MEDIA REACTION: U.S.-TAIWAN RELATIONS, IRAQ, JAPAN'S

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 000688

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/TC, EAP/PA, EAP/PD - LLOYD NEIGHBORS
DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO TW
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S.-TAIWAN RELATIONS, IRAQ, JAPAN'S
RELATIONS WITH CHINA



1. Summary: Taiwan's major Chinese-language dailies focused new
coverage March 24-26 on a TV debate held Saturday among three DPP
presidential hopefuls vying for the party's presidential candidacy
in 2008; on the alleged scandal involving the privatization of the
Taiwan Television Enterprise; and on other local issues. The
pro-independence "Liberty Times," on the other hand, devoted its
entire page three March 26 to discussing the undesirable
consequences Taiwan has suffered as a result of exporting its
agricultural crop seeds and agricultural technology to China.


2. In terms of editorials and commentaries, an editorial in the
pro-status quo "China Times" discussed the DPP's debate among its
presidential hopefuls Saturday. The article pointed out the DPP
aspirants' unanimous position of not continuing to keep the "Four
Nos' pledge that President Chen Shui-bian made to the United States,
if they are elected president in 2008, and said it remains to be
seen how this topic will develop in the near future. An editorial
in the limited-circulation, conservative, pro-unification,
English-language "China Post," on the other hand, commented on the
war in Iraq and said "Iran is the obvious winner [of the war],
without costing a cent and a soldier." A separate "China Post"
editorial focused on Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's remarks on
the "comfort women" during World War II. The article said Abe's
remarks greatly offended South Korea, China, and Taiwan and he may
"have dampened the prospects for a summit with President George W.
Bush in Washington at the end of April after he meets with Wen
Jiabao in Tokyo." End summary.


3. U.S.-Taiwan Relations

"Has the [DPP] Debate Set the Tone for the Green Camp's Campaigning
Leitmotif?"

The pro-status quo "China Times" [circulation: 400,000]
editorialized (3/26):

"In an attempt to vie for their party's nomination [for the 2008
presidential election], three bigwigs of the ruling party have
started their warm-up via the debate hosted by the Taiwan Society
Saturday. Even though this debate was for the Green camp's internal
consumption, to a certain extent it could still constrain the
campaigning style of the ruling party's presidential candidate for

2008. ...

"[The debate] turned more interesting when it comes to [the
bigwigs'] statements of their positions toward the 'Four Nos and One
Without' pledge. When asked whether they will reiterate the 'Four
Nos and One Without' pledge to the United States, the three bigwigs
- Yu Shyi-kun, Su Tseng-chang, and Frank Hsieh - all noted
unanimously that they 'will not promise [to do so],' with the only
difference lying in the strength of how they said it. This
development delivered a very important message: namely, it seems
that the Green camp's toleration of the 'Four Nos and One Without'
will come to an end when Bian finishes his term of office -- a
situation that obviously differs from Washington's perspective. It
is true that during his term of office, Bian has never abandoned the
attempt to get rid of the constraints of the 'Four Nos and One
Without.' But the fact is that neither has Washington ever loosened
the 'incantation crown' that it placed upon Taiwan regarding this
issue. [Editorial note: this is a literary allusion to "Journey to
the West," in which the Monkey King Sun Wukong wore a crown on his
head that the Buddhist monk Xuan Zang could tighten painfully by
chanting an incantation. He used this crown to keep the mischievous
monkey under control.] Bian was forced to clarify, immediately after
he made the 'Four Wants and One Without' remarks, that what he said
did not violate the 'Four Nos' pledge. The U.S. side has been very
patient in chanting repeatedly the 'Four Nos and One Without'
pledge, an evident move showing that Washington has always taken
this pledge seriously and that it has never believed that this
pledge would work on Bian alone. NOW that the three bigwigs have
all stated that they would not inherit such a 'pledge,' which is
akin to stating that they would not adhere to such a pledge, it will
be a whole new situation. It remains to be seen as to how the
United States will react to this situation, but we are sure that
this was definitely not the only time that these presidential
hopefuls would declare their positions [over the pledge]. In the
future, all these bigwigs will be asked repeatedly about this
question, and it will not be easy for the United States to back off
drastically from the bottom line of the 'Four Nos and One Without'
pledge. It really deserves continuous monitoring as to how this
topic will develop in this nationwide election. ..."


4. Iraq

"Who Is Winning in Iraq?"

The conservative, pro-unification, English-language "China Post"
[circulation: 30,000] editorialized (3/24):


"Four years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, what has the world
learned from the costly war? Simply put, it seems to have proved
the wisdom of the Chinese saying: 'Tyranny shall perish; aggression
will be defeated.' The world has seen the demise of Saddam
Hussein's tyranny, and the inevitable defeat of the U.S. invasion
(aggression could be too harsh a word),a la Vietnam. Few would
shed tears for Saddam's hanging, whose brutal rule of Iraq deserved
the punishment. But George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq is
ill-advised at best, and unjust at worst. Fighting terrorism is a
just cause, but invading Iraq is not. ...

"Now, after four years, US$800 billion in military spending, and
3,000 plus U.S. troops killed on Iraqi soil, who is the winner?
Certainly not the United States. But the United States has won
great victories for Iran, a long-time nemesis. Bush has vanquished
Iran's two biggest enemies - the Taliban to the east and Saddam to
the west. Now, Iran has become a superpower of sorts in the Middle
East. Iran is so defiant as to call Bush's bluff in its nuclear
confrontation with the United States. So bewildering and stupid is
the Bush administration's policy on Iraq that a New York Times
columnist called Dick Cheney an 'Iranian mole' in the White House,
because the vice president has Bush's ear on Iraq. The war is not
over yet. For NOW at least, Iran is the obvious winner, without
costing a cent and a soldier."


5. Japan's Relations with China

"Abe Shows Silence Is Golden"

The conservative, pro-unification, English-language "China Post"
[circulation: 30,000] editorialized (3/26):

"Shinzo Abe, Japanese prime minister, said again there is no proof
of coercion in the recruitment of what the military euphemistically
called comfort women. ... Abe may be just honest. But he should
not have said so unless he wanted to strain relations between Japan
and China, which he is trying hard to nurse back from a near freeze
he inherited from his predecessor Junichiro Koizumi. Abe
sidestepped the Yasukuni visit issue to disarm China to the extent
that Beijing did not raise hell when he rammed through a new
education law stressing patriotism and upgraded the defense agency
to the status of ministry. ...

"Abe's remarks greatly offended South Korea. Taipei protested, too.
He may also have dampened the prospects for a summit with President
George W. Bush in Washington at the end of April after he meets with
Wen Jiabao in Tokyo. ..."

WANG