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

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 001390 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.-CHINA-TAIWAN RELATIONS ¶1. Summary: Taiwan's major Chinese-language dailies focused news coverage November 21-23 on developments in cross-Strait relations; on AIT Chairman Raymond Burghardt's visit to Taipei; and on several Taiwan fishing boats, which were detained by the Burmese navy on November 19. ¶2. Editorials and commentaries in Taiwan's papers continued to discuss U.S. President Barack Obama's China visit and changes in U.S.-China-Taiwan relations. An editorial in the pro-independence "Liberty Times" and an op-ed in the KMT-leaning "China Times" urged the public to pay attention to the warning signals sent out by Obama's China visit. An op-ed in the pro-unification "United Daily News," however, called for new thinking and interpretation of the Obama-Hu joint statement. Several op-ed pieces linked AIT Chairman Burghardt's Taiwan visit to the Obama-Hu meeting and said Taiwan needs "strategic reassurance" from the United States. An editorial in the China-focused "Want Daily" discussed the United States' future role in Asia, and an editorial in the pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times" discussed the "Chinese lesson" Obama has learned during his visit. End summary. A) "Attach Great Importance to the Warning Signals Sent out by Obama's China Trip" The pro-independence "Liberty Times" [circulation: 680,000] editorialized (11/21): "... Despite all these, the fact that [U.S. President Barack] Obama has allowed China to dictate nearly the entire agenda regarding the cross-Strait issue was a big warning sign for Taiwan. In addition to touching lightly on the well being of the Taiwan people, in his joint statement with Chinese President Hu Jintao, Obama stated his respect for China's sovereignty and territorial integrity. This was originally the wording consistently used by the Beijing government, but it will certainly limit Taiwan's room for maneuver and violated the fifth item of the 'Six Assurances' made by President Ronald Reagan in 1982: namely, the United States does not agree to alter its position about the sovereignty about Taiwan. Likewise, Obama's [assertion] in the joint statement regarding 'looking forward to efforts by both sides to increase dialogue and interactions in economic, political, and other fields was also inconsistent with the third item in the 'Six Assurances': namely, the United States would 
not mediate between Taiwan and China. Without a doubt, the Ma Ying-jeou administration should be held entirely responsible for all these [developments]. ... "AIT Chairman Raymond Burghardt is coming to Taipei Sunday to brief our country on the details concerning Obama's China trip. Given that the Ma administration claimed that there is no difference between the developments in the Obama-Hu meeting and 'the information it acquired prior [to the meeting], it seems quite natural that it will not proactively request that Washington clarify the many doubts [that the people have] about the trip, as anticipated by those who are concerned about Taiwan-U.S. relations. When the Taiwan people observe the changes in Taiwan-U.S. relations in the wake of Obama's China trip, the arms sales, such as the F-16 fighter jet deal, will be a major point of interest, which is also one of the solid indicators that can be used to examine the real reason for Burghardt's visit. ..." B) "New Thinking There Should Be in Interpreting the Obama-Hu Joint Statement" Chao Chun-shan, Chairman of the Foundation on Asia-Pacific Studies and a professor at Tamkang University's Graduate Institute of China Studies, opined in the mass-circulation "Apple Daily" [circulation: 540,000] (11/21): "... Judging from the above-mentioned strategic and tactical perspectives, we believe that the signals President Obama wants to convey via the Obama-Hu joint statement were merely a reflection of a series of tactical adjustments the new U.S. administration has made in terms of its cross-Strait policy in the face of the changes inside and outside [the United States]. ... Due to the changes in the [global and domestic] landscapes, we will not over-interpret some of the wording in the Obama-Hu joint statement. ... Also, we believe [the fact] that Taiwan's security was not mentioned in the joint statement is a logical effect resulting from the alleviated situation across the Taiwan Strait. ... We believe that the United States will faithfully implement its commitment made under the 'Taiwan Relations Act' to sell defensive weapons to Taiwan, because it is conducive to peace and stability in the region and therefore meets the U.S. national interests. "Finally, in terms of the [call for] political dialogue across the Taiwan Strait, an issue that has drawn the most attention lately, we believe that the relevant wording in the joint statement did not violate the United States' long-standing call for both sides to resolve their differences using peaceful means. ..." C) "[AIT Chairman] Raymond Burghardt Arrives in Taiwan to Explain the Obama-Hu Meeting: the United States Only Offers a [Justifiable] Explanation? [Taiwan] Wants Strategic Reassurance" Professor Edward Chen from Tamkang University's Graduate Institute of American Studies opined in the pro-unification "United Daily News" [circulation: 400,000] (11/23): "AIT Chairman Raymond Burghardt has arrived in Taipei and will offer an explanation for the Obama-Hu meeting. Since both the U.S. Congress and the U.S. media believe that Obama made too many concessions to Hu Jintao, Burghardt, in addition to providing 'strategic reassurance' to Taipei this time, should also provide support for the policy and [various] projects on which Washington and Taipei have been working together. ... Since Washington has guaranteed more than more once [prior to the Obama-Hu meeting] that it would not disappoint Taiwan and has agreed to make it up to Taiwan afterwards, Burghardt should not just be offering an explanation this time but should provide 'strategic reassurance' to Taiwan. What really matters is that strategic reassurance cannot just be lip service but must be accompanied by [real] support for the policy and [various] projects on which Washington and Taipei have been working together. These should include strengthening U.S.-Taiwan military cooperation projects, concrete measures to support Taiwan's participation in international organizations or international establishments, as well as Washington's approval to sign a U.S.-Taiwan extradition agreement, visa-waiver [program] agreement, trade and investment framework agreement, and a free trade agreement in the future." D) "Attach Great Importance to the Cross-Strait Crisis Caused by the United States' Pro-China [Attitude]" Former DPP Legislator Julian Kuo opined in the KMT-leaning "China Times" [circulation: 120,000] (11/23): "... For the first time in the joint statement, there appears [the wording of] 'respect for each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and neither side supports any attempts by any force to undermine this principle,' and only the three [U.S.-China] communiqus, not the 'Taiwan Relations Act,' were mentioned. Based on this fact, China will certainly expand its interpretation by saying that 'the United States respects China's sovereignty and is opposed to Taiwan independence.' ([Former U.S. President Bill] Clinton only mentioned that [Washington] does 'not support Taiwan independence' and never said 'being opposed to Taiwan independence.') Or further, Beijing will demand that Washington respect China's 'Anti-Secession Law.' ([Former President George W.] Bush was opposed to the 'Anti-Secession Law.') If the United States does not express its views otherwise, it will be akin to [Washington] acknowledging that Taiwan is China's domestic issue, and the United States will thus lose its role of providing strategic balance in the Taiwan Strait. "The joint statement also commended the outcome of the visit to the United States by the vice chairman of the Chinese Central Military Commission, in October this year, stating that [Washington and Beijing] will take concrete steps to advance sustained and reliable military-to-military relations in the future.' What matters is that the major appeal made by the Chinese official during his U.S. trip was that 'U.S. arms sales to Taiwan are the hurdle for Sino-U.S. relations.' Washington's acceptance of such a statement implied that there might be changes to its arms sales to Taiwan. ... What's most important is that the United States has attached importance to the fact of China's rise, saying that it welcomes a strong, prosperous and successful China that plays a greater role in world affairs,' and it also defined U.S.-China relations as a 'partnership that will address common challenges in the 21st century.' In order to seek China's cooperation, Washington not only has denied the 'China threat theory,' but it no longer highlights the importance of human rights. "The United States has made such concessions to show its weakness -- from respecting China's sovereignty, looking into its arms sales to Taiwan, expressing expectations for peace talks across the Taiwan Strait, and welcoming China's rise to avoiding mentioning democracy and human rights; all these have indicated the decline of the U.S. hegemony and the rise of U.S. realism. Judging from a long-term historical perspective, Obama's China visit may just be an initial reaction by the United States toward China's rise, and it is certain that in the future Washington will do more things tilting toward China that will disappoint its allies and bitterly upset Taiwan. In this vein, the major 'regression' in Taiwan-U.S. relations' is nothing but one of the [series of] effects from the United States coping with China's rise. ..." E) "How Is the United States to Lead and Direct Asia?" The China-focused "Want Daily" [circulation: 10,000] editorialized (11/22): "... A bigger political problem for Obama in the future is that in his 'Asian policy' speech in Tokyo, he declared that the United States is interested in developing relations with Asian nations and will continue to maintain a leading position in the Asia-Pacific area. The question is how is the United States going to lead Asia while the strength of China is coming close to that of the United States today? The United States must adopt a low [profile] and be flexible in taking advantage of smart power to make major contributions in Asia, so that it can play a leading role in the area. ... "In reality, when it comes to dealing with the global financial crisis and the challenges of traditional and non-traditional security issues, the importance of U.S.-China relations prevails over that of U.S.-Japan relations. But in terms of the East Asia strategy and regional security in Northeast Asia, U.S.-Japan relations outweigh that of U.S.-China relations. By maneuvering these two sets of relations appropriately, the United States should be able to contribute to the peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. ..." F) "An In-depth Analysis of the Sino-U.S. Joint Statement" Professor Tsai Wei from Chinese Cultural University's Sun Yat-sen's Institute for Globalization Studies opined in the China-focused "Want Daily" [circulation: 10,000] (11/21): "... Finally, we should pay attention to the fact that the China-U.S. joint statement possibly indicated that along with the growth of mainland China's economic and political strength, the United States will do more to confirm, understand, act in concert with, and even acknowledge Beijing's position. Even though Washington will not and has no intention to betray Taiwan, Taiwan's role and importance will, over time, be more marginalized. This is a developing process from a quantitative change to a qualitative change, and it will not shift its direction as Taiwan's willpower hopes it will. Taiwan's situation will only be all the more difficult." G) "Obama's Chinese Lesson" The pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times" [circulation: 30,000] editorialized (11/21): "US President Barack Obama's visit to China was most notable for his hosts' refusal to play his game. Nothing could have been more symbolically ludicrous and deflating for Obama and the dignity of the office of US president than speaking before a bunch of hand-picked university students taking part in a 'town hall' address in Shanghai. ... What this trip has done is give Obama something very personal that might challenge the stance of those under him that the Chinese government should, in effect, be afforded diplomatic unaccountability. With direct experience of the ill will and hubris of Chinese politicians and media appointees, together with predictably limited progress on regional, environmental and human rights issues, Obama will not take home anything like the awe for Chinese might and history that Mao Zedong inculcated in former US president Richard Nixon when they met in Beijing. "The part of the US establishment that allows North Korean autocrats to be named as such and Chinese autocrats to be feted and empowered, therefore, may find that Beijing's refusal to find common ground with the West on basic levels of diplomatic courtesy will impress itself on the US president. Taiwan can only gain from this, though the effects are likely to be subtle and gradual, and certainly not enough to justify a reduction in vigilance. It has been said before, but it needs to be said again and again: Beijing's communist government regards open displays of goodwill from the West patronizingly at best, but more often with suspicion and open contempt. In Obama's case, however, Beijing has adopted an astonishingly cavalier approach at a symbolic level with the one world leader whose friendship it could have employed for the betterment of all. Even by the complex and inscrutable standards of much statecraft, Beijing has presented Obama and the American people with a regrettable message: Give us face when making deals -- but leave your principles at home." H) "U.S. Must Clarify Stance on Taiwan" The pro-independence, English-language "Taiwan News" [circulation: 20,000] editorialized (11/23): "...The absence of the TRA from the Joint Statement was particularly unfortunate since the latter was the first such broadly stated expression of commitment on numerous issues between the U.S. and the PRC for over two decades and because the joint statement contained an unprecedented agreement to Beijing's insistence on respect from Washington for China's sovereignty and territorial integrity within the context of 'building and deepening bilateral strategic trust' and as 'the core of the three U.S.-China communiqus which guide U.S.-China relations.' It is likely that American Institute for Taiwan Board Chairman Raymond Burghardt, who arrived yesterday to brief President Ma Ying-jeou and his Kuomintang administration and, hopefully, the opposition Democratic Progressive Party, that the issue of 'sovereignty and territorial integrity' does not refer to Taiwan. Since the Joint Statement does not explicitly include a recognition by Washington that 'Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China' (as it did regarding Tibet),Burghardt might argue that the U.S. is agreeing only to 'respect' of a general principle and the U.S. has only 'acknowledged' but never 'recognized' Beijing's claim that Taiwan is 'part of China' or 'part of the PRC' under the latter's 'one China principle. "Nevertheless, we cannot help but be concerned that Beijing will take advantage of this seemingly new expression of Washington's "respect" to bolster its international propaganda that 'Taiwan is a part of China' and downplay the TRA, especially since this affirmation was preceded by a paragraph in which Beijing defined its meaning by emphasizing that 'the Taiwan issue concerns China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.' However, the Obama administration should keep in mind that the language of the Joint Statement skirts very close to contradicting the 'Six Assurances' commitments made to Taiwan in July 1982 by the late U.S. president Ronald Reagan, including his promise that Washington would not play a mediation role between the PRC and Taiwan or alter its position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan. Moreover, the Joint Statement also showed that Washington is pleased to see the improvement in cross-strait relations and the resumption of dialogue between Taipei and Beijing after the restoration of KMT rule last year under Ma. "Nevertheless, Washington should pay attention to an increasing number of indications that this 'improvement' is more apparent than substantive and more fleeting than lasting and not overlook growing dissent within Taiwan over the pace, scope and the lack of transparency and democratic accountability in Ma's cross-strait policy. The expression in the Joint Statement that the U.S. 'looks forward' to 'efforts by both sides to increase dialogues and interactions in economic, political, and other fields' creates an impression of endorsement for Ma's one-sided and China-centric cross-strait policy and the extension of 'political' or even 'unification' talks for which there is absolutely no consensus in Taiwan. This statement is particularly alarming since it seems to encourage Beijing's current intensification of pressure on the Ma administration to enter into 'political talks,' as illustrated by the calls by several heavyweight PRC scholar-officials for political negotiation during a conference held earlier this month in Taipei. "Obama could have provided more balance and upheld democratic principles if he had reiterated the content of the statement by his predecessor Democratic president Bill Clinton on Feb. 24, 2000 that 'the issues between Beijing and Taiwan must be resolved peacefully and with the assent of the people of Taiwan' during his post-summit press statement. We urge Burghardt to reaffirm to both the Ma administration and the Taiwan people that U.S. policy toward Taiwan has not and will not change even though Washington is deepening its 'strategic partnership' with Beijing and that the Taiwan Relations Act remains the foundation of U.S. policy toward Taiwan. The AIT chairman should also clarify that the U.S. has no intention to push Taipei into 'political negotiations' with Beijing and should confirm that the Obama administration respects Taiwan's democratic system in terms of how its cross-strait policy is forged, including the democratic principle that the resolution of issues between the PRC and Taiwan must have the 'assent' of the 23 million Taiwan people." STANTON