Chinese Air Balloon: Espionage or Data Collection?
The US and China have maintained a complex diplomatic relationship which has faced “new challenges” in recent years “related to economic and defense issues,” the most recent of which involves the appearance and subsequent destruction of a potential Chinese surveillance craft in US airspace. The aircraft has flared tensions between the two countries and carries important foreign policy implications beyond the singular event.
US officials first spotted the balloon in US airspace north of the Aleutian Islands, after which the balloon drifted over Canada and later returned to US airspace over sensitive military areas in Idaho and Montana. Over the course of a few days, the aircraft drifted over the coast of the Carolinas, where the US military shot it down; China called this measure an overreaction, claiming that the balloon was a “civilian” aircraft and that the US had no reason to destroy it. According to US officials, however, the balloon carried equipment designed for “intelligence surveillance” such as “antennas . . . likely capable of collecting and geo-locating communications.” The US has also referenced the balloon’s information collection technology and its proximity to “sensitive US facilities” to support its assertion that the balloon was meant for surveillance. These conflicting statements from the US and China have dominated the international relations discourse surrounding the balloon and point to diplomatic tensions between the two countries.
The US State Department has viewed its relationship with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) through a lens of “strategic competition” with a focus on “[countering] Beijing’s aggressive and coercive actions” while conducting “results-oriented diplomacy” if such diplomacy aligns with US interests. This lens has been conducive to small concessions made by both countries in terms of public statements and increased willingness to communicate. Upon retiring from his post as ambassador to the US, Chinese official Qin Gang stressed the importance of “[encouraging] dialogue [and] mutual understanding and affinity between the two peoples.” This message was delivered just last month and may point to at least a faction of the Chinese government that seeks to improve US-China relations, though it is important to consider the authenticity of the statement. In terms of communication and dialogue, Secretary of State Antony Blinken was preparing to conduct talks with China during a diplomatic trip abroad before the balloon’s destruction caused a flare in tensions between the two countries and Blinken declined to attend the meeting. Recent events mirror the US and PRC’s history with respect to acts of hedging and balancing have dominated foreign policy strategy. A poignant example of such hedging and balancing is the US’s reaction to China’s support for Russia throughout the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. China has, at various times, rolled back support only to later increase it; the US has condemned Chinese involvement while China has simultaneously denounced American influence in the war. Both countries have engaged in diplomatic finger-pointing surrounding one another’s defensive and economic commitments to Ukraine and Russia. Now, similar finger-pointing regarding the surveillance balloon threatens the two countries’ fragile relations.
China’s claims of the research purposes of the balloon are questionable; the PRC has notoriously lacked transparency and impartiality in terms of agencies’ data reporting processes due to “near perfect congruence between the Party leadership and the bureaucratic leadership,” which potentially skews investigation results in favor of the Party’s goals. That some Chinese officials such as Qin Gang sought greater diplomacy with the US, and that China still denies the apparent surveillance-based purpose of the balloon, suggests that there are coordination issues within China’s State Department. Such discordance may inhibit both governments’ abilities to conduct diplomatic relations with one another as foreign relations officials send accusations back and forth regarding the use of spycrafts in one another’s airspaces.
To improve upon US-China relations and move past this incident, it is important for both countries to strive for transparency and communication. However, given the two nations’ long and tumultuous history, such communication is easier said than done. The issue of the balloon poses a question constantly asked by international relations strategists: With imperfect information, how can each state hope to act in its best interests while considering the impact of their decisions on the international community?