VZCZCXYZ0023
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHIN #2373/01 2950958
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 220958Z OCT 07
FM AIT TAIPEI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7202
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 7378
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 8658

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 002373 
 
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: US TAIWAN POLICY AND TAIWAN REFERENDUM ON 
UN BID 
 
¶1. Summary:  News coverage in Taiwan's major Chinese-language 
dailies October 20-22 ranged over a variety of topics, including 
Taiwan's arms and alleged nuclear arms development, US arms sales to 
Taiwan, and the dispute between the Taipei city government and the 
central government over a torch relay to promote the DPP-proposed UN 
bid referendum. 
 
¶2. In terms of editorials and commentaries, an editorial in the 
pro-independence "Liberty Times" said the majority people in Taiwan 
do not accept the "one-China" precondition set by Beijing. 
Commenting on the Taiwan government's moves to promote the 
referendum on seeking UN membership under the name of Taiwan, both 
the centrist, KMT-leaning "China Times" and the pro-unification 
"United Daily News" criticized the ruling DPP in their editorials of 
depriving Taiwan voters of their right to freedom of expression. 
End summary. 
 
A) "Far More Than 'Part' of the People of Taiwan Cannot Accept 
China's Precondition" 
 
The pro-independence "Liberty Times" [circulation: 720,000] 
editorialized (10/22): 
 
"US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas J. Christensen said 
in a recent interview with the Singapore-based 'Lianhe Zaobao': We 
have noticed that part of the Taiwan people cannot accept [China's] 
precondition [that is, the 'one-China' principle].  We hope the two 
sides can find ways to resolve their differences.  He added that 
Beijing should start a dialogue with Taiwan's elected leaders. 
 
"... Christensen's remarks are worthy of much attention, for they 
mean that the US government has realized that, after nearly 20 years 
of democratic reform, the national identification expressed by the 
people of Taiwan when they are able freely to show their will is 
entirely different from what was said in the 1972 'Shanghai 
Communique': 'The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on 
either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and 
that Taiwan is a part of China.' 
 
"What the United States acknowledged in the 'Shanghai Communiqu' 
is, in fact, the understanding of two Chinese figures, Mao Zedong 
and Chiang Kai-shek, and has nothing to do with the people of 
Taiwan.  This phenomenon surfaced naturally when the outsider KMT 
regime ended.  In fact, the change of ruling parties in 2000 and the 
repeat victory of the native regime have all demonstrated that those 
who cannot accept the so-called one-China principle account for not 
only 'a part' as described by Christensen, but a majority and even 
the vast majority of the people of Taiwan. 
 
"... Therefore, although Christensen's remarks are to be applauded, 
the US government should see from the trends of Taiwan's transfer of 
political power, the fast-growing Taiwan national identity, and the 
fact that the bid for UN membership as a sovereign nation has become 
mainstream public opinion in Taiwan, that the fictitious 'one-China 
principle' is only a synonym for China's hegemonic expansion.  And 
the U.S.' China-biased 'one-China policy' should be changed, as 
suggested by many Congressional members and US think tanks, starting 
with the recognition of Taiwan's sovereign status." 
 
B) "Watch Out! People's Right to Express Opinions Is Being 
Abridged" 
 
The KMT-leaning "China Times" [circulation: 400,000] said in an 
editorial (10/22): 
 
"... By the same token, changing the arrangement into issuing and 
casting the presidential and the referendum ballots at the same time 
also abridges people's right to express their opinions.  The 
presidential election and the referendum are by nature two entirely 
different voting behaviors.  Voters can choose to vote or not to 
vote in both, or to vote only in the presidential election and not 
to cast the referendum ballot, and of course to vote only on the 
referendum.  How to choose is the right of a citizen, as he 
expresses his desire whether to exercise this voting right.  That is 
why the original design separates the issuing and casting of the two 
ballots into two phases.  Forcing the two phases into one would 
deprive [voters of] this minimal right to choose. 
 
"... In order effectively to tie in the referendum with the 
presidential election, the ruling authorities have long been 
disregarding laws and regulations.  The ruling party ignores any 
criticism or appeal.  It is unlikely that the Central Election 
Committee will resist political pressure and independently exercise 
its power.  We can only make the last appeal here: no matter how 
important the 'referendum on UN membership' is, it does not mean one 
can do anything one likes.  To combine the presidential election and 
the referendum into one phase to deprive the people of their 
constitutional right to free expression.  It is a practice that 
UN BID 
 
seriously violates human rights protected by the constitution." 
 
C) "Seriously Deal with the Government's Violations of Laws and the 
Constitution in Promoting UN Bid Referendum" 
 
The pro-unification "United Daily News" [circulation: 400,000] 
editorialized (10/20): 
 
"... The DPP government's promoting the 'UN bid referendum' is going 
too far, without any concern for violating the Constitution or the 
law.  As the authorities using every public resource and means to 
promote the referendum, there is already prosecutors' opinion that 
'if suspected of violating Section 13 of the Referendum Law,' any 
such move shall be investigated.  The reason is that the 
'referendum' is a direct civil right.  It is different from the 
executive and legislative powers.  If the executive branch can use 
government money and employees to promote a 'referendum' at will, 
then the whole constitutional system will collapse. 
 
"In addition to violating the law, the DPP government, taking 
advantage of its ruling power, has been forcing government employees 
to accept quotas for referendum endorsements.  This is also a 
violation of the Constitution.  For the Constitution gives people 
the right to free expression; the government shall not use any means 
to force, intimidate or induce the people to express certain 
opinions. ..." 
 
"The authorities openly instruct the post office to stamp a mark 
with Taiwan's UN bid slogan on private letters sent overseas, 
believing it is helpful for international communication.  However, 
this also obviously violates the constitutional right to freedom 
expression. ..." 
 
YOUNG