US embassy cable - 04TAIPEI3931

UNCLAS TAIPEI 003931 
 
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, Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy 
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S.-TAIWAN RELATIONS 
 
 
A) "Don't Throw Away the Shoulder Pole Before Buying a 
Lottery Ticket - Excessive Manipulation of the `Name 
Change' Plan Might End up in Gaining Nothing [for 
Taiwan]" 
 
The conservative, pro-unification "United Daily News" 
editorialized (12/10): 
 
". Americans will not sit back quietly and allow 
Beijing to use force [against Taiwan.]  Yes, this is 
true, but this fact cannot be viewed as an amulet for 
Taiwan because how China and the United States will act 
is not under Taiwan's control.  What Taiwan can control 
is how the island will choose its future.  For a long 
time, Taiwan's tough survival has relied on the fact 
that Washington, Beijing and Taipei all recognize [the 
need to] `maintain the status quo.'  Because of this, 
Taiwan got the United States' guarantee to safeguard 
peace across the Taiwan Strait ..  This `U.S. lottery 
ticket' that Taiwan uses as an amulet, however, cannot 
be cashed in at anytime without restrictions.  Instead, 
it depends on the means that Taiwan uses for making a 
living - namely, [its pledge of] `not to unilaterally 
change the status quo.'  President Chen Shui-bian, 
however, seems to have a blind spot regarding the 
recognition of this situation, and his move to throw 
away the `shoulder pole' . is so blatant, [it is 
almost] as if he were afraid that the world would not 
notice his intention.  Doesn't he know that the number 
on the `U.S. lottery ticket' cannot be erased or 
changed, and the ticket has never been a blank check? 
." 
 
B) "Chen Unfairly Accuses of U.S. Interfering in 
Internal Affairs" 
 
The conservative, pro-unification, English-language 
"China Post" said in an editorial (12/10): 
 
". Chen attacked the U.S. government's objections to 
his name-change call as an action of interfering with 
Taiwan's internal affairs.  This accusation is neither 
reasonable nor fair.  The U.S. has a responsibility to 
intervene when necessary, because it has a defense 
commitment to Taiwan.  This commitment must not be 
interpreted as merely a unilateral U.S. obligation. 
Taiwan, for its part, should behave itself by 
refraining from doing anything that would provoke a PRC 
invasion that in turn could involve Washington in an 
unnecessary war.  In other words, Taiwan must not take 
the advantage of America's defense protection to 
antagonize Beijing by pursuing independence. 
 
"Chen of course can voice his resistance aloud to 
Washington's intervention if he believes that Taiwan is 
no longer in need of American defense assistance. 
Apparently, this is unlikely to be the case as long as 
the political standoff with Beijing persists. 
 
"It was irresponsible that Chen urged the people to 
persevere with his name-change plan and told them that 
that was the only right way for them to take.  And only 
by doing so will Taiwan have future. 
 
"Taiwan's political future cannot be unilaterally 
decided by its own politicians or by a referendum by 
its people.  It must take into account the position of 
Beijing which will always claims sovereignty over 
Taiwan.  Taipei could ignore Beijing's opposition only 
under the circumstance when it has the strength to 
independently deter a military retaliation. . 
 
"A continuous rise in nationalism on both sides of the 
Taiwan Strait may finally prompt their political 
leaders to take adventurous moves, to the point that 
things may get out of control.  When tensions escalate 
to such a level, it would be too late for the U.S. to 
intervene and prevent what could be a devastating war. 
 
"This means that Washington might have to take a more 
effective role in helping to contain Taiwan's surging 
independence movement now and in the years ahead." 
 
PAAL