MEDIA REACTION: U.S. ARMS SALES TO TAIWAN,

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 TAIPEI 003763

SIPDIS

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

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO TW
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S. ARMS SALES TO TAIWAN,
AVIAN FLU



1. Summary: The coverage of major Chinese-language
Taipei dailies September 9 focused on the delayed
inauguration of Taiwan's first high-speed railway,
local politics, and cross-Strait issues. Both pro-
independence newspapers "Taiwan Daily" and "Liberty
Times" carried reports on their front and second pages
(respectively) about the "Taiwan Republic National Flag-
Raising Ceremony" in front of the Presidential Office
Thursday in which more than 1,000 pro-independence
activists participated. All Chinese-language
newspapers reported on the change of KMT legislators'
attitude toward the U.S. arms procurement bill; namely,
KMT legislators have decided to send back the budget
earmarked for the PAC-3 missiles to the Executive Yuan
because they claim that a referendum in 2004 on missile
purchases was vetoed by Taiwan voters.


2. Several newspapers editorialized on the disputed
U.S. arms procurement bill. A column in the pro-
independence "Liberty Times" criticized the pan-Blue
camp's argument that tries to link the defensive
referendum in 2004 with the U.S. procurement bill. An
editorial and a commentary of the centrist "China
Times," however, both said the fact that the defensive
referendum was vetoed will naturally reduce the
legitimacy of the government's plan to buy anti-missile
devices. An op-ed piece in the limited-circulation,
pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times,"
turned to the topic of avian flu research. According
to the opinion piece, more evidence is needed to prove
the effectiveness of pharmaceuticals being marketed as
protection from avian flu. End summary.


1. U.S. Arms Sales to Taiwan

A) "Weird Views against the Arms Procurements"

The "Free Talk" column of the pro-independence "Liberty
Times" [circulation: 600,000] wrote (9/8):

". The pan-Blue camp said last year's defensive
referendum results vetoed the purchase of PAC-3
missiles, so [members of the camp have] decided to send
the budget earmarked for the PAC-3 missiles back [to
the Executive Yuan]. These remarks are a
misinterpretation of the results of the defensive
referendum. The defensive referendum failed to pass
because the comprehensive boycott and misguidance of
the pan-Blue camp caused the voter turnout [to be so
low that it] failed to meet the legal threshold of at
least 50 percent of the total eligible voters. It did
not indicate that most voters were opposed to the arms
procurements.

"In fact, among the 7.09 million voters that
participated in the referendum, 6.51 million, or 92
percent, voted to support the arms procurement. How
can such an overwhelming result be interpreted as that
the Taiwan public is opposed to arms procurements?"

B) "The Referendum Failed to Tie [Up] the Presidential
Election but Has Shackled Arms Procurements"

The centrist, pro-status quo "China Times"
[circulation: 400,000] editorialized (9/9):

"Perhaps it really failed to occur to President Chen
and his DPP party that the referendum they pushed so
strongly last year for missile purchases would turn
into major leverage used by the pan-Blue camp now to
oppose the [U.S.] arms procurement bill. The meeting
between KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou and PFP Chairman
James Soong just ended two days ago. Despite the fact
that both of them still have different views about
whether the special arms procurement bill should be
reviewed by [the Legislative Yuan's] Procedure
Committee, they nonetheless shared a consensus that the
ruling DPP party should first clarify the referendum
results of last year, in which the arms procurement
proposal was vetoed by the Taiwan people. Even
Legislative Yuan President Wang Jin-pyng believes that
President Chen should clarify this controversy. It is
ironic now that the pan-Green camp is reluctant to talk
about the referendum while the pan-Blue camp takes it
very seriously. .

"We do not know what the Green camp will do to resolve
the dispute concerning the arms procurement bill other
than continuing to argue over the wording [of last
year's referendum]. If it tries to use sophistry to
continue undermining the sacredness and validity of
last year's referendum, the move will surely affect the
sacredness of legitimacy of other defensive referendums
in the future. We just want to say: Please keep in
mind the implementation process of Taiwan's first-ever
referendum and the various absurdities that it
triggered later in our time and in history. . Please
do not use [a referendum] as a tool for political
manipulation again! The value of the popular vote in
Taiwan's constitutional operations will be likely
destroyed if anyone in his right mind still wants to
use a referendum as a tool to achieve other goals."

C) "It Is More Important to Solve the Problem"

Journalist Hsiao Hsu-tsen noted in the "My Views"
column of the centrist, pro-status quo "China Times"
[circulation: 400,000] (9/9):

". Even though [last year's] referendum failed to pass,
it does not mean that the Taiwan people are opposed to
strengthening the island's national defense and being
engaged in equal talks with Beijing. As [we] recall
the tensions between the pan-Blue and pan-Green camps
last year when President Chen insisted on launching a
defensive referendum that would trigger a controversy
over whether Chen violated the law, [we may realize
that] the vetoed referendum that proposed to purchase
anti-missile devices is actually a sacrificial lamb .
in the battles between Blue and Green. We cannot thus
infer that the Taiwan public is opposed to purchase
more devices that will counterattack Beijing's missiles
aimed at the island.

"Nonetheless, the law is the law. The fact that the
defensive referendum was vetoed will naturally reduce
the legitimacy of the government's plan to buy anti-
missile devices. The Executive Yuan's decision to
include the budget earmarked for the PAC-3 missiles in
the government's annual budget is a move that has
expand the contentions [over arms procurements] to a
constitutional controversy. This is why KMT Chairman
Ma Ying-jeou insists that the government must deal with
the [purchase of the] PAC-3 missiles and why some KMT
legislators propose that they should return the budget
to the Executive Yuan. ."


2. Avian Flu

"Flu Research Needs Means Testing"

Hsieh Yen-yao, Vice President of the Koo Foundation's
Sun Yat-sen Cancer Foundation, noted in the pro-
independence, English-language "Taipei Times"
[circulation: 30,000] (9/9):

"In contrast to the heated debate on the arms-
procurement package, the government, which regards the
bird flu epidemic as a threat to national security, has
not hesitated to allocate NT$30 billion to purchase
vaccines and other preventive measures. This budget
was approved without causing any controversy. No one
seems to have questioned this action. This is because
certain interest groups have used the statements made
by the World Health Organization (WHO) and foreign
experts to convince the public. .

". [W]e want to question that accuracy of the
predictions that more than 5 million people would be
infected and at least 10 thousand people would die if a
potential bird flu epidemic strikes Taiwan next March.
The US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of
Tamiflu (oseltamivir phosphate) to treat patients
diagnosed with flu but without any other complications.
In other words, Tamiflu has not been shown to prevent
life-threatening conditions such as pneumonia. This is
to say that Tamiflu cannot save the lives of people
facing complications from pneumonia resulting from
avian flu.

"The WHO hasn't released any documents saying that
Tamiflu is an effective treatment for avian flu, nor
has it urged countries to purchase a sufficient amount
of Tamiflu and store it for later use. .

"Zanamivir, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, is a
medication similar to Roche's Tamiflu, but it was not
widely promoted so it was neglected in favor of
Tamiflu, which the government bought in great volume
despite evidence it was ineffective against avian flu.
This was done in violation of the Government
Procurement Act and the Pharmaceutical Act, and goes
against medical principles.

"Take note that Taiwan's resources are limited, and the
budget for avian flu should not be used to raise the
diagnostic standard of Taiwan's doctors and to improve
the treatment for pneumonia, rather than spending on
developing new vaccines that have no guarantee of
success. And instead of purchasing Tamiflu, the money
would be better spent on developing new kinds of
respirators.

"Marcus Reidenberg, a professor of pharmacology at
Cornell University, has written that in the past, when
science and clinical pharmacology were not well
developed, doctors would often use, with the best
possible intentions, treatments that were harmful to
patients or for which the dangers greatly exceeded
efficacy. This was because the means were not
available to test the safety and effectiveness of the
treatment, and they can be forgiven because they acted
with the highest motives.

"Means for the testing of pharmaceuticals is now
available, and if such mistakes are made again, doctors
should no longer benefit from the public's forgiveness,
however high their motives may be."

KEEGAN