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 003923 
 
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: TAIWAN'S PLAN TO CHANGE NAMES 
 
A) "Taiwan's Name Change Campaign and U.S. Responses" 
 
Lin Cheng-yi, Research Fellow and Director of the 
Institute of International Relations, National Chengchi 
University, said in a commentary in the pro-status quo 
"China Times" (12/9): 
 
"During the Cold War period, the United States and 
Taiwan shared the same military strategy of blocking 
Communist China.  Nevertheless, both President 
Eisenhower and President Kennedy were against Chiang 
Kai-shek's plan to retake the Chinese mainland.  In 
1962, representatives of Kennedy and Mao Zedong met in 
Warsaw and reached a consensus to jointly oppose 
Chiang's proposed attack on Mainland China.  Now, more 
than 10 years after the end of the Cold War, Taiwan's 
democratization has gradually moved from a bargaining 
chip to a potential problem.  After Taipei pitched the 
ideas of `Special State-to-state Relations,' `One Side, 
One Country,' and `defensive referendum,' the United 
States has come to realize that in addition to China, 
Taiwan is poised to become a source of instability in 
U.S.-China-Taiwan relations.  Washington even feels the 
urge to pressure Taipei before pushing Beijing. 
 
"The democratic developments in Taiwan after President 
Lee Teng-hui's rule put the United States in a dilemma, 
prompting Washington to narrow down the scope of the 
application of universal democratic values.  In 
response to Taiwan's referendum plans, the Bush 
administration appeared unprepared and sent 
inconsistent messages.  At one point, the United States 
said it didn't oppose the holding of referenda, later 
it said the United States didn't see any special need 
for referenda, and finally it stated its opposition to 
any unilateral change to the status quo.  In the wake 
of such a difficult situation, the Bush administration 
stated, immediately after Taiwan concluded its 
`defensive referendum' and well before it initiates 
constitutional reforms, that U.S. support is limited 
and it wouldn't be vague about the issue and would only 
make straightforward comments, otherwise, no one would 
profit. 
 
"While the Bush Administration opposes unilateral moves 
by either side of the Taiwan Strait to change the 
status quo, it is reluctant to explain explicitly what 
is the so-called `status quo' of the Taiwan Strait and 
what is the `red line,' despite the fact that it wants 
to maintain the right to define these terms.  The 
United States has increased its use of the terms status 
quo, red line, and red areas, but has never cited solid 
examples.  Recently, the U.S. Department of State 
surprised many by saying that changes to the 
terminology for Taiwan's state-owned companies or 
economic and cultural offices abroad would unilaterally 
change Taiwan's status quo and are steps the United 
States would not support. 
 
"The Bush administration interfered in Taiwan's 
internal affairs with its rapid and clear statement of 
not supporting Taiwan's name rectification campaign 
before the island kicks off its constitutional reforms. 
Yet the move serves as an early warning from the United 
States.  The United States, involved in the global war 
on terror, reconstruction in Iraq, and nuclear 
developments in North Korea and Iraq, is unlikely to 
freeze democratic developments in Taiwan.  It can only 
urge Taipei to restrain itself and hopes for no 
[untoward] event in the Taiwan Strait.  The Bush 
administration is counting on official written promises 
by the Taipei leader as criteria for reviewing and 
judging [his actions]. 
 
"Beijing's strong opposition to the terms of `Taiwan,' 
`national,' and `central' has directly and indirectly 
led to Taiwan's appeal for name rectification. 
Taiwan's name rectification campaign points to the 
establishment of the Taiwan identity and consensus and 
implies an independent Taiwan sovereignty.  The 
campaign is expected to confront difficulties both 
internally and externally.  If a sports event is 
organized by the private sector, and the institution 
requiring a name change is a private company and the 
event is limited to Taiwan, then the impact will be 
limited.  When the government's overseas missions and 
official documents are involved, the issue will arouse 
greater pressure.  As a first step to name 
rectification, one would refer to the name Taiwan in 
documents, alongside the official name of the Republic 
of China, and use Taiwan in oral communication, instead 
of `Taipei, China' or `Chinese Taipei' as forced by 
Beijing. 
 
"Taiwan has few diplomatic allies and the Taiwan 
government belongs to even fewer international 
organizations.  The names Taiwan representatives use 
for international negotiations can hardly provide 
satisfactory dignity and fair treatment.  The 
rectification campaign has justified reasons and some 
parts of it can be controlled by us.  However, the 
parts that involves outside parties is controlled by 
others.  The United States does not regard Taiwan's 
efforts to gain room for diplomatic maneuvers as a 
crucial issue, nor anything essential to Taiwan's 
survival.  It has shown some sympathy but provided no 
significant assistance, and it even expressed its 
stance of no support.  That is the real situation 
Taiwan's name rectification campaign is in. 
 
"Taiwan's name rectification campaign and 
constitutional reforms have slow and quick paces as 
well as some real and unreal sides.  Nonetheless, 
appealing to justice is not as effective as resorting 
to comprehensive procedures.  In his second term, 
President Bush has moved to adjust personnel lineups in 
the Department of State and National Security Council. 
The Taiwan-U.S. relations will eventually return to the 
basics of stable development, mutual trust and mutual 
benefits.  The United States stands as a buffer for 
Taiwan with regard to China's pressure.  Taiwan now has 
to face pressure from Washington, a harsh and 
unpleasant factor that in turn allows the other side 
[China] who should be blamed [for causing these awkward 
situations] to get away.  The tough challenge for the 
Taiwan leader is to figure out how to convince the 
United States to accept Taiwan's change while keeping 
China from resorting to war.  It is not a mission 
impossible." 
 
B) "It's Taiwan's Right to Chang" 
 
The pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times" 
said in an editorial (12/9): 
 
"These days, Taiwan seems unable to escape criticism. 
Whatever President Chen Shui-bian does, the United 
States accuses him of `attempting to unilaterally 
change the status quo.'  The referendum on arms 
purchases held with the March 20 presidential election 
was considered a violation of the status quo, and the 
move to rename Taiwan's overseas government agencies is 
also being criticized as a violation of the status quo. 
One cannot help but wonder if the trade pact signed by 
China and ASEAN states is also a violation of the 
status quo, since Taiwan's economic advantages are 
being marginalized.  Both German Chancellor Gerhard 
Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac have 
recently been working to lift the EU's arms embargo 
against China.  Isn't this also a violation of the 
status quo?  What is the US' view of China's actions? 
 
"The terminology of contemporary politics is being 
defined by China alone.  In applying these rules, China 
seems to have brought the rest of the world under its 
wing, with the United States following China's lead in 
the use of this terminology, seemingly unaware of 
danger.  China is trying to bury Taiwan alive with the 
term `status quo,' and unfortunately, the United States 
might be serving as Beijing's unwitting accomplice. 
 
". After the United States turned its back on Taiwan in 
1979, what point in time can be used to define the 
status quo?  If the status quo is understood by the 
United States as a situation in which China deploys an 
estimated 600 ballistic missiles against Taiwan and 
upholds its `one China' principle while gradually 
trying to take over the island, then what is the point 
of such a status quo?  Why does Washington want to 
maintain Beijing's military threat and even rationalize 
it as the status quo? 
 
"There is nothing wrong with correcting Taiwan's name, 
and it in no way threatens anyone or infringes upon 
others' rights.  Many African countries cast off the 
yoke of colonial rule, rejected their colonial rulers' 
names and took new names .. 
 
"Taiwan has shifted from the minority rule of 
Mainlanders during the KMT era to rule by all of the 
people.  It's the public's right to change the 
country's name from one associated with a Chinese 
colonial regime. 
 
The Taiwan Relations Act specifies the terms of U.S. 
military assistance to Taiwan, but it does not prevent 
China from pursuing a policy of marginalizing Taiwan 
out of existence in the international community.  If 
they carry on in this fashion, even the struggle for 
continued existence itself is likely to be criticized 
by the United States as a unilateral change to the 
status quo." 
 
C) "Chen Losing the Trust of a Long-time Ally" 
 
An editorial of the conservative, pro-unification, 
English-language "China Post" said (12/9): 
 
". The truth is that the United States has become 
impatient with Chen and his administration.  Chen and 
his men said replacing the word China with Taiwan could 
prevent confusion with mainland China's firms and 
organizations.  But it does not take much wisdom and 
know-how to be aware that this explanation is nothing 
but a ruse for advancing the independence movement. 
 
"Chen has made the latest controversial declarations at 
campaign forums, and those remarks, such as his 
proposal for a new constitution, were mainly aimed at 
winning over independence-minded voters, who tend to be 
more supportive of the more radical Taiwan Solidarity 
Union. 
 
"The president is playing with fire.  His reckless acts 
have harmed ROC-U.S. relations irrevocably.  It is well- 
nigh impossible for Taiwan to regain steadfast support 
from the United States." 
 
PAAL