VZCZCXYZ0005
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHIN #1702/01 2120913
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 310913Z JUL 07
FM AIT TAIPEI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6196
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 7076
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 8323

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 001702 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/TC, EAP/PA, EAP/PD 
DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO TW
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: DPP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FRANK HSIEH'S 
U.S. TRIP, TAIWAN'S UN BID 
 
¶1. Summary:  As DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's U.S. trip 
and Taiwan's bid to join the United Nations remain in the spotlight 
of the Taiwan media, news coverage on July 31 focused on the rising 
oil prices and on the 2008 presidential poll.  The pro-independence 
"Liberty Times," Taiwan's largest-circulation daily, ran an 
exclusive banner headline on page two that said "The [UN 
Secretariat's] Statement That Taiwan Is Part of China Is 
 
SIPDIS 
Inconsistent with the U.S. Policy and Position; the United States 
Will Negotiate with UN [over the Matter]."  The mass-circulation 
"Apple Daily," in the meantime, ran a banner headline on page eight 
that read "Frank Hsieh: the United States Opposes [Taiwan's] UN 
Referendum, and the Consequences [of Taiwan's Holding such a 
Referendum] Is Imaginable."  The sub-headline added "[Hsieh] Meets 
with Bian Immediately after He Returns; [Both] Infer Possible 
Punitive Measures from the United States." 
 
¶2. In terms of editorials and commentaries, a "Liberty Times" op-ed 
said DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh should not have promised 
the United States that he will not hold any referendum on 
independence.  A "Liberty Times" column said the United States has 
helped Taiwan so much in the past, but the article questioned why 
Washington is restraining Taiwan now.  An editorial in the centrist, 
KMT-leaning "China Times" questioned which Frank Hsieh is real, the 
one that calls for "reconciliation and co-existence" in Taiwan, or 
the one who spoke in a "cunning and caustic" manner in the United 
States?  An editorial in the pro-unification "United Daily News" 
described the current relations between Hsieh and President Chen 
Shui-bian as both having a "two-stage struggle," with the 
presidential election in March, 2008 as a dividing line.  An 
editorial in the conservative, pro-unification, English-language 
"China Post" said, despite Hsieh's good humor and eloquence, there 
is no evidence showing the Hsieh has resolved the two "fundamental 
U.S. concerns about the DPP's pursuit of 'Taiwan identity' and 
'international space.'"  With regard to Taiwan's UN bid, an "Apple 
Daily" editorial said that Foreign Minister James Huang was lying 
when he said Taiwan's UN referendum will not violate President 
Chen's pledge not to change the island's national title.  An 
editorial in the pro-independence, English-language "Taiwan News," 
on the other hand, urged President Chen to hold a "national security 
referendum" to defend any attempts to negate Taiwan's sovereignty. 
End summary. 
 
¶3. DPP Presidential Candidate Frank Hsieh's U.S. Trip 
 
A) "How will Frank Hsieh Amend the 'One China' Constitution?" 
 
Luo Chih-cheng, associate professor at Department of Political 
Science, Soochow University opined in the pro-independence "Liberty 
Times" [circulation: 720,000] (7/31): 
 
"... Our concern is that any promise that Taiwan leaders make to the 
United States, if not cautious and comprehensive, will be used to 
constrain Taiwan's external relations and internal reform.  Simply 
put, who will define a 'referendum on independence?'  Over the past 
seven years, it has been proven that, whenever Taiwan intends to 
carry out any internal or external reform or push for normalization, 
Washington almost always scrutinizes or even opposes these by 
alleging that Taiwan might violate the pledges of the 'Four Nos and 
One Without.'  Obviously, Taiwan has given the United States a ruler 
[as in 'twelve-inch piece of wood' - Ed.] with which to shape or 
even punish Taiwan. 
 
"Even if Mr. Hsieh considers that Taiwan is already a 'de facto' 
country, the meaning of a 'de jure' 'constitutional one China' is 
that Taiwan is not a country; it is merely a part of China. 
Although Mr. Hsieh asserts that the unreasonableness of [Taiwan's] 
'one China Constitution' should be amended, a referendum is needed 
to decide whether to adopt the procedure of constitutional reform or 
establishing a [new] constitution. 
 
"But the problem is that if China views the 'referendum on joining 
the United Nations under the name of Taiwan' as a variant of an 
independence referendum, and while the United States has warned 
continuously that the 'referendum on joining the UN' violates one of 
the 'Four Noes' pledges, [namely] no change of the national title, 
then won't China and the United States assert that the referendum on 
constitutional reform that attempts to take out 'one China' [is] a 
referendum on independence? ..." 
 
B) "A Benefactor or a Valued Customer?" 
 
The "Free Talk" column in the pro-independence "Liberty Times" 
[circulation: 720,000] wrote (7/31): 
 
"What is the difference between a valued customer and a benefactor? 
The difference is that the former pays and gets the merchandise 
immediately, and gets rewards in accordance with the price.  The 
latter donates and helps out based on moral courage; and the one who 
U.S. TRIP, TAIWAN'S UN BID 
 
helps feels satisfied when the one who is helped expresses any word 
of appreciation. 
 
"Then what is the United States to Taiwan, a valued customer or a 
benefactor?  There is hardly an affirmative answer to this question. 
 This is because the United States has been Taiwan's benefactor in 
an earlier period, sending forces without hesitation to help defend 
Taiwan and effectively constraining China from invading Taiwan when 
Taiwan was at its most difficult time, such as the Korean War, the 
1947 shelling [of Kinmen/Quemoy], and the 1996 crisis in the Taiwan 
Strait. 
 
"However, the U.S. attitude towards Taiwan seems to have changed 
recently.  After A-bian made the pledges of 'Four Nos and One 
Without,' the U.S. started to consider itself as a valued customer, 
and has started to use Chen's pledges as an inhibiting incantation 
[refers to the classic picaresque novel "Journey to the West," in 
which the Buddhist monk Xuanzang kept the monkey king under control 
through a magic incantation that caused his crown to tighten on his 
head -- Ed.] or a chastity memorial archway [a "pailou" gate 
constructed to memorialize a faithful wife or mother] to demand that 
Taiwan not cross the line; otherwise, it will start reading the 
incantation and make Taiwan headache, roll on the ground, and obey. 
 
"... Over the past few decades, the United States has helped Taiwan 
so much that Taiwan people have already carved the statue of this 
benefactor in their hearts.  The most dreadful thing is if the 
benefactor becomes a valued customer and embarrasses the Taiwan 
people." 
 
C) "Which Is the Real Frank Hsieh?" 
 
The centrist, KMT-leaning "China Times" [circulation: 400,000] 
editorialized (7/31): 
 
"... DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh, who has always 
advocated reconciliation and co-existence, has recently concluded a 
trip to the United States and returned to Taiwan.  Hsieh emphasized 
that his trip was highly successful.  During his trip, Hsieh has 
tried every way he can, using all kinds of soothing tones, tactful 
and exquisite rhetoric [in communicating with Washington] in an 
attempt to win the United States' trust in him.  Hsieh stressed to 
Washington that Chen Shui-bian insisted on pushing for the UN 
referendum, and he can neither stop nor oppose it, but he added that 
such a big problem will 'end by March, 2008.'  In other words, 
[Hsieh is telling Washington that] he will not play the games Chen 
is playing now and, more importantly, he will not hold a referendum 
on unification or independence.  Also, Hsieh [said he will] practice 
what he preaches.  What Hsieh implied and did not point out directly 
was that Chen may not be able to practice what he preaches. ... 
 
"Hsieh has tried the best he can to appear to be flexible and use 
precise rhetoric to please Uncle Sam, and evidently he cannot bother 
himself to care about the impact his posture and rhetoric have on 
[the politics] in Taiwan.  Or, Hsieh is clearly aware of the 
positive and negative impacts his words and deeds in the United 
States would cause, so he chose to evade the important questions for 
the easy in an attempt to reduce the possible damage to the minimum. 
... " 
 
D) "March as a Dividing Line:  a 'Two-Stage Struggle' between Frank 
Hsieh and Chen Shui-bian" 
 
The pro-unification "United Daily News" [circulation: 400,000] 
editorialized (7/31): 
 
"Frank Hsieh just returned from a trip to the United States.  A 
general look into the relevant remarks he made there indicate very 
clearly that he and Chen Shui-bian are now engaged in a 'two-stage 
struggle,' with March, 2008 marking a dividing line.  Hsieh's story 
was as follows:  First, the 'UN referendum' should be blamed on Chen 
because 'foreign affairs are within the authority of the president.' 
 Second, he hopes Washington will distinguish him from Chen and will 
not let him lose the presidential election just because of its 
opposition to Chen.  Third, the UN referendum is not aimed at 
reaching a real objective but at inciting the public; in other 
words, it is just a campaigning ploy.  Fourth, the DPP is now under 
the control of Chen; Hsieh cannot stop the UN referendum, or else 
the DPP will fall apart.  Fifth, all this confusion and trouble will 
come to an end in March, 2008 when Hsieh is elected and Chen loses 
his power to dictate the issues.  'Everything will remain boisterous 
until May, 2008.' ... 
 
"Hsieh divided the struggle [between himself and Chen] into 'two 
stages' in the hope that the United States and middle-of-the-road 
voters could sympathize with him in his need to forbear and act 
involuntarily during the first stage of campaign season, and keep 
hope on him regaining control in the second stage after the 
U.S. TRIP, TAIWAN'S UN BID 
 
presidential election.  Thus, Hsieh was telling the United States: 
Just let Chen cause trouble until next March, and I can domesticate 
him in March when I am elected! ...  March is the dividing line 
drawn by Hsieh; it was drawn by neither the DPP, nor Chen." 
 
E) "Chen Mars Hsieh's U.S. Trip" 
 
The conservative, pro-unification, English-language "China Post" 
editorialized (7/31): 
 
"... There is no evidence that despite his good humor and eloquence, 
Hsieh resolved the two fundamental U.S. concerns about the DPP's 
pursuit of 'Taiwan identity' and 'international space.'  These 
topics are inherently provocative and therefore risky to peace in 
the Taiwan Strait, given the stated views and implicit threats of 
the PRC over the past 30 years.  China is alarmed about the 
referendum and other steps that Chen might take in his final months 
in office that could challenge China's claim to sovereignty over 
Taiwan and compel a decision to use force against the island under 
Article 8 of its Anti-Secession Law." 
 
¶4. Taiwan's UN Bid 
 
A) "Foreign Minister Telling a Lie" 
 
The mass-circulation "Apple Daily" [circulation: 510,000] 
editorialized (7/31): 
 
"... Any country attempting to join the United Nations must use its 
formal national name, because only sovereign states are allowed to 
join the world body.  Why does A-Bian want to hold a referendum, 
since he is clearly aware that there is no hope for Taiwan to join 
the UN?  This is because he intends to [show the public that] once 
the referendum on the island's UN bid under the name Taiwan gets 
passed, it would mean that the island has to give up the name of the 
Republic of China, since what says in the referendum is that Taiwan 
is the island's national name.  Whether Taiwan can enter the UN 
really doesn't matter at all.  But the United States has seen 
through his intention to change the island's national title via a 
referendum, so it expressed strong opposition to such a move.  As a 
result, logically speaking, [Foreign Minister] James Huang's remarks 
that the referendum will not violate [Taiwan's] pledge not to change 
its national title is nothing but a lie." 
 
B) "Let Our Votes Show PRC Does Not Represent Taiwan" 
 
The pro-independence, English-language "Taiwan News" [circulation: 
20,000] (7/31): 
 
"... In the wake of Ban's attempt to lend the U.N. credibility to 
Beijing's attempt to annex Taiwan, we believe President Chen had no 
choice whatsoever in issuing an official application to join the 
U.N. to reaffirm the fact that Taiwan is decidedly not represented 
by the PRC.  If Ban and Beijing persist in the false claim the PRC 
represents the 23 million people of Taiwan, we believe that a public 
and decisive experiment to test this claim can be arranged together 
with the March 22 presidential election besides the DPP-sponsored 
referendum on whether we should join the U.N. under the name of 
'Taiwan.' ... 
 
" Ban's statements mark a dangerous declaration by the leader of the 
world's international community that Taiwan's people are not 
represented by their own democratically elected government but by 
the authoritarian regime of a foreign power, a claim reminiscent of 
Nazi Germany dictator Adolf Hitler's claim to Austria and 
Czechoslovakia in the 1930s.  Hence, we urge President Chen to 
consider calling for a 'national security' referendum to ask all of 
the citizens of Taiwan to vote for or against the simple question of 
'do you accept that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of 
China?'  Such a referendum topic would not transgress any 'red line' 
as it would not touch on the question of 'independence of 
unification,' involve any 'declaration of independence,' change our 
national moniker or flag nor alter Taiwan's current status in any 
way. ..." 
 
YOUNG