VZCZCXYZ0006
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHIN #2109/01 2560951
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 130951Z SEP 07
FM AIT TAIPEI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6793
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 7251
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 8506

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 002109 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/TC, EAP/PA, EAP/PD - NIDA EMMONS 
DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO TW
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: THE U.S. AND TAIWAN'S UN REFERENDUM 
 
¶1. Summary:  Taiwan's major Chinese and English language dailies on 
September 13th gave significant reporting and editorial coverage to 
U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Christensen's 
speech, which was delivered at the U.S.-Taiwan Defense Industry 
Conference in Annapolis Tuesday, September 11.  Both the centrist, 
KMT-leaning "China Times" and the pro-unification "United Daily 
News," as well as the three English-language dailies -- "Taipei 
Times," "China Post," and "Taiwan News" -- all front-paged 
Christensen's comment on Taiwan's UN referendum.  Several papers 
even carried excerpt translations of Christensen's speech on their 
inside pages, as well as the reactions by Taiwan's ruling and 
opposition parties.  The centrist, KMT-leaning "China Times" ran a 
banner headline on page three that read "At this Sensitive Moment, 
Christensen Unveils the False Appearance of the UN Referendum." 
 
¶2. In terms of editorials and commentaries, an editorial in the 
pro-independence "Liberty Times," Taiwan's biggest-circulation 
daily, said despite opposition from the United States, Taiwan will 
never stop its footsteps marching toward the UN.  A separate 
"Liberty Times" analysis chimed in by saying Taiwan's democracy is 
not defined by the United States.  An editorial in the 
pro-independence, English-language "Taiwan News" said Washington has 
failed to grasp the meaning of Taiwan's UN referendum.  An op-ed in 
the pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times" urged Taiwan 
to make the UN referendum an issue in the United States.  An 
editorial in the mass-circulation "Apple Daily," however, said 
President Chen Shui-bian's push for the UN referendum is a move to 
ask for humiliation himself.  An editorial in the pro-unification 
"United Daily News" sought to interpret Christensen's speech from 
the U.S. perspective and concluded that the United States believes 
Chen is the betrayer of Taiwan's interests.  An editorial in the 
conservative, pro-unification, English-language "China Post" called 
the recent remarks by the U.S. officials "a blow to the DPP's 
referendum campaign."  End summary. 
 
A) "Taiwan Will Never Stop Halfway Its Footsteps Marching towards 
the UN" 
 
The pro-independence "Liberty Times" [circulation: 720,000] 
editorialized (9/13): 
 
"... Christensen's speech can be viewed as the most straightforward 
illustration of the U.S. policy toward Taiwan over the past few 
years.  He not only rebutted the various recent remarks by the Bian 
administration over the UN referendum but also explained the United 
States' Taiwan policy in the clearest manner.  It is obvious that 
following this speech, Washington's Taiwan policy has taken on a 
complete shape, and there will no longer be room for ambiguity.  It 
remains to be seen and estimated as to what impact this move by the 
U.S. government will have on the future development of the 
cross-Strait situation.  But Christensen's key argument was 
evidently built on a seriously flawed premise, which must be 
clarified and corrected here, so that people in the world will 
understand the whole story, Taiwan's inferior situation and where 
the truth and justice lie.  This way they will not have any 
misunderstanding of the justified appeal of the Taiwan people's UN 
referendum and regard the victim Taiwan as a troublemaker. 
 
"An analysis of Christensen's speech showed that there are two main 
arguments:  First, the UN referendum has stepped on China's red 
line, so Taiwan is provoking China, which has affected regional 
peace and stability.  Second, Christensen has drawn a line between 
the Taiwan people and the Bian administration and regards the UN 
referendum as President Chen's ploy to manipulate the campaign by 
violating the Four No's pledge.  Both arguments contain serious 
errors.  First, the UN referendum is designated to safeguard the 
cross-Strait status quo, enabling the status quo of 'China and 
Taiwan are each a country on one side [of the Taiwan Strait]' to be 
confirmed by the international community through [Taiwan's] 
participating in organizations like the UN.  Taiwan was originally 
an independent sovereign country, and its participation in the UN is 
an essential part to turn it into a normal country.  It is not that 
Taiwan will become independent because it joins the UN.  The 
referendum therefore will not alter the status quo. ...  Besides, 
regarding the red line on cross-Strait issues,  why is it not drawn 
according to the principle of reciprocity and mutual trust among 
Washington, Beijing and Taipei and a consensus reached by respecting 
the existing reality, but set unilaterally by China?  Would it 
really meet the U.S. interests if the red line across the Taiwan 
Strait is defined by China, which constrains Taiwan and forces it to 
tilt toward China? ... 
 
"Second, even though the UN referendum has been promoted by the Bian 
administration, it has solicited over 70 percent of public support, 
which indicated that the UN bid is Taiwan's mainstream public 
opinion.  The fact that the [island's] nativist regime raised this 
UN referendum was to address the public request, and it cannot 
possibly dominate such a movement. ... 
 
"The United States is a solid ally of Taiwan, and both sides share 
common political and economic interests and the core values of 
democracy.  As a result, even though the Bush administration has 
more than once expressed opposition to the UN referendum - something 
that the Taiwan people feel sorry about, nevertheless it will not 
affect our friendship, nor will it weaken the Taiwan people's 
determination to join the UN.  In other words, the Taiwan people can 
understand Washington's worry about China taking reckless moves, but 
they will not stop halfway their footsteps marching toward the UN. 
..." 
 
B) "Taiwan's Democracy Is not Defined by the United States" 
 
Deputy Editor-in-Chief Tsou Jiing-wen noted in the pro-independence 
"Liberty Times" [circulation: 720,000] (9/13): 
 
"... It is Washington's choice, based on U.S. national interests, to 
follow China's request to command Taiwan. Taiwan can only feel sorry 
about it. But, [in the remarks by] Thomas Christensen, and other 
people like John Negroponte and Dennis Wilder, there is a error in 
their premise:  The right to determine whether Taiwan needs a 
referendum does not lie in the 'Taiwan leaders,' but the Taiwan 
people who have the right to vote. ... 
 
"The United States must come up with convincing reasons if it wants 
to negotiate with the Taiwan people to revoke such a proposal.  If 
Washington fails to put itself in Taiwan's shoes, simply elaborates 
to Taiwan by unilaterally and forcefully pouring the Chinese 
definition and U.S. interests on the island, and asks Taiwan to cut 
off its own interests, the final result will be the same even if it 
is President George W. Bush who personally reads out the imperial 
decree from Beijing.  All the moves will only add fuel to the fire. 
... 
 
"Thus, Christensen has worried too much when he said the United 
States will not allow Taipei to decide the U.S. position.  Taiwan 
has never had such arrogance as to believe it is the master of the 
world.  But the sentence 'Taiwan will not allow the United States 
and China to determine its position' is something that the Taiwan 
people want to give back to Christensen." 
 
 
C) "Washington Fails to Grasp Meaning of U.N. Referenda" 
 
The pro-independence, English-language "Taiwan News" [circulation: 
20,000] editorialized (9/13): 
 
"... We believe Christensen's speech again shows the inability of 
Washington policy makers to perceive why the DPP government is 
intent on proposing this initiative and what is actually at stake. 
This blindness results in part from Christensen's premise that 
Washington 'does not recognize Taiwan as a state,' a position that 
contradicts the realities that Taiwan has achieved all of the 
qualifications of a self-governing 'state.'  Claiming that most 
Taiwan citizens accept our exclusion from the international 
community as 'a fact of life,' Christensen also neglects the fact 
that although opinion polls show majority support for maintaining 
the 'status quo,' our people have a rather different definition of 
our current status than posited by Washington, as shown by the 
survey of 1,068 Taiwan adults released by the Taiwan Thinktank in 
early September that showed 76 percent believe "Taiwan is a 
sovereign and independent state" separate from the PRC. 
 
"Christensen ignores the fact that Washington already officially 
uses the name 'Taiwan' in the Taiwan Relations Act and other 
contexts, but seems to imply that we should remain content with the 
"Republic of China" moniker even though it cannot be used outside of 
our borders.  Washington fails to appreciate that most of our 23 
million people believe that they merit equal treatment with the rest 
of the world's people and a proper role as a developed and 
democratic state in the world community.  Christensen's military 
definition of 'strength' is also gravely naive as the fundamental 
factor in the ability of a nation to defend itself from aggression 
or annexation is precisely its sense of national cohesion and unity. 
 The effort by the DPP government to consolidate and deepen Taiwan's 
democracy in the face of the military and diplomatic threat posed by 
the PRC is therefore no less critical to Taiwan's security than the 
arms procurement from the U.S. 
 
"Both referenda are therefore key democratic processes toward the 
formation of a consensus on national identity that is absolutely 
essential for the defense of Taiwan's survival as an independent 
democratic state and are not 'unnecessary provocations.' 
Christensen also ignores Washington's hefty contributions to the 
current crisis through its support of Beijing's resolution in the 
Paris-based World Animal Health Society in late May that reduced 
Taiwan's status from a full member to a 'non-sovereign regional 
member' and defined Taiwan as part of the PRC, and by its tardiness 
in objecting to the statement in late March by U.N. 
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that 'for the purposes of the United 
 
SIPDIS 
 
Nations, Taiwan is an integral part of the PRC.' 
 
"These developments marked a major unilateral change in Taiwan's 
status in the international community, already being pushed by the 
PRC, that has 'provoked' President Chen's formal application to join 
the U.N. under the name of 'Taiwan' as a defensive move to uphold 
the status quo of Taiwan's autonomous identity from the PRC. 
Christensen's assumption that Taiwan's security is not threatened so 
long as Taiwan 'behaves' in the face of PRC threats to squeeze 
Taiwan's international space would assume that Taiwan's people 
should put 'blind faith' for their security in the U.S.  We cannot 
afford to be so naive." 
 
D) "Make the Referendum an Issue in the US" 
 
Michael Lin, a political commentator, opined in the 
pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times" [circulation: 
30,000] (9/13): 
 
"... The US of course feels that putting pressure on Taiwan is the 
most simple and effective way to preserve stability in the Taiwan 
Strait.  Can the US really afford to boss Taiwan around like this? 
Does it really not need Taiwan's strategically advantageous 
geographic position to protect its own interests?  Now that Taiwan 
is in a situation where it holds a lot of bargaining chips, the 
first thing it should do is change its diplomatic [sic] toward the 
US from being the weak party and nodding in agreement to everything 
the US says, to loudly and bravely telling the US the wrongs of its 
"one China" policy and pointing out why this policy is not 
beneficial to the US. ... 
 
"The two sides of the Strait aren't able to resolve their 
conflicting opinions as long as the US maintains its policy of 
keeping the issue of Taiwan's sovereignty unclear.  This is the fuse 
that might set off the powder keg that is the situation in the 
Taiwan Strait, and that is the dilemma facing the US.  Moreover, 
Taiwan should use the problem of North Korea to improve its 
international circumstances and influence the upcoming presidential 
elections in the US. US President George W. Bush has already been 
reduced to a lame duck.  Taiwan should take advantage of the 
referendum issue to spark serious debate about the position of 
Taiwan in the US. 
 
"Through US organizations that sympathize with Taiwan, think tanks 
and the power of public opinion, the Taiwanese government should 
make Taiwan a major international issue during the US presidential 
election campaign. ...  It should urge the future leaders of the US 
that the best strategy for them in Asia is to correct or change 
their old 'one China' policy.  This way, Taiwan can turn defeat into 
victory, and create a favorable space for Taiwan to enter the UN 
with the support of the US." 
 
E) "Taiwan Asking for Humiliation Itself" 
 
The mass-circulation "Apple Daily" [circulation: 530,000] 
editorialized (9/13): 
 
"U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Christensen harshly 
criticized that the UN referendum is a move to change [Taiwan's] 
national name. ... Washington, in terms of its policy, has drawn a 
line between Bian and the Taiwan people.  It supports Taiwan but not 
Bian; it supports Taiwan's democracy and freedom but opposes Taiwan 
independence.  It needs a strong and moderate Taiwan but not one 
that provokes its superior neighbor. ...  Bian is clearly aware of 
the U.S. difficulties but it has consistently put the United States 
on a short leash, playing it indirectly as an ethnic card for 
campaigning purposes.  How can the United States not get piqued up? 
What A-Bain has been doing is like asking for humiliation himself!" 
 
 
F) "U.S. Perspective:  Chen Shui-bian Is the Betrayer of Taiwan's 
Interests" 
 
The pro-unification "United Daily News" [circulation: 400,000] 
editorialized (9/13): 
 
"If one wants to come up with a core perspective after a close 
reading of U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas 
Christensen's comment on the 'UN referendum,' it will be: the United 
States believes that Chen Shui-bian is a betrayer of Taiwan's 
interests.  To extend such an interpretation, one can say that the 
United States believes that Taiwan independence is the betrayer of 
Taiwan's interests, and that the DPP which advocates Taiwan 
independence is also the betrayer of Taiwan's interests. ... 
 
"The three officials speaking on behalf of the U.S. government have 
more than once emphasized 'the American people's friendship and 
commitment for the 'Taiwan people.'  The three officials remarked 
repeatedly that the 'Taiwan interests' referred to by the United 
 
States are the real 'Taiwan interests,' while in the meantime they 
implied that Chen is actually the betrayer of the 'Taiwan 
interests.'  It is akin to telling the Taiwan people that at this 
critical moment, they should make a judgment and choice between the 
United States and Chen, in terms of which one has correctly 
interpreted and maintained the Taiwan interests. ..." 
 
G) "A Blow to the DPP's Referendum Campaign" 
 
The conservative, pro-unification, English-language "China Post" 
[circulation: 30,000] editorialized (9/13): 
 
"... The U.S. has been the staunchest ally of Taiwan in the island's 
attempt to defend itself from a possible attack from the other side 
of the Taiwan Strait.  The Chen government has kept condemning the 
mainland for deploying hundreds of missiles along the southeast 
coast of China, targeting Taiwan.  In fact, if the DPP were less 
eager to make Taiwan an independent state, there would not be so 
many missiles on the mainland coast across from the island.  Whether 
the DPP will win the upcoming presidential election is anyone's 
guess, but the party has damaged relations between Taiwan and the 
U.S." 
 
WANG