US embassy cable - 04TAIPEI3906

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 TAIPEI 003906 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/RSP/TC, EAP/PA, EAP/PD - 
ROBERT PALLADINO 
DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC, KMDR, KPAO, TW, Foreign Policy 
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S.-TAIWAN RELATIONS 
 
 
A) "Repetitive Bumping on U.S.-Taiwan Relations Results 
in Tighter Inhibition; Washington Measures Promoting a 
Referendum and Changing Taiwan's Name with Different 
Standards; One Needs to Evaluate the Price of Reckless 
Moves" 
 
Washington Correspondent Liu Ping of the pro-status quo 
"China Times" wrote (12/8): 
 
". The referendum issue was an unpleasant experience 
for the two sides.  This time, although the United 
States has made it clear, there is but three days left 
before the balloting day.  Can Taiwan put the brakes on 
now?  After the State Department statement, President 
Chen said `the United States is conveying China's 
objection.'  Despite this being a campaign statement, 
it can widen the gap between the two countries and even 
be seen as an insult to the United States.  On the 
other hand, while the U.S. officials in charge [of 
foreign affairs] are in a transitional period, it is a 
trial of how to continue to control by powerful 
measures a horse that is about to run wild. 
 
". Recent developments have made the United States more 
and more frustrated.  Its trust in the Taipei 
authorities is getting less and less.  Therefore, the 
United States has used up all the terms it can use to 
the limits of diplomatic terminology. 
 
". Commenting on the name changing issue, a senior 
diplomat once said, `our final goal is to resume 
diplomatic relations and re-open an embassy.'  However, 
with the deterioration of cross-Strait relations, can 
it be easier to change Taiwan's name as setting up an 
embassy is impossible?" 
 
B) "Whether It Is a Campaign Statement or Not, 
Washington Takes All of Them Seriously; It Monitors 
Chen's Words and Deeds and Has Reacted Promptly and 
Precisely This Time; The Media Did Not Ask for the 
Answer; It Is a Prepared Warning" 
 
Vincent Chang, Washington correspondent of the 
conservative, pro-unification "United Daily News" 
commented (12/8): 
 
". In a way, the channels for U.S.-Taiwan 
communications are still working well.  But 
Washington's attitude has totally changed.  It no 
longer believes that Chen Shui-bian is only saying 
things not to be taken seriously.  Recent State 
Department reactions can be said [to be] the result of 
close `monitoring' by the United States of Taiwan's 
rhetoric and moves rather than `close communications' 
between the United States and Taiwan. 
 
". President Chen may be making `real or false' 
comments.  But Washington's approach now is to treat 
him the way he treats others.  Whether President Chen 
means it or not, whether it is `campaign rhetoric' or 
sausage-cutting `campaign promises,' all are being 
taken seriously [by Washington]. 
 
"The reason is that the Bush administration has learned 
over the past four years that only when Washington 
takes seriously what President Chen says, will Chen 
`take seriously' Washington's reaction.  He cannot use 
election campaigning as an excuse to justify everything 
and ask the United States to be `understanding' 
anymore." 
 
C) "The United States' Continued Constraint of Taiwan 
Democracy Is Sending the Wrong Messages to China" 
 
The pro-independence "Taiwan Daily" editorialized 
(12/8): 
 
". In the past, no one paid much attention to the names 
of organizations such as China Steel Corp., China 
Petroleum Corp., China Shipbuilding Corp., China 
Airlines, and the International Commercial Bank of 
China.  On one hand, it is because nobody dared to 
question the names under the past authoritative system. 
On the other hand, it is because Chinese enterprises 
were not in the international arena yet.  All these 
things have changed now.  There is no reason to cherish 
the outmoded .. The United States has taken as its duty 
the promotion of freedom, democracy, and human rights 
all over the world.  But it is really a huge irony that 
the United States is criticizing Taiwan's efforts 
toward these goals and making Taiwan's democratization 
more difficult." 
 
D) "Promoting Name Changes Is a Move Reflecting 
Taiwan's Mainstream Public Opinion, Not a Change of the 
Status Quo" 
 
The pro-independence "Liberty Times" commented in an 
editorial (12/8): 
 
". We have to lodge the strongest protest to the U.S. 
government for some inappropriate parts of the U.S. 
policy toward Taiwan and U.S. official remarks that 
overstep their capacity and interfere in Taiwan's 
domestic affairs. Taiwan is an independent sovereign 
state, and this is the status quo. Any changes in the 
nation's name, national flag, national anthem or 
campaign for name rectification should not be regarded 
as a change to the status quo. Instead, they are moves 
that [match] Taiwan's mainstream public opinion to 
`match reality' and make Taiwan a normal country. 
 
". It is unacceptable that the United States regards 
plans to change the names of Taiwan's state-owned 
companies as a change of Taiwan's status and will not 
support the plans. Frankly speaking, Taiwan is no 
colony of any country, and outsiders cannot interfere 
with our internal affairs. Opinions from friends can be 
used for reference, but [regarding doing] the right 
thing that is supported by the public, Taiwan should go 
ahead and do it. There's no need to care about the 
opposition and criticism from outside." 
 
E) "Taiwan' Means What It Says" 
 
An editorial of pro-unification, English-language 
"Taipei Times" said (12/8): 
 
". There is no need for the State Department to be so 
nervous. It seems that as soon as Taiwan mentions a new 
constitution or title of convenience, their officials 
fear a declaration of independence is imminent. 
Taiwanese democracy operates on the strength of the 
same mechanisms as many other democratic countries. All 
matters concerning national sovereignty must be 
approved by the legislature, so President Chen Shui- 
bian and the government are hardly likely to adopt the 
autocratic methods so loved by earlier Chinese 
Nationalist Party (KMT) administrations. 
 
"Changing the names of state-run enterprises, on the 
other hand, is a purely domestic matter and the US has 
no basis on which it can interfere. As for the names of 
private enterprises, not even Taiwan's government can 
interfere with such commercial decisions. 
 
"Attempts to change the name of Taiwan date back to 
1979 when the Taiwan Relations Act came into force. At 
that time the KMT even protested that the name Taiwan 
was being used to refer to the Republic of China (ROC). 
So, if `Taiwan' is now used to stand in for `ROC' in 
other contexts, the US really has no reason to object. 
If it does, it might be usefully asked to refer to its 
own law books. 
 
"There is nothing unreasonable about a new constitution 
that redefines this nation's territories as those which 
it actually controls, namely Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and 
Matsu. Similarly, any reasonable person would welcome 
the name `Taiwan' as a replacement for all of the 
peculiar titles under which this country has labored so 
that people can differentiate between Taiwan and China 
at a glance." 
 
PAAL