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