VZCZCXYZ0023
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHIN #1250/01 1560810
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 050810Z JUN 07
FM AIT TAIPEI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5500
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 6863
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 8113

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 001250 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/TC, EAP/PA, EAP/PD - DAVID FIRESTEIN 
DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO TW
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S. ON CROSS-STRAIT TRADE RELATIONS, 
U.S.-CHINA-TAIWAN RELATIONS 
 
 
¶1. Summary:  As the 2008 presidential election stays in the 
limelight of the Taiwan media, news coverage on June 5 also focused 
on Taiwan's economic developments, the current status of Taiwan's 
tobacco business, and the ill-gotten party assets of the KMT.  In 
terms of editorials and commentaries, a column in the 
pro-independence "Liberty Times" discussed AIT Taipei Director 
Stephen Young's speech to Taiwan's Chinese National Association of 
Industry and Commerce (CNAIC) in late May, in which he encouraged 
Taiwan further to open its economic relationship with China.  The 
article cautioned that Young and the United States must not be 
fooled by China's seemingly peaceful rise.  An editorial in the 
limited-circulation, conservative, pro-unification "China Post" 
discussed the Pentagon-People's Liberation Army hotline, which will 
be set up soon, calling it "good news for peace in the Taiwan Strait 
... and bad news for the Taiwan independence movement."  An op-ed in 
the limited-circulation, pro-independence, English-language "Taipei 
Times" discussed President Chen Shui-bian's recent video conference 
with journalists in Washington and the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). 
The article argued that the TRA implies that "supporting Taiwan 
independence is a responsibility of the U.S."  End summary. 
 
¶2. U.S. on Cross-Strait Trade Relations 
 
"George C. Marshall and Stephen Young; the United States Was Fooled 
Once and Should Cautiously Prevent the History from Repeating 
Itself" 
 
Huang Tien-lin, former national policy adviser to President Chen 
Shui-bian, noted in his column in the pro-independence "Liberty 
Times" [circulation: 500,000] (6/5): 
 
"AIT Taipei Director Stephen Young said during a recent speech to 
Taiwan's Chinese National Association of Industry and Commerce that 
"[a] critical way to improve the U.S.-Taiwan trade partnership is 
for Taiwan further to open its economic relationship with China." 
He further pointed out that "a modern China is a constructive 
partner for both the United States and Taiwan."  Since these remarks 
were given in the presence of the president of the host country, 
they were obviously aimed at conveying certain messages.  The 
question is:  Will a modern China be a constructive partner for the 
United States and Taiwan?  Director Young's remarks reminded us of a 
historical event in December 1945, when Washington sent its envoy, 
General George Marshall, to Nanjing on the KMT-CCP mediation 
missions, threatening the then-Nationalist government to sign a 
truce with CCP and build a coalition government, or it would not win 
the U.S. government's sympathy.  The Nationalist government was then 
forced to sign a truce pact with the CCP in January 1946 and hold 
political consultative conference.  What came after were the defeat 
of the KMT and the fall of mainland China [to the CCP]. 
 
"Why did the United States want to pressure the Nanjing government 
to sign a truce with the Communist army?  It was because the U.S. 
government mistakenly believed the CCP's false propaganda and 
thought they were a bunch of land reformers and hoped that the 
Chiang Kai-shek regime would cooperate with them. ...  'Peaceful 
rise' is a slogan regularly used by the Chinese regime in Beijing 
for international propaganda.  Since China is not full-fledged yet 
and does not have adequate national strength to be a match for the 
United States, [the slogan] 'peaceful rise' has been used to cover 
up its proactive economic construction and military buildup - a coat 
to cover up its authoritarian nature in pursuit of 'the hegemony of 
the grand Chinese empire.' ...  If the U.S. government truly 
believes this slogan, naively requests that Taiwan further expand 
its economic relations with China, including [opening the] direct 
links and removing its restrictions on investments in China, and 
forcefully pushes Taiwan toward China, what Washington will lose 
this time may not be just all of Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait, but 
also Japan. 
 
"We find it even more difficult to identify with Director Young's 
statement that "more cross-Strait economic opening will help Taiwan 
to realize its potential as a regional center for logistics, finance 
and other services.'  Young's perception is just like the mainstream 
perception of the pro-China, pro-unification faction -- those who 
call for westbound [China] investments, as well as those Taiwan and 
U.S. firms [in China].  Such mainstream perception may be applied to 
Hong Kong and Singapore, but never to Taiwan.  This is because 
'using economics to push for unification' has been the highest 
guideline for China's trade and economic [policy] toward Taiwan. 
Unless Taiwan becomes a province of China, Beijing will never allow 
Taiwan to become a regional center for logistics, finance and other 
services. ... 
 
"But we should not put all the blame on U.S. officials because they 
have been heavily influenced by what they see and hear from the 
media, the Taiwan and U.S. businessmen [in China], and even from our 
representative offices [in the United States] about the ideas 
similar to Ma Ying-jeou's doctrines 'calling for direct links and 
U.S.-CHINA-TAIWAN RELATIONS 
 
cooperation' ...  It is our own government and officials that should 
be blamed; their administrative thinking upholding opening over the 
past few years has imperceptibly influenced Washington and the U.S. 
officials in Taiwan. ..." 
 
¶3. U.S.-China-Taiwan Relations 
 
A) "Ready for a U.S.-PRC Hotline" 
 
The conservative, pro-unification, English-language "China Post" 
[circulation: 30,000] editorialized (6/5): 
 
"The United States and China are ready to set up a hotline between 
the Pentagon and PLA headquarters to ward off tensions and foster 
dialogue.  This is good news for peace in the Taiwan Strait, the 
Beijing leadership will at least expect U.S. restraint when pushing 
for reunification.  It is bad news for the Taiwan independence 
movement, whose space of maneuverability will be further curtailed 
by this unprecedented Sino-U.S. strategic linkage. ... 
 
"U.S. officials regularly call for Beijing to be more open about its 
intentions, and former U.S. Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld 
repeatedly used the Shangri-La forum to criticize China for a lack 
of transparency.  But this year, Gates eased the one, merely 
cautioning, 'distrust and secrecy can lead to miscalculation and 
unnecessary confrontation.' ...  Gates called the concept of a 
hotline -- a secure landline provided through the 'Defense Telephone 
Link' structure -- 'just the next step forward' for the two 
countries. ..." 
 
B) "The Taiwan Relations Act and Its Imperatives" 
 
Sim Kiantek, former associate professor in the business 
administration department at National Chung Hsing University, opined 
in the pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times" 
[circulation: 30,000] (6/5): 
 
"The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) addresses two core principles: 
maintaining the 'status quo' in the Taiwan Strait and the 
independence of Taiwan.  During a video-conference with journalists 
in Washington last week, President Chen Shui-bian expressed his 
dissatisfaction with the WHO in a manner that very much reflected 
the spirit of the TRA. ...  But the crux of the matter is the 
national title 'Republic of China' (ROC) and the sovereignty issue 
implicit in the claim that 'Taiwan is part of China,' which can only 
be resolved through the clauses in the TRA that promote Taiwanese 
independence. 
 
"Section 4(c) of the TRA stipulates that '... the Congress approves 
the continuation in force of all treaties and other international 
agreements, including multilateral conventions, entered into by the 
US and the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the US as 
the ROC prior to January 1, 1979...'  In other words, this means 
that all agreements signed prior to this date are re-approved and 
transferred to Taiwanese.  A little bit of research will show that 
these international agreements include the Atlantic Charter, the 
Declaration by the United Nations of 1942, articles 76(b) and 77(b) 
of the UN Charter and others, all of which, over and over again, 
recognize Taiwanese independence.  The TRA therefore implies that 
supporting Taiwanese independence is a responsibility of the US. 
Unfortunately, this rarely gets mentioned, which has resulted in the 
US' position of not supporting Taiwanese independence, but rather 
recognizing the 'one China' principle. ..." 
 
YOUNG