VZCZCXYZ0006
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHIN #0595/01 0740901
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 150901Z MAR 07
FM AIT TAIPEI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4471
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 6475
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 7721

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 000595 
 
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: President Chen's "Four Wants"; Six-Party 
Talks; U.S.-Iran 
 
 
¶1.  Summary:  Taiwan's newspapers March 15 focused their coverage on 
local banks' disclosure of the names of defaulters whose bad debts 
exceed NT$100 million [US$3.07 million], in accordance with the 
regulation of the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC). 
 
¶2.  In terms of editorials and commentaries, the pro-independence 
"Liberty Times" editorialized that the Taiwan authorities should not 
"want" development but push for Taiwan business people's investment 
in China at the same time.  A column in the pro-status quo "China 
Times" said that South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun's remarks 
correctly described the sequence of approaches to establish a peace 
and security mechanism in Northeast Asia and addressed potential 
problems that the mechanism might face.  An editorial in the 
pro-unification, English-language "China Post" said that the 
U.S.-Iran conference is a good beginning for bilateral relations and 
world peace.  End summary. 
 
¶3.  President Chen's "Four Wants and One Without" 
 
A) "Pushes for Openness to China are Contradictory to the Remarks 
[of President Chen]: 'Taiwan Wants Development'" 
 
The pro-independence "Liberty Times" [circulation: 600,000] 
editorialized that (03/15): 
 
"... But we have to remind the president, since Taiwan is 
substantially independent, 'the want for development' is the 
fundamental condition for the other three 'wants.'  If Taiwan ceases 
its development or does not develop as well as other countries do, 
the substantial independence that Taiwan now enjoys will be 
inevitably threatened, and name changes and a new constitution will 
become illusory and meaningless.  Regrettably, when the government 
pushes for name changes of its state-owned enterprises, it also 
pushes for openness for Taiwan business people to invest in China. 
The result is that ... Taiwan business people are getting richer, 
and that China is becoming more powerful, while the capital that 
Taiwan people control is reduced.  ... This contradicts Taiwan's 
appeal for development. 
 
"We do not blindly oppose Taiwan industries moving westward.  We 
oppose it that industries are moving westward blindly.  We have 
never opposed cross-Strait trade, and the reason we do not oppose it 
is because Taiwan business people have invested too much in China. 
We therefore ask the government to constrain them and deal with the 
matter.  [About 90 percent of Taiwan's external investment for 
manufacturing is allocated in China, and the ratio of Taiwan's 
investment in China to Taiwan's GDP is many times higher than that 
of the United States, Japan, or South Korea.]  ..." 
 
¶4. Six-Party Talks 
 
B) "Approaches to a Peace and Security Mechanism in Northeast Asia" 
 
A column in the pro-status quo "China Times" [circulation: 400,000] 
said that (03/15): 
 
"... South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun said on Tuesday that if the 
Six-Party Talks are to upgrade to a peace and security mechanism, 
then the sequence should be: first solve the North Korean nuclear 
issue, then establish the Korean Peninsula peace mechanism, and then 
a Northeast Asia peace mechanism.  Roh's opinions are correct, since 
there will be no third outcome without the first two steps. 
 
"There is a precondition for the solution of the North Korean 
nuclear issue.  According to the current situation, it is possible 
for North Korea to freeze or even destroy its plutonium device, and 
the nuclear device in Nyongbyon will surely be abandoned.  But will 
this solve the problem?  There might be two developments: the United 
States implicitly allows North Korea to possess the nuclear weapons 
that it has produced but does not recognize the country as a member 
of the nuclear club; the United States insists that North Korea 
abandon completely any nuclear weapon or devices it owns, but North 
Korea might not agree.  How to deal with the matter really depends 
on the U.S. bottom line. 
 
"Regarding a peace mechanism in the Korean Peninsula, this should 
mean making changes to the Korean War Armistice Agreement. 
Theoretically, the Korean War has not ended peacefully.  According 
to the legal principles, a peace treaty should be signed to end a 
war.  The reason why the peace treaty was delayed is because South 
Korea wanted to sign it but North Korea did not agree.  North Korea 
considered the South Korean army as being subordinate to the Allied 
Forces and not a direct belligerent entity.  Therefore, a peace 
treaty should be signed by North Korea, the United States, and 
China.  Since the relations between South Korea and North Korea have 
improved, North Korea might not boycott South Korea on the matter, 
and there is a high possibility for four parties to sign a peace 
treaty.  If this stage is passed, it will be easier to talk about 
 
peace and security in Northeast Asia. 
 
"There should be no problem in upgrading the Six-Party Talks to a 
peace and security mechanism, since none of the six parties would 
oppose it.  There will be no obstacle after the previous two steps 
are taken, and it will be best for Russia to be in charge of the 
working group of a Northeast Asia peace and security mechanism." 
 
¶5. U.S.-Iran 
 
c) "U.S.-Iran Conference is a good Beginning" 
 
The pro-unification, English language "China Post" [circulation: 
30,000] said in its editorial (03/15): 
 
"At a just-concluded international conference on the security of 
Iran, delegates from the United States and the Islamic Republic of 
Iran met and spoke to each other. 
 
"... While U.S. and Iranian diplomats have met on the sidelines of 
various international events before, this marked the first time that 
both sides seriously engaged each other on a major issue of mutual 
concern since ties were broken off in 1979. 
 
"Even though Washington and Tehran did not make any major progress 
on the Iraq issue, we are still glad to see the two sides are 
talking to each other. 
 
"While Washington and Tehran have irreconcilable differences on many 
issues, they share a joint need for stability in Iraq, and should 
work together. 
 
"Just as the United States did with mainland China in the early 
1970s, Washington and Tehran should agree to disagree on sensitive 
issues so they can cooperate for the benefit of world politics." 
 
YOUNG