question to answer because the
answer is yes and no, or both. But clearly each of the issues that are
of concern to us we raise at the appropriate time and the appropriate
channels in our relationship. One day it may be a human rights case,
the next day the consular chief, or the same day you may have one
person, the Ambassador, raising one case and the consular chief with
his legal counterparts on the consular side raising the question of
obligations under the Vienna Convention.

At the same time, when we have high-level meetings like the visit with
Qian Qichen that occurred, they handle a number of issues, and the
Secretary or the President in these cases makes quite clear how these
different issues fit into the overall relationship and the pattern of
the kind of relationship that we would like to have. And clearly,
given the fact that we do want to have a productive relationship with
China, that meeting obligations under consular access or following
standard international law and practice with regard to access to an
air crew that has made emergency landings, those become factors in the
overall relationship that we would like to have.

Q: Have the Chinese been attaching issues that they are upset about or
concerned about to this case? Are they - when you talk to them, do
they mention other things?

MR. BOUCHER: Not that I am aware of. I would have to double-check to
see what they have said. I am not here to report on what they have
said in these meetings. I am here to report on what we have pressed
for and what we think is standard practice and something that we would
expect to happen. So if anybody does attach conditions to visiting
with an air crew that has been downed in an emergency landing, that
would not be appropriate.