Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05TAIPEI279
2005-01-24 08:35:00
UNCLASSIFIED
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Cable title:  

MEDIA REACTION: BUSH'S INAUGURAL SPEECH, U.S.-

Tags:  OPRC KMDR KPAO TW 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 TAIPEI 000279 

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/RSP/TC, EAP/PA, EAP/PD -
ROBERT PALLADINO
DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO TW
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: BUSH'S INAUGURAL SPEECH, U.S.-
CHINA-TAIWAN RELATIONS


UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 TAIPEI 000279

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/RSP/TC, EAP/PA, EAP/PD -
ROBERT PALLADINO
DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO TW
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: BUSH'S INAUGURAL SPEECH, U.S.-
CHINA-TAIWAN RELATIONS



1. Bush's Inaugural Speech

A) "Bush's New Unilateralism and the Iran Crisis"

Commentator Nan Fang-shuo wrote in the "Weekly Comment"
column of the centrist, pro-status quo "China Times"
(1/24):

". We can say that the Bush administration is facing
the reality that the United States has become a `50 to
50 country' or a `divided country.' Due to a `proof
quagmire' accompanied by `anti-terrorism,' a new
`unilateralism' has been created. The proportion of
will and strength has greatly increased, and the space
for dialogue domestically and internationally has
diminished again. The next four years will be an era
in which Bush leads everything by his [own] will.

"Firstly, as far as U.S. foreign policy is concerned,
the biggest, as well as the most subtle and important,
change in his inauguration speech was the replacement
of `freedom' for ... `anti-terrorism' (the word
`freedom' was used 26 times, and 'liberty' 12 times.)

"If one understands more or less the recent changes in
the Bush camp, one will notice that Bush, after winning
re-election, has tried to pull himself out of the
`crisis of fabrication' regarding the invasion of Iraq.
Hence, Bush in an interview with the Washington Post
before the inauguration said explicitly that his re-
election victory meant that what he did in the past was
recognized by the electorate and, thus, `the government
is not responsible for the mistake in the intelligence
or the current deadlock in Iraq.' Although this is a
strange explanation, it implies that [Bush wants] to
get himself out of the 'fabrication of proof' crisis.
.'

"Hence, the (domestic and international) unilateral
style in Bush's inauguration speech for another term is
worth explaining, sentence by sentence. ... [P]eople
can easily predict that worldwide commotion over the
next four years will inevitably be aggravated by the
easy-to-manipulate neo-unilateralism. Through this
kind of explanation, an outbreak of the Iran problem is
unavoidable. Although the problem has not been
triggered, it does not matter whether [the United
States will] `instigate Iran's opposition parties to
carry out a revolution' like Deputy Secretary of State
John Bolton said, or if the United States will take

over after `Israel conducts an initial attack' as said
by the Pentagon or Vice President Richard Cheney. .

"Before Bush was sworn in, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and Cheney explicitly said [the United
States] will attack Iran. Bush in the inauguration
speech asserted that he will confront tyranny, implied
that Iran will be attacked upon. These are not
meaningless messages. Iran, in a matter of time, will
be sacrificed under the neo unilateralism named
`freedom.' Currently, the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) personnel are inspecting the facilities
in Iran, and the United States has condemned the IAEA
for not carrying out their duty. The Iran problem does
not lack a fuse. Once the force is used toward Iran,
no matter by an attack led by Israel, or a coup or a
rebellion instigated by the United States, the
commotion to the world would be especially expanded.
In an era of neo unilateralism distinctive of the will
of the United States, the world has become harder and
harder to predict!"

B) "The United States Should Make the Best Use of Its
Influence to Prevent Democratic, Free Taiwan from Being
Threatened by Strong-Willed, Totalitarian China"

The pro-independence "Taiwan Daily" commented in an
editorial (1/24):

". [U.S. President] Bush's [inaugural] speech matches
the spirits [based on which the United States was
founded]. But it does not fully match the United
States' treatment or position toward both sides of the
Taiwan Strait because the Bush administration's
reaction was obviously too low-key and too weak when
Taiwan was evidently intimidated by China's missile
threats and its plan to make an `anti-secession law,'
an attempt to use `strong-willed interference and
attack' to forcefully change the status quo of Taiwan's
sovereignty. .
"When [we] look at Washington's attitude in treating
both sides of the Taiwan Strait, it is not difficult to
discover that [State Department Spokesman] Richard
Boucher's remarks were actually unable to stand severe
tests. According to Boucher, one will discover, by
just taking a look at the world, that those democratic
countries that respect human rights share better
relations with the United States than those countries
that are undemocratic and show no respect to human
rights. It is widely known that the Beijing
authorities of China is of course a `country that is
neither democratic nor respectful for human rights.'
Under the United States' concerns for strategic
interests, however, Washington-Beijing ties are,
without doubt, much better than the relations between
Washington and Taipei, a democratic country that
respects human rights.' We need to point out that the
United States' consideration for strategic interests is
a short-sighted policy that deviates from the United
States' nation-founding spirits and has misread the
historical facts."

C) "Democracy Has No Double Standard"

The pro-independence, English-language "Taiwan News"
editorialized (1/24):

". The continued domination of U.S. policy by `Bushism'
for the coming four years presents Taiwan with the
question of how our Democratic Progressive Party
administration under President Chen Shui-bian can
establish a candid and constructive relationship with
its counterpart in Washington. .

"While the Bush administration and Taiwan's Chen
administration are widely perceived as sharing the
universal values of democracy, freedom and human
rights, it is not self-evident that the two sides share
the same concepts or definitions of these terms. .

"Closer to home, when it comes to the question of how
to strike a balance between the development of Taiwan's
democracy and adjusting to the rise, peaceful or
otherwise, of the People's Republic of China, it seems
that only U.S. national interests, as defined by the
Bush administration, matter. .

"We believe the Bush administration owes both an
explanation and an apology to democratic Taiwan
regarding why our 23 million people should be deprived
of the right to say `no' to the PRC's military
intimidation.

"Beijing's unilateral actions to threaten Taiwan and
its moves to enact an `anti-secession law' are clearly
changing the status quo of the Taiwan Strait.
Washington's adoption of a low-key stance on the later
move, citing the lack of `concrete details,' runs the
risk of a major political miscalculation by remaining
silent when a strong reaction could have its strongest
impact. .

"What Bush should contemplate now is the degree to
which his administration can keep a balance between
safeguarding the U.S. national interests and fostering
a full-fledged democratic Taiwan while engaging in
building a `constructive, candid but cooperative'
relationship with the PRC. .

"Washington's treatment of Taiwan will stand as a
litmus test of whether the Bush administration
genuinely supports the formation of a `community of
democracies' or is simply using the language of
`democracy and freedom' to mask the pursuit of a narrow
and self-serving concept of U.S. national interests."

D) "Let's Hope Bush Keeps His Word"

The pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times"
noted in an editorial (1/23):

". The people of Taiwan are focused on how this policy
declaration [i.e. U.S. President George W. Bush's
inaugural speech] will play out over the next four
years in the context of the triangular relationship
between the US, China and Taiwan. However, looking
back at this very unique relationship over the four
years, it is not hard to notice that these ideals -
however lofty they may be - face some very strenuous
challenges from self-interest and pragmatism. .
"While it is understandable that there is only so much
the US can do about domestic human rights issues of
China, its handling of the so-called Taiwan issue is
less understandable.

"If it is so important to help oppressed peoples leave
tyranny behind, isn't it even more important [sic] help
free people resist subjection to tyranny? The latter
scenario would precisely be what happens to Taiwan if
unification with China occurs.

"Looking back at the US-Taiwan relationship over the
past four years, most would agree that the biggest
tension between the two countries occurred over
Taiwan's plan to rewrite its constitution and Taiwan's
holding of referendums. Both matters - the campaign
for a new constitution and the holding of referendums -
reflect the coming of age for a democratic Taiwan.
Under the circumstances, a better way to depict the
situation is this - the US felt unnerved and uneasy by
the reaching of major democratic milestones in Taiwan.
This is of course highly ironic.

"Not so long ago, Taiwan was still seen as a prodigy of
democratic reform, for which the US felt very proud of.
Despite the fact that the democratic development of
Taiwan was encouraged by the US, limits were apparently
drawn on how far these developments can go. The limit
is that the `status quo' must be maintained. .

"Frankly speaking, despite the ups and downs in the
relationship between Taiwan and the US over these past
four days, the Bush administration has nevertheless
demonstrated unprecedented friendliness toward Taiwan.
However, that friendliness has thus far not gone nearly
as far as the people of Taiwan have hoped.

"It is hoped that in the next four years, Bush will
live up to the promises he made in his inauguration
speech, especially when it comes to the US' handling of
the cross-strait relationship."

E) "Bush's Speech Should Assist Keeping Taiwan a Free
Society"

The conservative, pro-unification, English-language
"China Post" wrote in an editorial (1/23):

". In his remarks, President Bush laid out a clear set
of ideas that are to become the theme and primary
objective of his administration's work over the coming
four years of his final term in office.

"We sincerely hope that as the Bush administration
endeavors to make its mark on world history, American
officials will keep bush's wise words in mind as they
deal with the situation in the Taiwan Strait.
Evaluating his speech from the viewpoint of our own
situation, one line from President Bush's speech made
an especially strong impression on us, even though we
knew it was surely not intended to be directed toward
us.

"In his remarks, Bush said: `America will not pretend
that jailed dissidents prefer their chains or that
women welcome humiliation of servitude or that any
human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.'

"Bush's mention of living `at the mercy of bullies' is
an exact fit to the situation being endured by the
people of Taiwan, who have established a truly
democratic and representative government yet witness
their representation in the international community
constantly smothered by Beijing's ruthless oppression.

"We understand that Washington needs to have a strong
and healthy relationship with Beijing, given mainland
China's rising status and importance in world affairs.

"But at the same time, we hope that members of the Bush
administration will keep the noble goals outlined in
this landmark speech in mind as they formulate policy
toward Taiwan over the coming four years, which will
most likely prove to be crucial in determining whether
our region will remain peaceful."


2. U.S.-Taiwan Relations

A) "US' Inept Policy Turns on Itself"

The pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times"
commented in an editorial (1/24):
"We have been waiting since last month's legislative
elections to write this. Had we written it in the
immediate wake of the elections we would have been able
to make a prediction, but by the time it got around to
saying `we told you so' it might have seemed like
flogging a dead horse. So with great patience we have
watched the absolute debacle that is the result of the
extraordinarily irresponsible attempt by the US to
meddle in Taiwan's elections come to its bleak
fruition.

"We are told again and again from Washington that it is
essential that Taiwan - unless it wishes its
relationship with Washington to collapse utterly -
purchase the arms package the US has been dangling
before it since 2001. So why, it has to be asked, did
the US government take steps prior to the election to
ensure that the result of the elections would be to
return a legislature which would be controlled by
parties sworn to oppose the arms package purchase, and
parties which have in the quite recent past made their
pro-China, anti-US stance abundantly clear? .

"Given the level of pan-blue hostility to the US in
general and the arms budget in particular, why did
Washington help the limping pan-blues win the
legislature?

"Because helped they certainly were. How else are we
to characterize the remarks of the US State
Department's Adam Ereli, four days before the election,
which were highly critical and condemnatory of
President Chen Shui-bian over his plan to change the
names of diplomatic missions and state-owned
corporations? Of course this was continuing the theme
set by US President George W. Bush himself a year
earlier, where Chen was blamed for changing the status
quo by holding a referendum with the obvious
implication that the US didn't look favorably upon him.
The Ereli comment was particularly blatant - there was
no need to say this before the election, and possibly
no need to say it openly at all.

"Having helped the pan-blues to retain control of the
legislature, the US reaped its reward: Not only did the
arms budget not pass, it never even made it onto the
agenda. And given that the new legislature - as a
result of US intervention - still lacks the pan-green
majority needed to pass the arms budget, don't expect
this to change any time soon. .

"Why Washington should be so inept we can only
speculate. The obvious answer, and one that well-
placed sources suggest is the correct one, is that it
is being woefully misled about what is happening in
Taiwan by AIT. That organization's reason for doing
this is something we shall tackle at a future date."

B) "Any More Clever Schemes Yet to Be Revealed?"

The centrist, pro-status quo "China Times" said in a
short editorial (1/24):

". The purpose for President Chen Shui-bian to send out
signals of holding a referendum on anti-annexation is
to pressure both Beijing and Washington, warning the
first not to push Taiwan too hard and the second to
stop Beijing's unilateral action before things get out
of control. Tactically speaking, President Chen's move
is totally logical and understandable. .

"The results of [last year-end's] legislative elections
also showed that the United States' attitude would, to
a certain extent, affect Taiwan's voters' decision. In
the face of the more sensitive referendum on anti-
annexation, such an influence from outside may become
greater, so the ruler [of Taiwan] must not have any
wishful thinking about it.

"What's more thorny is the situation inside Taiwan.
The biggest lesson [that Taiwan should learn] from the
referendum on arms sales [last March] was that Taiwan
people are extraordinarily shrewd toward politics.
Politicians should not think that they could easily
guide people's decision using a question whose choices
distinctively contrast. People will use the referendum
to express their positions toward issues unrelated to
the question of the referendum and [the result might]
greatly disappoint the politicians."

PAAL