MEDIA REACTION: U.S.-CHINA-TAIWAN RELATIONS

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 001285

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.-CHINA-TAIWAN RELATIONS



1. Summary: Taiwan's major Chinese-language dailies focused news
coverage June 7 on the 2008 presidential election; on the
government's proposed minimum wage hike starting July 1 and its
impact on local businesses; on a car accident involving a local
singer; and on an alleged corruption scandal involving the Air Force
Academy. The pro-independence "Liberty Times" ran a banner headline
on page seven that said "Bush Praises Taiwan's Democracy and
Criticizes China for Its Failure to Reform [Itself]."


2. In terms of editorials and commentaries, in response to an op-ed
in Wednesday's "Liberty Times" saying that President Chen Shui-bian
misunderstands the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA),President Chen argued
personally in an op-ed in today's "Liberty Times" that he does not
misunderstand the TRA. Chen said as a head of state elected by his
people, he needs to put Taiwan's national interests and his people's
well being as top priority and will strive for the most favorable
conditions for Taiwan. A "Liberty Times" editorial criticized
China's tyrannical nature and said there is "a big gap between its
role in the international community and the so-called 'responsible
stakeholder.'" An editorial in the pro-unification "United Daily
News" lashed out at the DPP administration for its criticism of the
white paper published by the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham)
recently. The article said the DPP government should view AmCham's
warnings as honest and sincere advice in terms of Taiwan's role in
international trade and economics. End summary.

A) "A-Bian Does Not Misunderstand the TRA"

President Chen Shui-bian wrote in an op-ed in the pro-independence
"Liberty Times" [circulation: 500,000] (6/7):

"... First, my interpretation of the 'Taiwan Relations Act' (TRA)
might differ from that of Professor Chiang, but [he] cannot simply
determine that 'A-Bian misunderstands the TRA.' I cited Section
4(b)(1) of TRA on May 29: 'Whenever the laws of the United States
refer to or relate to foreign countries, nations, states,
governments, or similar entities, such terms shall include and such
laws shall apply with respect to Taiwan.' I therefore believe that
this statement should be interpreted as 'the TRA clearly regards
Taiwan as a country.' Such interpretation was not created by me
alone. Ambassador Harvey Feldman, who personally joined in the
formulation of the TRA then also held the same view, which was also
accepted by other scholars who have been paying long-term attention
to Taiwan-U.S. relations, such as Professor John Tkacik. Each
person may have different comprehension and understanding of the
TRA, but A-Bian definitely does not misunderstand the TRA.

"Second, according to the 'three communiques' between the United
States and China - namely, the 'Shanghai Communique,' the Joint
Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the
United States of America and the People's Republic of China,' and
the 'August 17 Communique' - the United States has always indicated
that it 'recognizes' Beijing's position that 'there is only one
China, and Taiwan is part of China;' that it [i.e. the United
States] does not acknowledge that 'the People's Republic of China's'
sovereignty claim on Taiwan. ... Third, my remarks that day had
another key point -- namely, the Section 4(d) of TRA says '[N]othing
in this Act may be construed as a basis for supporting the exclusion
or expulsion of Taiwan from continued membership in any
international financial institution or any other international
organization.' Thus, based on the TRA, Taiwan is entitled to
participate in the international organizations, including the World
Health Organization and the United Nations.

"The triangular relationship among the United States, China, and
Taiwan is very complex and full of vagueness and ambiguity. Also,
given China's continued military intimidation and shutting out
Taiwan diplomatically, Taiwan, as a nation, is in very difficult
circumstances. But [we] must not take various [instances of] unjust
and unreasonable treatment as a given and thus limit ourselves or
flinch simply because we have been under constant suppression.
Provisions in a law are alive and not dead; it all depends on how to
interpret and explain them. One should not put the equal sign
between the lack of diplomatic relations or acknowledgement between
the two countries, Taiwan and the United States, and the matter of
whether Taiwan is a country and whether it is entitled to all the
rights and interests a country deserves. This is the important
spirit that has been constantly emphasized and revealed by the TRA.
While someone who is engaged in academic research may feel free to
adopt the strictest criteria to 'discuss laws from the perspective
of law,' as a state leader directly elected by his people, I must
put the nation's interests and the people's well being as my
priority concerns at all times, and I must try the best I can to
strive for the most favorable conditions for Taiwan. ..."

B) "Steadfastness and Determination Are the Only Way to Confront
China"

The pro-independence "Liberty Times" [circulation: 500,000]


editorialized (6/7):

"... Indeed, neither UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon nor U.S.
State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack supported the idea of
linking the crisis in Darfur with the Beijing Olympic Games. But as
long as China refuses to change its tyrannical nature, the pressure
from the international community demanding human rights and
humanitarianism will surely swarm [to Beijing] until the time when
the Olympic Games are held in August, 2008.

"The Olympic Games in Beijing will become a new point of pressure
for the international community to push for [China's] peaceful
transformation. History has shown that, ever since the 1970s, the
United States' policy of hoping to use engagement to induce China to
change has never succeeded. Without a doubt, major changes have
happened in China over the past three decades. But the
authoritarian rule of the [Chinese] Communist Party remains
unchanged; China never gets lenient in its persecution of
dissidents, and its human rights record has been notorious. There
is even a big gap between its role in the international community
and the so-called 'responsible stakeholder.' ..."

C) "How Does the United States Intervene in Taiwan's Domestic
Affairs?"

The pro-unification "United Daily News" [circulation: 400,000]
editorialized (6/7):

"... The desperate and low-spirited tone in such discourse of the
American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) was evident, but most of the
basic thinking in it has been 'talked about for fifteen years.'
What differed this year from the previous ones was that our 'ranking
officials from the Council of Economic Planning and Development'
(CEPD) were furious [at AmCham's white paper] and replied in a rare
tone that 'the remarks by U.S. businesses have crossed the line
expected of foreign businesses, and they sound allegedly like
intervention in [Taiwan's] domestic affairs!'

"Intervening in [Taiwan's] internal affairs? What a strong
accusation! In fact, is this the only time that the United States
has 'interfered' in Taiwan's 'domestic affairs?' ... Taiwan's
'domestic affairs' have indeed been under strong 'intervention' of
the United States. To find out the reasons why, [one can find]
three factors inter-working and influencing each other: First,
Taiwan is aware that it must accept the United States'
'intervention,' because with intervention comes protection. Second,
the United States must 'interfere with' Taiwan, or it will not know
how to maintain Taiwan's safety, and it will be difficult to
estimate the price for keeping Taiwan safe. Third, the mutual
trust between Washington and Taipei has been deteriorating starting
from [the reign of] Lee Teng-hui to [that of] Chen Shui-bian, and
the level of U.S. intervention has been growing as well. NOW even
the contents of [Taiwan's] constitutional re-engineering needs to be
approved by the United States.

"Given the trend of deteriorating relationship of
'interference/trust' between Taiwan and the United States, it seemed
that the CEPD authorities did not find out until NOW the new
offences of 'the U.S. intervention in Taiwan's internal affairs.'
Isn't it ridiculous? Isn't it pathetic? Those high-ranking CEPD
officials should be aware that since 'U.S. interference in Taiwan's
internal affairs' is inevitable, why not [try to] improve Taiwan's
role in international trade and economics via the U.S.
'intervention,' in the hope of improving and strengthening Taiwan's
conditions for self-reliance? It would be [much better] than
striving to purchase weapons from the United States in exchange for
its 'intervention.'

"Indeed, the United States hopes that Taiwan can build up its
armaments so that the island can establish its self-defense
capabilities. But on the other hand, Washington hopes that Taiwan
can improve its role in international trade and economics, in
particular, improving the cross-Strait trade relations by means of
[opening] direct links, in an attempt to strengthen the conditions
for Taiwan's survival. It is a widely known fact that armaments are
'hard defense' while trade and economics are 'soft defense.'
Judging by Taiwan's internal and external situations, military
buildup is just a factor contributing to a small part of maintaining
[Taiwan's] national defense, while the sustainable development of
trade and economics is the main structure that holds up the major
part of [the island's] 'national defense.'

"AmCham's tone sounded like interfering in [Taiwan's] internal
affairs, but the warnings it offered, such as 'Taiwan will get into
a big trouble as early as next year' and 'it will likely be game
over [for Taiwan]' are actually remarks out of its compassion for
fear that 'someone might get in trouble.' They can also be viewed
as an honest and sincere advice for Taiwan's 'national defense of
trade and economics.'


"The DPP government has been behaving obsequiously when it comes to
arms procurements, but it scolded and called AmCham's advice on
trade and economics as 'interfering in [Taiwan's] domestic affairs.'
Is it really so that the DPP government is only aware of spending a
humongous amount of money busying the U.S. missiles to defend Taiwan
(and allowing this part of its 'internal affairs' to be 'interfered'
by the United States),while it has no idea that it should improve
Taiwan's role in international trade and economics through
U.S.-Taiwan cooperation so as to create [more favorable] conditions
for the island's survival (shutting down and disallowing the United
States to 'interfere in) this part of its 'internal affairs')?

"The United States expects Taiwan's 'cross-Strait policy' to be
'defensive in politics but open in economics.' Taiwan will not be
able to defend itself if it fails to keep defensive in politics, and
it will not be able to survive if it is not open in economics. The
DPP administration only sees that the United States can sell weapons
to Taiwan, but it purposely overlooks the fact that the United
States can also play a proactive role in building a win-win trade
and economic relationship across the Taiwan Strait. ..."


YOUNG