US embassy cable - 05TAIPEI279

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 TAIPEI 000279 
 
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, Cross Strait Politics, Foreign Policy 
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: BUSH'S INAUGURAL SPEECH, U.S.- 
CHINA-TAIWAN RELATIONS 
 
 
1. Bush's Inaugural Speech 
 
A) "Bush's New Unilateralism and the Iran Crisis" 
 
Commentator Nan Fang-shuo wrote in the "Weekly Comment" 
column of the centrist, pro-status quo "China Times" 
(1/24): 
 
". We can say that the Bush administration is facing 
the reality that the United States has become a `50 to 
50 country' or a `divided country.' Due to a `proof 
quagmire' accompanied by `anti-terrorism,' a new 
`unilateralism' has been created.  The proportion of 
will and strength has greatly increased, and the space 
for dialogue domestically and internationally has 
diminished again.  The next four years will be an era 
in which Bush leads everything by his [own] will. 
 
"Firstly, as far as U.S. foreign policy is concerned, 
the biggest, as well as the most subtle and important, 
change in his inauguration speech was the replacement 
of `freedom' for ... `anti-terrorism' (the word 
`freedom' was used 26 times, and 'liberty' 12 times.) 
 
"If one understands more or less the recent changes in 
the Bush camp, one will notice that Bush, after winning 
re-election, has tried to pull himself out of the 
`crisis of fabrication' regarding the invasion of Iraq. 
Hence, Bush in an interview with the Washington Post 
before the inauguration said explicitly that his re- 
election victory meant that what he did in the past was 
recognized by the electorate and, thus, `the government 
is not responsible for the mistake in the intelligence 
or the current deadlock in Iraq.'  Although this is a 
strange explanation, it implies that [Bush wants] to 
get himself out of the 'fabrication of proof' crisis. 
.' 
 
"Hence, the (domestic and international) unilateral 
style in Bush's inauguration speech for another term is 
worth explaining, sentence by sentence.  ... [P]eople 
can easily predict that worldwide commotion over the 
next four years will inevitably be aggravated by the 
easy-to-manipulate neo-unilateralism.  Through this 
kind of explanation, an outbreak of the Iran problem is 
unavoidable.  Although the problem has not been 
triggered, it does not matter whether [the United 
States will] `instigate Iran's opposition parties to 
carry out a revolution' like Deputy Secretary of State 
John Bolton said, or if the United States will take 
over after `Israel conducts an initial attack' as said 
by the Pentagon or Vice President Richard Cheney. . 
 
"Before Bush was sworn in, Secretary of State 
Condoleezza Rice and Cheney explicitly said [the United 
States] will attack Iran. Bush in the inauguration 
speech asserted that he will confront tyranny, implied 
that Iran will be attacked upon.  These are not 
meaningless messages.  Iran, in a matter of time, will 
be sacrificed under the neo unilateralism named 
`freedom.'  Currently, the International Atomic Energy 
Agency (IAEA) personnel are inspecting the facilities 
in Iran, and the United States has condemned the IAEA 
for not carrying out their duty.  The Iran problem does 
not lack a fuse.  Once the force is used toward Iran, 
no matter by an attack led by Israel, or a coup or a 
rebellion instigated by the United States, the 
commotion to the world would be especially expanded. 
In an era of neo unilateralism distinctive of the will 
of the United States, the world has become harder and 
harder to predict!" 
 
B) "The United States Should Make the Best Use of Its 
Influence to Prevent Democratic, Free Taiwan from Being 
Threatened by Strong-Willed, Totalitarian China" 
 
The pro-independence "Taiwan Daily" commented in an 
editorial (1/24): 
 
". [U.S. President] Bush's [inaugural] speech matches 
the spirits [based on which the United States was 
founded].  But it does not fully match the United 
States' treatment or position toward both sides of the 
Taiwan Strait because the Bush administration's 
reaction was obviously too low-key and too weak when 
Taiwan was evidently intimidated by China's missile 
threats and its plan to make an `anti-secession law,' 
an attempt to use `strong-willed interference and 
attack' to forcefully change the status quo of Taiwan's 
sovereignty. . 
"When [we] look at Washington's attitude in treating 
both sides of the Taiwan Strait, it is not difficult to 
discover that [State Department Spokesman] Richard 
Boucher's remarks were actually unable to stand severe 
tests.  According to Boucher, one will discover, by 
just taking a look at the world, that those democratic 
countries that respect human rights share better 
relations with the United States than those countries 
that are undemocratic and show no respect to human 
rights.  It is widely known that the Beijing 
authorities of China is of course a `country that is 
neither democratic nor respectful for human rights.' 
Under the United States' concerns for strategic 
interests, however, Washington-Beijing ties are, 
without doubt, much better than the relations between 
Washington and Taipei, a democratic country that 
respects human rights.'  We need to point out that the 
United States' consideration for strategic interests is 
a short-sighted policy that deviates from the United 
States' nation-founding spirits and has misread the 
historical facts." 
 
C) "Democracy Has No Double Standard" 
 
The pro-independence, English-language "Taiwan News" 
editorialized (1/24): 
 
". The continued domination of U.S. policy by `Bushism' 
for the coming four years presents Taiwan with the 
question of how our Democratic Progressive Party 
administration under President Chen Shui-bian can 
establish a candid and constructive relationship with 
its counterpart in Washington. . 
 
"While the Bush administration and Taiwan's Chen 
administration are widely perceived as sharing the 
universal values of democracy, freedom and human 
rights, it is not self-evident that the two sides share 
the same concepts or definitions of these terms. . 
 
"Closer to home, when it comes to the question of how 
to strike a balance between the development of Taiwan's 
democracy and adjusting to the rise, peaceful or 
otherwise, of the People's Republic of China, it seems 
that only U.S. national interests, as defined by the 
Bush administration, matter. . 
 
"We believe the Bush administration owes both an 
explanation and an apology to democratic Taiwan 
regarding why our 23 million people should be deprived 
of the right to say `no' to the PRC's military 
intimidation. 
 
"Beijing's unilateral actions to threaten Taiwan and 
its moves to enact an `anti-secession law' are clearly 
changing the status quo of the Taiwan Strait. 
Washington's adoption of a low-key stance on the later 
move, citing the lack of `concrete details,' runs the 
risk of a major political miscalculation by remaining 
silent when a strong reaction could have its strongest 
impact. . 
 
"What Bush should contemplate now is the degree to 
which his administration can keep a balance between 
safeguarding the U.S. national interests and fostering 
a full-fledged democratic Taiwan while engaging in 
building a `constructive, candid but cooperative' 
relationship with the PRC. . 
 
"Washington's treatment of Taiwan will stand as a 
litmus test of whether the Bush administration 
genuinely supports the formation of a `community of 
democracies' or is simply using the language of 
`democracy and freedom' to mask the pursuit of a narrow 
and self-serving concept of U.S. national interests." 
 
D) "Let's Hope Bush Keeps His Word" 
 
The pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times" 
noted in an editorial (1/23): 
 
". The people of Taiwan are focused on how this policy 
declaration [i.e. U.S. President George W. Bush's 
inaugural speech] will play out over the next four 
years in the context of the triangular relationship 
between the US, China and Taiwan.  However, looking 
back at this very unique relationship over the four 
years, it is not hard to notice that these ideals - 
however lofty they may be - face some very strenuous 
challenges from self-interest and pragmatism. . 
"While it is understandable that there is only so much 
the US can do about domestic human rights issues of 
China, its handling of the so-called Taiwan issue is 
less understandable. 
 
"If it is so important to help oppressed peoples leave 
tyranny behind, isn't it even more important [sic] help 
free people resist subjection to tyranny?  The latter 
scenario would precisely be what happens to Taiwan if 
unification with China occurs. 
 
"Looking back at the US-Taiwan relationship over the 
past four years, most would agree that the biggest 
tension between the two countries occurred over 
Taiwan's plan to rewrite its constitution and Taiwan's 
holding of referendums.  Both matters - the campaign 
for a new constitution and the holding of referendums - 
reflect the coming of age for a democratic Taiwan. 
Under the circumstances, a better way to depict the 
situation is this - the US felt unnerved and uneasy by 
the reaching of major democratic milestones in Taiwan. 
This is of course highly ironic. 
 
"Not so long ago, Taiwan was still seen as a prodigy of 
democratic reform, for which the US felt very proud of. 
Despite the fact that the democratic development of 
Taiwan was encouraged by the US, limits were apparently 
drawn on how far these developments can go.  The limit 
is that the `status quo' must be maintained. . 
 
"Frankly speaking, despite the ups and downs in the 
relationship between Taiwan and the US over these past 
four days, the Bush administration has nevertheless 
demonstrated unprecedented friendliness toward Taiwan. 
However, that friendliness has thus far not gone nearly 
as far as the people of Taiwan have hoped. 
 
"It is hoped that in the next four years, Bush will 
live up to the promises he made in his inauguration 
speech, especially when it comes to the US' handling of 
the cross-strait relationship." 
 
E) "Bush's Speech Should Assist Keeping Taiwan a Free 
Society" 
 
The conservative, pro-unification, English-language 
"China Post" wrote in an editorial (1/23): 
 
". In his remarks, President Bush laid out a clear set 
of ideas that are to become the theme and primary 
objective of his administration's work over the coming 
four years of his final term in office. 
 
"We sincerely hope that as the Bush administration 
endeavors to make its mark on world history, American 
officials will keep bush's wise words in mind as they 
deal with the situation in the Taiwan Strait. 
Evaluating his speech from the viewpoint of our own 
situation, one line from President Bush's speech made 
an especially strong impression on us, even though we 
knew it was surely not intended to be directed toward 
us. 
 
"In his remarks, Bush said: `America will not pretend 
that jailed dissidents prefer their chains or that 
women welcome humiliation of servitude or that any 
human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.' 
 
"Bush's mention of living `at the mercy of bullies' is 
an exact fit to the situation being endured by the 
people of Taiwan, who have established a truly 
democratic and representative government yet witness 
their representation in the international community 
constantly smothered by Beijing's ruthless oppression. 
 
"We understand that Washington needs to have a strong 
and healthy relationship with Beijing, given mainland 
China's rising status and importance in world affairs. 
 
"But at the same time, we hope that members of the Bush 
administration will keep the noble goals outlined in 
this landmark speech in mind as they formulate policy 
toward Taiwan over the coming four years, which will 
most likely prove to be crucial in determining whether 
our region will remain peaceful." 
 
2. U.S.-Taiwan Relations 
 
A) "US' Inept Policy Turns on Itself" 
 
The pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times" 
commented in an editorial (1/24): 
"We have been waiting since last month's legislative 
elections to write this.  Had we written it in the 
immediate wake of the elections we would have been able 
to make a prediction, but by the time it got around to 
saying `we told you so' it might have seemed like 
flogging a dead horse.  So with great patience we have 
watched the absolute debacle that is the result of the 
extraordinarily irresponsible attempt by the US to 
meddle in Taiwan's elections come to its bleak 
fruition. 
 
"We are told again and again from Washington that it is 
essential that Taiwan - unless it wishes its 
relationship with Washington to collapse utterly - 
purchase the arms package the US has been dangling 
before it since 2001.  So why, it has to be asked, did 
the US government take steps prior to the election to 
ensure that the result of the elections would be to 
return a legislature which would be controlled by 
parties sworn to oppose the arms package purchase, and 
parties which have in the quite recent past made their 
pro-China, anti-US stance abundantly clear? . 
 
"Given the level of pan-blue hostility to the US in 
general and the arms budget in particular, why did 
Washington help the limping pan-blues win the 
legislature? 
 
"Because helped they certainly were.  How else are we 
to characterize the remarks of the US State 
Department's Adam Ereli, four days before the election, 
which were highly critical and condemnatory of 
President Chen Shui-bian over his plan to change the 
names of diplomatic missions and state-owned 
corporations?  Of course this was continuing the theme 
set by US President George W. Bush himself a year 
earlier, where Chen was blamed for changing the status 
quo by holding a referendum with the obvious 
implication that the US didn't look favorably upon him. 
The Ereli comment was particularly blatant - there was 
no need to say this before the election, and possibly 
no need to say it openly at all. 
 
"Having helped the pan-blues to retain control of the 
legislature, the US reaped its reward: Not only did the 
arms budget not pass, it never even made it onto the 
agenda.  And given that the new legislature - as a 
result of US intervention - still lacks the pan-green 
majority needed to pass the arms budget, don't expect 
this to change any time soon. . 
 
"Why Washington should be so inept we can only 
speculate.  The obvious answer, and one that well- 
placed sources suggest is the correct one, is that it 
is being woefully misled about what is happening in 
Taiwan by AIT.  That organization's reason for doing 
this is something we shall tackle at a future date." 
 
B) "Any More Clever Schemes Yet to Be Revealed?" 
 
The centrist, pro-status quo "China Times" said in a 
short editorial (1/24): 
 
". The purpose for President Chen Shui-bian to send out 
signals of holding a referendum on anti-annexation is 
to pressure both Beijing and Washington, warning the 
first not to push Taiwan too hard and the second to 
stop Beijing's unilateral action before things get out 
of control.  Tactically speaking, President Chen's move 
is totally logical and understandable. . 
 
"The results of [last year-end's] legislative elections 
also showed that the United States' attitude would, to 
a certain extent, affect Taiwan's voters' decision.  In 
the face of the more sensitive referendum on anti- 
annexation, such an influence from outside may become 
greater, so the ruler [of Taiwan] must not have any 
wishful thinking about it. 
 
"What's more thorny is the situation inside Taiwan. 
The biggest lesson [that Taiwan should learn] from the 
referendum on arms sales [last March] was that Taiwan 
people are extraordinarily shrewd toward politics. 
Politicians should not think that they could easily 
guide people's decision using a question whose choices 
distinctively contrast.  People will use the referendum 
to express their positions toward issues unrelated to 
the question of the referendum and [the result might] 
greatly disappoint the politicians." 
 
PAAL