April 10, 2000
China Rejects U.S. Account of Embassy Bombing in
Belgrade
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
W ASHINGTON, April 10 -- China today rejected the official American explanation for the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade during NATO's air war against Yugoslavia last year and called the Central Intelligence Agency's dismissal of a mid-level officer inadequate.
China's response indicated that its government remained deeply suspicious of American assurances that the bombing last May 7, which killed three Chinese and wounded at least 20 others, was a mistake. A spokesman for the foreign ministry in Beijing, Zhu Bangzao, reiterated China's calls on the Clinton Administration to conduct a thorough investigation and to "punish those responsible."
Last week, 11 months after the bombing, the Central Intelligence Agency dismissed one officer and punished six others for their roles in identifying and approving the target, which officials have said was intended to be a military supply headquarters.
The agency's spokesman insisted in a statement that the bombing was "a tragic accident," which officials have blamed on mistakes made by the dismissed officer in locating the supply headquarters on a map.
Under Secretary of State Thomas R. Pickering notified the Chinese Ambassador to the United States of the punishment on Saturday.
But the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman disdained the official American explanation. "To pretend that the United States did not know the position of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia is not credible," Mr. Zhu said in a statement today.
The intended target, the Federal Directorate of Supply and Procurement, was nearly 1,000 feet from the embassy in the New Belgrade section of the capital, and Mr. Zhu said the two buildings did not resemble each other. "It was impossible for the U.S. side to mix up these two buildings," he said.
The bombing of the embassy caused grave strains in relations between the United States and China, leading to stone-throwing attacks on the American embassy in Beijing and a suspension of military ties and other contacts with American diplomats.
In recent months, however, Chinese officials had moderated their complaints. Last December, the United States agreed to pay $28 million to compensate China for the damage caused to the building. It had previously agreed to pay $4.5 million to the families of those who were killed. In return, China agreed to pay $2.8 million for damage to the American Embassy
END _____________________ ps
Max, I don't have your last post with me--so a rough reply to what I thought was your main point. My sense is that US and EU will get most of the concessions re: GATS, TRIM, IPRS it wants anyways through bilateral deals, even if China not allowed into WTO. There's no reason to offer a carrot if the stick is sufficient--that seems to be the reasoning of some of the conservative opponents. And I still don't want the unilateral stick of annualized review to be available because I don't think it will be used for labor/enviro standards as much for wresting further pro business concessions. If the latter are great enough, there will always be a conclusion by the capitalist state that significant progress has been made on the former. Social clause just provides idiom in which to argue for concessions, unilaterally imposed.
Given this, it's probably best that US unilateral power be somewhat curbed by a global institution (that doesn't mean I support the concessions China has made but take them to be a fait accompli with or without ascension into WTO), and we make some progress towards multilateral trade to the rules of which the US can also be made subject. I think there's a clear understanding by several US groups, not just labor, that all China's concessions can be had without having to accept any curbs on the unilateral use of power or make the sacrifices that the WTO would force on the US in terms of opening markets, exporting dual use technology, etc.
By the way, Gigot said in the WSJ that Democrats opposition to PNTR is only meant to stage enough pro AFL CIO support to maintain its loyalty, though not enough to actually defeat PNTR. This fits into the way Seth suggests we understand the Democrats' prolabor gestures--cynical attempts to secure votes. Of course I think capital has already won the game once labor makes it a key strategy to pursue this social clause nonsense.