VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHIN #1024/01 1272210
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 072210Z MAY 07
FM AIT TAIPEI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5162
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 6728
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 7977

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 001024 
 
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.-JAPAN SECURITY MEETING, U.S.-TAIWAN 
RELATIONS 
 
 
¶1. Summary:  Taiwan's major Chinese-language dailies focused news 
coverage May 5-7 on the first stage of the DPP presidential primary 
Sunday, in which former Premier Frank Hsieh emerged as the winner, 
defeating Premier Su Tseng-chang by a margin of 15,855 votes; on New 
York Yankees pitcher Wang Chien-ming, who nearly played a perfect 
game in New York Sunday; and on other local issues. 
 
¶2. In terms of editorials and commentaries, several op-ed pieces and 
editorials continued to focus on the Two-plus-Two meeting between 
the United States and Japan.  An op-ed in the mass-circulation 
"Apple Daily" said the fact that cross-Strait issue was scrapped 
from the joint declaration following the Two-plus-Two meeting 
indicated that Washington and Tokyo wanted to send a clear message 
to President Chen Shui-bian, a pursuer of independence, that Taiwan 
independence has violated the security interests of the United 
States and Japan.  An editorial in the pro-independence "Liberty 
Times," however, quoted U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and 
AIT Director Stephen Young as saying that the United States' 
cross-Strait policy remains unchanged.  An op-ed in the pro-status 
quo "China Times" echoed the "Apple Daily" article and said neither 
Washington nor Tokyo wanted to send Taiwan the wrong message.  A 
column in the pro-unification "United Daily News" also said it is a 
matter of course that Taiwan was not mentioned in the U.S.-Japan 
declaration because the United States has been questioning the Bian 
administration's cross-Strait policy for some time.  With regard to 
the U.S. arms procurements, an editorial in the conservative, 
pro-unification, English-language "China Post" urged the United 
States to have a little more patience over the case since "the 
necessary funds will be authorized as soon as the current political 
hassle and bustle in Taipei are over."  End summary. 
 
¶3. U.S.-Japan Security Meeting 
 
A) "U.S.' and Japan's Signals to Taipei" 
 
Xue Litai, research fellow at Stanford University's Center for 
International Security and Cooperation, opined in the 
mass-circulation "Apple Daily" [circulation: 520,000] (5/7): 
 
"... Given the analysis of the current situation, one can tell that 
both the United States and Japan have come to the same conclusion: 
namely, the actions taken in Taipei calling for independence have 
violated the security interests of the United States and Japan, and 
that it the Taiwan independence forces are to blame should any 
conflict break out across the Taiwan Strait.  In that regard, the 
governments of the two countries have reflected on what they have 
come to understand in the adjustment of their policy, namely, they 
have removed the 'cross-Strait issue' from the original contents of 
their strategic objectives.  Evidently, such a move by the United 
States and Japan was aimed at sending a clear and definite message 
to Chen Shui-bian, a pursuer of independence. ... 
 
"Now that the United States is deeply caught in the anti-terror 
quagmire, there is really little it can do even if it wants to 
interfere militarily in conflicts across the Taiwan Strait.  But to 
move to a deeper level, what if the United States acts the other way 
and starts to impose tremendous pressure on Taipei to force Taipei 
to back off from its eager pursuit of 'incremental Taiwan 
independence?'  That way [Washington] can continue to maintain the 
status quo in the Taiwan Strait and continue to keep Taiwan without 
having the risks of engaging fully in a war, or even a nuclear war, 
with mainland China.  This is a strategic plan that can achieve 
equal objectives at minimum cost, and it completely meets the United 
States' current interests.  So why not adopt it? ..." 
 
B) "Creating More Room for Taiwan's Development by Flexibly Using 
the International Environment that is Favorable for Taiwan" 
 
The pro-independence "Liberty Times" [circulation: 500,000] 
editorialized (5/5): 
 
"The pro-unification media [in Taiwan] is making a fuss about this 
year's Two-plus-Two meeting" between the United States and Japan, 
and they claimed that such a move indicated that the U.S.-Japan 
security treaty may likely 'move from prevention of unification to 
stopping independence, a move to prevent Taiwan from changing all 
the time.'  But U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stressed 
that the U.S. policy remains unchanged.  As a matter of fact, the 
fact that Taiwan is included in the surrounding situation in the 
U.S.-Japan security treaty, and the 'Taiwan Relations Act' both 
remain intact. ...  AIT Taipei Director Stephen Young also indicated 
that this is not the first time that Taiwan was not mentioned [in 
the U.S.-Japan security treaty,'] and that it is clear that the 
military and foreign relations in Northeast Asia are of joint 
concern for the United States and Japan. ... 
 
"In other words, it is always the interests of big countries that 
dictate the operations of international politics.  As Taiwan's 
 
democracy deepens and its Taiwan-centered awareness strengthens, and 
given China's rise and its military expansion, more variables must 
be considered when relevant big countries are trying to manage 
cross-Strait issues.  It is thus understandable when, in the face of 
a rapidly changing regional situation, these big powers adopt a 
strategically ambiguous attitude toward certain issues.  But what's 
important is that we must stand in a firm position with regard to 
our sovereignty and flexibly use all the favorable elements in the 
international environment to seek the biggest bargaining chips and 
elbow room for Taiwan's development. ...." 
 
C) "Adjusting the Tactics, but Keeping the Strategy Unchanged" 
 
Professor Philip Yang of National Taiwan University's Department of 
Political Science opined in the pro-status quo "China Times" 
[circulation: 400,000] (5/5): 
 
"In the declaration following the Two-plus-Two security 
consultations between the foreign and defense ministers of both the 
United States and Japan, which was concluded on May 1, the statement 
about 'encouraging a peaceful resolution to issues related to the 
Taiwan Strait' was not included in the two countries' common 
strategic objectives, as was the case two years ago.  Such a 
development has aroused the attention and different interpretations 
from both sides of the Taiwan Strait as well as other countries in 
East Asia. ... 
 
"... The United States and Japan do not want to send the wrong 
message to people in Taiwan to trigger their misjudgment and 
misunderstanding about the Taiwan government's provocative moves 
against the status quo across the Taiwan Strait.  Washington and 
Tokyo are concerned that if they clearly list cross-Strait security 
as their common strategic objective again, Taiwan will interpret it 
as an endorsement by the two countries and will thus take actions 
and measures to alter the status quo. ..." 
 
D) "Two plus Two without Taiwan, a Matter of Course" 
 
Journalist Sun Yang-ming noted in the "United Notes" column of the 
pro-unification "United Daily News" [circulation: 400,000] (5/7): 
 
"Totally opposite to the situation two years ago, cross-Strait 
issues are removed from the conclusion of the U.S.-Japan 
Two-plus-Two meeting.  Heated discussions started immediately when 
people in Taiwan learned of this development.  But in fact, it has 
been at least one-and-a-half years since Washington started to 
question, not support, or even oppose the cross-Strait policy and 
actions of the Bian administration.... 
 
"The United States' long-term cross-Strait strategy has been very 
clear:  Namely, [Washington] will protect Taiwan depending on its 
own interests and will.  In other words, for the United States to 
protect Taiwan, it has to be under the condition that the United 
States is able to control the entire situation.  In this context, 
the United States must be in control when it wants or does not want 
to take any action.  For Washington, the worst-case scenario is that 
it is dragged into a conflict passively.  What the DPP is doing now 
is dragging the United States into such a quagmire. ..." 
 
¶4. U.S.-Taiwan Relations 
 
"On Buying U.S. Arms" 
 
The conservative, pro-unification, English-language "China Post" 
[circulation: 30,000] editorialized (5/7): 
 
"Stephen Young, director of the American Institute in Taiwan, is 
again urging the Legislative Yuan to pass an arms purchase 
appropriation bill as soon as possible.  He held a press conference 
last week, the second in 6 months, to repeat the call for early 
legislation that would enable Taiwan to acquire weapons and 
equipment to defend itself. ...  We fully understand the American 
impatience. But people in Taiwan tend to regard Young's call as 
another ultimatum, although no 'or else' was uttered.  The call came 
right after the United States and Japan had omitted mention of 
Taiwan as an issue of mutual concern in their two-plus-two 
ministerial conference in Washington. The omission might not be 
intended as a warning, but was considered so in Taipei. ... 
 
"Of course, it's wrong on the part of the nation's highest 
legislative organ to tie up the reorganization of the Central 
Election Commission with the passage of the national budget bill 
which provides for part of the armament acquisition from the United 
States.  The budget bill, as a matter of fact, should have been 
adopted by the end of last year.  But we wish to remind the 
Americans of what has transpired in Taiwan over the past half dozen 
years.  When President Bush ratified the deal, Taiwan was rich 
enough to buy all the weapons and equipment the United States would 
 
sell.  The country has since become increasingly poor.  Now it can't 
afford all those expensive armaments, albeit the people are 
determined to defend themselves against attacks from China.  On the 
other hand, rightly or wrongly, almost all lawmakers are convinced 
that China is unlikely to attack.  So long as Taipei refrains from 
declaring independence, they have more than sufficient reason to 
believe, there will be no invasion from across the Taiwan Strait.  A 
majority of Democratic Progressive Party lawmakers even regard china 
as a paper tiger who dares not invade, even if independence is 
declared, simply because there is a tacit assurance of American 
involvement in not-so-possible hostilities.  We can't blame our 
legislators too harshly for not giving the arms purchase the 
priority it deserves.  Will Uncle Sam have a little more patience? 
We are sure the necessary funds will be authorized as soon as the 
current political hassle and bustle in Taipei are over." 
 
YOUNG