Crossfire

How Is President Bush Handling His First International Crisis?

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have allowed the Chinese government time to do the right thing, but now it is time for our servicemen and women to return home. And it is time for the Chinese government to return our plane.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: As the spy plane standoff continues, President Bush speaks out. Tonight: how is the president handling his first international crisis? Is diplomacy the best course of action?

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington: CROSSFIRE. On the left, Bill Press. On the right, Robert Novak. In the CROSSFIRE: Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings of Florida, member of the International Relations and Intelligence Committees; and Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher from California, member of the International Relations Committee.

PRESS: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Some good news tonight: U.S. diplomats report that 24 crew members of the downed U.S. spy plane are uninjured and healthy. But along with it, bad news: they're still being detained as China continues to rebuff President Bush's repeated and more insistent demands to release them, and to release their damaged aircraft, which the Pentagon admits has by now been searched and probably stripped of top secret equipment.

For President Bush, it's his first foreign policy crisis, and Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill are both watching to see how he handles it. Two of them: here in the CROSSFIRE tonight to debate the issues. Has the president been tough enough? Is he doing everything diplomatically possible? What's the exit strategy for this high-stakes standoff between the United States and China?

And tonight, guest-hosting again on the right, Julia Reed of "Vogue" and "Newsweek" magazines.

Julia, good to have you back. Congressman.

Let me ask you first, Congressman Rohrabacher, that the Pentagon -- according to Jamie McIntyre, CNN's Pentagon correspondent -- that the people at the Pentagon are complaining that the White House is being much too mild and much too deferential in this crisis. There are 24 American men and women who are being out hostage -- they haven't called them that, but, in effect, hostage -- in China. Where is outrage? Why such a muted response on the part of the White House?

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: Well, the White House -- first of all, this is a young White House trying to feel the situation out and get their own feeling for power. These are not people who have been in power for the last eight years.

The relationship that we have with China has been handed to them on a plate from Clinton administration, the Chinese obviously believe they can get away with this type of thing, because Bill Clinton let them get away with a lot. And I would think that the response has to be strong on the part of the Bush administration, or the leadership in Beijing will think they can commit other acts of piracy.

This is an act of piracy. We have Americans who have literally been kidnapped, and it underscores that China should never have been considered a strategic partner, as Clinton was trying to push on us.

PRESS: So, do you agree with what we were reporting, as being said at the Pentagon, that President Bush at the White House has not been tough enough, has not been strong enough, that their public rhetoric has been much too going along?

ROHRABACHER: Ask me at the end of the week. We need give the Chinese a face-saving way to get out of this and to back down. Perhaps the people in Beijing were unaware that a local commander did this. It is possible.

But if they don't act quickly within the next few days, we should make sure -- we can take action, we can cancel military -- they have their own military coming over here for exchange programs, they've got scientists coming over here for exchange programs. We can cancel those out, and that is just the first step.

Second step: we can announce that trade with Communist China is now a matter of contention again with the White House, maybe they don't support most-favored nation status. I don't think we should have ever given it to them in the first place.

JULIA REED, GUEST CO-HOST: Look, I think Bush has been handling this exactly right. The problem obviously is with the Chinese. I think Senator Biden had it right today when he said the Chinese have to grow up.

Congressman, don't you agree that Chinese government's response to this situation, which is unsophisticated at best, is indicative of their own disarray? I mean, basically these guys are a bunch of old geezers in transition who have found themselves in a place, and they're too inept to get out of it very smoothly?

REP. ALCEE HASTINGS (D), FLORIDA: That's a naive view of China, and let me be very blunt about it. I have been to China five times in the last three years, and I have met with many of those old geezers, who you speak of, who happen to have great a deal of savvy. In this particular situation, however, I do agree with you. I think that the tone has been properly set by the administration. But even more important, I think perspective has to be added. China is acting -- with the ascension of going into the WTO looming on the horizon. I would think what they are thinking that they wish to leverage as best they can, if anything, specifically dealing with whether or not we make arm sales to Taiwan.

China also wants to have the Olympics in 2008. None of these go unnoticed, but they are, as are we, in some respects, in a first test with this administration, and there is evidence that there is some disarray.

REED: Well, if they want to have the Olympics, and they know that they are being -- their human rights situation is being reviewed again in Geneva, they know that, you know, we are considering selling all these destroyers and arms to Taiwan, how could they possibly think that this is the right way?

HASTINGS: Well, the first thing that you have to understand is the territorial integrity that China asserts. I disagree with them, but dating all the way back to 1958 with Quemoy and Matsu, they claimed the South China Sea as all of their territory. No one is discussing that, but I assure you that that's on the table. That is why they asked for the apology. If they were to get an apology, then we are in effect conceding that they are the shepherds of the South China Seas, and then Japan, and then Korea and a whole bunch of people will go completely bonkers.

ROHRABACHER: So, in other words, they're an expansionist totalitarian power, and we've got to deal with that reality. And we have had eight years of your president talking about them as our strategic partner.

HASTINGS: Well, let me excuse me, Dana, now we say they are strategic competitors, but we had the Nixon administration and the Reagan and the Bush administrations, that dealt with China, to cause us to be able to get to the economic point that we are insofar as trade is concerned. So don't ignore the fact that Republicans have been involved with China, too.

PRESS: I didn't hear Congressman Hastings say that they were expanding their territory. But maybe their influence. I want to come back to this. You know, I'm not suggesting for a second...

(CROSSTALK)

ROHRABACHER: ... you would say they were expanding. The Philippines are facing the theft of the Spratly islands, they're fortifying that -- I have been warning against this for three years, and they are basically trying to rob territory from Brunei, from the Philippines, even from Vietnam.

And this is arrogance, and we let them get away with it, and we let them have a $80 billion trade deficit with us to build up their military. PRESS: I want to focus, if I can, on the present crisis. I'm not suggesting for a second there is any moral equivalency between the United States and China, but maybe sometimes -- I think sometimes it helps to try to see things from the other point of view. I want ask you, if a Chinese spy plane got in trouble and landed in Alaska, how long do you think it would be before we boarded that plane and searched it and stripped it?

ROHRABACHER: Well, if the Chinese spy plane was in international waters, and we basically forced it down, it would it be a whole different situation, wouldn't it? These people -- our plane was in international waters -- yes, it was spy plane -- but we have every right to fly in international waters.

HASTINGS: It was a reconnaissance plane.

ROHRABACHER: All right, a reconnaissance plane. We have every right to fly those reconnaissance planes down in international waters.

This is an act of piracy, and our plane was forced down. It's a lot different than the scenario you're suggesting.

PRESS: No, but I mean, I know we are on a high horse about this, but we go back to 1976, a Soviet MiG lands in Japan. The United States took two months to return that plane, in boxes! We dismantled it and sent it back in boxes! How can we be so pious as to suggest that they give us back our plane intact, while our own record is so bad?

ROHRABACHER: Why are you liberals always bending over backwards like that for countries like Communist China?

PRESS: I'm not bending over backwards.

ROHRABACHER: That plane that was flown there, we didn't force that plane down. We didn't send our fighters out and tip their wings, and try get the to force them into landing in our territory. That was a defector! That was a defector, so a totally different situation, and again, it's not moral equivalency between our countries.

REED: Hang on, the plane right now, though, Bill, is like a secondary issue. What they're also holding is our men...

HASTINGS: Absolutely.

REED: ... and we find out tonight that they're holding them two- by-two, they're not allowing them call out. To me, that is not just unwise, that is a hostile act toward this country.

HASTINGS: Well, Julia, I think in that respect, that you're absolutely correct, and I think all of us would agree that the central focus of the administration and all of us should be the return of some of our finest personnel in the military.

REED: Well, with -- considering what they're doing right now, and considering the way -- that it's been three days going, I mean, aren't -- isn't the Bush administration correct in reassessing our relationship with China? They started doing that long before this happened, as we've just discussed, but why is it wrong to re- characterize our relationship with them?

I mean, why should we call ourselves partners when with all the great sort of -- you know -- camaraderie that Bush -- Clinton administration -- you know, our relationship with them has deteriorated quite a bit. I mean, it wasn't helped, of course, by our ludicrous bombing of their embassy in Belgrade...

HASTINGS: But you know, China is an extremely complex situation. You might want to ask the Chamber of Commerce why it is that we are involved in the way that we are. And they seem to be able to handle these skirmishes -- and I mean that in all sincerity -- with every (UNINTELLIGIBLE) group from Xi'an (ph) to Shanghai, and can tell you that they are vitally interested in the economic circumstances with reference to trade with China.

People talk about China, but nobody argues that Christmastime with those cheap toys, everybody claims that they want them. People say they don't want them to have human rights violations with Nike, and everywhere I go, all over every neighborhood, Nike is everywhere.

So there's a lot of hypocrisy involved in this.

PRESS: Congressman, we've mentioned the crew. I want to ask you, because the terminology means a lot. The White House has been very careful, refer to these American men and women, our servicemen and women who are over there. What are they really? Are they prisoners? Are they captives? Are they hostages?

ROHRABACHER: We'll find out within a few days, won't we? I would say that right now...

PRESS: What are they now?

ROHRABACHER: Well, I would suggest -- and I'm only -- I'm talking for myself.

PRESS: OK, yeah.

ROHRABACHER: I can't talk for the administration.

PRESS: No.

ROHRABACHER: But I can say this was an act of piracy. They are hostages. They are being held against their will. And there's no other way to describe this.

This is not -- they were forced down in someone else's country, and that country has taken possession of their plane and that country is holding them against their will.

This cannot be tolerated or we can expect more of it.

PRESS: When we had hostages the last time I recall, in Iran, Jimmy Carter sent in helicopters to get them out. Is that what you're proposing?

ROHRABACHER: Well, that was -- you know, that was -- it took a long time for him to send those helicopters. We have to give them again a way to back down, to save face, because we don't want this crisis to go on.

But we should learn our lesson from this. The fact is we cannot send a signal to the communist Chinese, as Clinton did over and over again, that we have a weak president who will not do anything when outrages like this are committed against the United States.

HASTINGS: Well, this is the same Clinton that sent troops to Kosovo that Dana didn't support you understand.

PRESS: All right. You're not going to agree on every point. We don't want you to. We're going to take a break here. By the way, Congressman Hastings is going to hang around right after this show and take your questions in our CNN CROSSFIRE chatroom. Cnn.com/crossfire is the address.

We'll be right back and ask the question, if diplomatic measures don't work, what next?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

REED: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. I'm Julia Reed, sitting in on the right. The stalemate in China continues while a U.S. spy plane sits on the ground and its crew is held in custody.

The Chinese may be demonstrating not just their political ineptitude but their innate hostility toward the United States, and they could be destroying any hope of playing Olympic host. Where will it all end? Our guests tonight: Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, member of the International Relations Committee, and Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings, a member of both the International Relations and the Intelligence committees.

Congressman Hastings, today 89 Democrats and Republicans in the House called on Bush to go through with the sale of the destroyers and weapons to Taiwan. Shouldn't we now, specially in light of what's going on, honor our obligation to Taiwan so they can defend themselves adequately?

HASTINGS: Not in deference to what's going on, but in spite of what's going on.

REED: In spite.

HASTINGS: We have a commitment with Taiwan and I think that we should keep that commitment. As to what is going to be sold, the president is going to make that decision this month. And I do believe that you will find that there will be some sales. I do believe that if the Chinese are not careful, they will precipitate a situation where there will be perhaps more of the Aegis system than they expect will be sold.

REED: That certainly seems to be the sentiment where you are on the Hill.

HASTINGS: Yes.

REED: Now, the next issue that you all are going to have to discuss is Bush's proposed missile defense system, and I believe that you're not a huge fan of that.

HASTINGS: I'm not.

REED: But don't you think that that system recognizes the reality of the world today, that you've got a lot of rogue nations out there with missile capability? Why -- it seems to me that China's influencing how we are proceeding with that system.

HASTINGS: Oh, I absolutely disagree. I think the Europeans are just as concerned about the national missile defense system as proposed as is China.

REED: But aren't they concerned as like it apropos to China?

HASTINGS: No, they're concerned more about Russia than they are China. And the fact of the matter is that the integrity of this nation can be violated by those same rogues without having to use a missile.

I personally am much more afraid of bioterrorism and the likelihood of that occurring. It's not a question any longer of when...

REED: Well, it's not an either/or.

HASTINGS: ... I mean if. It's a question of when.

ROHRABACHER: And by the way, I mean, so you're not as concerned about it. What if Red China, which now we can see they're fully capable of doing something like this, suggests to us, well, if you get in our way, you know, we're going to -- they make some threat about blowing up Los Angeles, which they've already done, won't it help to us have a missile defense system to face that type of bullying down?

HASTINGS: Dana, the day you -- the day you find a missile that's going to knock another missile down is the day that you and I won't be alive.

ROHRABACHER: We already have had many tests that have already done that. We've already had -- just a week ago we did that.

PRESS: Star Wars is another debate. Tonight, we're talking about China.

You've taken a couple of pokes tonight, congressman, at President Clinton's dealings with China, which I think were very realistic and very strong, based on the record of President Nixon and President Bush. But I want to look at this President Bush's record with regard to China. If you go back toward last March, he met with the vice premier Qian Qichen, had a very unpleasant meeting where he said, we're going to give you missile defense whether you like it or not. Secondly, he's announced he's going to sell weapons and radar systems to Taiwan, whether the Chinese like it or not. Thirdly, the House GOP has said that they want to block -- written a letter wanting to block the Olympics from being held in China in the year 2008. The Bush administration has said they're going to seek condemnation of China before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. And now, one of their pilots is lost after a collision with our spy aircraft off their shore.

I mean, couldn't you say looking back maybe that Bush is trying to pick a fight with China?

ROHRABACHER: No, I would think that Bush is being realistic, a lot more realistic than Bill Clinton. You just substitute Nazi Germany or militaristic Japan in place of communist China. Communist China is the world's leading human rights abuser. Communist China has been using the $80 billion trade surplus that we've permitted them to have with us to build up their military. China is claiming the whole South China Sea, and bullying their neighbors, trying to wipe out the people of Tibet. This is a China that has to be considered America's worst potential enemy.

HASTINGS: Well, what's your alternative, Dana? What do we do.

ROHRABACHER: Well, let me give you -- my alternative would be...

PRESS: I hate to think what his alternative would be.

ROHRABACHER: No, no, no. What our alternative is, is you stay strong, and you make sure you can defend yourself against a rogue -- not a rogue attack, but a threat from a missile attack from China, and number two, in this case...

HASTINGS: And do you think that we can not at this point -- let me tell you something. The Chinese military is at least 30 years behind the United States military. Now the loss of this plane that's there is a bonanza to them, and everybody recognizes that. But I don't believe even that loss would cause them to be able to come up to speed with the United States military that we have...

ROHRABACHER: They don't have to be up to speed. All they have to have is rocket technology which we gave them in last eight years. Now what should we do now? When we're confronting this situation? The president should announce -- the president should announce that all export-import bank guarantees for businesses, doing -- trying to invest in China are off unless those people are out within 24 hours. And if they're not out within 24 hours all of the -- and by the way I don't think export-import bank should be guaranteeing loans for people to build there in the first place, but at least they'd get the message.

PRESS: Yes, That would really help the American market. Let me just ask you something, maybe, before we send the missiles over. Maybe -- maybe something maybe a little simpler. You know, there's a phone on the desk in the Oval Office that connects with Beijing. George Bush refuses to pick it up, and call president Jiang Zemin and say, "Release those guys and get them home right now." Why isn't it worth a phone call?

ROHRABACHER: OK, because George Bush right now, George W., is giving them breathing room to have a face-saving way to get out of this. The minute he talks to this person personally, his counterpart, then it is between the two leaders. Now it can be a claimed this is between underlings, and that's -- for a few days -- that's worth it.

PRESS: There are 24 American men and women being held hostage, pick up the phone.

ROHRABACHER: Well, Bill, that doesn't excuse an unthoughtful approach. The thoughtful approach is to give them a way to back out of this, and picking up the phone automatically puts their leader in a position of having to back down.

REED: There is another problem innate in picking up the phone. You all may recall that after we bombed their embassy in Belgrade, Bill Clinton did pick up the phone, tried to get President Jiang on the phone, and he refused to take the call. So don't you think, in addition to, I mean, to choosing the wise step of just holding off for these guys to get their act together before that call is made, but don't you think this is,obviously, a wise course, Congressman -- not to pick up that phone?

HASTINGS: Well, under the circumstances, I believe that, if he knew Jiang Zemin, which he does not, that it would be wise for him to call him. Right now, I think, that the face-saving mechanism is being employed, and I do give the administration credit for setting the right tone.

PRESS: Members, thank you very much for coming in. We thank you both for being on CROSSFIRE.

HASTINGS: Thanks, Bill. Thanks, Julia.

PRESS: There must be an answer and Julia Reed and I will find it in closing comments, coming up. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: All right, here's a reminder. You can join Congressman Alcee Hastings in our chat room right now. Just log on to cnn.com/crossfire. He'll be there to take your questions.

Julia, first of all, I think it's important to realize that we don't know the full story of what happened over there. Having said that, this may surprise you: I think George Bush is handling this thing just about right. I mean, assuming he doing everything behind the scenes that they should be doing, and I believe they are.

REED: Of course he is. And he is being very careful that he and Powell are the only public faces here. There's no defense secretary, there's no Vice President Cheney, there's sort of, more hawkish faces out there. He's doing everything exactly right.

He knows that these guys do not have their act together, he's giving them some time.

PRESS: Well, here what -- here's what concerns me though, I mean, keeping his cool, lowering the rhetoric, not letting the hotheads take over, I think, is cool. What concerns me is not this, it's the long run. It's this insistence on missile defense, it's this insistence on arming Taiwan, that is going to really -- it's really a poke in the eye to China.

REED: Oh, and it was a much better plan when Clinton was lulling into the 90s "believe it, these guys were not our adversaries."

PRESS: He never did that. What he said was that this is the largest market on the Earth and we've got to do business with them, just like George Bush did.

From the left, I'm Bill Press. Good night for CROSSFIRE. I'll see you tonight, later in "THE SPIN ROOM".

REED: From the right, I'm Julia Reed. Join us again tomorrow night for another edition of CROSSFIRE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com