VZCZCXYZ0015
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHIN #0790/01 0690851
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 100851Z MAR 06
FM AIT TAIPEI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9026
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 4840
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 6036

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 000790 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/TC, EAP/PA, EAP/PD - ERIC 
BARBORIAK 
DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO TW
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S. AND CROSS-STRAIT RELATIONS 
 
 
¶1. Summary: Taiwan's major Chinese-language dailies shifted 
the focus of their coverage March 10 to local issues such as 
the arrest of members of a large local money-laundering 
ring, the freeway electronic toll collection system scandal, 
and Taiwan's foreign relations.  All papers also reported in 
their inside pages on the State Department's 2005 Country 
Report on Human Rights Practices, especially the parts about 
Taiwan and China.  With regard to the aftermath of President 
Chen Shui-bian's announcement of the cessation of the 
National Unification Council (NUC) and National Unification 
Guidelines (NUG), the pro-independence "Liberty Times," 
Taiwan's biggest daily, ran a banner headline on its page 
four that read: "[Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State 
Richard] Armitage Says Taiwan Is Aggrieved.  Democratic 
Taiwan Is Constantly Banned from Saying Anything While 
Totalitarian China Can Say Anything It Wants." 
 
¶2. In terms of editorials and commentaries, an editorial in 
the pro-unification "United Daily News" criticized 
Washington's way of handling President Chen's NUC and NUG 
announcement as "fierce of mien but faint of heart."  The 
article also said "the U.S. State Department's statement 
[March 2] was not only meant to solemnly clear up the 
ambiguity created by Chen but also to draw regulations for 
the follow-up actions of the Bian administration, forbidding 
Chen to take advantage of Washington's attitude to expand 
himself."  A commentary in the limited-circulation, pro- 
independence, English-language "Taipei Times," on the other 
hand, said the response to Taiwan's scrapping of the NUC was 
not all negaive.  End summary. 
 
A) "The United State and Chen Shui-bian Are Doing a Two-Man 
Show?" 
 
The pro-unification "United Daily News" [circulation: 
400,000] editorialized (3/10): 
 
"In the wake of President Chen Shui-bian's announcement to 
`cease the functioning of the NUC and NUG,' there have been 
voices questioning whether it was the United States' 
indulgent and hands-off attitude toward Chen's move that has 
helped Chen successfully fulfill his plan to `abolish the 
NUC and NUG' using the word `cessation,' and has made Chen 
the only winner among Washington, Beijing and Taipei.  But 
judging by the strongly worded remarks made by the U.S. 
authorities since March 2, this speculation collapse onto 
itself. .  As it seems now, the Bian administration is very 
used to using this kind of maneuverings as a two-pronged 
approach - namely, it chose the English word `cease' to 
perfunctorily rejoin the U.S. request for [Taiwan's] pledge 
of `maintaining the status quo,' and in the meantime, it 
took advantage of Washington's understanding to boast to the 
Taiwan people of its glorious `victory.'  In comparison, the 
Bush administration's approach in handling this matter, no 
matter whether it is out of respect for Taiwan's democracy 
or simply because of its failure to thoroughly grasp the 
development of the situation, seems to have more or less 
given [people] the impression that Washington's [attitude] 
was `tough first but soft afterward,' `passive and 
appeasing,' or even `deliberately indulgent' [toward Chen]. 
 
"Judging from the triangular strategic relationship between 
Washington, Beijing and Taipei, it is a reasonable inference 
that both the U.S. and Bian administrations were `engaged in 
a two-man show' over the NUC and NUG matter.  Given the Bush 
administration's neo-conservatism position, which has always 
been vigilant about China's rise, taking the advantage of 
Taiwan's anti-unification position to subtly rein in Beijing 
is a convenient move that can easily achieve Washington's 
end; let alone the fact that Washington has a long list of 
weapons waiting to be sold to the Bian administration.  One 
cannot deny, however, that the concept of `reining in' 
Beijing has many times been excessively played up and used 
by the DPP government . 
 
"When the Bian administration, for the sake of domestic 
consumption, spoke of `the abolition of the NUC and NUG' 
when they meant `cessation of the NUC and NUG,' they kind of 
hope that the U.S. administration would show its tacit 
agreement [with Taipei] of adopting its scheme by turning a 
blind eye to Chen's words and act out a two-man show with 
Chen.  But the U.S. government, positioning on the high 
ground that overlooks the entire situation, resolutely 
turned down [Taipei's offer] to play such a role because 
Washington did not believe that the cross-Strait situation 
could be dealt with using such a shallow political two-man 
show.  As a result, the U.S. State Department's statement 
[March 2] was not only meant to solemnly clear up the 
ambiguity created by Chen but also to draw regulations for 
the follow-up actions of the Bian administration, forbidding 
Chen to take advantage of Washington's attitude just to 
expand himself.  Washington also did not want the outside 
world to mistakenly believe that the Bian administration 
could unilaterally tip toward Taiwan independence while 
acting in a way as if it has received Washington's silent 
consent. . 
 
"As a matter of fact, despite the discussion about whether 
Washington has `deliberately indulge' [Chen], the Bush 
administration's `fierce of mien but faint of heart' way in 
handling the NUC and NUG matter has sparked various 
speculations; it even gave people the impression that Chen 
is `keeping the United States on a short leash.'  If one 
cannot call this a failure of the United States [in handling 
the matter], it can still be viewed as Washington's serious 
flaw.  That is why as of now, the State Department remains 
tough in demanding that the Bian administration 
`unambiguously' clarify its position.  This move itself also 
revealed the Bush administration's need to `unambiguously' 
state its position again to stop the idea of `U.S. 
indulgence' from continuing developing.  Otherwise, what 
position will the United States be in to cope with it if the 
DPP goes on slicing salami by pushing for changing 
[Taiwan's] national anthem, official title and territory? ." 
 
B) "Response to Scrapping of NUC Not All Negative" 
 
Paul Lin, a New York-based political commentator, wrote in 
the pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times" 
[circulation: 30,000] (3/10): 
 
"President Chen Shui-bian's scrapping of the National 
Unification Council (NUC) and its guidelines has generated a 
variety of reactions in the international community.  At 
first glance, it seems that there are more negative 
responses than positive ones.  But, if we take a closer 
look, we will discover that this is actually not the case. 
The so-called `negative' reactions stem not from the 
decision itself, but from the international community's 
concern that China may react in an `unreasonable manner' and 
endanger world peace.  Such concern has been most evident in 
the US, Europe and other Western nations. . 
 
"The negative response notwithstanding, Taiwan has made 
itself heard in the international community because of this 
controversy.  Quite a number of international media outlets 
such as the New York Times have had extensive coverage of 
the incident.  Although US-Taiwan relations appeared tense 
for a period, there are also indications that the issue 
relating to Taiwan's sovereignty can no longer be ignored 
and suppressed.  It is also necessary for both the US and 
China to review their Taiwan policies, which have been so 
disrespectful of Taiwan's public opinion in the past.  In 
China, some Web surfers have even asked why - if the council 
and its guidelines were so important - no one had mentioned 
them before.  Clearly, more and more Chinese are able to see 
through how Beijing manipulates the issue relating to 
independence and unification." 
 
KEEGAN