US embassy cable - 04TAIPEI3743

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TAIPEI 003743 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE PASS AIT/W 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/23/2014 
TAGS: PREL, PGOV, TW 
SUBJECT: LIEN, CHEN EXCHANGE RHETORIC OVER REFERENDUM 
 
Classified By: AIT Deputy Director David J. Keegan, Reason: 1.4 (B/D) 
 
1. (C) Summary: Lien Chan and Chen Shui-bian sparred over the 
topic of referendums during a noisy campaign weekend.  Lien 
dared Chen to hold a referendum on "independence or 
unification" on the same day as the Legislative Yuan (LY) 
election.  Chen refused to take the bait, reiterating his 
2000 inaugural "five no's" pledge, but warned Beijing that if 
its bullying continued, Taiwan "would not exclude" holding a 
referendum on the topics of the "one China policy" or "one 
country, two systems."  Despite the cross-Strait 
implications, this rhetoric does not represent a new policy 
direction for either side, and the whole exchange is already 
fading from the public's memory.  End Summary. 
 
Lien Challenges Chen to Hold Referendum 
--------------------------------------- 
 
2. (C) Kuomintang (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan, addressing a 
November 21 meeting of the KMT Central Standing Committee, 
accused President Chen Shui-bian of threatening the stability 
of the cross-Strait relationship by his recent actions. 
Chen, he added, was "consistently deceiving" the Taiwanese 
people with his talk of "one country on each side of the 
Taiwan Strait, an independent Taiwan and the establishment of 
a nation."  Lien then dared Chen to hold a referendum on 
"unification or independence" on December 11, the day of the 
LY election, if he "had the guts." 
 
Chen: Referendum Not Possible 
----------------------------- 
 
3. (C) At a rally in Taitung County to support local 
Pan-Green LY candidates, Chen responded to Lien's challenge 
with a rhetorical question: "If you wanted us to hold a 
referendum on December 11, why did you not ask earlier?"  He 
went on to remind his audience that the "bird-cage" 
Referendum Law passed last November restricted the issues 
that the public could vote on.  In its present form, there 
was no "article in the Referendum Law that would allow us to 
hold the referendum suggested by Lien."  Chen then promised 
that if the Pan-Green camp wins a majority in the LY 
election, it will press for major revisions to the Referendum 
Law as soon as the new legislature is seated in February 
2005.  Of course Chen's audience all understood his subtext - 
that the restrictions in the Referendum Law had been 
introduced and passed by Lien's Pan-Blue Alliance over Chen's 
objections. 
 
Chen's Warning to Beijing 
------------------------- 
 
4. (C) Nevertheless, Chen declared that he would not "fall 
into the trap" set by Lien, because he had repeatedly said 
such a referendum is not necessary.  He added that everyone 
knew that he would stick to his 2000 "five no's" pledge, 
which included "no referendum on independence or 
unification."  He noted, however, that "China continues to 
pressure us to accept the 'one China principle', 'one 
country, two systems,' and the so-called '1992 consensus.'" 
He warned Beijing "that if you force us too much, we will not 
exclude putting these demands, which we cannot accept, to a 
referendum."  Executive Yuan Spokesman Chen Chi-mai announced 
the following day that Article 17 of the Referendum Law 
allows the President to call for such a "defensive 
referendum" in the face of an outside threat to change the 
nation's status quo or sovereignty.  (Note: This is the same 
provision Chen cited to justify the two referendums held in 
conjunction with the presidential balloting on March 20.  End 
Note.) 
 
Comment: Just a Flash in the Pan 
-------------------------------- 
 
5. (C) This incident is only one example of the escalation of 
rhetoric on both sides in the run-up to the LY election in 
December.  Lien's call for a referendum, which surprised many 
in his own party, appeared to be little more than a 
ham-handed attempt to goad Chen into taking an extreme 
position that would alienate centrist voters.  Chen, at least 
for the moment, refused to take the bait, making Lien look 
like the more irresponsible candidate.  The entire exchange 
seems to be fading from the public memory, and has already 
been eclipsed in the media by the latest squabble: Chen's 
demand that the KMT change its emblem. 
PAAL