US embassy cable - 05TAIPEI1045

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 TAIPEI 001045 
 
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: As newspapers in Taiwan continued their coverage 
of China's "anti-secession law" March 10, the focus moved to 
the U.S. role in the situation. Comments by White House 
Spokesman Scott McClellan and State Department Spokesman 
Richard Boucher describing the "anti-secession law" as 
"unhelpful" ran on the front pages of several Taipei 
dailies. The front-page headline of the pro-unification 
"United Daily News" read: "The United States urges both 
sides of the Taiwan Strait to refrain from taking actions to 
counter-attack each other." The newspaper said in an 
analysis piece that the U.S. pressure on Taiwan will be 
stronger than that on China.  The centrist "China Times" 
carried a banner headline noting that "Randy Schriver says 
China is held responsible to fix the mistake it makes" by 
presenting the controversial legislation.  Its editorial 
criticized China for forcing Taiwan to seek independence by 
depriving the island of its international space.  A news 
analysis in the paper questioned whether the United States 
will succeed in persuading China not to enact the law as it 
did not succeed in dissuading Taiwan from holding 
referendums in 2004. The pro-independence "Liberty Times" 
urged the Taiwan authorities to step up the process of 
Taiwanization to counter the threat of China's annexation of 
Taiwan. End of summary. 
 
A) "People Are Waiting Expectantly" 
 
The pro-independence "Liberty Times" [circulation: 800,000] 
editorialized (3/10): 
 
". These days, we are deeply concerned about the aberration 
of the ruling DPP after the meeting between President Chen 
Shui-bian and PFP Chairman James Soong.  For the sake of the 
interests of all the people of Taiwan, we have harshly and 
justly criticized the DPP's loss of direction.  The fact of 
the anti-secession law proves that Taiwan's political 
parties are all wrong regarding their pro-China stances. 
Taiwan's current situation is extremely difficult, and we 
can no longer be beguiled by any small favors from China 
such as cross-Strait charter flights for the Lunar New Year. 
Taiwan should not be careless about this crisis.  It is time 
[for Taiwan] to conduct a thorough review of its cross- 
Strait economic and financial policies that carry the name 
of `effective management,' but in reality are `proactively 
opened' and tilted toward China.  The review will assure 
Taiwan's national security and make sure businesses remain 
in Taiwan.  By so doing, Taiwan can keep the capability to 
defend itself when China uses force against Taiwan.  More 
importantly, the anti-annexation plan cannot [consist] 
merely of slogans. The government should propose concrete 
and firm plans to counter China effectively.  The 
Taiwanization movement should continue.  President Chen Shui- 
bian should keep his promise and lead a rally of half a 
million Taiwan people March 26 to protest China's 
legislation of a bully law that is aimed at annexing Taiwan. 
The people of Taiwan look forward to having every political 
party attend the rally and speak out loud to the world the 
voice of the people of Taiwan." 
 
B) "The Republic of China Has Always Been `Anti-secession'" 
 
The editorial of centrist/pro-status quo "China Times" 
[circulation: 600,000] said (3/10): 
 
". According to its Constitution and system [of governance], 
the Republic of China (ROC) has always been `anti- 
independence' and has insisted on `anti-secession.'  How can 
there be any `secession' issue?  And there is certainly no 
need for Beijing's National People's Congress to define or 
set rules for Taiwan regarding what conditions equal 
`secession' and what situations equal `Taiwan independence.' 
. 
 
". Indeed, there is a not insignificant percentage of people 
in Taiwan who favor Taiwan independence.  The Beijing 
authority has also repeatedly claimed that their insistence 
in enacting the anti-secession law was forced by certain 
Taiwanese who want to achieve `de jure independence' by 
holding referendums or instituting a new constitution.  Has 
Beijing ever thought about why the advocacy for independence 
keeps growing in Taiwan?  Is it not a result of the fact 
that the ROC has been deprived of its international 
position?  When the ROC is forced to disappear in the 
international community and cannot go beyond its door, how 
can this be not providing the richest soil for promoting a 
new constitution and a change of national name?  Does 
Beijing not know that it is exactly its own deeds that are 
the strongest driving force, which is likely to lead to 
Taiwan's separation from China? 
 
". The Beijing authority has never realized that the ROC is 
the only common ground agreed to by both the ruling and 
opposition parties in Taiwan now, as reconfirmed by the 
recent Chen Shui-bian and James Soong meeting.  Among the 
various entanglements, it is the only historical umbilical 
cord between the two sides of the Strait.  The only way to 
resolve the fast knot of cross-Strait political disputes and 
the crisis of cross-Strait separation is to take a positive 
view toward the ROC." 
 
C) "The United States Shuttles Back and Forth Across the 
Taiwan Strait and `Fights the War' on Two Fronts" 
 
Washington Correspondent Liu Ping wrote in the centrist, pro- 
status quo "China Times" [circulation: 600,000] (3/10): 
 
". Regarding the `anti-secession law,' the U.S. strategy is 
quite clear, that is to oppose any use of force across the 
Taiwan Strait, and any unilateral change in the status quo. 
Tactically, the United States has been engaging both China 
and Taiwan at the same time.  On the one hand, the United 
States hopes that the Chinese authorities would have second 
thoughts and [decide it is] better not to have the law 
legislated; on the other hand, the United States urges 
Taiwan remain calm .. 
 
". In a similar vein, the United States adopted the same 
strategy when Taiwan was planning to hold referenda in 2003. 
At the time the United States kept negotiating with Taiwan 
and hoped Taiwan would withdraw the decision; the United 
States also asked China to keep calm.  Regarding the anti- 
secession law, the United States has hoped from the 
beginning that China would give up this idea while expecting 
Taiwan to remain calm. But in the end, Taiwan held the 
referenda and China is enacting the anti-secession law after 
all . . 
 
"From the White House, the Department of State, academics, 
to public opinion in the United States, the sentence "The 
anti-secession law is not helpful" has been repeated again 
and again.  But when the United States tried to dissuade 
Taiwan from holding the referenda, it also repeated the same 
"not helpful" line.  Did Taiwan listen to this?  Then will 
China listen?" 
 
D) "Behind the Carrot, the United States Is Waving a Big 
Stick.  For Beijing, It Appears to Be Only Able to Make 
Gestures; for Taipei, Harsh Criticism May Come Any Time 
Depending on Reactions" 
 
Washington Correspondent Vincent Chang of the 
conservative/pro-unification "United Daily News" 
[circulation: 600,000] commented (3/10): 
 
"Once China adopts the legislation, due to the closeness of 
current U.S.-China relations, even if Washington is angry 
and wants to downgrade its relations with Beijing, the 
downgrading would not last long. . 
 
"Therefore, what worries Washington is, in fact, Taiwan's 
reaction.  Washington certainly does not want to see 
Taiwan's rejection and follow-up moves against the anti- 
secession law move up to a certain degree and become a 
trigger to activate the anti-secession law. 
 
"Although the United States appears to be on Taipei's side, 
the comment [by the United States] of no `anti- and counter- 
anti' moves is mainly aimed at Taipei.  Even [U.S. Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of State] Randy Schriver made it clear 
that [the United States] hopes Taipei will `make 
contributions' to moving toward `the correct direction' and 
not `go in the wrong direction' like China. 
 
"The hard fact is that Washington's stick cannot stop 
Beijing from making the law but is forcing Taipei to take 
the `correct direction' under the shadow of the stick. 
While Beijing continues to stride in the `wrong direction,' 
Taipei can only [face] to reality and make `self-restraining 
contributions.'" 
 
PAAL