United States Government / 2001 China Spy Plane Incident
Image Source: U.S. Navy / National Archives and Records Administration, public domain
What Was the Accusation?
On April 1, 2001, a U.S. Navy EP-3E reconnaissance aircraft conducting a surveillance mission over the South China Sea collided with a Chinese J-8 fighter aircraft near Hainan Island. The Chinese fighter was destroyed and its pilot, Wang Wei, was lost and presumed dead. The badly damaged American aircraft, carrying 24 crew members, made an emergency landing at Lingshui Air Base on Hainan Island. Chinese authorities detained the American crew while the two governments disputed responsibility for the collision and the legality of the U.S. surveillance mission and emergency landing.
China accused the United States of conducting harmful surveillance near Chinese territory, causing the collision and the death of the Chinese pilot, violating Chinese airspace, and landing without authorization. Chinese leaders demanded an apology before the American crew could be released. U.S. officials initially rejected responsibility for the collision. Secretary of State Colin Powell said there was “nothing to apologize for,” while Vice President Dick Cheney likewise maintained that an apology was not warranted. U.S. officials argued that the EP-3 had been flying straight and level in international airspace and placed responsibility for the collision on the aggressive proximity of the Chinese fighter.
As negotiations continued, however, the United States increasingly expressed regret and sorrow while carefully avoiding acceptance of responsibility for causing the collision. On April 11, U.S. Ambassador Joseph Prueher delivered a letter to Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan stating that the United States was “very sorry” for the loss of the Chinese pilot and “very sorry” that the damaged EP-3 had entered Chinese airspace and landed without verbal clearance. The wording allowed the United States to express sympathy and regret without conceding that it had caused the collision. China accepted the statement and released the 24 American crew members.
The controversy became a notable case of international apologia because the two governments attached different meanings to the same conciliatory language. Chinese officials could present the statement as the apology they had demanded, while U.S. officials could characterize it as an expression of regret rather than an admission of wrongdoing. The resulting “two very sorries” demonstrated how denial, mortification, corrective action, bolstering, transcendence, minimization, defeasibility, shifting blame, and attacks on an accuser can operate simultaneously during an international diplomatic crisis.
“Reconnaissance flights are part of a comprehensive national security strategy that helps maintain peace and stability in our world.”
“Late Saturday night in Washington, Sunday morning in China, a United States naval maritime patrol aircraft on a routine surveillance mission in international airspace over the South China Sea collided with one of two Chinese fighters that were shadowing our plane. Both our aircraft and a Chinese aircraft were damaged in the collision.”
“We have offered to provide search and rescue assistance to help the Chinese government locate its missing aircraft and pilot. Our military stands ready to help.”
“We have been in contact with the Chinese government about this incident since Saturday night…I will approach our differences in a spirit of respect.”
Secretary of State Colin Powell
“There’s nothing to apologize for. To apologize would have suggested that we have done something wrong or accepted responsibility for having done something wrong. And we did not do anything wrong. Therefore, it’s not possible to apologize.”
“Whatever price the Chinese ultimately pay, they are making it worse in terms of delaying this situation. The sooner we clear this up, the less damage that will be done to the relationship…There are a lot bigger issues that we have to be worrying about with respect to our relationship to China, and the longer they drag out this situation, the more difficult it is to get this relationship back on track.”
“While the administration is still supporting China’s admission to the WTO [World Trade Organization,] if we have to go for a vote on normal trading relations again, this situation has not improved their chances of winning that again.”
“Obviously, when the environment for such [arms sales] decisions becomes heated as it is right now as a result of the Chinese response to this incident of the airplane, it creates political pressure that we’ll have to take into account.”
“Well from what we know from a variety of sources is that there is no basis to believe that our crew did anything wrong, improper, and they were not the cause of the accident. I have seen no evidence to suggest that our plane did anything that was improper or caused the accident.”
“Clearly they have been following us too closely for months. We have demarched [sent a diplomatic protest to] them and suggested to them previously that they need to back off. They know where we are. They come up and trail our planes over international air space. It’s been going on for a long time.”
“We have expressed regrets, and we have expressed our sorrow, and we are sorry that a life was lost. The only life lost to this point was that of the Chinese pilot, and so I think it’s a very proper thing to express our regrets and sorrow over that.”
“The only life lost to this point was that of the Chinese pilot, and so I think it’s a very proper thing to express our regrets and sorrow over that.”
Vice President Dick Cheney
“We’ve made it very clear we don’t think an apology is in order.”
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher
“The president has 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…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…We consider these people detained. They’re clearly not free to go and we don’t have free access to them. I think that, by any definition, is detained.”
“This practice of intercepting our aircraft that fly in international waters or international airspace 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.”
“I’m not going to play word games with you. It’s an accident. It’s an accident. It’s a very regrettable accident, and we’re trying to resolve it in the manner that it should be resolved, without blowing it into an international incident.”
“On the issue of the right to land, we had an aircraft that was clearly in distress once the collision occurred, and it followed standard international procedures. It broadcast a mayday signal over 121.5 megahertz, the international air distress frequency that is monitored around the world, and then it diverted to the nearest air field to save our crewmen’s lives. Our aircraft had a right under international law and under basic humanitarian considerations to make an emergency landing on Chinese territory.”
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
“Well, first let me say that the reconnaissance and surveillance is not new; it’s normal. I don’t know quite what the word is, but a pattern, a rhythm, develops…There is no reason to believe that suddenly the pattern or rhythm of planes flying surveillance and reconnaissance flights and their being intercepted is going to end up in some pilot crashing into another airplane.”
“One issue was whether or not the EP-3 had made a turn into the fighter aircraft. The answer is it did not. It was flying straight and level. It was on autopilot, and it did not deviate from a straight and level path until it had been hit by the Chinese fighter aircraft, at which point it made a—the autopilot went off and it made a steep left turn and lost some 5,000 to 8,000 feet of altitude as the crew attempted to regain control.”
“The F-8 pilot, who later hit our aircraft, made two aggressive passes of the EP-3. On one pass, he came within an estimated three to five feet. On the third pass, he approached too fast and closed on the EP-3 and then flew into the propeller of the outer engine.”
“The airplane was not shot down. It was clearly an accident. You’ve got to know that no pilot intentionally takes his horizontal stabilizer and sticks it in the propeller of an EP-3. He did not mean to do that. I am certain of that.”
“The pilots in the aircraft and the crew in the aircraft were not able to hear well, because the collision had caused pieces of metal to perforate the fuselage of the aircraft, and the noise in the aircraft was such that it made it very difficult for them to hear anything. And therefore, they really could not be aware as to whether or not their distress signals had been acknowledged.”
“With respect to the gear, the crew has a checklist. They went through that checklist and did an excellent job of doing everything that was, I believe, possible in the period of time they had. The crew is being debriefed, and what we know at this present time is that they succeeded in doing a major portion of their checklist.”
“It was a very difficult situation and it took a great deal of effort to get it stabilized on a path that they could enter the airport…They clearly were without specific information as to altitude and airspeed and, therefore, they were undoubtedly using aircraft attitude and feel throttle settings to make judgments, and did a pretty good—darn good job of it.”
State Department Spokesman Phillip Reeker
“Reconnaissance flights are part of our comprehensive national security strategy. They are a part of the national security fabric. We carry out reconnaissance flights as part of our strategy that helps maintain peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region and in our world.”
“Our view is that our crippled aircraft, which was severely crippled in an accident, the full picture of which has not transpired, made an emergency landing following standard international emergency procedures.”
“We also indicated that when our aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing, we are sorry that the entering of China’s airspace and landing did not have verbal clearance. Again, we are very sorry for that.”
“President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have expressed their sincere regret over the missing pilot and aircraft. We are very sorry for the loss of the pilot. A pilot, a father, a husband, a son was killed in this tragic accident, and we are very sorry about that. The President has expressed that and the Secretary has expressed that.”
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
“Again, the basic facts are that the EP-3 was operating in international airspace. It’s the right to fly in international airspace, which is why the United States, as we have said repeatedly, did nothing wrong. It is the government’s right to fly in international airspace around the world.”
“Contacts were made with Chinese officials immediately after the accident, as well as on Sunday, and the President has acted in a way that I think most observers would view as productive.”
EP-3 Pilot Lieutenant Shane Osborne
“Contrary to some releases, our aircraft was straight, steady, holding altitude, heading way from Hainan, on autopilot when the accident occurred. The sharp left turn people were talking about was when the aircraft went out of control.”
“The first thing I thought was ‘This guy just killed us.’ I remember looking up and seeing water, and seeing another plane smoking toward the earth with flames coming out of it.”
Kan, S. A. (2001). China-U.S. aircraft collision incident of April 2001: Assessments and policy implications (CRS Report RL30946). Congressional Research Service. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL30946.html
