{
  "id": "RL30946",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30946",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 102087,
      "date": "2001-10-10",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:20:03.556941",
      "title": "China-U.S. Aircraft Collision Incident of April 2001: Assessments and Policy Implications",
      "summary": "The serious incident of April 2001 between the United States and the People's Republic of China\n(PRC) involved a collision over the South China Sea between a U.S. Navy EP-3 reconnaissance\nplane and a People's Liberation Army (PLA) naval F-8 fighter that crashed. After surviving the\nnear-fatal accident, the U.S. crew made an emergency landing of their damaged plane onto the PLA's\nLingshui airfield on Hainan Island, and the PRC detained the 24 crew members for 11 days. \nWashington and Beijing disagreed over the cause of the accident, the release of the crew and plane,\nwhether Washington would \"apologize,\" and the PRC's right to inspect the EP-3. In the longer term,\nthe incident has implications for the right of U.S. and other nations' aircraft to fly in international\nairspace near China. (This CRS Report, first issued on April 20, 2001, includes an update on the\nlater EP-3 recovery.)\n  The incident prompted assessments about PRC leaders, their hardline position, and their claims. \nWhile some speculated about PLA dominance, President and Central Military Commission\nChairman Jiang Zemin and his diplomats were in the lead, while PLA leaders followed in stance\nwith no more inflammatory rhetoric. Still, the PLA is likely to benefit from this incident. Despite\nPRC claims that the EP-3 plane caused the accident, it appears that the PLA pilot, executing a close\npass in an apparent attempt to impress or intimidate the EP-3 crew, made a fatal error in judgment. \nInternational law is clear that all aircraft have a right of overflight with respect to ocean areas beyond\nthe territorial sea (past 12 miles out).\n  There are implications for U.S. policy toward the PRC and Taiwan, and defense policy. This\nincident of April 2001 is the third in a series of major troubling difficulties since the mid-1990s that\ncould have serious implications for U.S.-PRC relations. The standoff raised questions about whether\nthe issues of the incident and arms sales to Taiwan should be linked and whether to change the\nprocess of annual arms sales talks with Taipei. A further worsening of political ties could negatively\naffect the business climate in China for U.S. firms and disrupt negotiations over China's WTO\naccession. Airborne reconnaissance remains a vital component of intelligence collection for military\nand other national security purposes. Observers speculate that the chief benefit to the PRC from\ninspecting the EP-3 would be to gather information about U.S. targets and degree of success that\ncould enable them to prepare countermeasures to hinder future U.S. surveillance efforts. The\nincident has potential implications for U.S. military surveillance operations in at least four areas:\noperational strain on the EP-3 fleet, conditions for conducting airborne surveillance missions in the\nfuture, the need for escorts or other protective forces, and using unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) for\nairborne surveillance missions. \n  There are also implications for U.S. relations with allies and others. Japan seems increasingly\nconcerned about PRC assertiveness. South Korea is concerned that a major deterioration in\nU.S.-China relations could undermine its \"sunshine policy\" of engaging North Korea. The incident\nmay add to Manila's desire to revive its security ties with Washington. Australia has concerns. \nMoscow's relatively restrained public response to the incident is surprising and noteworthy.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30946",
          "sha1": "70ae5f9eeeea6aaa64ef7a2c41b7e6bf9ccd191e",
          "filename": "files/20011010_RL30946_70ae5f9eeeea6aaa64ef7a2c41b7e6bf9ccd191e.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20011010_RL30946_70ae5f9eeeea6aaa64ef7a2c41b7e6bf9ccd191e.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Asian Affairs",
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "Industry and Trade",
    "Intelligence and National Security",
    "National Defense",
    "Russian, Central Asian, and Eurasian Affairs"
  ]
}