This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 TAIPEI 003233 
 
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
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: PRESIDENT CHEN'S NATIONAL DAY 
SPEECH 
 
 
A) "What Have the National Day Fireworks Lit Up?" 
 
The conservative, pro-unification "United Daily News" 
editorialized (10/18): 
 
". President Chen's National Day speech seems to have 
been related to the United States in many ways.  First, 
in the beginning, rumors had it that the draft of 
Chen's speech had been reviewed by Washington before it 
was delivered; then both Washington and Tokyo responded 
to Chen's speech immediately, evidently indicating that 
they were both prepared to do so.  Then when his speech 
failed to get the response from Beijing that was 
expected, President Chen went so far as to say that 
`Washington had told me that Beijing would respond to 
it this way.'  All these signs have made people wonder 
if Chen's cross-Strait talk was made at the request of 
the United States.  Some other people also have 
speculated that Chen was trying to use this speech to 
alleviate cross-Strait tensions in an attempt to curry 
favor with the United States. 
 
"Washington believes that the key to improved cross- 
Strait ties lies in `resuming dialogue' and `direct 
transportation' [across the Taiwan Strait].  In April, 
Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly did not mind 
taking all the trouble of writing five paragraphs to 
elaborate on how both sides of the Taiwan Strait 
reached a consensus in the 1992 meeting about different 
interpretations by either side of the `one China' 
principle, which also led to the Koo-Wang meetings in 
1993 and 1998, respectively. .  Such a move shows that 
Chen referred to the `1992 Hong Kong meeting' in his 
National Day address because the U.S. government was 
his planned target audience and that such a move was 
made at the request of the United States. 
 
"Chen did not touch on the `resumption of dialogue' or 
`direct transportation' in his May 20 inaugural speech, 
so his National Day speech was like `homework handed in 
late.'  In Washington's eyes, the `1992 Hong Kong 
meeting' that Chen mentioned in his speech may sound 
equal to the `1992 consensus' that Washington hoped he 
would say.  But Washington probably has failed to 
notice the difference between the two terms, or maybe 
it did not find out that Chen was `playing with words' 
until now.  As a result, if the National Day speech was 
a gift by President Chen to the United States, what 
could Washington be feeling now -- surprise at 
receiving a gift, or embarrassment at being made fun of 
for having complimented Chen on the `constructive' 
message of his speech? ." 
 
B) "Incrementalism or Obstructionism" 
 
The pro-independence, English-language "Taiwan News" 
commented in an editorial (10/18): 
 
". By issuing another expression of goodwill to the 
other side, President Chen earned domestic and 
international praise. 
 
"The first and direct benefit will be felt in the DPP's 
legislative election campaign, thanks to its rising 
capability to build up an image of a moderate and 
progressive governing force in Taiwan that can secure 
wider support from middle of the road voters. 
 
"Even without a positive response from Beijing, Chen 
and his party has skillfully drawn support from both 
domestic and external audiences and affirmation on both 
fronts will in turn be helpful to the DPP's campaign. . 
 
"In either case, the key priority for Taiwan's 
leadership is to minimize the chance of any severe 
crises or military confrontations [across the Taiwan 
Strait]. 
 
"International influence, particularly from the United 
States and Japan and other great powers, should play a 
more significant role in both mediation and monitoring 
the maintenance of peace.  A framework of peace is 
essentially needed to craft a stable and constructive 
cross-strait relationship.  Only through talks and 
exchanges of different views can a predictable and 
institutionalized framework for cross-strait 
interaction be advanced." 
 
C) "Can Chen's Gesture Be Turned into Real Policy?" 
 
Freelance writer Ku Er-teh noted in the pro- 
independence, English-language "Taipei Times" (10/18): 
 
". Chen certainly shoed goodwill in his [National Day] 
address, although to what degree he was sincere is a 
little more difficult to fathom.  Can this goodwill be 
translated into actual policy?  Some would say the most 
important thing is how the Chinese will respond to it, 
but even more important is whether or not Chen's team 
prepare their own contingency plan prior to 
implementing any such policy. 
 
"It turns out that the Executive Yuan, the Ministry of 
National Defense, and even the Presidential Office had 
no idea what Chen was going to say in his address. 
Based on this, it seems that his words were simply 
intended to communicate his good intentions, but for 
what purpose? 
 
"I'm afraid that the consequences of Chen's words might 
not have been thought through.  But at least the 
Americans noticed Chen's goodwill." 
 
PAAL