Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Can Jesse Jackson Help Get a U.S. Air Crew Back From China?

Aired April 10, 2001 - 15:00   ET

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

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

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're working behind the scenes that every diplomatic channel open.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: And now the reverend Jesse Jackson wants to open one more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REV. JESSE JACKSON, RAINBOW/PUSH COALITION: I've done this before. I kind of know how to do it. We know that thin line between governments and people diplomacy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Jackson's done it before, escorting hostages out of Syria, Iraq and Yugoslavia.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: If our governments cannot take that step, then maybe an ecumenical body of religious leaders in fact can close that gap.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Is he the right man to deal with the Chinese?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES SASSER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO CHINA: The Chinese are negotiating just as they always do or when they hold all of the cards. They're going very slowly, going very painstakingly and drawing it out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN CHI, HAINAN PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT: Hainan people demand the U.S. side stop the spying activities and apologize to the Chinese people for this incident. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: And that's exactly what Jackson says the U.S. should do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: The difference between apology, regrets and "I'm sorry" is not a good enough distinction to leave the American soldiers there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Are the U.S. crew members detainees or hostages? And is Jackson the man to bring them home?

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. The Reverend Jesse Jackson says he is ready to go to China, and he is confident that he can secure the release of the 24 Americans being held there. But is it time for him to become a player?

Let's see where the negotiations stand so far. Joining us first today is CNN national security correspondent David Ensor.

And David, some tougher, stronger words from the Bush administration this afternoon.

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, perhaps, yes, Bobbie. You know, sometimes the news is what doesn't happen. And what has not happened Tuesday, either Beijing time or now in Washington, is any sort of high level meeting between the United States and China about the fate of the 24 crewmen. That's the first time in many days that the two governments have not met at a high level to discuss it.

Now we asked officials here why not, and were they concerned, had the talks broken down? And they say, no, they're not, that basically, as they put it, the U.S. has made quite clear, quote, "That we've done as much as we can." And they said that the Chinese government is now considering the U.S. offer, and U.S. officials are waiting patiently, or in some cases impatiently, for the Chinese response to the U.S. offer. So the implication is that the U.S. doesn't have much more give in this position, maybe no more give. And they're waiting to see if the Chinese are ready to take yes for an answer, or not yes for answer. The U.S. is not ready to apologize, but to take what the U.S. is willing to offer as a proposal for ending the impasse, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: And I assume that we don't know the details of what's in that offer?

ENSOR: Well, we know that a letter is being discussed, the language of a letter. And we know that every single word of that counts, and the translation to Chinese matters, too. We know that the U.S. is not willing to put the word "apologize" in that letter, but that the letter expresses regret and sorrow over what looks like the death of a Chinese pilot, a loss of that plane. We also know that the discussions are around what would happen after that, and there is a proposal that there be a commission, possibly a maritime commission that already exists, that would look at this issue, try to figure out if there's any blame that needs to be assigned and also try to figure out how to prevent this kind of incident from becoming an international matter -- an international problem in the future, because there are going to be such incidents in the future. That, most people agree with the emerging power of China -- Bobbie.

BATTISTA: So the ball is now in China's court? Is that correct?

ENSOR: Well, that's right, that's right. By the way, you mentioned Jesse Jackson, and I would just like to say that officials here say that -- they confirm that Mr. Jackson spoke with Secretary of State Colin Powell this morning, made the offer to act as an emissary if the administration was interested in that. Officials here say that Mr. Powell thanked him for that but said that the administration would prefer to continue to negotiate with the Chinese through the normal, official channels -- Bobbie.

BATTISTA: All right, David Ensor, thanks very much for bringing us up to date. We appreciate it.

Let's bring in our other guests at this point now. Clarence Page is a columnist and a member of the "Chicago Tribune's" editorial board. And Carl Limbaucher is lead columnist with Newsmax.com. He is co-editor of "Bitter Legacy, Newsmax.com Reveals the Untold Story of the Clinton-Gore Years."

Welcome to both of you. Good to see you.

CLARENCE PAGE, "CHICAGO TRIBUNE": Thank you, Bobbie, you, too.

CARL LIMBAUCHER, NEWSMAX.COM COLUMNIST: Hi, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Clarence, let me start with you. Obviously, Reverend Jackson, if he chooses to go, can go as a citizen diplomat; he doesn't need the U.S. government's approval to go. But considering the tricky nature of this situation, do you think that's appropriate at this time?

PAGE: Well, every time he has gone overseas on a mission like this, we have debated whether it was appropriate or not. You just heard, of course, that there's no talking going on right now. We are at an impasse. The U.S. says they aren't going to move and China says the same thing. We've seen this scenario when Jackson went to Syria in 1984, when he later went to Iraq to free a number of human shields -- women and children -- when he talked to Castro and freed over 40 American and Cuban political prisoners. Jackson's good at this sort of thing. This is the kind of set up that seems right now tailor-made for him to help break the impasse, so why not?

BATTISTA: Well, Carl, Reverend Jackson may have nothing to lose in this situation, but might the United States? LIMBAUCHER: Well, absolutely. And I think that's the problem. Reverend Jackson has made no secret of his intention to offer the Chinese an apology on his behalf, I'm not quite sure. But that's very important, because one of the reasons the Bush administration, perhaps the key reason the Bush administration has declined to offer such an apology is because we intend to continue flying just those kind of surveillance flights over the South China Sea. And with China as the emerging, dare I say threatening military power that it seems to have become, it's important that we keep that kind of military option open. If Jesse Jackson is over in Beijing apologizing for it, the next logical step -- in fact, the Chinese have said as much -- is that they want us to stop those flights.

BATTISTA: You know, he's not authorized to apologize on behalf of the U.S. government, so I suppose he could couch that and say that this is his own personal apology. But, obviously, that -- I don't think that would be enough for the Chinese government, so is it kind of a wash whether he apologizes or not?

What do you think, Clarence?

PAGE: I'm sorry, who are you calling on? Me?

BATTISTA: Either one of you jump in.

PAGE: OK, well, two things, I'd like to respond. First of all, Ambrose Bierce, a great journalist and curmudgeon of a hundred years ago, said apology sets the stage for future offense. I would point that out in saying that apology will set the stage for our future intelligence operations regarding China.

Jackson gives the administration plausible deniability. He is speaking for himself, not for the administration. He did the same thing with Castro, with Syria, with Iraq. What he does is to set the stage for the release of the detainees.

China, it is not in their interest right now to let this crisis go on. It's not in the U.S. interest either. Jackson provides that sort of a third-way player who is not on either side's hip pocket, so to speak.

BATTISTA: Let me read a couple of quotes here from Reverend Jackson throughout the day when he's made some appearances on CNN and we've asked him about this. This morning, he said, "There comes a time when governments hit an impasse, that maybe citizens or religious diplomacy can bridge that gap," which obviously that's worked in his favor in the past.

But, Carl, religion doesn't mean quite the same thing in China as it does in other parts of the world, so is that a help or a hindrance here?

LIMBAUCHER: Well, that's exactly right. Reverend Jackson's foray comes at a time when the Chinese are busy persecuting the Falun Gong and Christians throughout Communist China. It's also, I think, particularly unwise that he makes this trip. He said earlier today that he doesn't need and doesn't intend to get -- coordinate this with the White House. He can go without White House permission and White House sanction. I think that would violate a very important principle in this very precipitous situation where -- with Reverend Jackson over there, the Chinese would see the United States not speaking with one voice and perhaps being able to turn his presence into a massive propaganda tool in their favor. This is, after all, the man who accused President Bush of using Nazi tactics in Florida.

BATTISTA: Then again, do we know that the Chinese are speaking with one voice either?

PAGE: No, they're not. In fact, China is going through a succession controversy right now. There's not a strong leader there. A year and a half from now, the Communist Party is due for a leadership shakeup. Everybody's trying to position themselves, and this has given the military an undue amount of influence in this current crisis. Nobody there in the middle wants to offend their hard liners, and this is part of the problem.

Reverend Jackson has got a respect throughout the third world, throughout the developing world, including China. He has a position that enables the propaganders, the leaders in Communist China, to be able to say, "Well, here's a man who speaks with the real voice of Americans, not like those capitalists, running dog lackeys," blah, blah, blah, "in the White House." Jackson has used that to his advantage in dealing with Fidel Castro, another Godless, fascist state, if you will, and with dealing with Milosevic, with Iraq, et cetera. He's experienced at this sort of thing.

LIMBAUCHER: Can I just step in and point out that Clarence is right about the military running the show right now, at least in this situation. We've seen -- all seen the pictures over the weekend of Defense Minister Chi Haotian sitting with the widow of pilot Wang Wei. General Chi, as recently as last year, stated that war -- he believed war with the United States was inevitable.

You now have in charge of the hostage situation right now a gentleman by the name of General Huang Gong Kai (ph). He was the very same individual who, during the 1996 China-Taiwan standoff, threatened to use nuclear weapons against the United States, Los Angeles to be specific, in that standoff. So you've got more than just hard liners here. And I think with Reverend Jackson interjecting himself in this situation, he runs the risk of giving aid and comfort to at least folks who are behaving very much right now like the enemy.

BATTISTA: Let me get a feel for where some folks in the audience feel about this. Don, go ahead.

DON: Yeah, Bobbie, thanks. I really feel with the controversy surrounding Jesse Jackson at this point that I, as an American citizen, would not really support him as kind of our emissary, whether it was official or not. I don't feel like he would be a good representative of the people of the United States at this point.

BATTISTA: Whether it's Reverend Jackson or not, do either of you, Carl or Clarence, feel like it's time for a third party to intervene here?

PAGE: Yes.

LIMBAUCHER: I disagree. I don't think it's particularly appropriate for a third party, be it American or any other body -- the UN, what have you. This is strictly a confrontation between the U.S. and China, and it's something that those two administrations, those two governments should deal with and square off about right now.

BATTISTA: All right, I've got to take a quick break here, and then we'll check again with the audience. Got a bunch of e-mails coming in. As we do, the question for the day: Do you think the servicemen and women held in China are hostages? Take the TALKBACK LIVE online viewer vote at cnn.com/talkback. AOL keyword: CNN. And we'll be talking about just a little bit later on in the show. We'll be back right after the break.

ANNOUNCER: Jesse Jackson went to Syria in 1984 to obtain the freedom of a Navy pilot shot down over Lebanon. A few months later, he negotiated the release of 48 Cuban and American political prisoners in Cuba.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Diplomacy sometimes takes a little longer than people would like. I urge this -- urge the Chinese to bring resolution to this issue. It's time for our people to come home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Let me do a couple e-mails here. I don't have a name on this one but the e-mail is: "Considering his past successes, I think Jesse Jackson has a great idea. This way, if any apologies are made, it would be a philosophical one, not something to do with our government. George W. Bush had better think long and hard at this offer. I am 100 percent for it. Go Jesse."

Sharon in Toronto, Ontario says, "I really believe Jesse Jackson should stay out of the U.S.-China incident. I think he's using this crisis to bolster his failing popularity. He could actually do more harm than good by going over there."

To the audience, and Betty. Let me do you first.

BETTY: Well, I just think that at this point, they are at an impasse, so with Jesse going there and starting some more communication, given his track record, I don't see how he can make things any worse. I mean, the longer you stand off, you know, I think they're creating more problems and causing more hard feelings.

BATTISTA: Kelsey, you're not ready quite to send him over as envoy?

KELSEY: Not just yet. I think the first thing that we have to do within our own camp is be on one accord. Yes, the Reverend Jesse Jackson does have an excellent track record. However, before you make any type of move to go over in any capacity, we need to be on one accord: the Reverend Jackson with the president of the United States and any other official who has a key role in this situation. This is not something where a man -- not to say that the reverend Jesse Jackson may use this as a public relations-type situation, that's not to say that. But this isn't about one man being the hero. This is about our country and their country coming together and making peace.

BATTISTA: And let me take a phone call from Naima on the phone from Ohio.

Naima, go ahead. Naima, are you there?

She's not there. I think we've lost the phone call.

You know, right now, gentlemen -- Clarence and Carl -- it seems like for the most part, the American public seems to be patient and supportive of President Bush and his handling of this situation so far. When does that run out? I mean, at some point in time, that can turn on the president, although obviously, the longer this goes on -- when does that happen? Do we know?

PAGE: You're absolutely right, Bobbie. I think already we can see damage being done. First of all, China's image. Some of China's most fervent boosters are very critical of their actions right now. At the same time, American people, as your own polling shows today, are beginning to say, "Hey, these folks are hostages. Our 24 servicemen and women over there are hostages." That's the way China is dealing with them, holding them. Maybe a lovely officers quarters they have them in. The meals may be good, and they may have e-mail services, but they're held against their will. That begins to sink in after a while and pressure begins to build. I think, that's another reason why Reverend Jackson picked good timing to come forward now.

He said on your air earlier today that there are some people who are so hateful in his view that they would rather see our service people stay there than to be released with Jesse Jackson's help. I wish that weren't true but it is true. There are a lot of people would rather Jesse Jackson stay out of it even if it means our service people stay there longer. But over time, more and more Americans are going to agree: Let's get them out.

BATTISTA: Nobody likes to use the "H" word, shall we say, Carl, but is that what they are in your mind, also?

LIMBAUCHER: Oh, yeah. And I've been using the word "hostage" for the last three days in my Newsmax columns. I don't have a problem with that word. They're being held in exchange for pending an apology, so that's good enough for me.

I think, you know, the notion that we're at an impasse, that patience is about to run out, if there's any -- the American people are going to lose patience with anyone. As long as the American media reports things accurately, I think it will be with the Chinese government. And in fact, we're not at an impasse in the sense that we don't have any options. In a week or two, Congress will be back from their Easter recess, and at that point, you'll be treated to all sorts of resolutions, everything from canceling China's participation -- ability to host the Olympics in 2008 to perhaps suspension of most favored nation trading status. As Chinese dissident Harry Wu said at recently as this weekend in an interview on New York radio, America basically holds all the cards on this standoff. If we play them correctly, the Chinese have a lot to lose. And the sooner they realize that, the sooner our men and women are going to be returned.

BATTISTA: Nicole in the audience, go ahead.

NICOLE: I agree that it's a hostage situation when people aren't allowed to go home, and they don't have any rights to leave and we can't do anything about that. That's definitely a hostage situation.

BATTISTA: I had a question in my mind but I can't remember what it is, so I'm going to take a break, and it'll come back to me, I'm sure. It's that getting older thing, you know. We'll be back in just a minute.

ANNOUNCER: Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura said last week that he plans to proceed with his plans for a business development trip to China in the fall. He plans to visit several cities, including Hong Kong, Beijing and Shanghai. A Ventura spokesman said he would reconsider if asked by the State Department.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: E-mails once again. Troy in New York: "As one American to another, I respectfully request that Mr. Jackson not go. I believe he could be more effective by staging protests at the Chinese embassy and by boycotting goods made in China. Glenn in Washington, D.C.: "China is not only holding our servicemen and women hostage but our nation as well. Through bully-like tactics, they seek not only an apology but to influence our nation's foreign policy. The last thing President Bush should do is apologize for their arrogance."

Naima on the phone with us from Ohio. She's back.

Go ahead.

CALLER: Yes, I agree. I think that Reverend Jackson would be the perfect one to go. He's demonstrated his ability. And another thing that he has demonstrated I didn't think we're really looking at is the ability to be humble, to humble ourselves in order to make a compromise, in order that we can have peace. And this is going to have to be learned in any of our dealings with any people, and even with -- between each other. We have to learn to be humble. And I think Jesse Jackson is a perfect example of having to humble himself before God and the world to account for some maybe his high hand in this or his power tripping, OK?

BATTISTA: Naima, thanks very much. I appreciate your comments.

Carl, some people would say that should the United States or President Bush look humble, you risk looking weak and vulnerable and not taking the position that perhaps we should. I don't know. What do you think?

LIMBAUCHER: Well, Naima said that Jesse Jackson was bold enough to humble himself. Well, he did that because he did several things wrong. And I'm sure your audience knows what they are, so we don't have to recycle that information. But in this instance, the United States has done nothing wrong. They were in international waters. The Chinese are basically behaving like international kidnappers at this point. That's not a position with which it would be wise to negotiate. I mean, no one has used the word "terrorists" yet but these are really terrorists tactics that Beijing is using. And when Ronald Reagan negotiated and traded arms for hostages back in the mid- '80s, got into a whole lot of trouble. The American people weren't very happy. We don't want to get into that kind of situation now. And I think the Bush administration realizes that. I hope Jesse Jackson eventually does, too.

BATTISTA: Clarence?

PAGE: Well, Jesse Jackson has shown his at talents dealing with terrorist states. Syria is a terrorist state. Fidel Castro is a terrorist. Slobodan Milosevic is definitely a terrorist. I mean, we can go on and on. We're talking about issues that need to be discussed around the table. Today, ladies and gentlemen, there's no talking going on. That's what our latest report indicates. Reverend Jackson has shown himself to be most effective in moving into situations like this to get people off dead center. And that appears to be where things are right now and what is basically a rhetorical argument over what constitutes an acceptable apology for China.

Meanwhile, we still have 24 Americans sitting as what I believe are hostages in captivity against their will. And I think -- I'd love to be able to ask those 24 people there: "How do you feel about this? Do you care who comes to help get you free?"

BATTISTA: Anthony in our audience, you have a question- suggestion, so to speak.

ANTHONY: Yes. I was just wondering, wouldn't it be possible for the U.S. to make restitution to the Chinese government by paying for the airplane and helping out the family of the pilot who died?

BATTISTA: Reparation, so to speak?

ANTHONY: Yes.

BATTISTA: I don't know. What do you guys think? Would that make a difference?

PAGE: Restitution for what? I don't believe we ought to apologize either, frankly. Apologize for being there in international waters so that one of your pilots can recklessly come along and bump our plane, and then go into the drink. And then we're supposed to apologize for that? Apology includes responsibility. You know, it's one thing to express sorrow, to express regret, but when you apologize, you take some responsibility for what happens. That means you are liable for what happened. That changes our position in the world, and that means the U.S. accepts China's description of the facts. And I don't accept China's description. These were not Chinese waters these were international waters. Our plane acted lawfully. That just is a non-starter in my book, I don't blame Colin Powell and George Bush for holding the position that they have. What I want to do is get us off this rhetorical argument and onto the practical matters, helping both sides to get what they really want.

BATTISTA: Doris from New York is on the phone. Go ahead, Doris.

CALLER: Hi. I love TALKBACK. I'm saying that I believe that our country has elected President George W. Bush, who has a perfect staff, and I don't believe anybody else should be trying to, you know, whatever reason that they have to go in there and do that, because I believe that George W. Bush knows what he's doing and all those people like Colin Powell, who have had experience in the past.

Now Jesse Jackson might have his own agenda, but we have a president and a staff, and the Chinese people have to realize that we don't need anybody's help.

BATTISTA: All right, Doris, thanks very much.

If we could, in the time we have left here, Clarence and Carl, move this along a little bit, because when it's over, it's not really over. What kind of scars do you think this incident will leave on U.S.-Chinese relations, Carl?

f we could, in the time we have left here, Clarence and Carl, move this along a little bit, because when it is over it is not really over. What kind of scars do you think this incident will leave on U.S.-Chinese relations -- Carl?

LIMBAUCHER: Well, I think in long run this may actually turn out to be a blessing in disguise. I think it's going to wake the American people, certainly Congress, up to the fact that we are not just dealing with a potential billion plus market, it's not just a strategic partner, as President Clinton used to refer to China. It's probably not even the strategic competitor that George Bush has referred to China as.

It's a little bit more ominous than that, and some of the little tidbits about threats of threats of nuclear attack on the United States, their own missile firings on the island of Taiwan, their predictions that war with the U.S. is inevitable, should have been headline stories in the United States, perhaps now they will.

BATTISTA: Clarence.

PAGE: I agree actually. I think in the long run this can be beneficial to us all. Nothing concentrates the American mind like having some Americans held against their will in a country we should have been paying attention to all along. Over a billion people in china, this is a country that is a rising superpower that we've got to pay attention to. It's a good trading partner, should be a better one, they have terrible slave labor problems in China. They've got terrible oppression of religious minorities, as has been mentioned. They are not behaving as a good trading partnership should and they've been getting a pass by both the Democratic White House and a Republican White House, because our corporations want that money. I think we will move toward a more realistic assessment of China now.

BATTISTA: All right. Clarence Page and Carl Limbaucher, thank you both very much for joining us today. Appreciate your time as always. We will be back in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JOIE CHEN, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Joie Chen at CNN center. Here's a quick look at the news of the hour.

Doctors at the University of California, San Diego, have performed experimental surgery on a woman who has Alzheimer's disease. They took skin cells from the woman, modified them genetically, and implanted them in her brain. Scientists hope that this procedure will prevent degeneration, and alleviate some short-term memory loss for her.

Attorney General John Ashcroft today visited the Oklahoma City bombing memorial today. Convicted bomber Timothy McVeigh is set to be executed on May 16th, and families of some of the bombing victims want to watch the execution on closed-circuit television. Ashcroft says he'll announce his decision by the end of the week.

We'll have an extended look into the experimental Alzheimer's surgery at the top of the hour. Also on the NEWS SITE today: You've heard that cleanliness is next to godliness, but what could it do for your kid's future? An intriguing new study that could encourage parents to clean up their act. And two stars of women's sport, Mia Hamm and Julie Foudy, soccer Olympians, take your questions today.

Log on for the NEWS SITE at the top of the hour.

Now let's go back to TALKBACK LIVE.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HENRY HYDE (R), ILLINOIS: I would call them hostages. They are being held against their will, and five days is a rather long time especially if you the one being held in detention. So as time goes on this situation will intensify, will get more difficult.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TIM HUTCHINSON (R-AR), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: I think that we need to avoid inflammatory language, and I think the president deserves great credit for keeping the tone in such a way that the hope of getting their release soon is still there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Welcome back. A CNN-"U.S.A. Today" Gallup poll shows 55 percent of those asked consider the U.S. crew to be hostages, 43 percent do not. The U.S. government is not using that word officially, as semantics seem to play a big role in dealing with the Chinese.

Our guests this half hour are Louise Branson former Beijing correspondent for "The Sunday Times" of London. She is coauthor of "Milosevic: Portrait Of A Tyrant" Also with us is Christopher Caldwell, senior writer at "The Weekly Standard." He is a panelist CNN's TAKE FIVE as well. Good to see you both.

In your mind, Louise, whether they're hostages or detainees, it does seem somewhat moot at this point, it's really what happens when you use those terms and how it can inflame the situation, correct?

LOUISE BRANSON, FORMER BEIJING CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. I think, perhaps, technically, you could call them hostages, although that depends because my dictionary says that a hostage is somebody who is held in return for something. Now we don't know whether they are being held and there are promises, if there's an apology, that they will be let go. But I think that using the term "hostage," would ratchet up the public opinion in the United States.

You would have comparisons with the Ayatollah Khomeni, and the Iranian state and terrorism at time when I think is very delicate in the diplomatic negotiations. And I also believe that when Congress comes back from recess next week they're going to be called hostages anyway, and there's going to be all kinds of motions tabled. So I think to call them hostages right now is not a good idea.

BATTISTA: Chris, do you agree or do you think now that we're just headed for several more weeks of fighting about whether or not they are hostages?

CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": Well, that's a broad distinction here. I can understand diplomatic reasons not -- for President Bush not to use the term, but we are the press, and we know what they are. They're hostages. Go to your dictionary. A hostage is someone who gets held with hope of some of return. China wants to stop our surveillance flights over the South China Sea, they also want to find out a bit about plane. They are hostages.

BATTISTA: You know, I don't have a dictionary with me but I do have the U.N. definition of hostage taker, perhaps we can work with that: "Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offense of taking hostages. Does that sound like China? There you go. Does that sound like China?

CALDWELL: Sure does.

BATTISTA: All right. Should there be, do you think -- let me get into this because audience is still kind of on this -- as to whether or not there should there be a third party involved in the negotiations at this point, whether it's the Reverend Jackson or not -- Louise.

BRANSON: I think that the Chinese have always responded well to having an intermediary, it's part of their culture. If there are two parties in dispute, even match making in marriages, a third party helps. I'm not sure that the Reverend Jackson, as a religious figure, given China's attitude to religion, would particularly help in this situation.

I think that a very good person, of course, would be President Bush Senior, the first President Bush, who was American envoy to China. The Chinese call him "laponga" (ph), which means old friend, which is the highest compliment a foreigner can be called.

He also understands the importance of back channels. Shortly after the Tiananmen Square massacre he secretly sent then Deputy Secretary Of State Lawrence Eagleberger and National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft to China to talk to the Chinese, to prevent any misunderstandings, and to try to prevent, even though there was public rhetoric, things from getting out of hand and try to manage the long- term relationship.

And I actually think that this is what President Bush is now doing. He's trying to work through -- quietly -- through back channels. Whether a person of stature can now go to break an impasse, which I personally don't think we are at, that's another question. But certainly back channel, third-person intermediaries: That does work or has worked in the past with China.

BATTISTA: Chris, that doesn't seem to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) for some conservative Republicans?

CALDWELL: Well, I think people would be open to seeing Jesse Jackson go. It think what China thinks is happening is that they are getting some sort of opponent of the Bush presidency to come over and talk to them, but actually Jesse Jackson is by now, particularly after all these hostage trips, a part of the American foreign policy establishment. If can help, that would be great.

Unfortunately, I think it might be a little early in the crisis for him to operate at maximum efficiency. I didn't think China is going to give these hostages back until they are convinced that they're not going to get anymore out of them.

BATTISTA: Are you OK with the way that President Bush is handing the situation? Do you think he's taking the right track, or do you think some of his critics are on the right track?

CALDWELL: I'm OK with it. I think -- I wish certain terms of regret hadn't been used so quickly. We have reached the point in a real hurry where there's almost nothing more we can do for the Chinese. We are at the end of our rope, and yet we responded so quickly that we've left them thinking that perhaps there's more concession coming. BATTISTA: Let me take a phone call on that from John from Pennsylvania who disagrees with the way the president is handing it. John, go ahead.

JOHN: I think president, as commander-in-chief, should do everything in his power to serve the people's families that over there as detainees. If he has to say sorry, say sorry. Be the bigger man, get people back and end the situation, and then we can start haggling over it all later.

BATTISTA: Yeah, you know, Louise, I think part of the misunderstanding on that is the cultural difference and the semantics involved. I mean, for us to say "I'm sorry" isn't that big of a deal oftentimes, and we are the bigger person and we do it. But it's different in Chinese culture, isn't it?

BRANSON: It is, and I do think if the early days, that the United States could have shown a little more sensitivity. But on the other hand, I now think that China is very much playing up this emotional charge, this cultural gap.

And it's not just a cultural difference. It's just not their feelings. The Chinese are playing this up in the media, they're making a big hullabaloo about the Chinese fighter pilot that was killed. There are big reports about the massive search and rescue operation that's going on, interviews with widow, and so, and so forth. And you have to remember the Chinese government does control media.

I have talked to many Chinese -- ethnic Chinese in Asia who have been watching the situation, and have some understanding of what is going on. And their feeling is that what China is doing now is trying to keep the emotional level high and is trying to humiliate the United States in some way, at least in the eyes of their people.

But they already have a plan of when they are going to release the 24 crew members. And this is probably going to be when they finally declare that Wang Wei, the fighter pilot, has actually died -- because they haven't said that yet, or it could be when President Jiang Zemin returns from his trip to Latin America, which is next Tuesday.

BATTISTA: We have to see, and I have to take a quick break, and we will follow up on some of things that you have just said right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience quickly. We have some really sharp young people in the audience. Dimitrius, is that your name? OK, go ahead.

DIMITRIUS: OK, I believe that in this situation, that the Chinese -- they are acting like what we consider the schoolyard bully. They are just holding the people hostage because they think that we can give -- give them more. And if we give them a little something, they are going to want something more, and I believe that the U.S. just needs to put their foot down and tell them to stop this, and send our people home.

BATTISTA: Couple of e-mails here. Tobey says: "Two sure signs of naivete -- one, you believe the U.S. version of events regarding the plane crash, and two, you believe anything Jesse Jackson says."

Robert in Fort Hood, Texas says: "I think that it will make a positive impact if Bill Clinton negotiated a deal with China. After all, isn't he their buddy?"

BATTISTA: I have heard and read that in a number of places. Chris, the chat room was sort of wild over here coming up with other names of people who might be able to negotiate a deal over there better than the principals involved. I don't know -- do you consider Bill Clinton seriously or not?

CALDWELL: As he said, look, anyone is a possibility. But I think one thing we have to keep in mind is that what we have here is not a question of failure to communicate. The Chinese know exactly what the stakes are. They know what our cards are. And they do not, at heart -- at least the Chinese government does not at heart -- really think this is our fault.

But if you look at situation they are in: They have a bonanza of an advanced spy warplane which has landed on one of their islands. They want to take it apart. If their explanation of this is that we were flying recklessly and crashed it, then they can take it apart. If they went up and got this plane, then it looks a lot more like an act of war, and in the eyes of the world, they are the guilty party.

BATTISTA: Louise, do you agree?

BRANSON: Yes, I think by keeping the attention on the 24 crewmen and women and by holding them this long, the debate is totally about the 24 crewmen and women. If they weren't being held, what would they be talking about? We would be talking about the plane, what the Chinese might be doing about it.

And there's another aspect to this, too: Because we are focused so much on emotions and the Chinese demands for an apology, what's rather got lost is the fact that if you are in a reasonable situation between reasonable -- two reasonable parties, then what you are going to be looking at is exactly was President Bush wants, which is a joint investigation, finding out exactly what did happen. Because you can't really give an apology before you know exactly what happened. And so, all this is being lost.

And I also think it's right for President Bush in private to demand this, to demand a joint investigation and to show Chinese if they want to end to -- enter the World Trade Organization and other international bodies and behave in a reasonable way, they have to obey rules and regulations and they have to have investigations which focus on the facts.

Now, when I was in China, what really struck me, just after the Tiananmen Square massacre, a lot of my Chinese friends were called in for sessions and I said, what are you doing in meetings you have go to? They all had to repeat the Chinese government version of events. They all had to say, how they were fighting bourgeoisie liberalism.

But the effect of this repetition was that the Chinese government version of events was being imposed -- I guess, you would use the word brainwashed, and in many ways this is what the Chinese government is doing now. And I think that by focuses on the crew men and women and the apology and the regret and the sorry and are they hostages or what? -- actually obscures some more rather deep issues and serious issues.

BATTISTA: Let me take a phone call from Jonathan in Kansas. Jonathan, go ahead.

CALLER: Yes, I think they are to be considered hostages and what we need do is, at any cost, go back and get our crew men out, whether by force, whether by anything -- diplomatic has taken its toll and it's just needs to be finished; I'm tired of hearing about it, you know?

BATTISTA: So, you are running out of patience is what you are saying. Chris, is this more about saving face at this point for both sides, or do you think it's -- there's deeper issues involved here. Some people would say that it's all about Taiwan.

CALDWELL: Well, it's not just Taiwan. There's 230 miles so- called economic zone that China wants to enforce around its borders covers an awful lot of Vietnam and Korea. China boarded one of our spy boats a couple weeks ago off of Korea. It has a lot more to do with the other stuff.

BATTISTA: All right, got to take a quick break; back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: As we come back we should let you know that CNN has obtained a third satellite photograph which you are looking at now from space imaging.com which was taken last night at 10:32 p.m. Eastern time. That would have been about the same time this morning Hainan Island time.

Of course, there's much speculation as to what's going on with that EP-3, as we look at that picture and how much the Chinese are going through plane and removing things from it and studying the sensitive technology that's onboard.

Time for the poll, I think we have here real quickly. The question today was: Are the servicemen and women hostages in your mind?

And 81 percent of you are saying yes; 19 percent of you are saying no, not yet. Are we out of time or can we have one more comment? We're out of time. OK, Louise Branson and Chris Caldwell, thanks for joining us, appreciate your insight. Join us tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern for more TALKBACK LIVE. Join us then.

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