MEDIA REACTION: U.S. ON CROSS-STRAIT TRADE RELATIONS,

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 001250 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/TC, EAP/PA, EAP/PD - DAVID FIRESTEIN DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO TW SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S. ON CROSS-STRAIT TRADE RELATIONS, U.S.-CHINA-TAIWAN RELATIONS ¶1. Summary: As the 2008 presidential election stays in the limelight of the Taiwan media, news coverage on June 5 also focused on Taiwan's economic developments, the current status of Taiwan's tobacco business, and the ill-gotten party assets of the KMT. In terms of editorials and commentaries, a column in the pro-independence "Liberty Times" discussed AIT Taipei Director Stephen Young's speech to Taiwan's Chinese National Association of Industry and Commerce (CNAIC) in late May, in which he encouraged Taiwan further to open its economic relationship with China. The article cautioned that Young and the United States must not be fooled by China's seemingly peaceful rise. An editorial in the limited-circulation, conservative, pro-unification "China Post" discussed the Pentagon-People's Liberation Army hotline, which will be set up soon, calling it "good news for peace in the Taiwan Strait ... and bad news for the Taiwan independence movement." An op-ed in the limited-circulation, pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times" discussed President Chen Shui-bian's recent video conference with journalists in Washington and the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). The article argued that the TRA implies that "supporting Taiwan independence is a responsibility of the U.S." End summary. ¶2. U.S. on Cross-Strait Trade Relations "George C. Marshall and Stephen Young; the United States Was Fooled Once and Should Cautiously Prevent the History from Repeating Itself" Huang Tien-lin, former national policy adviser to President Chen Shui-bian, noted in his column in the pro-independence "Liberty Times" [circulation: 500,000] (6/5): "AIT Taipei Director Stephen Young said during a recent speech to Taiwan's Chinese National Association of Industry and Commerce that "[a] critical way to improve the U.S.-Taiwan trade partnership is for Taiwan further to open its economic relationship with China." He further pointed out that "a modern China is a constructive partner for both the United States and Taiwan." Since these remarks were given in the presence of the president of the host country, they were obviously aimed at conveying certain messages. The question is: Will a modern China be a constructive partner for the United States and Taiwan? Director Young's remarks reminded us of a historical event in December 1945, when Washington sent its envoy, General George Marshall, to Nanjing on the KMT-CCP mediation missions, threatening the then-Nationalist government to sign a truce with CCP and build a coalition government, or it would not win the U.S. government's sympathy. The Nationalist government was then forced to sign a truce pact with the CCP in January 1946 and hold political consultative conference. What came after were the defeat of the KMT and the fall of mainland China [to the CCP]. "Why did the United States want to pressure the Nanjing government to sign a truce with the Communist army? It was because the U.S. government mistakenly believed the CCP's false propaganda and thought they were a bunch of land reformers and hoped that the Chiang Kai-shek regime would cooperate with them. ... 'Peaceful rise' is a slogan regularly used by the Chinese regime in Beijing for international propaganda. Since China is not full-fledged yet and does not have adequate national strength to be a match for the United States, [the slogan] 'peaceful rise' has been used to cover up its proactive economic construction and military buildup - a coat to cover up its authoritarian nature in pursuit of 'the hegemony of the grand Chinese empire.' ... If the U.S. government truly believes this slogan, naively requests that Taiwan further expand its economic relations with China, including [opening the] direct links and removing its restrictions on investments in China, and forcefully pushes Taiwan toward China, what Washington will lose this time may not be just all of Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait, but also Japan. "We find it even more difficult to identify with Director Young's statement that "more cross-Strait economic opening will help Taiwan to realize its potential as a regional center for logistics, finance and other services.' Young's perception is just like the mainstream perception of the pro-China, pro-unification faction -- those who call for westbound [China] investments, as well as those Taiwan and U.S. firms [in China]. Such mainstream perception may be applied to Hong Kong and Singapore, but never to Taiwan. This is because 'using economics to push for unification' has been the highest guideline for China's trade and economic [policy] toward Taiwan. Unless Taiwan becomes a province of China, Beijing will never allow Taiwan to become a regional center for logistics, finance and other services. ... "But we should not put all the blame on U.S. officials because they have been heavily influenced by what they see and hear from the media, the Taiwan and U.S. businessmen [in China], and even from our representative offices [in the United States] about the ideas similar to Ma Ying-jeou's doctrines 'calling for direct links and U.S.-CHINA-TAIWAN RELATIONS cooperation' ... It is our own government and officials that should be blamed; their administrative thinking upholding opening over the past few years has imperceptibly influenced Washington and the U.S. officials in Taiwan. ..." ¶3. U.S.-China-Taiwan Relations A) "Ready for a U.S.-PRC Hotline" The conservative, pro-unification, English-language "China Post" [circulation: 30,000] editorialized (6/5): "The United States and China are ready to set up a hotline between the Pentagon and PLA headquarters to ward off tensions and foster dialogue. This is good news for peace in the Taiwan Strait, the Beijing leadership will at least expect U.S. restraint when pushing for reunification. It is bad news for the Taiwan independence movement, whose space of maneuverability will be further curtailed by this unprecedented Sino-U.S. strategic linkage. ... "U.S. officials regularly call for Beijing to be more open about its intentions, and former U.S. Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly used the Shangri-La forum to criticize China for a lack of transparency. But this year, Gates eased the one, merely cautioning, 'distrust and secrecy can lead to miscalculation and unnecessary confrontation.' ... Gates called the concept of a hotline -- a secure landline provided through the 'Defense Telephone Link' structure -- 'just the next step forward' for the two countries. ..." B) "The Taiwan Relations Act and Its Imperatives" Sim Kiantek, former associate professor in the business administration department at National Chung Hsing University, opined in the pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times" [circulation: 30,000] (6/5): "The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) addresses two core principles: maintaining the 'status quo' in the Taiwan Strait and the independence of Taiwan. During a video-conference with journalists in Washington last week, President Chen Shui-bian expressed his dissatisfaction with the WHO in a manner that very much reflected the spirit of the TRA. ... But the crux of the matter is the national title 'Republic of China' (ROC) and the sovereignty issue implicit in the claim that 'Taiwan is part of China,' which can only be resolved through the clauses in the TRA that promote Taiwanese independence. "Section 4(c) of the TRA stipulates that '... the Congress approves the continuation in force of all treaties and other international agreements, including multilateral conventions, entered into by the US and the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the US as the ROC prior to January 1, 1979...' In other words, this means that all agreements signed prior to this date are re-approved and transferred to Taiwanese. A little bit of research will show that these international agreements include the Atlantic Charter, the Declaration by the United Nations of 1942, articles 76(b) and 77(b) of the UN Charter and others, all of which, over and over again, recognize Taiwanese independence. The TRA therefore implies that supporting Taiwanese independence is a responsibility of the US. Unfortunately, this rarely gets mentioned, which has resulted in the US' position of not supporting Taiwanese independence, but rather recognizing the 'one China' principle. ..." YOUNG