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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 TAIPEI 003354 
 
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: SECRETARY POWELL'S VISIT TO 
CHINA AND U.S. POLICY 
 
 
A) "The United States Has Decided Not to Play the 
Marginal Game of Taiwan Independence Along with 
President Chen" 
 
The conservative, pro-unification "United Daily News" 
said in its editorial (10/27): 
 
"As the U.S. presidential election campaign entered its 
last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell disclosed in 
Beijing a new framework for U.S.-China policy.  There 
are new elements in this framework.  Some people in 
Washington believe it `has changed U.S. policy.' 
 
"From the perspective of the campaign, Powell appears 
to be telling American voters that the U.S. government 
will not get itself involved in any cross-Strait 
confrontations.  From the perspective of policy, this 
indicates that the Bush administration is making an 
overall revision of its `unilaterialism,' including its 
China policy. 
 
". In Powell's new framework, the U.S. `one-China' 
policy remains unchanged.  His mentioning of `seeking 
peaceful reunification' also increased China's 
political profit.  Therefore, the main pressure is on 
Taiwan.  The United States believes the head of 
Taiwan's government is seeking Taiwan independence. 
But this is not in the interest of the United States 
and China.  In other words, neither of them needs to 
make any changes under the new framework.  The one that 
must change is the Taiwan authority. ." 
 
B) "Facilitating a Dialogue or Facilitating 
Unification?" 
 
An unsigned commentary in the pro-status quo "China 
Times" said (10/27): 
 
"Why has the United States changed its position from 
Bush's remarks of `sparing no effort to defend Taiwan' 
and the principle that `Taiwan's future should be 
decided with the consent of its people' into Powell's 
saying `Taiwan is not a sovereign state and the two 
sides across the Strait should move toward peaceful 
reunification'? 
 
"To speak frankly, Bush is not to blame.  Imagine you 
are Bush.  Just as you have been supporting Taiwan to 
the point of nearly clashing with China, Chen Shui-bian 
does not even inform you of his intention to hold 
referendum to help his re-election.  When you send a 
secret envoy to Taiwan to mediate, he returns empty- 
 
SIPDIS 
handed.  Under these circumstances, could you continue 
your support?" 
 
C) "The Words Are Ear-piercing; Taiwan Cannot Be 
Unalarmed; Powell's Remarks Indicate That There Is Less 
U.S. Ambiguity Toward Taiwan Independence; No Matter 
Whether U.S. Policy Has Changed, the Feeling of 
Interactions Have Been Different; Taipei Should Be More 
Sensitive" 
 
Washington Correspondent Nadia Tsao of the pro- 
independence "Liberty Times" noted (10/27): 
 
"Another issue which is worth noticing is that the 
atmosphere seems to be different between Taiwan and the 
Bush administration.  Although the policy remains 
unchanged; the communication channels are still there; 
and the United States cannot `sell' Taiwan because of 
the North Korean issue, etc, some officials, including 
Powell, seem to believe that Taiwan has deliberately 
misunderstood U.S. policy or ignored U.S. thinking. 
This has increased U.S. difficulty in `managing' its 
cross-strait policy. 
 
"In the interviews, Powell openly praised China's 
diplomatic endeavors as maturing while having warned 
Taiwan many times [that it needed to act more 
maturely].  Even if Powell may not stay [in his 
position], whether this kind of thinking will become 
mainstream in the new Bush administration is something 
Taiwan can not overlook." 
 
D) "Taiwan's Independence is an Objective Fact; It Will 
Not Disappear Because of Negligence by Others; Lame- 
Duck Secretary of State Powell's Remarks in Beijing 
Disgraced the Taiwan People and Himself As Well" 
 
The pro-independence, "Taiwan Daily" editorialized 
(10/27): 
 
". Everybody knows that Powell is almost certain to 
leave his position as Secretary of State even if Bush 
wins re-election.  On all major international issues, 
Powell's viewpoints differ greatly from those of Vice 
President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.. 
During the most heated time of the [election] campaign, 
when there seems to be no one in control in the White 
House, a lame-duck secretary of state went to China for 
his commencement trip.  He said in press interviews 
several sentences that no one could tell there is 
anything new except those who know the subtle 
relationship between the United States, China, and 
Taiwan very well.  The issue how should one interpret 
his remarks will certainly keep U.S., Chinese and 
Taiwan experts busy for some time. ." 
 
E) "Democracy, Yes; Sovereignty, No" 
 
A commentary by Academia Sinica research fellow Hsu 
Yung-ming in the pro-status quo "China Times" said 
(10/27): 
 
". This frank statement [by Powell] seems to have 
broken the myth that many of us have had regarding 
Taiwan's democratic development: democracy does not 
mean sovereignty.  Supporting Taiwan's democratization 
does not equal supporting the Taiwan people regarding 
being their own master.  The U.S. treatment of Taiwan's 
position is not much better than Beijing's treatment of 
Hong Kong.  At least Tung Chee Wah can go to Beijing. 
Can Chen Shui-bian go to Washington? 
 
"The DPP government should let the public know about 
the difference between being democratic and enjoying 
sovereignty.  The Blue and the Green camps should 
express their positions toward this disconnect. . The 
main point is whether we want both democracy and 
sovereignty or can we tolerate democracy without 
sovereignty.  There is no room for ambiguity any 
longer. ." 
 
F) "Poor Word Choice or a Policy Shift?" 
 
The pro-independence, English language, "Taipei Times" 
commented in an editorial (10/27): 
 
"U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Monday 
that Taiwan is not a sovereign and independent country. 
The question is: Is Powell really clear on what he is 
talking about? If the status of Taiwan really is what 
Powell claims it to be, then his statement could be 
interpreted as meaning either that sovereignty over 
Taiwan remains undetermined, as stated in the 1952 San 
Francisco Peace Treaty, or that Taiwan comes under the 
sovereignty of China. 
 
"The question of whether this China is the Republic of 
China (ROC) or the People's Republic of China (PRC) 
will surely lead to further dispute. To those 
interpreting Powell's statement as meaning that Taiwan 
belongs to the PRC, we can only say that this goes 
further than any of the communiqus signed by 
Washington and Beijing, and it is not consistent with 
the U.S.' position. 
 
". When U.S. officials speak on the international stage 
about Taiwan's lack of national sovereignty, they 
clearly demonstrate how perilous Taiwan's situation is 
today -- even its closest friend finds itself unable to 
lend public support. 
 
"Only if Taiwanese show determination and are willing 
to defend themselves at any cost will they be able to 
avoid being swallowed up by China by one means or 
another. Beijing's most devious ploy is to get 
Taiwanese to take national defense lightly. 
 
"If Taiwan loses its military ability to oppose China's 
threats, what reason would Beijing have to sit down at 
the negotiating table to engage in substantive and 
meaningful talks with Taiwan? China would be able to 
threaten Taiwan militarily at any time -- and continue 
to do so until this nation surrenders. If this is a 
situation that the pan-blue camp finds intolerable, 
then they have no reason to oppose the arms-procurement 
budget that has turned the Legislative Yuan into a 
battleground. 
 
"Taiwan meets all the conditions for being a modern 
democratic nation, so Powell's comments about Taiwan 
not having sovereignty are a slap in the face. Unless 
the people of Taiwan are willing to face the same fate 
as the residents of Hong Kong and Macao, then there is 
only one thing they can do. They must convince the 
legislators they elected to represent them that Taiwan 
must equip itself with advanced weapons. The government 
must accelerate the development of a society sharing a 
strong sense of common identity. The people and the 
government must show their determined resistance to 
communist rule. This is a road that Taiwan has no 
choice but to follow." 
 
PAAL