MEDIA REACTION: ARMS SALES TO TAIWAN, DALAI LAMA,

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BEIJING 000278

DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/CM, EAP/PA, EAP/PD, C
HQ PACOM FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ADVISOR (J007)
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL ECON SENV KGHG KMDR OPRC CH

SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: ARMS SALES TO TAIWAN, DALAI LAMA,
AFGHANISTAN, GOOGLE

--------------
Editorial Quotes
--------------


1. ARMS SALES TO TAIWAN

"U.S. arms sales will have a serious negative effect on
Sino-American exchanges and cooperation on many issues"

The official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao)(02/03)(pg
3): "Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, Ma Zhaoxu said that 'The
United States insisted on selling arms to Taiwan regardless of
China's resolute opposition to it. The U.S.'s move will severely
damage China's core interests and Sino-U.S. relations. Inevitably,
this will also damage China's cooperation with the U.S. on relevant
key international and regional issues. The U.S. side should assume
full responsibility. We'll urge U.S. companies involved to stop
pushing for, and participating in, the sale of arms to Taiwan. Ma
Zhaoxu also said that the U.S.'s move seriously violated the
Sino-U.S. three communiqu, especially the principle in '8.17'
Bulletin. This will also seriously damage China's national security
and harm China's course of peace and unification, which is severely
opposed by China." (Note: Another major official newspaper Guangming
Daily has also published this report.)"


2. DALAI LAMA

"U.S.-China disputes now start with the Dalai round"

The People's Daily-sponsored and internationally-focused commercial
news publication Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao)(02/03)(pg 1):
"Analysts predict that the already chaotic Sino-U.S. relationship
may have a new challenge - the next Dalai Lama round. On February
2, Chinese officials warned President Obama to not meet the Dalai
Lama and that the issue of Tibet's sovereignty is nonnegotiable.
Within one short month, Sino-U.S. relations have been overturned.
Niu Xinchun, a Chinese scholar, said that the next Dalai round will
allow the United States to be even more unreasonable in its series
of offenses toward China. Chinese society will become more concrete
under the West's pressure. In fact, the two ideological camps, the
West and China, will both become consolidated. Analysts said that,
due to disagreements on the Dalai issue, there will be two possible
outcomes for Sino-U.S. relations: first that the worsening of the
relationship gets way beyond out of control; or that President Obama
is throwing all his 'bombs' at the beginning of the year and will
later, by year's end, restore Sino-U.S. relations in an easy
manner. Yuan Peng, the director of China Institute of Contemporary
International Relations, said that if Obama meets the Dalai, then
Sino-U.S. strategic competition will start. The U.S. and China have
a cognitive gap between these disputes (arms sales and Dalai
meeting.) The U.S. thinks that China should understand its domestic
political factors, but China has changed, it is now a country which
no longer fears other countries. Regarding the equal positions of
the two countries, they can't discuss issues within the old
bilateral framework. The possible Obama-Dalai meeting will
definitely impact the U.S., who is relying on how the meeting goes,
positively or negatively. This time is substantially different from
previous times - China wants to change the rules of the game."


3. AFGHANISTAN

"The new Anglo-American way of thinking: counter-terrorism through
'development'"

The Shanghai-based Shanghai Media Group (SMG) publication, China
Business News (Diyi Caijing)(02/03)(pg A6): "U.S. counter-terrorism
has always gone along with strong political motives and double
standards. The two international conferences, held in London last
month on anti-terrorism in Afghanistan and Yemen, began to stress
the importance of 'development' in counter-terrorism. This is the
result of a rational reflection on the counter-terrorism strategies
of the Bush administration. Such changes deserve attention. Wang
Shida, export on the Afghanistan issue at China Institute of
Contemporary International Relations, said that, looking from the
military angle, it seems impossible for U.S. troops to withdraw in

2011. However, at the same time, the U.S. and UK government have to
face domestic pressures. What's more, their amnesty policy will
only work toward low-ranking Taliban forces, but won't likely effect
core leadership in the Taliban. But the London conference still had
some transitional significance in strategy because this amnesty
policy is a new way of thinking when resolving the Afghanistan
issue. Western countries have shown an obvious inclination for more
collaboration."


4. GOOGLE

"The United States is not the teacher of 'information freedom'"


BEIJING 00000278 002 OF 002


The People's Daily-sponsored and internationally-focused commercial
news publication Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao)(02/03)(pg 14): "Since
the start of the Internet Age, the United States, has used one hand
to ask other countries to implement network information freedom and
remove their firewalls, so that, with the other hand it can spread
its American values without obstacles. However, it builds its own
network firewall and it filters information which it feels is
harmful to its values [and ideology]. In fact, the U.S. is
challenging China's core interest. This issue presents
confrontational factors for the Sino-U.S. relationship. China hopes
to possess information freedom. But when a certain country is still
damaging China's long term national interests and security,
regrettably China, which is the same as the United States and other
countries, will not implement full information freedom at the
current time. China is not supposed to implement information
freedom without condition; otherwise it would be an irresponsible
move for the country. China's censorship over the Internet content
has existed before the Google incident and will not change because
Google leaves. We have to apologize to Google since we won't
provide extraterritoriality to it. Any foreign companies in China
must obey China's laws. Information freedom is not yet a reality.
As long as nation-states still exist and there is competition, there
will be a large distance from the ideal situation of total
information freedom. The United States should not pursue China to
shorten the distance, through policies that threaten China and
suggest it correct its own practices."

HUNTSMAN