US embassy cable - 05TAIPEI1028

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 TAIPEI 001028 
 
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 
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: CHINA'S "ANTI-SECESSION LAW" 
 
 
1. SUMMARY: News about China's anti-secession law, whose 
terms was unveiled Tuesday (3/8) when the bill was presented 
to the National People's Congress, was prominent on the 
front pages of all major dailies in Taiwan. While all the 
newspapers cited Taiwan officials criticizing the law as a 
step backward for cross-Strait relations, individual 
newspapers took different approaches in dealing with the 
controversial law.  The centrist "China Times" reported that 
President Chen Shui-bian had hoped that China would bend to 
international pressure and put the law on hold by sending 
local scholars for cross-Strait negotiations, and its 
editorial urged Taiwan authorities to think of 
countermeasures for the law.  The pro-independence "Liberty 
Times" printed a banner headline that said "Non-peaceful 
Means Are More Severe Than the Use of Force," and in its 
editorial urged opposition leaders to see clearly how China 
threatens Taiwan.  In addition, the editorial noted that the 
law might benefit Taiwan by helping the world realize the 
threat posed by China to global peace. These sentiments were 
echoed on the editorial page of the English-language "Taipei 
Times," which called for stronger global reactions to 
China's move. A commentary from "Central Daily News" urged 
for more proactive responses to the law and the recent U.S.- 
Japan security statement.  The editorial in the pro- 
unification "United Daily News," however, said China had 
softened its tone by using the words "non-peaceful means," 
and that the three terms for the "non-peaceful means" had 
gray areas that offered ample room for interpretation. 
 
A) "The Strategic Thinking Taiwan Needs Facing `Non-peaceful 
Means'" 
 
The centrist/pro-status quo "China Times" [circulation: 
600,000] said in its editorial (3/9): 
 
". As the object of this legislation, Taiwan certainly 
cannot accept that its future and destiny be constrained by 
the more than 1000 words of a so-called offshore law.  Five 
hundred thousand Hong Kong residents protested in the 
streets after Provision 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law was 
made public.  They were protesting not only the provision 
but also the legislative process, which did not pay any 
respect to their opinion.  In a democratic society, the 
process is often more important than the result.  [If] Hong 
Kong, which already returned to Chinese rule, could [make 
such protests], it would be apathetic for Taiwan not to 
react to the anti-secession law.  After all, we have not 
seen any Taiwan public opinion [reflected in the law].  No 
representative Taiwan figures participated [in the 
legislative process]. 
 
"The `non-peaceful means' that China may use on Taiwan may 
have two effects.  One is that the possibility of resorting 
to violent measures might be lower since non-violent 
measures may be more effective and intimidating.  The other 
is that the intimidation we will be facing is likely to be 
more diversified. . In the future, Taiwan cannot come up to 
the `non-peaceful means' challenges only from the military 
perspective.  In other words, the authorities need wiser 
strategic thinking other than extending protests." 
 
B) "China's Making of `Anti-secession Law' Awakens Muddled 
Ruling and Opposition Figures" 
 
The pro-independence "Liberty Times" [circulation: 800,000] 
editorialized (3/9): 
 
". Therefore, although the detailed contents of the anti- 
secession law has not been completely published, Wang 
Zhaoguo's statement has confirmed . that the anti-secession 
law is a `blank check' written to the military by the 
Chinese regime, and that it is a war-authorization law, 
which openly resorts to armed forces. 
 
". It is unwise for China to have activated the legislation 
of the anti-secession law.  However, it may be a turn for 
the better, a turn from danger into safety, for Taiwan. 
First, the law attempts to break the cross-Strait status quo 
and will certainly affect regional stability.  It has 
already made the international community face up to the 
threat of China's rise to world peace and order.  Cross- 
Strait security has become an unavoidable issue for the 
international community.  Second, there are indeed a few 
people in Taiwan who hold illusions about China.  China's 
progressive threat toward Taiwan has deprived Taiwan of any 
survival space.  Such a development will awaken these 
people, promote Taiwan's internal unity, and strengthen a 
sense of common destiny ." 
 
C) "Promoting Unification, Anti-independence, Maintaining 
the Status Quo: Three Stages of China's Taiwan Policy As 
Seen in `Anti-secession Law'" 
 
The editorial of conservative/pro-unification "United Daily 
News" [circulation: 600,000] commented (3/9): 
 
"China's National People's Congress (NPC) started to review 
the `anti-secession law.' From the statement made yesterday 
by its Vice Chairman Wang Zhaoguo, the most significant 
should be that the law has implicitly recognized `the status 
quo is not Taiwan independence.' 
 
Interpreting the law from this perspective, we probably can 
see the three stages of evolution for China's Taiwan policy 
over the past few years: from promoting unification to being 
anti-independence to maintaining the status quo. 
 
"We believe, rather than emphasizing `anti-independence,' 
the `anti-secession law' is, in fact, moving to the 
`maintaining status quo' step.  Once on this step, the 
prospect of cross-Strait relations should be wider and more 
constructive." 
 
D) "Interpreting the New U.S.-Japan Security Alliance and 
Responding to Anti-secession Law" 
 
Section  Chief  Liu  Teh-chuan of the Ministry  of  National 
Defense  Spokesperson's Office wrote in the  KMT  mouthpiece 
"Central Daily News" [circulation: 80,000] (3/9): 
 
". [Regarding] how to correctly interpret the implications 
of the `U.S.-Japanese Statement', respond to the follow-up 
effects of the `anti-secession law,' play the crucial 
strategic role as the center of an island chain, and prevent 
any change of the status quo or becoming a victim of power 
struggles among powerful nations, I personally would like to 
suggest the following strategic thinking for Taiwan's 
decision-making agencies: 
 
"1. The enhancement of the U.S.-Japan alliance can become a 
`window of opportunity' for Taiwan.  In the short term, we 
should target promoting policies favorable to Taiwan through 
many channels.  For the long term, we should think of ways 
to integrate Taiwan's diplomatic, military and economic 
resources with U.S. and Japanese relations in order to play 
an active role as a strategic partner of the U.S.-Japan 
alliance . 
 
"2. .Taiwan needs to show its determination [regarding] self- 
defense to the world through `reasonable' and `pragmatic' 
arms purchases.  Before China renounces any military 
invasion against Taiwan and the two sides of the Strait sign 
any peace agreement, building dependable self-defensive 
capabilities should be a top priority for Taiwan. 
 
"3. On the mechanism for military exchanges, Taiwan should 
actively train diplomats well versed in U.S. and Japanese 
affairs so that they can build close contacts with the 
Pentagon and the Japan Defense Agency.  Taiwan should 
evaluate the roles it can play and priorities for 
cooperation.  It can try to build a preliminary military 
exchange mechanism with Japan through the United States and 
promote having Japanese military officials be stationed in 
Taiwan, following the American Institute in Taiwan model. 
Channels for regular dialogues should be established.  And 
triangular military simulation drills should be promoted 
through civilian think tanks." 
 
E) "The World That Can Say `No'" 
 
An editorial of the English language pro-independence 
"Taipei Times" [30,000] commented (3/9): 
 
"Infamous for its impotence and self-importance, China's 
National People's Congress (NPC) seems to exist in an 
imperial haze. Ignoring protests from the rest of the world, 
it will do as it is told and pass the `anti-secession' law 
treating Taiwan as part of China's territory and the 
Taiwanese people as a mob to be intimidated or killed if 
need be. But Beijing has yet to learn the lesson from the 
failure of verbal attacks and military threats in the past. 
 
"The reasoning behind the bill mentions `non-peaceful' means 
to resolve the Taiwan question -- a frightening phrase that 
points to an intensifying threat to invade as well as the 
use of any number of other obnoxious strategies. 
 
"But the most unacceptable part of the proposed law is this: 
The right of interpretation rests solely with the Chinese 
government. This means that Chinese officials are both the 
players and the referee in this ugly political game, 
increasing insecurity both in military terms and in terms 
more relevant to Taiwanese businesspeople in China. 
 
". The `anti-secession' law is to a large extent modeled on 
the US Taiwan Relations Act. One of the goals is to rely on 
unilateral legislation and domestic laws to define the 
relationship between China and Taiwan in order to intimidate 
the Taiwanese public, so that they will ape their more 
compliant `compatriots' in Hong Kong and Macau. At the same 
time, Beijing is trying to challenge Washington and test its 
resolve. 
 
"If Washington does nothing and other countries refrain from 
strong reaction to Chinese aggression, then China may 
escalate its threats of military action to frighten Taiwan 
away from adopting any domestic reforms and create the 
impression that Taiwan is already in the bag. 
 
"A recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal pointed out 
that China's rhetoric is similar to North Korea's. North 
Korean provocations against Asian neighbors have caused no 
end of problems for the US and Japan. 
 
"Unless the world wants a smarter and more self-righteous 
version of North Korea creating havoc in the region, the 
international community needs to start saying "no" to 
China." 
 
F) "Examine Beijing's law!" 
 
The conservative/pro-unification English language "China 
Post" [20,000] noted in an editorial (3/9): 
 
"Today, for the first time the contents of Beijing's draft 
Anti-Secession Law will be revealed when it is presented to 
National People's Congress for a final review before 
adoption by the end of the week. 
 
"No matter how mild its wording, it hurts the feelings of 
Taiwan's majority people. This law is unnecessary because 
most of the island's residents favor status quo and reject 
separation with the mainland. It is also dangerous because 
it could provide an excuse for ultra-nationalists on the 
mainland to pursue military ventures against Taiwan. 
 
". President Chen Shui-bian stayed away from the protests, 
in an apparent bid not to fan tensions with China. Also 
absent were leaders from the major opposition parties, the 
Kuomintang and the People First Party, which oppose Taiwan 
independence. At this stage, there simply is no way to talk 
Beijing out of it or even revise it. 
 
"The only thing to do is to carefully examine the contents 
and ponder how to turn it into Taipei's geopolitical 
advantage, rather than to merely exploit it for domestic 
political purposes." 
 
 
G) "Peace Offensive Is Best Defense" 
 
An editorial of the English-language pro-independence 
"Taiwan News" [15,000] opined (3/9) 
 
". The `Explanations of the Draft Anti-Secession Law' 
presented by NPC Vice Chairman Wang Zhaoguo yesterday stands 
as confirmation that Beijing has made a strategic error in 
trying to deal with such a complicated issue as the 
situation in the Taiwan Strait with a rigid law. . 
 
"The most dangerous revelation was Wang's statement that the 
law would authorize the PRC State Council and Central 
Military Commission to `decide on and execute non-peaceful 
means and other necessary measures' to strike at `Taiwan 
independence forces' and only after launching such an 
assault `promptly report to the NPC Standing Committee.' 
Beijing's decision to manifest such aggressive intentions 
was clumsy as it takes place just as the U.S. government 
under Bush has shifted its grand strategy after encountering 
difficulties in its crusade against global terrorism. . 
 
"The progress toward a greater consensus between the U.S. 
and the EU on issues concerning efforts to deal with 
terrorism, many pundits believe international politics has 
entered a post-anti-terrorist era characterized by consensus 
on the basic principles and methods for dealing with the 
problem of global terrorism and a revival of the importance 
of global cooperation and conventional securities issues. 
 
"In this framework, the PRC will again be seen by the U.S. 
as a strategic competitor and even threat, especially in the 
Asia-Pacific region. 
 
"Moreover, the prospects for better U.S.-EU cooperation and 
the decline of Beijing's importance as a `partner' in the 
anti-terrorist crusade will provide Washington with more 
space and energy to deal with the issue of a rapidly rising 
China, especially in strategic and security terms. 
 
". Despite the PRC's intent to proceed with enacting this 
unwise law, the [Taiwan] government can still use the 
approach of constructive interaction that continues to 
affirm its sincerity in promoting a peace and development 
framework for cross-strait relations. 
 
"At the same time, political parties, including the 
Democratic Progressive Party, are free to sponsor 
demonstrations or other movements, including to promote 
amendments to our own Constitution or legal framework. 
The government should retain, for use when absolutely 
necessary, the president's power under the Referendum Law to 
call a national security or so-called `defensive' 
referendum. 
 
"Given the needs to be both constructive and defend our 
sovereignty, Taiwan should not only protest and counteract 
this law, but directly and openly challenge the PRC's 
credibility on the fronts of democracy, human rights, peace 
and even economic freedom. 
 
"To counteract the Beijing's transparent intention to 
manipulate `great Chinese nationalism,' as shown by PRC 
State Chairman Hu Jintao's call to the `1.3 billion Chinese 
people' to resolve the Taiwan Strait problem, Taiwan needs 
to actively play the role of a democratic lighthouse to 
promote faster change in the PRC. 
 
"Moreover, we should also emphasize the fact that this law 
is not being deliberated or approved in a democratic process 
but rammed through by a tool of an autocratic regime and 
that it has no legitimacy over the 23 million people in 
Taiwan or the government that they have directly and freely 
elected. 
 
PAAL