US embassy cable - 05TAIPEI3911

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 TAIPEI 003911 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/TC, EAP/PA, EAP/PD - ERIC 
BARBORIAK 
DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC, KMDR, KPAO, TW 
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S. ARMS PROCUREMENTS 
 
 
1. Summary: Major Chinese-language Taipei dailies 
focused their coverage September 22 on Taiwan 
independent Legislator Li Ao's speech delivered at 
Beijing University Wednesday; the death of a three-year- 
old boy who was left unattended in a kindergarten van; 
President Chen Shui-bian's transit in the United 
States; and the reaction of Taiwan military and 
legislators to U.S. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
Richard Lawless' statement Monday on Taiwan's blocked 
arms procurement bill.  The centrist "China Times" ran 
a news story on page four that was topped with the 
headline: "In Response to U.S. Official's `Harsh 
Remarks,' Military: [We] Have Never Expected That the 
United States Would Help Defend Taiwan."  The pro- 
unification "United Daily News," on the other hand, 
quoted Taiwan Vice Defense Minister Huo Shou-yeh on its 
page four as saying that the Pentagon was merely 
concerned about Taiwan's national security as a friend. 
Both the "United Daily News" and "China Times" carried 
reactions by PFP Legislator Lin Yu-fang saying the U.S. 
criticism is interference in Taiwan's domestic affairs, 
while the pro-independence "Liberty Times," Taiwan's 
biggest daily, reported on former Cabinet Secretary- 
General (DPP) Liu Hsih-fang's statement that Taiwan 
political parties should consider U.S. arms 
procurements from the perspective of national 
interests, instead of from the interests of political 
parties. 
 
2. In terms of editorials and commentaries, editorials 
in the pro-independence "Liberty Times," "Taiwan Daily" 
and limited-circulation, English-language "Taipei 
Times" all criticized the pan-Blue camp for 
disregarding Taiwan's national security and blocking 
the U.S. arms procurement bill under the pretense of 
following public opinion.  They also warned Taiwan to 
pay attention to Washington's change in both mentality 
and policy with regard to defending Taiwan.  "United 
Daily News" Washington correspondent Vincent Chang 
wrote in an opinion piece that it is embarrassing that 
the United States has to "teach" Taiwan how to value 
its security.  A famous Taiwan lawyer/law professor, 
Chen Charng-ven, said in a separate opinion piece in 
the "United Daily News" that Taiwan should ask the 
United States to sign a joint defense pact with Taiwan 
before it spends a huge amount money on buying weapons 
from the United States.  End summary. 
 
A) "Pan-Blue Camp Must Clarify to All Taiwan People 
about Its Motives to Block [U.S.] Arms Procurements" 
 
The pro-independence "Liberty Times" [circulation: 
600,000] editorialized (9/22): 
 
"The [U.S.] arms procurement bill has still failed to 
be reviewed by the Legislative Yuan's Procedure 
Committee.  Some American friends that are concerned 
about Taiwan seemed to have changed their attitude from 
concern into [feelings of] powerlessness and 
disappointment; they also strongly question if Taiwan 
is really determined to defend itself.  The remarks 
made by American officials recently somehow reveal a 
gradual change in the United States' mentality and 
policy in defending Taiwan. . 
 
"The candid remarks by American officials, without 
doubt, have articulated an embarrassing fact that some 
pan-Blue politicians in Taiwan hold the United States 
to the promise that, given its moral responsibility, 
Washington will surely not give up on Taiwan.  They are 
thus waiting fearlessly for the United States to defend 
Taiwan.  Other pan-Blue politicians are basically 
tilting toward China; they genuinely believe that China 
is their `mother nation' and they have never stop 
hoping that their `mother nation' will come and take 
over Taiwan or Taiwan will be handed over to China one 
day.  For them as a result, Taiwan does not need any 
national defense [capabilities]. 
 
"Just as Ross said, the arms procurements have become a 
political football kicked back and forth between the 
pan-Blue and pan-Green camps.  It is a pity that 
Taiwan's security has been sacrificed in this political 
game.  An independent nation must demonstrate its 
dignity and sovereignty.  Thus, for the DPP, in 
addition to the special arms procurement package, it 
should seek to increase the government's annual defense 
budget ratio so as to really strengthen Taiwan national 
defense.  . To show their responsibility for the Taiwan 
people, the pan-Blue camp must clarify to all why it 
has repeatedly blocked the arms procurement bill. ." 
 
B) "Pan-Blue Camp Echoes China and Disregards 
[Taiwan's] National Security; It Blocks [U.S.] Arms 
Procurements Under the Pretense of [Following] Public 
Opinion - Ross' Strong-worded Statement That `United 
States Has No Obligation to Defend Taiwan' Is Worth 
Reflections of Both the Ruling and Opposition Parties. 
Taiwan People Should No Longer Keep Silent [over the 
Arms Procurements]" 
 
The pro-independence "Taiwan Daily" [circulation: 
100,000] commented in an editorial (9/22): 
 
". [U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency's Security 
Cooperation Operations Principal Director Edward] Ross' 
remarks reflect the long-term, intense battles between 
Taiwan's political parties.  Since [the U.S. arms 
sales] is a matter of Taiwan's national security, all 
Taiwan people should spend some time reviewing and 
reflecting on [Ross' statements].  . The opposition 
party politicians are opposed to the U.S. arms 
procurements, and they deliberately smear Ross' remarks 
by saying Washington criticizes Taiwan just for the 
sake of U.S. interests and the interests of the 
American arms dealers.  This is not true.  The decision 
regarding whether Taiwan should purchase weapons should 
be made in consideration of Taiwan's national security. 
If China did not act like a warmonger, constantly 
conduct military drills ., increase its armaments, and 
[act as if it] is ready to invade and annex Taiwan any 
time, Taiwan would not need to buy weapons from the 
United States at all.  In addition, the U.S. arms 
procurements are not a matter related to Taiwan's 
security only; it is also closely linked to the balance 
of power in the Asia-Pacific region and the world.  As 
Taiwan's ally, the United States will undoubtedly sit 
back and do nothing about [China's actions]. ." 
 
C) "Taiwan Needs Consensus on Defense" 
 
The pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times" 
[circulation: 300,000] wrote in an editorial (9/22): 
 
"The director of the US Defense Security Cooperation 
Agency, Edward Ross, on Monday issued a blunt warning 
on Taiwan's blocked arms-procurement bill, saying that 
in terms of its Taiwan Relations act (TRA), the US is 
under no obligation to help Taiwan deter a military 
threat in the Strait.  If it believes that Taiwan has 
not fulfilled its unwritten obligation to ensure its 
own viable self-defense. 
 
"The US' comments to Taiwan have evolved from 
statements of support and appreciation into complaints, 
and now into clear words of warning. . Without doubt, 
the Bush administration seems to have grown rather 
disappointed, frustrated and discontented with 
politicians in Taiwan on the self-defense issue. . 
 
"Can you blame the US?  Even Taiwan's friends in the US 
Congress are asking why the US should risk the lives of 
its young men and women to defend Taiwan, which seems 
to be reluctant to invest in its own defense. 
 
"Some in Taiwan argue that Taiwan can never match the 
spending of China, the emerging military giant - so why 
try?  Such a mindset demonstrates a fundamental 
misunderstanding of the role of the military.  The 
military exists to deter attacks.  It deters attacks by 
providing a credible defense capability.  It is 
frustrating enough to see Taiwan being locked in a 
diplomatically disadvantageous position on the 
international stage, but it is even more terrifying to 
see senseless domestic politics making Taiwan's 
national defense one of the nation's weakness. 
 
"All politicians, regardless of party affiliations, 
ought to ask themselves and examine their hearts about 
what they have done to substantively promote Taiwan's 
national defense.  Taiwan possesses no offensive 
capability against China.  Are they going to let the 
nation lose even the most basic minimum requirement - a 
capacity to at least deter threats? 
 
"It is time for all the people of Taiwan to reach a 
consensus on national security and show the US that 
Taiwan is not coward, nor a baby that knows only how2 
to cry for help but refuses to help itself." 
 
D) "How to Face the United States' `Guidance Chess'" 
 
Washington correspondent Vincent Chang wrote in an 
opinion piece in the conservative, pro-unification 
"United Daily News" [circulation: 400,000] (9/22): 
 
". These harsh words, which represent the U.S. 
government's stand and are not moderated, is like the 
United States' ultimatum to Taiwan. It shows that the 
United States is at its most impatient. With his words, 
[Edward Ross is] treating years of Taiwan's inaction 
with its defense as the maneuver to get a free ride 
from the United States and drag Uncle Sam into the 
mire. 
 
"How to protect Taiwan's security is a serious matter - 
unless the Chinese Communist Party gives up [its] 
military threat against Taiwan, any alleged kindness 
comes with conditions. But Blue and Green politicians' 
verbal exchanges on the U.S. arms procurement bill 
completely blur the focus . . 
 
"Although Ross clarified that his talk was not meant to 
urge Taiwan to pass the arms procurement bill, or to 
get Taiwan into a military competition with China, he 
also said it was not enough only to increase the 
defense budget, but the defense budget has to be 
prioritized. Between his covers, he was still unable to 
hide the United States' intention to `play a guide in 
the chess.' 
 
"It is very embarrassing for the governing party and 
the opposition to allow a foreign country to teach 
Taiwan about how to appreciate the importance of its 
own security. The U.S. is delivering harsh words to 
show its impatience, and it has made its intention very 
clear. Taiwan does not have to act according to the 
United States' liking, but if it decides to forgo the 
arms procurement deal, then it has to be capable of 
dealing with the risk of the United States' adjustment 
of its security lever role in the Taiwan Strait. If 
[Taiwan] wants to purchase the weapons but does not 
want to pay such a high price, then [Taiwan] has to be 
able to bargain. Besides waging verbal wars, the 
governing party and the opposition parties should 
demonstrate their real abilities." 
 
E) "Tell the United States: No Arms Deals If They Do 
Not Sign a Defense Pact [with the Island]" 
 
Lawyer and Law Professor Chen Charg-ven said in an 
opinion piece in the pro-unification "United Daily 
News" [circulation: 400,000] (9/22): 
 
"U.S. defense official Edward Ross made a strong-worded 
statement regarding Taiwan's arms procurements.  Ross' 
speech was interpreted as Washington saying it will not 
defend Taiwan if the arms procurement bill fails to 
pass.  In fact, Ross' remarks have just pointed out the 
reason why we are opposed to arms procurements. 
 
"Ross said: `If you [i.e. Taiwan] cannot defend 
yourself, we cannot help to defend you;' meaning that 
`no arms deals, no [U.S.] assistance to defend 
[Taiwan.]"  In this double negative proposition, it 
seems an evident fact that should Taiwan fail to pass 
the arms procurement bill, the United States will 
certainly not send any troops if a war breaks out in 
the Taiwan Strait.  But will the United States send 
troops to the Strait if Taiwan passes the arms 
procurement bill and if Beijing invades Taiwan?  It 
seems that judged from the reality, the answer remains 
to be no.  First, [since] Taipei and Washington have no 
joint defense pact, the United States is `not obliged 
to help defend [Taiwan].'  Second, when it comes to 
Pyongyang's nuclear program, Washington needs to rely 
on Beijing.  How high are the chances that the two 
military hegemonic powers in the world will start a 
world war because of Taiwan? . 
 
"Finally, Taiwan needs not worry about the harsh 
remarks by American officials.  The opposition parties 
must by no means be thwarted.  Washington's harsh 
remarks showed that they attach great importance to the 
humongous interests concerning the arms deals.  Judged 
from a negotiator's perspective, it shows that Taiwan 
has got more bargaining chips!  Why don't [we] ask the 
United States to sign a joint defense pact with Taiwan 
to show Washington is really sincere in helping to 
defend the island?  If Washington agrees to sign such a 
pact, it makes more sense for Taiwan to purchase 
weapons from the United States, and it will be a major 
diplomatic breakthrough for Taiwan (signing a formal 
pact means that Taiwan's status in the international 
law is recognized.)  If Washington refuses to sign the 
pact, it simply tells us a fact that even if we spend a 
huge money buying weapons, we cannot defeat Beijing, 
and Washington will not send troops should there be a 
war in the Taiwan Strait.  So why bother to waste our 
money? 
 
"The ruling, opposition parties and all Taiwan people, 
please say it out loud to the United States: no arms 
deal if [Washington] refuses to sign a [defense] pact 
[with Taiwan]!  If the government is determined to buy 
those weapons, please explain in details the reasons 
why [we need to buy them]; do not give us those empty 
reasons such as `Taiwan cannot live without nation 
defense.'  The government should also explain in 
details the source of funding for buying those weapons; 
we do not want to act irresponsibly and leave the debts 
to our future generations." 
 
KEEGAN