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

UNCLAS TAIPEI 000988 
 
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: The focus of Taipei's dailies has shifted 
March 8 from China's "anti-secession law" to the 
identification of the shooter of the pre-election 
shootings of President Chen Shui-bian and Vice 
President Annette Lu on March 19, 2004.  Extensive 
coverage of the March 19 shootings was provided on the 
front and inside pages of all the Taiwan newspapers. 
Nonetheless, the centrist "China Times" and pro- 
unification "United Daily News" still carried reports 
on their front pages discussing the content of the 
"anti-secession law" that will be reviewed today by 
China's National People's Congress. 
 
¶2. For the United States' role in China's "anti- 
secession law," a banner headline in the centrist 
"China Times" (P.10) read: "With regard to 
communication concerning the anti-secession law, the 
United States helps [pass messages] in the cross-Strait 
dialogue."  A separate article ran on the same page 
with the headline: "The United States shows no concern 
before the articles [of the "anti-secession law"] are 
announced."  "United Daily News" journalist Sun Yang- 
ming noted in the only March 8 commentary on the topic 
that Washington is not opposed to the "anti-secession 
law" mainly because it does not trust Taiwan and partly 
because it wants to protect the "status quo" as jointly 
defined by Beijing and itself.  End summary. 
 
"Why the United States Is Not Opposed to the `Anti- 
Secession Law'" 
 
Journalist Sun Yang-ming noted in the "United Notes" 
column of the conservative, pro-unification "United 
Daily News" [circulation: 600,000] (3/8): 
 
"[Chinese President] Hu Jintao talked about his views 
on [China's] policy toward Taiwan, in which the most 
important part is his definition of the `status quo' of 
the Taiwan Strait, which also set the tune for China's 
`anti-secession law.'  Hu's definition basically meets 
the United States' interests in the Taiwan Strait at 
the current stage. . 
 
"Based on this definition, Beijing believes that the 
current status quo in the Taiwan Strait is acceptable. 
This stand [held by Beijing] is consistent with the 
United States' long-term attempt to pursue stability 
across the Taiwan Strait; it is also common ground 
shared by Washington and Beijing with regard to cross- 
Strait issues.  But the common interests between the 
United States and China in the Taiwan Strait are surely 
more than that.  Hu also mentioned that anything 
involving China's sovereignty and territorial integrity 
must be jointly decided by the 1.3 billion Chinese 
people together, which includes the people of Taiwan. 
This statement is also consistent with the Bush 
administration's view that `Taiwan's future should be 
decided by the people on both sides of the Taiwan 
Strait.' 
 
"This explains why the Bush administration is not so 
worried about the `anti-secession law.'  In the 
concepts of the United States, the [`anti-secession'] 
bill itself is naturally a law that is created to 
accommodate the status quo.  For Beijing, the law is a 
less attractive objective after the attempted 
legislation of the `unification law' failed, and it is 
a legal concept created to meet the demands of the 
United States on cross-Strait stability .. 
 
"The United States is not opposed to the `anti- 
secession law' mainly because it does not trust Taiwan 
and partly also because it wants to protect the `status 
quo' as jointly defined by both Beijing and itself.  As 
a matter of fact, even though Washington is not opposed 
to the law, it is not very happy about it either 
because obviously Beijing has `created trouble' [for 
Washington]. . 
 
"In fact, Washington's doubts about [President] Chen 
Shui-bian's planned constitutional re-engineering 
scheduled for 2006 might outweigh its concern over the 
`anti-secession law.'  This is where the irony lies." 
 
PAAL