US embassy cable - 05TAIPEI1426

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 TAIPEI 001426 
 
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, Domestic Politics 
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: CHINA'S ANTI-SECESSION LAW, CROSS- 
STRAIT RELATIONS 
 
 
1. Summary: All major Taiwan newspapers carried extensive 
coverage over the weekend of the massive protest in Taipei 
March 26 against China's new Anti-Secession Law.  All Taiwan 
newspapers described the rally in front of Taipei's 
Presidential Office as a peaceful demonstration, although 
their reports on the number of participants differed 
dramatically.  The centrist "China Times" ran eight pages of 
reports March 27 about the march, with a banner headline 
"Democracy, Peace, Protect Taiwan" on its front page.  It 
also, however, ran another story about a Taiwan business 
leader's public support of a "One China" policy on its front 
page. 
 
2. Tackling future cross-Strait relations following China's 
legislation of the Anti-Secession Law, Professor Chu Yun-han 
wrote in the centrist "China Times" March 28 that Taiwan has 
to choose between putting cross-Strait ties at a standstill 
or gradually moving toward negotiations.  A "China Times" 
editorial March 27 called for harmony and reconciliation 
between two sides of the Taiwan Strait as being the next 
steps in cross-Strait relations. The pro-unification "United 
Daily News" pointed to a lack of policy on the part of 
President Chen Shui-bian as being the main cause for 
heightened cross-Strait tension.  The English-language, pro- 
unification "China Post" urged both sides to cool down and 
to start cross-Strait dialogue.  In the meantime, pro- 
independence "Liberty Times" and "Taiwan Daily" lauded the 
March 26 demonstration as a show of the Taiwan people's 
will.  "Taipei Times," also a pro-independence newspaper, 
called for a curb on Taiwan investment in China.  End 
summary. 
 
 
A) "Limited Choices for Taiwan" 
 
Chu Yun-han, a political science professor with National 
Taiwan University, commented in the "Weekly Review" column 
in the centrist, pro-status quo "China Times" [circulation: 
600,000] (3/28): 
 
"In response to Beijing's inclusion of `non-peaceful means' 
in a law [meant] to suppress the Taiwan independence 
movement, leaders of the Democratic Progressive Party chose 
to hold a `March 26 Protest against Anti-Secession Law' as 
their main campaign to counter China, while they have no 
plans to taking stronger action for the sake of political 
confrontation.  Not long ago, U.S. Secretary of State 
Condoleezza Rice used the low-key language of "not helpful" 
to express U.S. disapproval when commenting on the Anti- 
Secession Law.  She also reiterated the U.S. stance by 
saying "both sides cannot unilaterally change the status 
quo" and "[The United States] encourages both sides to 
resume dialogue."  The two models of responses have clearly 
mapped out the basic structure for the development of cross- 
Strait relations, and the limited political choices Taiwan 
faces under the framework set by the current situation. 
 
"What really worries the United States is not the Anti- 
Secession Law itself, but the strategic judgmental ability 
demonstrated by the leaders of Hu Jintao's generation. The 
Anti-Secession law is just [part of] Beijing's demonstration 
of its strategic judgment, while the various military 
preparations by Beijing accompanying the Anti-Secession Law 
are a more important indicator [of it]. 
 
"Meanwhile, the United States has also worked hard under the 
table to help a meeting between [President] Chen Shui-bian 
and [PFP chairman] James Soong to materialize, and make the 
DPP government return firmly to keeping its promise to be on 
track with the existing constitution and the `Five Nos' via 
the ten-point agreement. This political act, timed [to 
coincide with] the eve of the passage of the Anti-Secession 
Law, has taken the steam away from the boiling cross-Strait 
situation on the one hand, and also cleanses Taipei's name 
as being a troublemaker on the other hand. 
 
"After the excitement of the March 26 rally fades, Taiwan 
still has to adjust practically to the restraint which grows 
more clear and firmly restricting as time goes by. In the 
foreseeable future, Taiwan basically has only two choices 
left, with the first one being `stalling and refraining from 
breaking the ice' and the second `heading slowing toward 
negotiations.' Under the first option, Taiwan would still 
refuse to cross the threshold of `recognizing the 1992 
Consensus' set up by Beijing. The formal channel for cross- 
Strait negotiation would still be closed, the military 
standoff would continue, there would still be endless wars 
on the diplomatic battlefield, and the normalization of 
cross-Strait economic and trade relations would still be far 
away with no time set for completion. But the trend of 
Taiwan's growing economic dependence on China would not 
change, and Taiwan's bleeding economy would not be remedied. 
Meanwhile, although those who propound independence can 
still subjectively maintain the space for imagining `Taiwan 
still has independence as an option,' though objectively `de 
jure Taiwan independence' would be killed off. Therefore 
there would still be political impulses within Taiwan to 
challenge this bottom line, the momentum for mobilization 
[for the cause of independence] would ebb away, and the high 
tension between the two sides can come under control. 
 
"Under the second choice, Taiwan's mainstream opinion would 
return to the fundamental consensus of `one China under the 
Constitution,' and the public would be willing to respond to 
Beijing's prerequisite of [accepting] `One China' on this 
basis. The mechanism for cross-Strait negotiations will 
restart, and the administrative negotiations would gradually 
resume. 
 
"Chen Shui-bian's willingness to sign the ten-point joint 
statement with James Soong, his statement on `quit deceiving 
ourselves and others' in response to the pro-independence 
activists' keen promotion of the making of a new 
constitution and for name rectification, together with his 
choice of limited political rebuttal after the passage of 
the Anti-Secession Law show that he admits the existence of 
the [restricting] framework. Meanwhile, Premier Frank Hsieh 
delivered a discourse on `one China under the Constitution' 
when he first took up the premiership, plus Chen Shui-bian 
also committed himself to the promise of resuming 
negotiations [with Beijing] on the basis of the achievements 
reached in the Hong Kong talk [in 1992] when he recently 
held a video conference with members of the European media 
and of parliament -- these gestures seem to reveal that Chen 
Shui-bian is inclined to walk out of the political and 
economic predicaments imposed by the first option, and try 
out the way paved out by the second option. 
 
"Judging from the angle of this broad situation, the March 
26 rally may not necessarily be the beginning of a new round 
of political friction and standoff for cross-Strait 
relations, but can be a start for a new stage for trying out 
political reconciliation." 
 
B) "Taiwan Should Move toward Ethnic Harmony and Push for 
Cross-Strait Reconciliation After the [March 26] March]" 
 
The centrist, pro-status quo "China Times" [circulation: 
600,000] editorialized (3/27): 
 
". The March 26 rally stimulated by the Anti-Secession Law 
is absolutely a necessary response, but the next step [for 
Taiwan] should not be endless demonstrations, and should 
never be conversion to Taiwan independence, which will be 
used by China as an excuse for China to adopt non-peaceful 
measures according to the Anti-Secession Law. 
 
"To take this a step further, demonstrations must not only 
stop right now, but we should get rid of passion, retrieve 
rationality, suspend political mobilization, and let people 
take a rest.  [The government] should dissolve internal 
confrontations, and plan for Taiwan's external space that 
will not be suppressed or threatened in order to create a 
favorable environment for survival and development. ." 
 
C) "March without Speech: A Classic of Populism That 
Highlights `Movement without Policy'" 
 
The conservative, pro-unification "United Daily News" 
commented in an editorial [circulation: 600,000] (3/27): 
 
". The Anti-Secession Law can be viewed as the temporary 
conclusion of cross-Strait interactions [that have taken 
place] over more than the past ten years, and the [March 26] 
march as the end of several trials of Taiwan independence 
from the statement of `state-to-state' relations to the 
names-change plan and constitutional reform.  Over more than 
ten years, due to the thrust of Taiwan independence, 
constitutional reform was controlled by a foreign nation, 
legislation through a referendum was blocked by a foreign 
nation, a defensive referendum was distorted by foreign 
interference.  The names-change plan and constitutional 
reform obtained nothing but much cry and little wool. 
[Taiwan's] sovereignty has been suppressed several times, 
and the constitutional structure is equivalent to being 
supervised by a foreign country.  The leader of the ruling 
party should definitely bear all responsibility (for this), 
however, he has adopted populism and has summoned millions 
of people to demonstrate and cover up for his guilt.  The 
same scenario applies to the situation [where] Mainland 
Affairs Council officials attend a demonstration when there 
is no progress on cross-Strait relations; Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs officials also attend a demonstration when 
Taiwan's diplomatic position in the world is in the soup; 
Ministry of Economic Affairs officials also attend a 
demonstration when cross-Strait trade is in the cart.  At 
the critical moment, the ruling class of the country did not 
carry out reflection, but tried their best to go to the 
streets and attend a demonstration.  Is this solemn and 
stirring or just absurd?" 
D) "March Showed the Will of Taiwan" 
 
The pro-independence, "Liberty Times" [circulation: 800,000] 
editorialized (3/27): 
 
"On the surface, China's enactment of the `Anti-Secession' 
Law targets the `Taiwan independence forces.' In reality, 
anyone who rejects unification is part of the `Taiwan 
independence forces.' 
 
"However, many moderate voters and grassroots members of the 
pan-blue camp participated in the march yesterday. This 
explains why the majority of the Taiwanese people have come 
to realize that the threat against Taiwan draws no 
distinctions between pan-green and pan-blue camps. 
 
"Regardless how people may differ in terms of political 
ideologies, Taiwan must fight off the imposition of Chinese 
hegemony first. The direction of the popular will in Taiwan 
is very clear - to protect the right to self-determination." 
 
E) The pro-independence "Taiwan Daily" [circulation: 
150,000] editorialized (3/27): 
 
". Yesterday's March for Democracy and Peace to Protect 
Taiwan, which was massive and ended peacefully, fully 
demonstrated the mainstream public opinion in Taiwan society 
- that is, the more unreasonably China suppresses Taiwan, 
the more strongly Taiwanese people will demonstrate their 
awareness of Taiwanese sovereignty. 
 
"President Chen Shui-bian, who led his family out on the 
streets, should use popular opinion as his endorsement to 
rebuke China when the Chinese government tries to suppress 
Taiwan unreasonably again. We believe that international 
society, which belongs to the camp of democracy, will also 
understand and support President Chen's judgment . ." 
 
F) "Time to Cool Down" 
 
The conservative, pro-unification, English-language "China 
Post" [circulation: 30,000] observed in an editorial (3/27): 
 
"Clearly, the people of Taiwan are not willing to sacrifice 
their sovereignty and independence in exchange for vague 
promises of a better future from the other side of the 
Taiwan Strait. 
 
"The vast majority of people also strongly object to 
Beijing's obstinate insistence on its `right' to use 
military force against us in the event we do something that 
offends mainland China's communist leadership.  Now that the 
people of Taiwan have let their voices be heard on this 
issue, it is our hope that things will calm down quickly 
before any more damage is done. 
 
"Since mainland Chinese President Hu Jintao has already 
publicly stated that Beijing is willing to meet and talk 
with representatives of all major political parties in 
Taiwan, we recommend that the next step should be opening 
such dialogues as soon as possible." 
 
G) "Time to Curb Investment in China" 
 
The pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times" 
[circulation: 30,000] editorialized (3/28): 
 
"Sustainable corporate management means moving on from 
contract manufacturing to concentrate on research and 
development, innovation and developing brand marketing. That 
is the only way for Taiwanese companies to compete in the 
world market. Investment in China runs counter to that goal, 
since it give paramount importance to cheap labor and land 
while ignoring R&D, innovation and brand marketing.  Relying 
only on price will lead to cutthroat competition and 
disappearing profits. 
 
"Taiwanese investment in China is a slow form of suicide for 
our industrial base and the economy as a whole. China's 
`Anti-Secession' Law is visible threat, while investment in 
that country is a less tangible one. Unrestrained investment 
in China simply prepares us for the slaughter.." 
 
PAAL