MEDIA REACTION: U.S. PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CHINA VISIT

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 001380 SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/TC, EAP/P, EAP/PD - THOMAS HAMM DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO TW SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S. PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CHINA VISIT ¶1. Summary: Taiwan's major Chinese-language dailies focused news coverage November 19 on U.S. President Barack Obama's China visit and Taiwan's reactions to the joint statement inked by Obama and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao on November 17; on developments in cross-Strait relations; and on the year-end city mayors' and county magistrates' elections around the island. ¶2. Several editorials and op-ed pieces in Taiwan's papers continued to discuss the Obama-Hu joint statement and the reasons why the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) was not mentioned in the statement. An analysis in the pro-independence "Liberty Times" said the Obama-Hu joint statement was harmful to Taiwan, because Beijing can use it to put pressure on Washington in the future in terms of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and cross-Strait relations. A column in the pro-unification "United Daily News" said the joint statement indicated that future U.S.-China relations will move toward the direction of "more cooperation and less confrontation." A separate "United Daily News" column said the fact that the TRA was not mentioned in the U.S.-China joint statement can be viewed as a warning signal for Taiwan. An editorial in the KMT-leaning "China Times" interpreted the signals behind the Obama-Hu joint statement and said the statement will definitely become the guideline for U.S.-China relations during Obama's term of office. The article also urged Taiwan to express its disagreement with the statement to the United States when Washington sends its envoy to Taiwan next week. A separate "China Times" column said the joint statement showed that Obama has finally acknowledged China's influence in the international community. An editorial in the pro-independence, English-language "Taiwan News," however, said Obama "basically did not depart substantively from existing U.S. policy on the Taiwan and Tibet issues despite intense pressure from the PRC." End summary. A) "Obama-Hu [Joint] Statement Harmful to Taiwan; Is the Ma Administration Wide Awake Yet?" Washington correspondent Nadia Tsao wrote in a news analysis in the pro-independence "Liberty Times" [circulation: 680,000] (11/19): "If the Ma Ying-jeou administration still believes that [current] U.S.-Taiwan relations are better than those during the [former Chen Shui] Bian administration, the U.S.-China joint statement made public on November 17 should deal a blow and wake Taiwan's leader up. This is because the statement clearly indicated that in [U.S. President Barack] Obama's head, he never thought of Taiwan's core interests at all. Should things go on according to the logic of the joint statement, any further developments of cross-Strait relations will be like the 'one China' as Beijing defines it. ... "On top of the United States' reiteration that it respects China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, what has kept [us] on our toes by the November 17 joint statement is the fact that the Taiwan issue will be dealt with under the premise that Washington and Beijing establish and deepen their strategic mutual trust. In other words, if the Obama administration wants to carry out the 'strategic reassurance' policy proposed by Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg to ensure that China's rise will not pose any threats to other countries, Beijing, in return, can also request that Washington carry through the one China policy as part of the strategic reassurance. Therefore, it requires [our] close attention as to how Beijing will use this joint statement to put pressure [on Washington] in terms of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan or further political talks across the Taiwan Strait. "There is no lack of mid- or high-level officials in the Obama administration who understand and sympathize with Taiwan; however, judging from Obama's trip this time, he is a U.S. leader who has no [specific] ideology and has almost no understanding of, or feeling for the historical background of what has been happening in the Taiwan Strait. It will be a challenge for Taiwan to try to make Obama understand the situation Taiwan is in and its core interests, and, obviously, the Ma administration has fallen short in this respect. ..." B) "Obama-Hu Meeting Seen in the Eyes of Beijing" The "United Notes" column in the pro-unification "United Daily News" [circulation: 400,000] wrote (11/19): "... For Obama's visit to China this time, Beijing has attached great importance to how he would define their bilateral relations, and 'to establish strategic partnership' became a commitment that Beijing badly craves. Obama, however, did not disappoint Beijing; the "China-U.S. joint statement' clearly indicated that the United States and China have decided to continue their strategic and cooperative partnership and to deepen strategic mutual trust. Even though the two sides may disagree [on some issues,] [what is important is to] respect and accommodate each other's core interests and major concerns. This statement indicated that U.S.-China relations will move toward the direction of 'more cooperation and less confrontation' in the future. ... "... In addition, Beijing realizes that, due to the counter attack by the Republican Party, Obama is now facing strong political pressure, so he needs to score points by cooperating with East Asia, and China is a major target for Obama. As a result, under the strategic framework of China-U.S. cooperation and the situation that cross-Strait relations have been improving, the 'rock' -- Taiwan issue -- that originally stood in the road of China-U.S. relations has been moved to the side and is no longer the stumbling block hindering Beijing-Washington ties. ..." C) "Shouldn't the DPP Be Held Responsible [for the Current State of U.S.-Taiwan Relations]?" The "Black and White" column in the pro-unification "United Daily News" [circulation: 400,000] wrote (11/19): "... [U.S. President] Obama did not mention the 'Taiwan Relations Act' (TRA) in Shanghai on November 15. Some may thought he just missed it, and, as expected, he verbally mentioned the TRA in his joint press conference with [Chinese President] Hu Jintao afterwards. Unexpectedly, however, the TRA went missing again in the Obama-Hu joint statement. Among the three occasions, the formal, written joint statement is naturally the most significant one, so one cannot say it is not a warning signal [for Taiwan]. Besides, the joint statement said the United States welcomes the 'peaceful development' in cross-Strait relations (Beijing's official wording). Such a statement can all the more be regarded as [a move showing] Obama has endorsed Hu's cross-Strait policy. "Given such a situation, not only has the pressure on cross-Strait relations increased, but also there are some doubts in terms of Taiwan-U.S. relations. If Taiwan wants the United States to take on more commitments that surpass its capability or willingness to take on risks, it seems reasonable should the United States decide to back out or fade away. ..." D) "Carefully Interpret the Signals in the Obama-Hu Joint Statement" The KMT-leaning "China Times" [circulation: 120,000] editorialized (11/19): "... The [U.S.-China] joint statement is perhaps the most important document regulating China-U.S. relations following the three U.S.-China communiqus. It may be an overstatement to call it the fourth communiqu, but the joint statement will definitely be a guideline document for China-U.S. relation during Obama's term of office. China and the United States have signed communiqus and agreements in the past, but in the part on Taiwan in the Obama-Hu joint statement, there are several points that are obviously different from all the previously signed documents. "First is about the proposal and confirmation of the core interests. The statement particularly pointed out that China's and the United States' respect for each other's core interests is the key to ensure a healthy development of bilateral relations. Here, U.S. core interests is not the point; what matters is that China's core interests are ensuring its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Even though neither side specified what this [statement] really refers to, Hu Jintao, nonetheless, further indicated in the press conference that 'on issues such as Taiwan, [the United States] respects China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.' Obama, on the other hand, also said he respects that 'Tibet is part of China.' All these have clarified that the core interests refer to the Taiwan and Tibet issues and that the United States must respect [China's interests] and thus has no right to intervene. "Second, Taiwan's security is not mentioned [in the joint statement]. In all its previous statements or talks about cross-Strait [issues], the United States has always mentioned the 'Taiwan Relations Act' (TRA) or its commitment to Taiwan's security' in tandem with the three U.S.-China communiqus, but unexpectedly not in this formal document. Even though perhaps Washington will reiterate it afterwards, the effect will not be as strong as in a joint statement inked by two state leaders. ... Third, the United States' expectations for political talks [across the Taiwan Strait] have gradually assimilated with China's attitude. When speaking of its hopes for cross-Strait political talks in the past, Washington only said that it hopes to reduce tension, but in the joint statement, it clearly stated that 'it looks forward to efforts by both sides to increase dialogue and interactions in economic, political, and other fields.' This [statement] has exactly matched mainland China's latest policy toward Taiwan. ... "There were actually signs that can be traced as to why Obama would be tilting [toward China] to such an extent. ... In addition to the fact that China is in possession of 600 billion U.S. dollars worth of U.S. government bonds, Washington needs to work with Beijing on issues ranging from climate change, the economic crisis, or even global security; it also needs to acknowledge China's rise and accept the fact that the two countries will govern the world together. On the other hand, though it is no longer possible for the United States to be the only superpower in the globe, Washington is not resigned to being pushed out of the Asia Pacific region by China. On the contrary, it wants to join the region more proactively. ... Given all these factors interwoven together, the United States [agrees to] yield to China's core interests, in exchange for China's not objecting to the United States' continued presence in the Asia-Pacific region and for Beijing's active coordination with Washington on global issues. This can be viewed as a sensible deal, with Washington feeling pleased, China feeling happy, and all the Asian-Pacific nations feeling relaxed. Perhaps the only ones that are sacrificed are Taiwan and Tibet. "The joint statement signified a major change in U.S.-China-Taiwan relations. Though there are elements related to international structure [behind it], the Ma administration's national security team is obliged to find out how this process resulted in such an outcome. First, if the United States had informed [Taiwan] in advance of the content [of the joint statement], the national security decision-making agency would be considered to have neglected its duty by failing to handle it prudently and responding to it solemnly. If Washington did not even notify us or if Taiwan did not learn of it at all in advance, it would be even more worrisome. It is reported that the United States will send someone to explain this to Taiwan next week, and Taiwan should seize this opportunity to express its disagreement [to the statement] and let Washington assure its security commitment to Taiwan via remarks made openly by high-ranking [U.S.] officials or concrete actions such as arms sales [to Taiwan], in an attempt to revise step by step the direction of the joint statement. ..." E) "Obama Acknowledges China's International Influence" The "International Lookout" column in the KMT-leaning "China Times" [circulation: 120,000] wrote (11/19): "...No matter how swift and fierce China's rise is, it will be difficult for it to become a worthy opponent of the United States. Then what is it about China that the United States cares most? The answer should be its 'international influence.' The one thing that Washington cannot tolerate and fears most is that the influence of other countries surpasses that of the United States. [To achieve that] requires not only powerful military force and strong economic power but also many other factors. How can one influence and win others over if it has mighty military power but wages war frequently, and if it has a lot of money but is heartless and heavily in debt? Yet it happens that the United States has been having such troubles over the past few years, and, as a result, it has gradually lost the respect of others and its influence in the international community has also declined little by little. "By contrast, China somehow has [benefited from its] peaceful rise over the past few years, and its modesty has won it respect. It 'gave away' the money it has earned from the United States and Europe to the Third World, with no strings attached. It does not care about suffering a loss when making friends in Asia, and it never preached to any other countries; it develops modern weapons but never brags about them. China is completely independent in terms of the direction of its foreign relations, and it never favors any country or blocs. Also, it constantly emphasizes the United Nations. All these have helped to increase China's influence in the international community. ... One can say that the growing Chinese influence is the result of the decline of U.S. [influence.] In consequence, the thing that the United States fears most has finally happened: it appears that China's international influence will likely surpass that of the United States. Just take a look at the China-U.S. joint statement, which has covered almost every important issue in the current international community, and Washington requires Beijing's assistance on all these matters. Isn't that akin to acknowledging China's influence in the international community publicly? No wonder China welcomes it earnestly." F) "Obama's Asian Policy and Taiwan's Challenge" The pro-independence, English-language "Taiwan News" [circulation: 20,000] editorialized (11/19): "The first Asian tour by new U.S. President and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama manifested the new American regional agenda whose importance transcends the traditional fixation in Taiwan on the Washington-Beijing-Taipei triangle. In contrast with the unilateralism of his predecessor, Obama sent a message that the U.S. aims to launch a comprehensive re-engagement in the Pacific community during a major speech on his Asian policy delivered in Tokyo November 14. ... Some of Obama's themes clearly reflected a continuity of U.S. interests, especially Washington's concern with opposing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and terrorism as grave threats to the security of both Asia and North America through various channels, including the six-party talks on North Korea. While this effort will help ensure that Washington's influence on these two issues will not fade, another consequence will be the enhancement of the PRC's weight in regional security and this is a development that merits close concern from Taiwan. ... "Hence, while Obama emphasized his hopes that the U.S. and the PRC can become 'strategic partners' in efforts to promote economic growth, energy security and regional stability, the Democratic president was willing to annoy PRC State Chairman Hu Jintao by stressing the universality of 'fundamental human rights' for 'all peoples' and by announcing the restoration of a bilateral 'human rights dialogue' early next year and openly 'encouraging' Hu to resume serious dialogue with the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader and his fellow Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Obama's transparent intent is to secure the cooperation of the PRC in his global and regional strategic agenda undoubtedly enhances the CCP regime's strategic leverage which will undoubtedly be utilized to exclude Taiwan from these regional processes and push to achieve substantive and perhaps legal 'unification.' "Nevertheless, Obama basically did not depart substantively from existing U.S. policy on the Taiwan and Tibet issues despite intense pressure from the PRC. Moreover, despite Obama's vague statement of 'respect' for the 'sovereignty and territorial integrity of China,' the U.S. president pointedly highlighted the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, which commits Washington to ensure Taiwan's security and treats Taiwan for all legal purposes as a distinct state, along with the so-called 'three communiqus' as constituting the foundations of Washington's 'our one-China policy.' Facing this new complex situation, Taiwan official and civic forces must set aside cherished illusions or obsessions and adopt proactive diplomatic efforts based on democratic values and endeavor to link with other democratic states to promote a 'democratic rise' to promote a free and prosperous East Asia." STANTON