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 001110 
 
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 
 
¶1. Summary: Reactions to China's passage of the Anti- 
Secession Law dominated news coverage in Taiwan 
newspapers March 15, as major Chinese-language dailies 
dedicated an average of six pages to the issue.  In 
addition to denunciations of the law by Taiwan 
officials and politicians, all major newspapers carried 
comments by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and 
Japan Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi; Rice's and 
Koizumi's comments were used emphasize that China's law 
has international ramifications and to suggest that 
Washington and Tokyo might take measures in response to 
it. The centrist "China Times" reported that White 
House Spokesman Scott McClellan called the passage of 
the law "unfortunate" in a front-page story headlined 
"President Bush is Displeased with China."  The 
conservative, pro-unification "United Daily News," 
citing unnamed senior officials, said in a page-three 
story that President Chen Shui-bian has put on hold his 
formal reaction to the Anti-Secession Law pending 
further U.S. announcements on the issue.  According to 
this report, Taiwan must cooperate closely with the 
United States because the United States and Japan are 
the ones to do battle with China over the Anti-Session 
Law, not Taiwan.  The pro-independence "Liberty Times," 
Taiwan's largest daily, said in a page-two article that 
China's Anti-Secession Law is seen as a factor for 
consolidating the U.S.-Taiwan-Japan alliance. 
 
¶2. Editorially, all the major Taipei dailies 
articulated strong opposition to China's passage of the 
Anti-Secession Law.  Editorials of the pro-independence 
"Liberty Times," "Taiwan Daily," and English-language 
"Taipei Times" called Beijing's Anti-Secession Law a 
"war bill" and urged the international community to 
take concrete actions to express their grave concern 
about the law.  In addition to expressing opposition to 
the law, a centrist "China Times' editorial presented 
the law both as a crisis and a turning point.  It 
cautioned both sides of the Taiwan Strait to exercise 
restraint at this critical moment so as not to fall 
into a vicious cycle of reaction and counter-reaction. 
The pro-unification "United Daily News" also ran an 
editorial protesting Beijing's passage of the law, but 
called upon Taiwan's rulers to examine their previous 
policies, which the editorial said "has misruled the 
nation."  An op-ed piece in the "China Times" commented 
on the challenges the United States will have to face 
in the aftermath of the passage of the Anti-Secession 
Law.  End summary. 
 
A) "The `Anti-Secession Law' Proves That the Soft Means 
[of Beijing's Policy] Becomes Hard and the Tough Means 
Becomes Even Tougher'" 
 
The pro-independence "Liberty Times" editorialized 
[circulation: 800,000] (3/15): 
 
". China's legislation of the anti-secession law seems 
to be legislation of a domestic law, but actually it 
has constitutes aggressive conduct, or at least quasi- 
aggressive conduct.  China asserts that `Mainland China 
and Taiwan belong to one China' despite the fact that 
Taiwan's sovereignty does not belong to China.  China's 
intention to invade and annex Taiwan is not allowed by 
international law. . 
 
"Today, we advocate that the international community do 
at least the following to express deep concern about 
China's passage of the anti-secession law: First, slow 
down the speed of investment in China and cut back 
China's opportunities for trade.  The reason [for this] 
is because China does not emphasize human rights and 
its economic growth has been used to increase its 
[military strength], not to enhance the standard of 
living of its people.  Second, maintain the arms-sales 
ban on China; otherwise, China will increasingly be 
able to threaten Taiwan, and [any future resulting] 
interference by the international community with 
respect to China's use of force against Taiwan will [be 
paid with] an unaffordable [high] price.  Third, 
incorporate Taiwan into the system of regional 
security, and be ready to counter China's use of force. 
Fourth, demand that China accelerate its democratic 
reforms, and avoid the communist style of autocratic 
rule that keeps putting the world in jeopardy. ." 
 
B) "[Taiwan] Severely Blasts `Brazen China' for Passing 
the `Brazen Legalism' That Boldly Attempts to Use Force 
Against Taiwan" 
 
The pro-independence "Taiwan Daily" [circulation: 
150,000] editorialized (3/15): 
 
". China has passed its `Anti-Secession Law' in an 
attempt to alter the status quo [in the Taiwan Strait] 
and to use force to attack Taiwan.  Beijing has totally 
ignored all the goodwill gestures shown by President 
Chen since he assumed office.  We believe that 
[Beijing's move] is tantamount to provocation against 
Taiwan's sovereignty - a highly hostile behavior toward 
Taiwan.  Under such a situation, our government, of 
course, cannot continue adopting moderate cross-Strait 
policies without limit.  In the future, all cross- 
Strait-related policies must be adjusted and suspended 
accordingly.  In addition, [Taiwan] must appeal to the 
international community protesting China's 
arbitrariness in passing the `anti-secession law' and 
damaging world peace.  Taiwan should also declare to 
the world it [reserves the right] to conduct a 
defensive referendum and enact an `anti-annexation law. 
.'" 
 
C) "Taiwan Must Act, But Carefully" 
 
The pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times" 
[circulation: 300,000] commented in an editorial 
(3/15): 
 
"China has passed the `anti-secession' law despite 
vehement protests in Taiwan and objections from the 
international community.  The actual wording of the law 
mentions the use of `non-peaceful' means - a euphemism 
for military action.  The law insists on Beijing's 
right to use `non-peaceful' means to counter any moves 
toward the independence and to bring about unification. 
For all intents and purposes, it is a license to go to 
war. . 
 
"The law's most egregious flaw is its violation of the 
international community's consensus about `maintaining 
the status quo in the Taiwan Strait,' whereby Taiwan 
should not declare independence and China should not 
use force.  The law crosses the line.  Even if Taiwan 
does not declare independence, if China decides that 
independence is taking place, Taiwan is being 
interfered with by `foreign forces,' or the 
`possibilities for peaceful reunification should be 
completely exhausted' - as Article VIII states - 
Beijing can attack Taiwan. ." 
 
D) "The Crisis and the Turning Point of the Anti- 
Secession Law" 
 
The centrist, pro-status quo "China Times" observed in 
an editorial [circulation: 600,000] (3/15): 
 
". [F]acing objective reality since the anti-secession 
law has been legislated and has been put into practice 
. we consider it necessary at this critical moment to 
remind the authorities and political parties across the 
Strait to restrain themselves and to avoid the negative 
cycling of countering each other.  Since China is the 
troublemaker this time, it has to be low-key and to 
control itself when facing questions [and] censure from 
the international community, especially reactions, oral 
objections, or even protests from Taiwan.  China also 
has to show good will and fix the cleavage [in cross- 
Strait relations]. . 
 
"Comparatively speaking, Taiwan is a victim of . 
China's legislation of the anti-secession law.  Taiwan 
should definitely react to the restraints [imposed by 
the international community].  Reactions, however, 
differ from countermeasures, and the degree of strength 
that applies to reactions is a fundamental test of the 
wisdom of Taiwan politicians.  The worst scenario is to 
make a drastic reaction, or even take a risk by 
declaring the timetable for Taiwan independence.  By 
doing so, Taiwan will make itself a new troublemaker, 
and will give China an excuse to adopt non-peaceful 
measures [toward Taiwan].  The worse scenario is to 
reject the three proposals raised by China's Premier 
Wen Jiabao, or to even close the door for cross-Strait 
exchanges.  This would lead Taiwan to a dead end.  A 
better strategy is to say out loud what Taiwan should 
say [regarding its opposition to the anti-secession 
law], make use of China's good will and cultivate 
Taiwan's competitive ability.  The best choice is to 
make use of the dissatisfaction of the international 
community toward China, to seek space in the 
international community for Taiwan, and to enhance the 
national dignity of the Republic of China. ." 
 
E) " [Taiwan] Must Protest against China, But 
[Taiwan's] Rulers Should Also Review and Examine Their 
Responsibilities in Inappropriately Governing the 
People and Humiliating the Country" 
 
The pro-unification "United Daily News" editorialized 
[circulation: 600,000] (3/15): 
 
". Hence, as far as the authorities are concerned, 
although it is time to encourage the public to orally 
protest [China's move], the more important thing is 
that it is also time to review the inappropriate 
governance that has led to the humiliation of the 
country, and to elaborate on `conciliation and co- 
existence.'  Suppose the authorities merely plan to 
point the guns toward outside [enemies] and switch the 
focus of the people by holding a rally . this is 
definitely not in accordance with the principle of 
proportions. . 
 
"One year ago, President Chen asserted that `the Five 
Nos no longer exist,' started the names-change plan and 
constitutional reform, and held a rally; after Chen 
forced China to legislate the anti-secession law and 
after Chen's incompetent governance of Taiwan, all that 
Chen can do is to hold another bigger rally.  No matter 
if the purpose is to propose a policy (names-change 
plan and constitutional reform), or to face the 
consequences of failed policy (the presence of the anti- 
secession law), President Chen does nothing but plan a 
rally?" 
 
F) "The New Strategic Situation among the United 
States, Japan, China, and Taiwan" 
 
Lin Cheng-yi, research fellow at the Institute of 
International Relations, National Chengchi University, 
wrote in an op-ad article in the centrist, pro-status 
quo "China Times" [circulation: 600,000] (3/15): 
 
". After the `anti-secession law' has been made public 
and put into practice, the challenges for the United 
States include: Firstly, the power that dominates the 
explanation of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. 
The United States may need to compete with China or 
even share with China regarding the interpretation of 
the status quo.  Secondly, further understanding of the 
style of decision-making with regard to Chinese 
President Hu Jintao.  The United States needs to 
monitor Hu's policy toward Taiwan and China's 
implementation of the `anti-secession law' before 2012. 
Thirdly, regarding Taiwan's constitutional reform and 
other political development, the United States should 
not only support those with a limit but also keep track 
of those developments so that China may not have a 
chance to use force against Taiwan by adopting the 
`anti-secession law.'  Fourthly, the United States 
should work on assisting Taiwan with regard to 
defending itself from accurate assaults of China.  The 
United States should also provide methods for Taiwan to 
protect its `government sustainability' and `major 
fundamental infrastructures.'  Fifthly, the United 
States will face another dilemma if Taiwan openly asks 
the United States to acquiesce on Taiwan's claim to say 
no to China.  Sixthly, although the United States and 
Japan expressed concern toward the peace across the 
Taiwan Strait in their `common strategic objectives,' 
there should be more substantial consequent movements 
including resisting the European Union to withdraw its 
arms ban on China. ." 
 
PAAL