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