The rapid resolution to the China crisis came as a pleasant surprise to most international relations analysts. The majority had placed their bets on a long-term prognosis to the American standoff with China. As might be expected, it is President Bush who is reaping most of the positive rhetorical returns.
For Germany’s center-left Suddeutsche Zeitung, the China crisis was a litmus test for Bush’s foreign policy. The paper praised the president for abandoning the harsh initial rhetoric and for learning his first lesson in foreign policy: that “a black-and-white picture is not enough for the description of the globalized world."
The London Times stated that presidents reveal themselves only when tested, and particularly when the test is equally sensitive as unforeseen. It judged Bush’s handling of this incident as reassuring, allowing “old-fashioned negotiation and hard-headed diplomacy to do the work.”
The independent Financial Times called the outcome a triumph of quiet diplomacy and of pragmatism on both sides of the Pacific. The paper commended Bush for allowing common sense to prevail, putting aside his initial anger to adopt a more “emollient tone” and for keeping the Republican hawks at bay.
Conservative Italian commentator, Sergio Romano, was happy to be able to backtrack on comments he had made during the first week of the crisis. The former NATO ambassador praised Bush’s use of this incident as a means for shifting his ear from the hardliners of the Republican Party to the needs of his country.
For Italy’s leading business daily, Il Sole 24-Ore, of the many facets that have been attributed to the U.S. president, the one that fortunately prevailed here was his pragmatism.
The Rightist, Il Tempo, praised Bush’s “low profile and delegating power.” Even the left-leaning La Repubblica commended Bush for learning well his first lesson in foreign policy: that “the unilateral arrogance displayed during the first 100 days in office does not pay.” Only the centrist La Stampa deemed the Bush presidency of having emerged “humiliated” and the incident as “a historic victory for Beijing…for taking on the international role it could not have dreamt of in the past.”
The Frankfurter Rundschau gave credit to the “creative translators”
who dealt with the subtle semantics of an “apology” and to Secretary of
State Colin Powell for asserting his more compliant views over White House
hardliners like Vice President Cheney.
Bonn’s General-Anzeiger also credited Colin Powell’s flexible and acceptable
formulation with being the guiding force that led the United States toward
a rapid resolution to the dilemma.
Although many have praised Bush for his delegating to the diplomats, few have been outspoken about giving credit where most of the credit is probably due. The true quiet behind the scenes diplomacy was the work of the U.S. Ambassador to China, Joseph W. Prueher, a Clinton appointee. Fortunately, Bush had not yet gotten around to replacing him. The retired Navy admiral and former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command is highly respected by the Chinese for telling things the way they are, however unpleasant they might be to Chinese ears. His role was surely crucial in swiftly solving the immediate crisis.
In any case, London’s conservative Daily Telegraph believes that President Bush’s real test is yet to come, that business cannot go on as usual after such an incident, and that it is time for America to perform a thorough overhaul of its China policy. It even suggested a review of China’s vulnerabilities and hinted at the hypothesis of a China breakup, a rather unthinkable prospect. However, the dissolution of the Soviet Union has taught us that the unthinkable is not always unlikely.
The reality is that, diplomacy aside, it was indeed the Chinese who owed us an apology. As both Sergio Romano and our own William Kristol of “The Weekly Standard” pointed out: this incident was no accident. Romano offered political explanations that were leading us down the path toward some sort of clash with China. Kristol’s reasoning was based on the principle of causality: If you play with fire, you get burnt. If you tailgate, accidents happen. If you play close encounter games in the sky, what happened happens. It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when. Kristol’s formula did not include: If you apologize, you get your men back.
What these shenanigans will cost the Chinese in terms of our good will
and a possible further hardening of our policies toward China remains to
be seen. Time will also tell the consequences of the nuances of an
apology that we conceive not to have made and the one that the Chinese
perceive to have received.
April 2001
Return to home page Return to list
Editors interested in subscribing to this syndicated column may request information by sending an e-mail to: giogia@giogia.com