MEDIA REACTION: U.S. AND CROSS-STRAIT RELATIONS

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 000790

SIPDIS

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

SIPDIS



E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO TW
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S. AND CROSS-STRAIT RELATIONS



1. Summary: Taiwan's major Chinese-language dailies shifted
the focus of their coverage March 10 to local issues such as
the arrest of members of a large local money-laundering
ring, the freeway electronic toll collection system scandal,
and Taiwan's foreign relations. All papers also reported in
their inside pages on the State Department's 2005 Country
Report on Human Rights Practices, especially the parts about
Taiwan and China. With regard to the aftermath of President
Chen Shui-bian's announcement of the cessation of the
National Unification Council (NUC) and National Unification
Guidelines (NUG),the pro-independence "Liberty Times,"
Taiwan's biggest daily, ran a banner headline on its page
four that read: "[Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State
Richard] Armitage Says Taiwan Is Aggrieved. Democratic
Taiwan Is Constantly Banned from Saying Anything While
Totalitarian China Can Say Anything It Wants."


2. In terms of editorials and commentaries, an editorial in
the pro-unification "United Daily News" criticized
Washington's way of handling President Chen's NUC and NUG
announcement as "fierce of mien but faint of heart." The
article also said "the U.S. State Department's statement
[March 2] was not only meant to solemnly clear up the
ambiguity created by Chen but also to draw regulations for
the follow-up actions of the Bian administration, forbidding
Chen to take advantage of Washington's attitude to expand
himself." A commentary in the limited-circulation, pro-
independence, English-language "Taipei Times," on the other
hand, said the response to Taiwan's scrapping of the NUC was
not all negaive. End summary.

A) "The United State and Chen Shui-bian Are Doing a Two-Man
Show?"

The pro-unification "United Daily News" [circulation:
400,000] editorialized (3/10):

"In the wake of President Chen Shui-bian's announcement to
`cease the functioning of the NUC and NUG,' there have been
voices questioning whether it was the United States'
indulgent and hands-off attitude toward Chen's move that has
helped Chen successfully fulfill his plan to `abolish the
NUC and NUG' using the word `cessation,' and has made Chen
the only winner among Washington, Beijing and Taipei. But
judging by the strongly worded remarks made by the U.S.
authorities since March 2, this speculation collapse onto
itself. . As it seems now, the Bian administration is very
used to using this kind of maneuverings as a two-pronged
approach - namely, it chose the English word `cease' to
perfunctorily rejoin the U.S. request for [Taiwan's] pledge
of `maintaining the status quo,' and in the meantime, it
took advantage of Washington's understanding to boast to the
Taiwan people of its glorious `victory.' In comparison, the
Bush administration's approach in handling this matter, no
matter whether it is out of respect for Taiwan's democracy
or simply because of its failure to thoroughly grasp the
development of the situation, seems to have more or less
given [people] the impression that Washington's [attitude]
was `tough first but soft afterward,' `passive and
appeasing,' or even `deliberately indulgent' [toward Chen].

"Judging from the triangular strategic relationship between
Washington, Beijing and Taipei, it is a reasonable inference
that both the U.S. and Bian administrations were `engaged in
a two-man show' over the NUC and NUG matter. Given the Bush
administration's neo-conservatism position, which has always
been vigilant about China's rise, taking the advantage of
Taiwan's anti-unification position to subtly rein in Beijing
is a convenient move that can easily achieve Washington's
end; let alone the fact that Washington has a long list of
weapons waiting to be sold to the Bian administration. One
cannot deny, however, that the concept of `reining in'
Beijing has many times been excessively played up and used
by the DPP government .

"When the Bian administration, for the sake of domestic
consumption, spoke of `the abolition of the NUC and NUG'
when they meant `cessation of the NUC and NUG,' they kind of
hope that the U.S. administration would show its tacit
agreement [with Taipei] of adopting its scheme by turning a
blind eye to Chen's words and act out a two-man show with
Chen. But the U.S. government, positioning on the high
ground that overlooks the entire situation, resolutely
turned down [Taipei's offer] to play such a role because
Washington did not believe that the cross-Strait situation
could be dealt with using such a shallow political two-man
show. As a result, the U.S. State Department's statement
[March 2] was not only meant to solemnly clear up the
ambiguity created by Chen but also to draw regulations for
the follow-up actions of the Bian administration, forbidding
Chen to take advantage of Washington's attitude just to
expand himself. Washington also did not want the outside
world to mistakenly believe that the Bian administration
could unilaterally tip toward Taiwan independence while
acting in a way as if it has received Washington's silent
consent. .

"As a matter of fact, despite the discussion about whether
Washington has `deliberately indulge' [Chen], the Bush
administration's `fierce of mien but faint of heart' way in
handling the NUC and NUG matter has sparked various
speculations; it even gave people the impression that Chen
is `keeping the United States on a short leash.' If one
cannot call this a failure of the United States [in handling
the matter], it can still be viewed as Washington's serious
flaw. That is why as of now, the State Department remains
tough in demanding that the Bian administration
`unambiguously' clarify its position. This move itself also
revealed the Bush administration's need to `unambiguously'
state its position again to stop the idea of `U.S.
indulgence' from continuing developing. Otherwise, what
position will the United States be in to cope with it if the
DPP goes on slicing salami by pushing for changing
[Taiwan's] national anthem, official title and territory? ."

B) "Response to Scrapping of NUC Not All Negative"

Paul Lin, a New York-based political commentator, wrote in
the pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times"
[circulation: 30,000] (3/10):

"President Chen Shui-bian's scrapping of the National
Unification Council (NUC) and its guidelines has generated a
variety of reactions in the international community. At
first glance, it seems that there are more negative
responses than positive ones. But, if we take a closer
look, we will discover that this is actually not the case.
The so-called `negative' reactions stem not from the
decision itself, but from the international community's
concern that China may react in an `unreasonable manner' and
endanger world peace. Such concern has been most evident in
the US, Europe and other Western nations. .

"The negative response notwithstanding, Taiwan has made
itself heard in the international community because of this
controversy. Quite a number of international media outlets
such as the New York Times have had extensive coverage of
the incident. Although US-Taiwan relations appeared tense
for a period, there are also indications that the issue
relating to Taiwan's sovereignty can no longer be ignored
and suppressed. It is also necessary for both the US and
China to review their Taiwan policies, which have been so
disrespectful of Taiwan's public opinion in the past. In
China, some Web surfers have even asked why - if the council
and its guidelines were so important - no one had mentioned
them before. Clearly, more and more Chinese are able to see
through how Beijing manipulates the issue relating to
independence and unification."

KEEGAN