US embassy cable - 05TAIPEI1200

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 TAIPEI 001200 
 
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: RICE'S BEIJING TRIP 
 
 
Summary: Coverage of U.S. Secretary of State 
Condoleezza Rice's visit to Beijing by the major Taipei 
dailies March 21 focused on Rice's meetings with 
Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao 
Sunday in which she called upon China to adopt actions 
to reduce cross-Strait tensions.  The pro-independence 
"Taiwan Daily" ran a banner headline in its front page 
that read, "Rice urges China to peacefully resolve the 
Taiwan issue."  A page-two story of Taiwan's largest 
daily, the pro-independence "Liberty Times," and a page- 
three story of the centrist "China Times," both 
included in their sub-headlines that "Rice believes 
peaceful resolution to the Taiwan issue meets the U.S. 
interests."  The pro-unification "United Daily News,' 
however, points out in a page-two story that during the 
meeting with Hu and Wen, it was noteworthy that Rice 
did mention Washington's consistent position that it 
does not support Taiwan independence (or even opposes 
it).  A "United Daily News" news analysis on page two 
headlined: "The United States' failure to mention [its 
position on] anti-Taiwan independence evidently shows 
that it still has doubts about the Anti-Secession Law." 
A separate news analysis written by "United Daily News" 
Washington correspondent Vincent Chang said Taipei is 
very concerned about Washington's future policy 
direction.  If Rice fails to openly oppose the Anti- 
Secession Law, the article said, Taiwan's freedom to 
make its own choices with regard to its future will be 
greatly reduced.  A limited-circulation, pro- 
independence English-language "Taiwan News," on the 
other hand, suggested in its editorial that the Bush 
administration and Rice take into account the Taiwan 
people's objections to the Anti-Secession Law and the 
firm and responsible reaction by President Chen and the 
DPP administration to Beijing's one-sided attempt to 
introduce undemocratic and non-peaceful means to 
sabotage cross-strait peace and undermine Taiwan's 
democracy.  End summary. 
 
A) "To Set the Tune on the Anti-Secession Law, Rice Has 
a Standard Answer in Her Pocket.  Taipei Is Concerned 
about [Washington's] Future Policy Direction.  If Rice 
Does Not Openly Oppose [the Anti-Secession Law], 
Taiwan's [Freedom] to Make Its Own Choices Will Be 
Greatly Reduced" 
 
Washington correspondent Vincent Chang commented in the 
conservative, pro-unification "United Daily News" 
[circulation: 600,000] (3/21): 
 
". From the many remarks made [by Washington] prior to 
[U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice's visit to 
Beijing, it is obvious that if Taipei fails to get Rice 
in Beijing to `at least' openly define the Anti- 
Secession Law as `a move that alters the status quo of 
the Taiwan Strait,' or to get Washington [to say openly 
that it] `opposes' the law, the Anti-Secession Law 
might become part of the `status quo' of the Taiwan 
Strait in the future.  Should that be the case, 
Taiwan's alternatives to remain flexible in making its 
own choices [with regard to its future] will also be 
greatly reduced. 
 
"Rice's talks in Tokyo with regard to cross-Strait 
relations and the Anti-Secession Law could be combined 
into an intriguing syllogism: `Neither Taiwan nor China 
can unilaterally resolve the Taiwan issue.  The United 
States is opposed to any behavior or action by either 
side of the Taiwan Strait to unilaterally change the 
status quo.  Any unilateral move to escalate tensions 
[in the Taiwan Strait] is not helpful [to resolve the 
cross-Strait disputes].' 
 
"The U.S. position could be summarized using this 
syllogism starting from the time when the draft Anti- 
Secession Law was raised until the time it was passed. 
However, this syllogism is not precise at all.  It is 
not precise [in the way] whether the subject talked 
about in the syllogism refers to the Anti-Secession 
Law; it is not precise whether the law can be defined 
as `a move that unilaterally changes the status quo;' 
and it is not precise whether the United States is 
`opposed' to the law. . 
 
"The biggest predicament and dilemma that Washington 
encounters in the face of the Anti-Secession Law and 
the main reason why it cannot totally agree with Taipei 
[as to how to react to the law] is that even though the 
United Stats is not pleased with some of the articles 
in the Anti-Secession Law, Washington, based on the 
position of its existed China policy, cannot say that 
it totally disagree with all the contents in the law. 
." 
 
"But if it is sure that following Rice's visit to 
Beijing, Washington decides to use the syllogism to set 
a tune [on the Anti-Secession Law], it is definite that 
Taipei, which is now in an unfavorable position, will 
not be yielded willingly.  But if Taipei decides to 
adopt more follow-up counteractions, including the mass 
rally scheduled for March 26, what will be the bottom 
lines of Washington and Beijing and how much can they 
tolerate?  How many warnings will Taipei get from 
Washington and how strong will they be?  All these 
above will affect the future interactions between 
Washington, Taipei and Beijing." 
 
B) "Making the Best Use of Taiwan's Leverage" 
 
The pro-independence, English-language "Taiwan News" 
[20,000] editorialized (3/21): 
 
". Rice said that in her meetings in Beijing this week, 
she will reiterate the Bush administration's complaint 
that the anti-secession law is not `helpful' in 
reducing cross-strait tensions because Washington 
considers the anti-secession law to be a unilateral 
move to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. 
 
"Rice's comments and deeds will serve as key indicators 
for the state of the dynamics of the triangular 
relationship between Washington, Taipei and Beijing and 
promise to have significant implications for future 
U.S.-Taiwan relations and the attitudes of other 
countries toward China as well as for the direction of 
future adjustments of Washington's policy toward 
President Chen Shui-bian's administration. . 
 
"Taiwan should continue to make the best use of 
international leverage to mold its image as a 
constructive member of the global community of 
democracies.  We, therefore, strongly suggest the Bush 
administration and Secretary Rice to take into account 
the objections of the overwhelming majority of the 
Taiwan people to the PRC `anti-secession law' and the 
firm and responsible reaction by President Chen and the 
DPP administration to Beijing's one-sided attempt to 
introduce undemocratic and non-peaceful means to 
sabotage cross-strait peace and undermine Taiwan's 
democracy. 
 
"We particularly urge Rice to convey three messages to 
Beijing leaders.  First, Rice should insist that it is 
impermissible to use `non-peaceful means' or military 
force of any kind against Taiwan.  This message would 
not only represent the universal value of the peaceful 
handling of regional disputes or conflicts but also 
would be consistent with current U.S. policy toward 
Taiwan and the PRC. 
 
"Besides noting that the anti-secession law is 
unfortunate and unhelpful to maintaining peace in the 
Taiwan Strait, Rice should solemnly remind her 
counterparts in Beijing of the grave consequences 
embedded in such belligerent and hostile action. 
 
"Washington should clearly delineate its own red line 
to the Beijing government by noting that the new law 
trespasses on the scope of the U.S.' own `Taiwan 
Relations Act' of 1980 which provides legitimatization 
for the U.S. government to help Taiwan defend itself in 
case of a military crisis, such as a PRC invasion or 
other act of war. 
 
"Second, Rice should present Beijing leaders with the 
content of the U.S. congressional resolutions 
expressing the grave concern of the U.S. people over 
the threats posed by the PRC law to peace and stability 
in the Taiwan Strait.  Moreover, China's accelerating 
military build-up, combined with the blank 
authorization to use force against Taiwan, has not only 
heighten regional concerns but is also seen as 
detrimental to world peace. 
 
"Beijing should also be made to clearly understand that 
its latest action has reinforced Washington's 
objections to the proposal for the European Union to 
lift is 16-year embargo on arms sales to the PRC. 
 
"Finally, and most importantly, Washington should de- 
link the negative impact of the anti-separation law 
with its current policy of pursuing a candid, 
cooperative and constructive relationship with China on 
issues related to the Korean Peninsula or the Bushian 
anti-terrorism crusade. 
 
"Taiwan's interests should be safeguarded and not used 
as a bargaining chip in Washington's policy efforts to 
engage China. 
 
"While maintaining our restrained but firm stance in 
dealing with the PRC legislation, the Taiwan government 
should utilize all of its formal and informal 
diplomatic resources to enhance awareness in the 
international community that Beijing is the side which 
is rocking the boat of peace and stability in the 
Taiwan Strait. ." 
 
PAAL