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 004049 
 
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: CHINA'S "ANTI-SECESSION" LAW 
 
 
A) "Both Sides Across the Taiwan Strait Should Not 
Miscalculate Each Other and [Two Sides Should ] 
Understand Correctly the Anti-Secession Law" 
 
The centrist, pro-status quo "China Times" said in an 
editorial (12/22): 
 
".Law is a weapon, which is what China learned from 
interacting with the international community these 
years.  China proposes the `anti-secession law' in 
order to not only balance the `Taiwan Relations Act' on 
one hand, but deter the `public opinion of Taiwan 
independence' on the other. 
 
"From the call of enacting the `unification law' to the 
evolution of the current `anti-secession law', the path 
of the adjustment in China's policy toward Taiwan is 
clear.  The impact is that the allocation of resources 
afterwards will be changed accordingly.  From the angle 
of preparing to conduct a military struggle toward 
Taiwan, `unification' and `sanctioning the 
independence' are two types of war that differ greatly. 
The former inevitably needs to occupy Taiwan 
effectively, and the latter has a wider range of 
options and feasible approaches.  Moreover, the 
definition of secession and the use of force involved 
in the `anti-secession law' will be used by the Chinese 
military as the political guidance to the build-up of 
forces and to prepare for war in the future. 
 
"There have been disturbances in cross-Strait relations 
for the last five decades, however, the current 
political cleavage has never occurred before.  China 
will adopt the `anti-secession law' against Taiwan due 
to the reason that Taiwan is moving toward 
independence.  However, the Pan-Blue alliance won the 
majority of seats in the legislative elections and does 
this explain that Taiwan's current situation is not 
entirely what China has imagined?  We expect China to 
be cautious on legislating the `anti-secession law,' 
not to miscalculate or misjudge the direction of the 
public opinion in Taiwan.  After all, the biggest task 
for both sides across the Taiwan Strait is not to 
miscalculate each other." 
 
B) "The United States Warns the Chen administration 
[about] what Cannot Be Touched" 
 
Journalist Sun Yang-Ming said in the conservative, pro- 
unification "United Daily News" (12/22): 
 
". There has been a change in the fundamental strategic 
thinking and the attitude in China's policy toward the 
Taiwan issue.  The change clearly tells the United 
States that China will use force against Taiwan when 
the development of the Taiwan issue reaches certain 
criteria, and China is thinking seriously about the war 
that may possibly break out. 
 
"The change has transferred the argument over Taiwan's 
future and the problem of Taiwan independence to a 
burden on the United States.  Therefore, the United 
States has to suffer the possible consequences 
accompanied by the political changes in Taiwan.  The 
United States will inevitably warn the Chen 
administration about what cannot be touched, and the 
consequences it has to suffer once [what cannot be 
touched] are touched." 
 
C) "Beijing's Anti-Secession Bill Will Further Alienate 
Taiwan" 
 
The conservative, pro-Unification "China Post" said in 
an editorial (12/22): 
 
". [But] the mainland leaders must understand that 
their plan to create a legal basis for taking harsh 
measures against Taiwan will have grave consequences. 
It will radicalize public opinion and prompt even 
greater popular support for the independence cause, 
making it more difficult for long-stalled bilateral 
relations to move forward. 
 
"In the worst case scenario, an escalation of political 
and military tensions could lead the two sides to a 
mutually destructive conflict, an unfortunate outcome 
neither side would want to see. 
 
"For the two sides to return to the negotiating table, 
the U.S. may have to play a more active role in 
bridging the gap between Taipei and Beijing exerting 
its diplomatic influence with the two parties. 
Washington has been reluctant to mediate in the 
longstanding cross-Strait dispute.  But Beijing's 
growing tendency to resort to military force should 
point to the need for the U.S. government to intervene 
more forcefully. ." 
 
PAAL