Leave your feedback Share Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/richard-armitage-the-u-s-china-spy-plane-standoff Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Tumblr Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Transcript The U.S. Deputy Secretary of State details the diplomatic story of the U.S.-China spy plane standoff. Read the Full Transcript Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors. JIM LEHRER: Now, the diplomatic side of the story. We get that from the number two official at the State Department, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. I talked to him from the State Department earlier this evening. JIM LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, welcome. RICHARD ARMITAGE: Thank you JIM LEHRER: The meeting next Wednesday with the Chinese – has the time and the place been agreed upon? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, roughly. The time is going to be Wednesday. The place is still a little up in the air, probably Beijing, but it's not nailed down. JIM LEHRER: Who is going to represent the United States? RICHARD ARMITAGE: We'll have a delegation of seven or eight people. That'll be a State and Defense delegation. It is our intention to have the Defense Department lead it. JIM LEHRER: I see. But will it be cabinet officers, or will – or what? RICHARD ARMITAGE: No, no. This is a working delegation. It will be a Deputy Assistant Secretary perhaps. JIM LEHRER: Yeah. RICHARD ARMITAGE: No more than that. JIM LEHRER: But you won't be going? RICHARD ARMITAGE: I certainly won't. JIM LEHRER: Okay. Now, what will be the number one priority of the United States when they sit down at that table? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, I think first of all we'll want an explanation from our point of view of why the Chinese have been engaged in aggressive flying in international airspace when we have our reconnaissance runs. Secondarily, we believe the Chinese have an aircraft that belongs to us, and that they have a responsibility to return it. And third, I think we'll want to see if there's a way we can talk about the recent problems we've had in a non-polemical setting to try to make sure we don't conflict in the future. JIM LEHRER: Meaning, work out some kind of rules of non-engagement for the surveillance flight, that kind of thing? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well that might be a little strong. I think we want to get an understanding with the Chinese that our flights are going to continue. We are in international airspace. After all, they flight reconnaissance in Asia as well, and see that — if we can agree not to be as aggressive, at least on their part, as they have been. JIM LEHRER: Aggressive. Define aggressive. What have they been doing, besides this particular incident? This was part of a pattern, from your point of view, right? RICHARD ARMITAGE: It was indeed a pattern. And we have demarched Beijing — both in Washington and in Beijing — about what we considered aggressive, dangerous flying, where they repeatedly pass within twenty — sometimes ten — feet of our aircraft. JIM LEHRER: Now, going back to the first point, there is going to be a specific discussion about what happened in this incident, correct, up there in the air? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Yes, indeed. JIM LEHRER: And is the United States prepared to prove its position as to what happened? RICHARD ARMITAGE: I think we feel quite confident that we know what happened. We'll be even more confident when we finish our debriefings of the pilot. We have the past history – at least on film – of some of the Chinese fighter behavior. I think we feel quite confident, whether those facts will be persuasive to the Chinese we'll have to see. JIM LEHRER: If something should – should we expect some kind of statement after the meeting about, hey, we agree on this, that this happened, or that didn't happen, or is that even the point of the meeting? RICHARD ARMITAGE: No. I think I don't expect a statement, a joint statement. We haven't gotten that far along in the planning actually. I would hope, however, that at a minimum the talks would be held in a businesslike, straightforward manner. And if that is the case, I think that will indicate something about the Chinese desire of getting on with our relationship. If, on the other hand, they want to engage in shrillness or polemics, then it might indicate that the Chinese haven't quite made up their mind what sort of relationship they want with the United States. JIM LEHRER: How would you characterize their position thus far in terms of those two categories? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, I – holding our citizens for 11 days, demanding apologies before an investigation was even held doesn't seem to be the way that one would move forward to establish a good relation. I hope it's a one off situation and that we can get back on track, but we'll see. JIM LEHRER: Now, getting the airplane back; I assume that we've asked before to get the airplane back, have we not? RICHARD ARMITAGE: We've been asking steadily in our negotiation. Our point of view is that's an $80 million aircraft; it's ours, and that the Chinese have a responsibility to return it to us. JIM LEHRER: What has been their response? RICHARD ARMITAGE: They've been quite quiet thus far on the question of the aircraft, except to say that they had to conduct their investigation. JIM LEHRER: But they haven't said, no, no, no, it's now Chinese property; you can't have it back? RICHARD ARMITAGE: To my knowledge, they haven't said that. JIM LEHRER: Yeah. Do we have any leverage if they do take that position? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, I think the leverage of a relationship – we want to have at least worthwhile — workable relationship with the People's Republic of China. If they decide to be obstinate in these talks, one of the ways that we'd know that is they absolutely refuse to discuss return of the aircraft, and then it may indicate that they're not so concerned about a workman-like relationship. JIM LEHRER: So returning the airplane is a serious issue to us, is that right? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, I think it's a serious issue, particularly as it might be one of the measures with which we judge their intent to move forward in the future with us. JIM LEHRER: Now, you said the surveillance flights are going to continue. Why? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, the President yesterday spoke and said that reconnaissance flights are part of a fabric of our national security, and, by the way, the national security fabric of our allies. So we're absolutely going to continue reconnaissance flights in the international air, so that we can guard our national security and that of our allies. JIM LEHRER: Have you considered the possibility of trying to get that information from other sources in order to avoid this kind of annoyance, or this kind of confrontation? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, I must say we're flying in international airspace; we have a right. Six other countries in Asia, including the Chinese, fly reconnaissance flights in international space, airspace, so I think we have every right to do what we do. Regarding other methods of collecting information, et cetera, I'd refer you to the Pentagon for that, Mr. Lehrer. JIM LEHRER: But as far as the negotiations, the idea of our stopping these kinds of surveillance flights close to China, that is not a negotiable item? RICHARD ARMITAGE: It is not as far as I understand it. I think our President was quite eloquent on this point yesterday. JIM LEHRER: Now the President also said yesterday that this incident with China did damage our relations with China. How will that damage be felt, do you think? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, in the near term, as has been well publicized, many congressional delegations, both Senate and House, decided not to visit China during this recess. Many businessmen have contacted the Department of State, the Secretary of State, himself, asking if China was a stable place to do business; should they engage in business, et cetera. I think in the minds of many of the American public there is a question about a nation, which holds our servicemen, who were innocent, for 11 days as to whether we want to move forward and how much in a relationship with the People's Republic of China. So there has been damage. Now whether that damage can be repaired, I think it can, and so does the President and the Secretary of State, but we have to see that the Chinese want to have a good relationship before we can make a solid judgment. JIM LEHRER: You were involved in many of the negotiations or the discussions with the Chinese over these last 12 days. Can you characterize them for us? I mean, were they hostile? Were they open? Were they friendly? Were they – what words would you use? RICHARD ARMITAGE: I would describe the discussions I was involved in as brisk and businesslike. I think Admiral Preuher in Beijing may have other words; his were somewhat more arduous, some quite lengthy and some relatively short. At the end of the day things got quite businesslike, as we were close to an end. JIM LEHRER: Where did this term "very sorry" come from? RICHARD ARMITAGE: As I recall, it came between the sixth – April 6 and April 8. We had initially suggested that we regretted this incident, and it seemed that the word "sorry" was a natural progression. Our President had drawn a very firm line in the sand on several items, one of which was we were not going to accept the use of the word "apology," because to do so would indicate that we felt we bore some responsibility; we didn't bear responsibility for this action and, hence, we settled on the term "very sorry." JIM LEHRER: And was that part of the negotiation? I mean, there's the word "sorry" and there's the word "very" – did you negotiate "sorry" and then negotiate "very?" RICHARD ARMITAGE: Yes, we did. JIM LEHRER: Okay. And was that as far as the United States was prepared to go? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Yes. The President was quite clear on several items, one of which was we were not going to apologize for something that we felt we bore no responsibility. JIM LEHRER: Just for the record, can you tell us how "very sorry" was arrived at, who said it, whose idea was it, or anything like that? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Success has a thousand fathers, Mr. Lehrer. I'm not quite sure who is going to claim exact paternity for this. JIM LEHRER: Okay. But do you happen to know who was the father of it? RICHARD ARMITAGE: I think we'll leave it with the national security team. JIM LEHRER: Okay. Did China at any time during these negotiations ask for any reparations? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Early on, both publicly and privately there was a suggestion of compensation, but laterally it dropped out of the Chinese talking points, to my recollection. JIM LEHRER: So it never – it never got to be a serious issue about resolution? RICHARD ARMITAGE: No, it didn't, sir. JIM LEHRER: All right. Throughout the discussions, did the United States continue to say what its position was on what happened and then the Chinese say what their position was on what happened? RICHARD ARMITAGE: In this case, we were very fortunate to have Admiral Preuher as our ambassador in Beijing. He, after all, is a pilot, and he was able, we think, to explain rather graphically our view – how impossible or improbable it would be for a relatively slow-moving, four-propeller aircraft to make the sort of turn the Chinese were describing as being responsible for the accident. I can't say that the Chinese were persuaded; we were quite persuaded by Admiral Preuher's argument. JIM LEHRER: Okay. Do you believe that this was a fair and just conclusion for the United States, Mr. Secretary? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, I think we've still got questions about why our people were detained for 11 days and why apologies were demanded before an investigation. But I think that it's a very good outcome for the United States. We handled it diplomatically with the full involvement of the new Bush team. And the President was very much in charge of setting out both our objectives and the parameters in which we could deal. I think the American public should be quite satisfied. Most, importantly of all, we saw 24 Americans – mean and women – returned home. And this Easter they'll be in the bosom of their families; that's a good outcome. JIM LEHRER: What do you say to those who say why in the first two hours did not the Secretary of State call the foreign secretary of China or even the President of the United States get on the phone with the President of China and get this thing resolved at the highest levels? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Perhaps it wasn't ready to be resolved at the highest levels in China. There were some attempts made to contact the Chinese at a high level and it was unsuccessful. You'll remember at the time of Tiananmen it was very difficult to find the Chinese leadership when we wanted to try to bring calm to that very terrible tragedy. It seems to be the case that when very, very difficult issues arrive, it's sometimes hard to get the Chinese to answer the phone. We worked it out over time. We were able to communicate with the Secretary to the Vice-Premier, Qian Qichen, and eventually a successful conclusion was brought. JIM LEHRER: But Secretary Powell was prepared to get involved if the opportunity had been there from the other side, is that what you're saying? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, sure. The President had directed the Secretary to resolve the issue, and the Secretary was doing it. He was quite hands on, as you know, in this negotiation. JIM LEHRER: Sure. Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, two conservative writers, wrote this morning on the op/ed page of the Washington Post "We can kid ourselves all we want, but we have suffered a blow to our prestige and reputation, a loss that will reverberate throughout the world if we do not begin immediately to repair the damage." Are they right about that, Mr. Secretary? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Mr. Lehrer, I'm from Georgia, and we've got an eight-letter word for that in Georgia. JIM LEHRER: Eight letter word? Okay. In other words, you disagree? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, "nonsense" was, of course, the word I was thinking of I think what the Vice President said on the Sunday shows is applicable. Those were absurd comments, which Mr. Kristol and Mr. Kagan insist on repeating, and I don't think it has much resonance with anyone. JIM LEHRER: What about their additional line here that so far the lesson is all too clear – when you bully the United States, the United States searches for a way to apologize? RICHARD ARMITAGE: I don't recognize that we've accepted any responsibility in this accident, hence, we haven't apologized, and they certainly are interpreting the letter in a way that seems to me to leave them alone. JIM LEHRER: No American should have any reason to be ashamed or to be the least bit upset about this whole incident? RICHARD ARMITAGE: I think the Americans have every right to be upset about the incident. I think Americans equally have every right to be satisfied with the outcome. We have our 24 servicemen and women home for these holidays. That's a good outcome. JIM LEHRER: And what we also want now, is that airplane, number one, right? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Yes, indeed. JIM LEHRER: Then what will mend it, from the United States' point of view? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, I think a speedy resolution of this, including the aircraft, would help. I think an indication on the part of the Chinese that they're at least satisfied that there was one blessing in this terrible incident, and that is that twenty-four more lives weren't added to the – to the loss of the one Chinese airman. JIM LEHRER: But you – as a high official of the United States Government involved in this resolution – do you feel that you kind of had an opportunity through adversity to kind of get their measure and for them to kind of get our measure too? In other words, could there be a silver lining here in the long run? RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, I think certainly there could be. If we've exhausted ourselves rhetorically, perhaps we can get down to business. There's certainly a good silver lining, I think, for the Bush administration and the President, and his security team was tested early. I believe we came out all right. I'll leave it up to the judgment of the American people, but that seems to be the case, and that's not a bad thing either. JIM LEHRER: But do you feel that the ability to communicate with China is better now than before, because you went through this terrible — RICHARD ARMITAGE: You'd have to ask that in Beijing. I think we're more confident even than before that we're on the right track. We've got a good team who's able to resolve issues. JIM LEHRER: All right. Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. RICHARD ARMITAGE: Thank you, Mr. Lehrer.