VZCZCXYZ0010
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHIN #0915 1150948
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 250948Z APR 07
FM AIT TAIPEI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5004
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 6673
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 7924

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 000915 
 
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: U.S. CROSS-STRAIT POLICY 
 
 
¶1. Summary:  All major Chinese-language dailies in Taiwan gave 
significant coverage on April 25 to President Chen Shui-bian's call 
Tuesday for a plan to grant sentence commutations to many prison 
inmates island-wide.  News coverage also focused on the year-end 
legislative elections and the 2008 presidential election, and on 
Taiwan's 23rd Hang-Kuang military exercise.  The pro-status quo 
"China Times" ran a banner headline on page five that said "Ministry 
of National Defense Confirms for the First Time: Taiwan's Missiles 
Are Capable of Launching Counterattacks against Mainland China if 
the Island Is under Attack." 
 
¶2. In terms of editorials and commentaries, an editorial in the 
pro-independence "Liberty Times" elaborated on an article by John J. 
Tkacik, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, which 
was carried by the newspaper Monday.  The editorial urged the United 
States to define clearly the status quo of Taiwan's independent 
sovereignty so as to stop China from using force against the island 
and to maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait and the West Pacific. 
End summary. 
 
"The United States Must Not Adopt a Policy of Strategic Ambiguity 
toward the 'Determination of Taiwan's Status Quo' Any More" 
 
The pro-independence "Liberty Times" [circulation: 500,000] 
editorialized (4/25): 
 
"U.S. Heritage Foundation senior research fellow John J. Tkacik said 
in a column in this newspaper recently that the United States has 
constantly stated that it opposes any change in the status quo of 
Taiwan.  But the United States has never clearly defined what 
Taiwan's status quo is.  Tkacik believes that Washington's failure 
to give a formal and detailed definition of 'the status quo as we 
determine it is akin to ceding its leading role in [defining] the 
controversial [status quo] to Beijing and Taipei, and when tension 
rises [across the Taiwan Strait], American diplomats can only 
respond reactively, in a panic. 
 
"Tkacik therefore suggested that the U.S. government clearly state 
its position:  Namely, 'the United States neither recognizes nor 
accepts [Beijing's claim] that China, based on whatever 
international laws there may be, is entitled to use force or 
threaten to use force against democratic Taiwan.'  Also, 'even if 
Taiwan declares independence, it will only be a matter of record, 
which will not change the behavior of any country, nor will it have 
any impact on China's security situation.'  By doing so, it will be 
essentially telling China that the United States does not, and has 
never, recognized China's claim over Taiwan's territory. ... 
 
"... Tkacik's proposal that the U.S. government clarify the status 
quo of Taiwan is aimed at stopping China from using any means, 
including the use of force, to alter Taiwan's status quo 
unilaterally.  In reality, [if] Washington publicly defines Taiwan's 
status quo - namely, Taiwan and China are two separate countries - 
it will certainly be conducive to regional stability and prevent 
China from risking danger in desperation.  But still, we believe 
that when it comes to the status quo of Taiwan, one must trace back 
to its source - an international treaty signed after World War II. 
Only by doing so can the truth be revealed and Taiwan's status be 
thoroughly understood, and it can thereby shatter China's 
self-composed fiction that 'Taiwan is part of China,' ... 
 
"The U.S. government always emphasizes that its one China policy 
differs from Beijing's one China principle, and [as a result,] 
Washington's [position of] not recognizing that 'Taiwan is part of 
China' is self-evident.  To define the status quo of Taiwan is not 
merely aimed at preventing military conflicts across the Taiwan 
Strait but also at fulfilling the spirit that 'all people are 
entitled to the right of self-determination' as specified in the 
United Nations Charter and the International Human Rights 
Convention.  The United States might have been able to adopt an 
ambiguous strategy regarding the status quo of Taiwan earlier when 
China's national strength was relatively weaker.  But now given 
China's military expansion and its evident aggressiveness, a clear 
definition of the status quo of Taiwan's independent sovereignty 
will be the most effective or even the only countermeasure for the 
United States to stop China from using force against Taiwan and to 
maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait and the West Pacific." 
 
 
YOUNG