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

112325Z Jan 06

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 TAIPEI 000097 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/TC, EAP/PA, EAP/PD - ERIC 
BARBORIAK 
DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO TW
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: PRESIDENT CHEN SHUI-BIAN'S NEW 
YEAR'S DAY SPEECH 
 
 
¶1. Summary: Major Chinese-language Taiwan dailies shifted 
their focus of coverage to President Chen Shui-bian's New 
Year's Day address again January 11 following National 
Security Council Secretary-General Chiou I-jen's press 
conference Tuesday.  At the press conference, Chiou refuted 
a news story that ran Monday that said Chen submitted his 
New Year's Day speech to the United States for review before 
he delivered it and was asked to revise it three times.  The 
pro-independence "Liberty Times" reported Chiou as saying 
that one thing Chen did not talk about in his New Year's Day 
address was China attempts to solve the Taiwan issue [by the 
use of force] by 2020.  "Liberty Times," Taiwan's biggest 
daily, ran a banner headline on its front page that read: 
"China Attempts to Resolve Taiwan [Issue] in 2020." 
 
The pro-unification "United Daily News," on the other hand, 
ran an exclusive interview with an unnamed senior Bush 
administration official on its front page with the headline: 
"Taiwan Guarantees to the United States That the Four No's 
Pledge Remains Unchanged."  The sub-headline added: "United 
States Expresses Concern about [Chen's] New Year's Day 
Address.  U.S. Official Says During an Interview with This 
Newspaper That `[Washington] Will Wait and See Taipei's 
Action.'  [Washington] Is Concerned about the Referendum on 
a New Constitution and Proactive Management of Cross-Strait 
Economics and Trade."  The newspaper also carried the entire 
contents of the interview with the U.S. official on its page 
two and page thirteen, which were topped with two separate 
headlines: "U.S. Official [on Bian's New Year's Day Address: 
[Washington] Hopes Taiwan Is Predictable and Stable," and 
"U.S. Official: [Washington] Hopes Taiwan Will Use [Its] 
Action to Prove the Four No's Pledge." 
 
¶2. In terms of editorials and commentaries, a "Liberty 
Times" editorial strongly criticized KMT Chairman Ma Ying- 
jeou for advocating reunification with China, and criticized 
some DPP members for calling for "confident opening up" with 
China.  An editorial in the pro-independence "Taiwan Daily" 
also lashed at the pro-China media outlets for using Chen's 
New Year's Day address to sow discord between Taiwan and the 
United States.  "United Daily News" Washington correspondent 
Vincent Chang, however, directly questioned in a commentary 
if Chen will acknowledge his `Four No's' pledge in light of 
the unnamed senior U.S. official's remarks.  Chang said 
Chen's reaction and response "will directly affect 
Washington's judgment of Chen's `sincerity,'" and "the 
aftermath of such an impact will most likely reflect in the 
meeting between President George W. Bush and Chinese 
President Hu Jintao during the latter's visit to Washington 
this coming spring."  A news analysis in the centrist "China 
Times" also pointed out directly that Chen wants to throw 
the "hot potato" of cross-Strait impasse back to Washington. 
A "China Times" editorial also strongly demanded that Chen 
clarify two major issues relating to his plan to launch a 
"referendum on a new constitution," saying that serious 
national issues cannot simply be decided by Chen's New 
Year's Day address alone.  End summary. 
 
A) "Who Are the People That Still Fail to Find Their Way?" 
 
The pro-independence "Liberty Times" [circulation: 600,000] 
editorialized (1/11): 
 
"President Chen said in his recent New Year's Day speech 
that he will adopt `proactive management, effective opening' 
as a new theme for the new way of thinking and policy in 
terms of cross-Strait trade.  While everyone in the country 
feels happy for Chen that he is able to step out of the mire 
created by the previous `proactive opening' [policy], some 
DPP members have cried out that `Taiwan must find a correct 
position for itself,' making no attempt to conceal that they 
are standing on the opposite side of President A-Bian. . 
 
"The DPP is already full of self-contradictions as it talks 
about Taiwan's westbound [policy] and economic integration 
with China, [a country] which is aiming some 800 missiles at 
Taiwan on the one hand, while advocating the writing of a 
new constitution for the island, rectifying Taiwan's name 
and `one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait.'  The 
party is basically illogical and will eventually lose 
people's trust in the long term. The DPP, in fact, suffered 
the consequences of its own actions when it was defeated in 
the legislators' election [in 2004] and the 3-in-1 mayoral 
and magistrate elections [in 2005].  We really doubt if 
those who embrace the `westbound' policy and [call for] 
`Taiwan's positioning' have learned a `correct' lesson from 
the DPP's setbacks . 
 
"`Wake up, Mr. President,' is a famous line said by a 
political party chairman who advocates `re-unification' 
[with China].  The President is wide-awake now and has 
located Taiwan's correct position.  It is those who continue 
to be `intoxicated by the Chinese market,' including the 
party chairman who asserts `reunification' [with China] and 
the green supporters who brag about `[Taiwan's] confident 
opening-up' and who plan to organize a `society on cross- 
Strait politics and economics,' that remain dead-drunk." 
 
B) "Pro-China Media Outlets Sow Discord between Taiwan and 
the United States; Chiou I-jen's Immediate Clarification 
Lays Bare the Untrue Rumors" 
 
The pro-independence "Taiwan Daily" [circulation: 10,000] 
asserted (1/11): 
 
". In terms of the call for a `referendum on a new 
constitution,' the private sector [in Taiwan] has in reality 
been pushing for `the movement for rectifying [Taiwan's] 
name and writing a new constitution' for a long time . [We] 
can say that the `referendum on a new constitution' is a 
down-to-up and out-to-in action pushed by the private 
sector; its success depends on the wisdom and perseverance 
of the [Taiwan] people.  The United States is a democratic 
country which has undergone constitutional amendments many 
times.  Washington thus has no reason to oppose Taiwan's 
constitutional re-engineering plan.  The pan-Blue camp's 
efforts in lobbying the U.S. State Department and Congress 
and working in line with China's propaganda in the 
international community [to deter Taiwan's constitutional 
reform plan] may affect the U.S. position for a while.  But 
as long as we steady our footing, continue to strengthen 
communication and explain [to Washington] our policy, we are 
sure we can change Washington's views. ." 
 
C) "The United States Puts the `Four No's' [Pledge] back 
[into Taiwan's Hands] Again; Will [Chen Shui-] Bian 
Acknowledge It?" 
 
Washington correspondent Vincent Chang noted in the pro- 
unification "United Daily News" [circulation: 400,000] 
(1/11): 
 
"President Chen Shui-bian, in the wake of [the DPP's] severe 
defeat in [last December's] mayoral and magistrate 
elections, chose to re-embark on his journey by embracing 
the deep-green fundamental tenets.  One of his most 
significant moves was the attempt to get rid of the `Five 
No's' pledge, the self-restricted `Incantation of the Golden 
Hoop' as regarded by the pro-independence activists, via his 
New Year's Day address, whose entire text emphasizes nothing 
but the Taiwan-centered values. 
 
"However, since President Chen has been throwing out topics 
such as `one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait' and 
[the launching of] `a referendum on a new constitution' over 
the past five years, which caused Washington to raise its 
eyebrows, the `Five No's' (or `Four No's' in the eyes of the 
United States) pledge has become the final framework the 
United States wields to bring and lock Chen, who has been 
wandering along the `red line' borders of Washington's cross- 
Strait policy, back to his own pledge.  The `Four No's' 
pledge has become the unbearable heaviness of being for 
Chen. 
 
"National Security Council Secretary-General Chiou I-jen 
admitted Tuesday that Taipei and Washington had communicated 
`intensely' over the contents of [Chen's] New Year's Day 
address.  Chiou also mentioned that Washington did show 
concerns about the contents [of the speech], especially the 
two parts with regard to the `referendum on a new 
constitution' and `cross-Strait economics and trade.'  But 
what Chiou failed to mention was that the United States was 
also concerned about [Chen's] highlight of the Taiwan- 
centered values in his speech and subtle details with regard 
to [Chen's] interaction with KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou. . 
 
"In addition, [Chen's] New Year's Day address has skillfully 
dodged mentioning his `previous pledges,' including the 
`Four No's,' and the Presidential Office used the statement 
of `[Taiwan's] policy remains unchanged' afterwards to 
vaguely sum up everything. . 
 
"As for which policy remains unchanged?  The Chen Shui-bian 
administration gave pretty ambiguous clarification.  The 
question regarding whether the `Four No's' pledge concerned 
by the United States will take this opportunity and `fade 
out' henceforth has also become a focus of attention. . 
 
"It is noteworthy that the [U.S.] official, [during his 
interview with this correspondent,] regarded all the pledges 
Chen has made previously, including the `Four No's' pledge, 
as part of those `unchanged policies' that Taiwan has 
guaranteed to Washington. 
 
"With regard to questions about how Chen will respond and 
react [to Washington], and whether or not he will 
acknowledge the `Four No's' pledge that Washington has 
insisted on putting back into his mouth will directly affect 
Washington's judgment of Chen's `sincerity.'  The aftermath 
of such an impact will most likely reflect in the meeting 
between President George W. Bush and Chinese President Hu 
Jintao during the latter's visit to Washington this coming 
spring." 
 
D) "Bian Hardens [His Attitude], Throwing the Hot Potato 
Back to the United States" 
 
Journalist Lin Shu-ling said in a news analysis in the 
centrist, pro-status quo "China Times" [circulation: 
400,000] (1/11): 
 
"No matter how strong the United States' concern about Chen 
Shui-bian's New Year's Day address is, it is a fact that 
Washington has doubts about Taiwan's future direction with 
regard to cross-Strait relations.  But one cannot rule out 
the possibility that this is exactly one of the strategies 
Chen would use to harden his attitude towards Beijing. 
 
"Chen has lately made a drastic change with regard to his 
dove-like cross-Strait policy over the past five years by 
saying no to China directly, throwing out a bomb to the 
international community.  Why did he want to do that?  What 
was his policy-making pattern?  All these questions aroused 
people's curiosity.  But many signs recently showed that the 
thinking behind Chen's New Year's Day address seemed to have 
resembled the trilogy of `conflicts, compromise, and 
progress' that he constantly adopts.  His first step was to 
clarify whose responsibility it is for the stalemated cross- 
Strait relations, bringing it to Washington's attention that 
it is Beijing that has pushed Taiwan into a corner that the 
island cannot even extend any of its goodwill. . 
 
"Bian's attitude, on the one hand, was meant to show to the 
pan-Green camp that he was not as inconsistent as [former 
President] Lee Teng-hui claimed him to be, so that he could 
secure [the support] of the green fundamentalists for him as 
early as possible.  On the other hand, Chen [is aware that] 
only when he continues to harden [his attitude] can he make 
the United States realize how serious the situation has 
become.  The pressure placed on Taipei [by Washington] can 
thus be shifted to Beijing so that Chen can have a chance to 
break away from his own predicament. 
 
"Without doubt, the premise behind such a move by Chen was 
the belief that Beijing will not rashly adopt any irrational 
action at the current stage.  Neither will Chen really step 
over the red line; there is a legal threshold for the 
`referendum on a new constitution' as a safety valve.  As a 
result, it is expected that Chen will continue hardening his 
attitude in order to seek to create a favorable position for 
himself before he gets any `answer' [from Washington]." 
 
E) "The Ruling Party Should Clearly Clarify [Its Stand on] 
the New Constitution and Rectification of Taiwan's Name" 
 
The centrist, pro-status quo "China Times" [circulation: 
400,000] editorialized (1/11): 
 
"President A-Bian announced in his New Year's Day address 
that he will launch a referendum on a new constitution in 
¶2007.  He has set the timeline but failed to clarify two 
major questions.  One question is whether the referendum on 
a new constitution will be processed in accordance with the 
constitutional amendment procedures regulated by the 
[government's] existing constitution or [the new 
constitution] will be put under a referendum?  The other 
question is whether the title of the country referred to in 
the new constitution that will be put under a referendum 
will be the Republic of China or Taiwan? 
 
"As a ROC president who is supposed to obey the ROC 
Constitution, A-Bian should not have any options about 
launching a new constitution because the [ROC] Constitution 
does not allow the president to use ambiguous political 
rhetoric such as `a referendum on a new constitution' to 
cover up the major gap between writing a new constitution 
and amending the constitution.  As a state leader who is in 
charge of Taiwan's safety as a whole, constitutional ethics 
naturally does not allow A-Bian to keep it as a top secret 
as to the island's national title, which is evidently 
closely related to the cross-Strait relations and [our] 
national security.  For Taiwan, a country that honors [and 
implements] democracy, matters of such grave importance must 
not be decided simply by a speech of the president. 
Wouldn't it be like what a totalitarian country will do if 
serious issues such as writing a new constitution and 
amending the constitution simply be decided by the president 
alone? ." 
 
PAAL