Plane had right to be where it was: U.S.

By Sridhar Krishnaswami

WASHINGTON, APRIL 14. Even as China is repeating the view that it is the United States that was responsible for the mid-air collision over the South China Seas on April 1 and that Washington must accept ``all the responsibilities'' in the matter, the Bush administration has rejected the contention and is once again demanding that its EP-3E spy plane, now sitting crippled at a military base in the Hainan Island, be returned.

In a high profile news briefing, the Defence Secretary, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, argued that the U.S. plane had every right to be where it was and that it was the Chinese which harassed the aircraft and eventually put the lives of the 24 crew members at risk.

``We had every right to be flying where we were flying. They have every right to come up and observe our flight. What one does not have the right to do, and nor do I think it was anyone's intention, is to fly into another aircraft. The F-8 pilot put at risk the lives of 24 Americans. It is clear the pilot intended to harass the (U.S.) crew'', Mr. Rumsfeld said.

The controversy, especially as it pertains to the release of the EP-3E aircraft, is not yet over. Officials and experts of the two countries are due to meet on April 18, most probably in China, to discuss the matter. And the mood in the Pentagon here is that the Bush administration is going very well prepared and may be even inclined to make public certain evidence to back its claims.

The Pentagon has said on previous occasions that the Chinese pilot, who is now listed as missing and presumed dead, has a pattern of dangerous flying and had buzzed American aircraft very closely in prior incidents. Overall, officials have been saying that in the last one year or more, the Chinese have resorted to some aggressive tactics in and around the South China Seas off the Coast of Hainan, but that the issue had not been taken up in the manner it should have been during the Clinton administration.

China has all along been demanding that the U.S. should ``apologise'' for the collision. The Bush administration, while flatly rejecting this, said ``very sorry'' twice - for the loss of life of the Chinese pilot; and for the EP-3E plane not obtaining permission prior to landing in the military base. In the last two days, there have been reports that the pilot of the EP-3E had been frantically trying to contact the Chinese authorities and it is not clear if the Chinese were tuned into the emergency frequencies.

Meanwhile, with Congress set to reconvene next week after the Easter recess; and the China noise expected to start all over again on a number of fronts, the administration is preparing itself to meet the situation. The starting point is the meaning of the phrase ``very sorry'' and the difference between this and ``apologise''. And the Secretary of State, Gen. Colin Powell, has had the first crack at this.

He likened the mid-air collision to a driver crossing the dividing line on a road and causing an accident with an oncoming vehicle. ``When it is all over and you have escaped, luckily with your life... and you learn the death of the other person, you might reasonably say to the family of the other person `I'm sorry'. But your insurance company would never let you say I accept responsibility and I apologise''.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : International
Previous : Putin Govt. takes over private TV
Next     : Campaign starts for Italian poll