VZCZCXYZ0006
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHIN #0334/01 0430857
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 120857Z FEB 07
FM AIT TAIPEI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4077
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 6360
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 7595

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 000334 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/TC, EAP/PA, EAP/PD - LLOYD NEIGHBORS 
DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO TW
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: TAIWAN'S NAME CHANGE CAMPAIGN, U.S.-TAIWAN 
RELATIONS 
 
 
¶1. Summary:  Taiwan's major Chinese-language dailies focused their 
coverage February 10-12 on the DPP government's name change 
campaign, on the 2008 presidential elections, and on other local 
political issues.  The pro-status quo "China Times" front-paged a 
banner headline February 11 that said "State Department Statement: 
The United States Does Not Support Name Change of Our State-run 
Enterprises."  The paper also carried a news story on page four with 
the headline: "Chiou I-jen: United States Does Not Oppose Name 
Change but is Concerned about Taiwan Touching on the Four Noes 
[Pledge]."  The pro-unification "United Daily News" also ran a 
banner headline on page three February 11 that read "United States 
Does Not Support Name Change; Bian: If It Were That Easy, Just 
Change [the Name] to Republic of Taiwan." 
 
¶2. In terms of editorials and commentaries, a news analysis in the 
pro-independence "Liberty Times," Taiwan's largest-circulation 
daily, said Washington is in no position to comment on Taiwan's 
name-change campaign, nor does Taiwan need U.S. support for the 
matter.  An editorial in the limited-circulation, pro-independence, 
English-language "Taipei Times" asserted that the name change 
"represents an assertion of Taiwanese sovereignty."  An editorial in 
the limited-circulation, pro-independence, English-language "Taiwan 
News" also chimed in by saying the United States should not object 
to Taiwan's name change campaign, as it is "entirely our internal 
affair and none of Washington's concern."  An op-ed piece in the 
mass-circulation "Apple Daily," however, said President Chen has 
purposely stepped on the red line drawn by the United States and 
China.  A "China Times" editorial also criticized the DPP's move and 
said Washington's tough expression of its attitude this time 
indicated that it does not want to see more reckless moves from 
Taiwan to step on the red line of Taiwan independence.  An op-ed 
piece in the "United Daily News" said the DPP's dictatorial name 
change move has created confrontations in Taiwan society and caused 
double crises in cross-Strait and Taiwan-U.S. relations.  An 
editorial in the limited-circulation, conservative, pro-unification, 
English-language "China Post" said "The DPP is determined to wage 
its silly cultural revolution, no matter what the people think."  An 
op-ed in the English-language "Taipei Times," on the other hand, 
urged Washington to make some changes in the way it conducts its 
relations with Taiwan.  End summary. 
 
¶3. Taiwan's Name Change Campaign 
 
A) "Smearing the Name-Change Campaign, Ma's Mentality is 
Questionable" 
 
Journalist Tsou Jiing-wen noted in a news analysis in the 
pro-independence "Liberty Times" [circulation: 550,000] (2/12): 
 
"Is Taiwan a complete country or not after all?  The answer is quite 
evident if one just takes a look at the U.S. State Department, which 
can always point its fingers at Taiwan's domestic affairs!  [Such a 
situation] also highlighted the necessity for [Taiwan] to take this 
small step of changing the names of its state-own enterprises.  If 
[Taiwan] continues to hide its head in the sand when it comes to 
this issue that it will have to face sooner or later, its future 
plan to rectify the island's name and write a new constitution will 
all become castles in the air. 
 
"The Americans are in no position to comment on the name change for 
the Chinese Petroleum Corporation and the China Shipbuilding, and 
[we] do not need the United States' 'support.'  All we need is the 
consensus of Taiwan citizens. ...  For the public, as long as it is 
the right thing to do, just go ahead and do it without hesitation. 
[We] don't need to hear the nonsense of the Americans or local 
politicians!" 
 
B) "Half-baked Name Changes, Taiwan" 
 
The pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times" [circulation: 
30,000] editorialized (2/11): 
 
"Sadly, if predictably, the U.S. State Department has expressed 
disapproval at the Chen administration's late foray into the 
symbolism of nation-building as an act of aggression against its 
beloved -- and fictional -- cross-strait 'status quo.'  But now it 
seems that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her 
China-friendly underlings may not need to be so fearful of the 
changes that have been made to the titles of a number of Taiwanese 
state-owned firms or institutions. 
 
"The change to the names represents an assertion of Taiwanese 
sovereignty, and it is this assertiveness that riles Beijing, 
irritates the pan-blue camp in Taiwan and unnerves theState 
Department. It is also 'angering' unions for the affected 
organizations, though in many cases the union hierarchies are de 
facto vehicles of pro-unification political parties anyway.  Change 
is often a good thing, and in the case of state-owned enterprises 
RELATIONS 
 
and agencies, changing names to reflect the reality and justice of 
Taiwanese self-determination should have been inevitable. Indeed, it 
should have happened within months of President Chen Shui-bian 
taking office in 2000. ..." 
 
C) "U.S. Should Not Object to 'Taiwan'" 
 
The pro-independence, English-language "Taiwan News" [circulation: 
20,000] editorialized (2/12): 
 
"We urge the Democratic Progressive Party administration to remain 
firm in promoting changes in the names of our state enterprises or 
other relevant officially-backed agencies to reflect their origin in 
Taiwan despite open conservative resistance domestically and veiled 
opposition by the United States. ... While opposition from the 
conservative KMT-led opposition was predictable, the United States 
administration of Republican President George W. Bush also openly 
expressed its 'lack of support' for changes in the names of our 
state enterprises to show that they are from Taiwan, not the PRC. 
... 
 
"Although McCormack refrained from directly 'opposing' the changes, 
we believe his comments were unwarranted.  The names of corporate 
bodies in Taiwan, state-owned or private, are entirely our internal 
affair and none of Washington's concern, unless the United States 
government intends to interfere in both our domestic affairs and the 
global free market by interfering in the management of economic 
corporations.  More fundamentally, the State Department's citation 
of the 'four noes' is disingenuous as it ignores the fact that the 
changes do not involve alteration of our formal moniker of 'the 
Republic of China' and the fact that President Chen's pledges were 
predicated on the lack of intent by Beijing to use force against 
Taiwan, a condition violated by the PRC's enactment of a belligerent 
'anti-secession law' in March 2005.  Moreover, as noted Saturday by 
Presidential Secretary-General Chiou I-jen, Washington and other 
world powers themselves bear considerable responsibility for the 
fact that the Taiwan government can neither change or use the R.O.C. 
moniker. 
 
"After all, Washington officials have repeatedly insisted that such 
a change, which would require a constitutional amendment, would be 
'provocative,' but also block the use of the R.O.C. title in the few 
major international organizations in which we participate or in 
representative agencies in their countries.  Since Taiwan is not 
part of the PRC, which is identified the world over as 'China,' it 
is harmful to our own interests to retain terms in the names of our 
state enterprises that foster confusion with the PRC or PRC-based 
entities.  We are indeed curious about what feasible options to 
resolve this actually existing dilemma would meet Washington's 
approval if we cannot neither use or change 'the R.O.C.' and should 
not, in Washington's view, use our own geographically and 
politically correct term 'Taiwan.' ..." 
 
D) "A-Bian Purposely Steps on the Red Line [Drawn by] the United 
States and China" 
 
Emerson Chang, Director of Nan Hua University's Department of 
International Studies, opined in the mass-circulation "Apple Daily" 
[circulation: 500,000] (2/12): 
 
"... Certain signs indicated that, even though Chen Shui-bian had 
used surprise tactics to make the change name [campaign] a fact, and 
such a move will not be retaliated against by the United States, the 
United States has actually used the differences in the way it 
handled two consecutive incidents [concerning Taiwan] to draw a 
bottom line for its Taiwan policy. ...  The statement by [State 
Department Spokesman Sean McCormack] was the first time that the 
State Department expressed its view in a negative language following 
Chen's public call on CNN January 27 for writing [Taiwan] a new 
constitution and the island's UN bid under the name of Taiwan. 
During the [State Department] press briefing on January 31, when 
asked about the issue regarding [Taiwan's] new constitution, the 
spokesman only briefly mentioned that 'the U.S. policy remains 
unchanged' without saying anything negative [about Taiwan].  When 
one compares [the remarks] made during these two occasions, two 
layers of significance are revealed:  First, the United States has 
set its bottom line for its Taiwan policy on the 'four noes' 
[pledge]; and second, the United States can tolerate the political 
ideas that are advocated but cannot be realized by Chen (such as 
writing a new constitution and Taiwan's UN bid), even though these 
ideas clash with the spirit of the 'four noes' [pledge]. ..." 
 
E) "Failing to Strive for Administrative Performance, [DPP] Can Only 
Replace It with 'Striving for Name Change'" 
 
The pro-status quo "China Times" [circulation: 400,000] 
editorialized (2/12): 
RELATIONS 
 
"... Why on earth did the Bian administration want to push it so 
insistently and hastily?  In addition to the afore-mentioned 
[reason] to 'strive for' its administrative performance, another 
reason is to stir up confrontation.  To de-Sinify some symbolic 
agencies can satisfy the needs of the hardcore Green supporters on 
the one hand and ignite the deep-Blue people to create ethnic 
confrontation on the other hand.  Once the Blue camp lashes back, it 
will be marked with a red cap and labeled as sympathetic to China; 
as confrontations between the unification and independence 
supporters and mistrust between ethnic groups are stirred up, Chen 
Shui-bian can once again solicit support from and command the 
originally loosely-organized nativist voters.  Should Beijing add 
fuel and make some tough remarks, it will be just what Chen hopes 
for - the Blue camp that opposes [the name change campaign] will be 
automatically turned into traitors that help China beat up the 
Taiwan people. ... 
 
"How is it that this regime, which uses stereotyped ideology as its 
weapon, has this autocratic [mentality], and uses smearing and 
igniting the public ire as its means to do whatever it wants, even 
at the expense of distorting the system and trampling the law, in 
any way different from the previous Fascist regime?  The United 
States expressed a tough attitude [toward Chen's move] this time 
because it fears to see more reckless moves toward the red line of 
Taiwan independence.  If the Taiwan people continue to tolerate 
[Chen's moves] quietly, what they will confront is perhaps the 
complete collapse and destruction of democracy and the rule of law." 
 
 
F) "Insisting on [Pushing for] the Name Change Campaign, [DPP] 
Touches on Sensitive Issues" 
 
Professor Philip Yang of National Taiwan University's Department of 
Political Science opined in the pro-unification "United Daily News" 
[circulation: 400,000] (2/11): 
 
"... The real effects of name change lie possibly in deepening the 
Taiwan-centered ideology and creating a favorable environment [for 
the DPP's] campaigning.  This is about the DPP's position and 
interests, which are understandable.  But under the circumstance of 
lacking a powerful administrative performance and an internal 
consensus, [the DPP's] dictatorial name change move will not only 
create confrontations in Taiwan society but will also cause double 
crises in cross-Strait and Taiwan-U.S. relations. ... 
 
"The U.S. warning was a reminder [asking Taiwan] to exercise 
restraint.  Taiwan people is clearly aware of the key role of the 
United States in Taiwan's security and cross-Strait relations - that 
it is both a protector of [Taiwan's] security and a policy balancer. 
 But when will the Taiwan government understand that 'maintaining 
peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait' is the real consensus 
and interest of the Taiwan people." 
 
G) "Another 'victory' for zealots" 
 
An editorial of the conservative, pro-unification, English-language 
"China Post" [circulation: 30,000] said (2/11): 
 
"... We believe it is even possible, and indeed highly likely, that 
Beijing will take advantage of the name changing to interfere in 
contracts that already exist, such as international postal 
agreements and oil exploration deals.  We do not buy the 
government's argument claiming that changing the names at this 
juncture is somehow merely intended to avoid confusion among 
muddle-headed foreigners. 
 
"According to the head of what is now called the Taiwan Post, the 
old title 'Chunghwa Post' was confusing to foreigners because it 
looked and sounded like 'Changhwa,' a major city in central Taiwan. 
With all due respect to the fine citizens of Changhwa, we believe 
that any foreigners who don't know 'Chunghwa' refers to China and 
things Chinese almost certainly have never heard of the city of 
Changhwa.  The DPP is determined to wage its silly cultural 
revolution, no matter what the people think. While the financial 
damage is already all but done, we hope that the DPP's reckless 
behavior will not end up harming Taiwan's long-term interests by 
opening our institutions up to even more interference from 
Beijing." 
 
¶2. U.S.-Taiwan Relations 
 
"The U.S. Relationship with Taiwan" 
 
Nat Bellocchi, former AIT chairman and now special adviser to the 
Liberty Times Group, commented in the pro-independence, 
English-language "Taipei Times" [circulation: 30,000] (2/11): 
 
"... The relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan remains almost as 
RELATIONS 
 
sensitive as that between the U.S. and China. It is obvious the U.S. 
does not want war with China, and equally obvious that China does 
not want war with the U.S.  This equilibrium, however, could be 
disturbed by cross-Strait strife, but rather than seeking a 
resolution, China refuses any dialogue with Taiwan, and the US 
continues to limit its dialogue with the nation.  Instead, the U.S. 
should also look ahead and assess the possible results of the two 
forthcoming elections -- the first in December for members of the 
Legislative Yuan and then in March next year for a new president -- 
and how they might impact U.S. policies regarding cross-strait 
matters. ... 
 
"If either the KMT or DPP gained control over both the Legislative 
Yuan and the Executive Yuan, the impact would be felt in Taiwan, the 
U.S. and China.  In Taiwan, the most importance impact would be seen 
in the manner in which the population reacts to the results.  For 
the U.S., with its global commitments, the impact would likely force 
a reappraisal of Taiwan's domestic political interests and of the 
winning party's relations to China. ... 
 
"Taiwan today is a democracy in which one party wants a temporary 
Republic of China with the objective of eventually becoming a part 
of China, while the other accepts a temporary Republic of China with 
the eventual objective of becoming a separate entity.  China wants 
Taiwan entirely, but will not talk to its legitimate officials. The 
U.S. does not want a war over this issue, but it also does not want 
to communicate openly with Taiwan's legitimate officials.  This 
relationship clearly does not make sense. China may well change its 
policy on dialogue with Taiwan next year regardless of who wins the 
elections.  Isn't it time for the U.S. to do the same?" 
 
YOUNG