VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHIN #2585/01 3440919
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 100919Z DEC 07
FM AIT TAIPEI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7541
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 7502
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 8786

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 002585 
 
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: U.S.-TAIWAN RELATIONS 
 
¶1. Summary:  Taiwan's major Chinese-language dailies focused news 
coverage December 8-10 on the removal of the old inscription and the 
debut of the new inscription -- "Liberty Square" -- on the main arch 
of the Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall (formerly known as the Chiang 
Kai-shek Memorial Hall) over the weekend; on Taiwan's UN referendum; 
and on the Golden Horse Awards ceremony Saturday.  Almost all papers 
reported on Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Christensen's 
talk with the Taiwan media last Thursday, in which he clearly stated 
U.S. opposition to the DPP's proposed UN referendum.  The 
pro-independence "Liberty Times," however, ran a banner headline on 
page two that said "Bian Speaks back at the United States: UN 
Referendum Will Surely Be Passed." 
 
¶2. In terms of editorials and commentaries, the "Free Talks" column 
in the "Liberty Times" compared Venezuela's referendum and Taiwan's 
UN referendum and slammed the United States for trampling down on 
other countries' democratic referenda.  A separate "Liberty Times" 
commentary said the containment of both the United States and China 
has all the more highlighted the values of the UN referendum.  A 
commentary in the pro-unification "United Daily News," on the other 
hand, said Washington is "fed up" with the relevant statements given 
by the Bian administration regarding the UN referendum.  The article 
said Washington is cross-Strait policy is clear; namely it wants 
both sides of the Taiwan Strait to resume dialogue.  An editorial in 
the pro-independence, English-language "Taiwan News" commented on 
Christensen's talk last Thursday and said "Attempts by Washington to 
escape this reality by pressuring Taiwan voters will only backfire." 
 End summary. 
 
A) "Both Are Referenda" 
 
The "Free Talks" column in the pro-independence "Liberty Times" 
[circulation: 720,000] wrote (12/8): 
 
"Two countries [i.e. Venezuela and Taiwan] either held or is to hold 
a referendum, but the U.S. State Department showed different looks 
and attitudes [toward the referenda].  Is it possible that the 
United States has a 'double standard' toward democracy and freedom, 
the 'universal values' that it safeguards wholeheartedly?  Or is 
this simply a 'false image' [of the United States], that it has been 
hypocritical, while only its vital interests are what really 
matters?  U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Asian and 
Pacific Affairs Thomas Christensen was 'pointing fingers at' [i.e. 
criticizing] Taiwan's UN referendum again; he said something like 
the referendum is 'dangerous, provocative -- remarks that were 
nearly tantamount to 'threatening' the Taiwan government and its 
people.  Regardless of whether the United States is attempting to 
interfere with Taiwan's internal affairs, what is more questionable 
is how could a democratic great power like the United States trample 
on other countries' democratic referenda like this. ... 
 
"When compared with the 'bad referendum' held by Venezuela, Taiwan's 
UN referendum is of course a 'good referendum' that is fully 
consistent with the principles of democracy.  Venezuela's 'bad 
referendum' generated 'good results,' and Washington said it 
welcomes such results.  But Washington has been using stern remarks 
to suppress and smother Taiwan's 'good referendum,' as if it wants 
to beat it down to hell; it is attempting to beat Taiwan's 'good 
referendum' into bearing 'bad results,' to make it fail to pass. 
The U.S. approach in reversing good and bad and confusing right and 
wrong was evidently a move to 'eat the persimmon when it's soft' 
[i.e. to take advantage of a person when he is weak].  The question 
is:  Is Taiwan a soft persimmon that allows others to squeeze and 
pinch?" 
 
B) "Containment by both the United States and China Have All the 
More Highlighted the Value of UN Referendum" 
 
Deputy Editor-in-Chief Tsou Jiing-wen noted in the pro-independence 
"Liberty Times" [circulation: 720,000] (12/8): 
 
"[U.S. Deputy Secretary of State] Thomas Christensen's talk [last 
Friday] was definitely not the end.  Before the proposed UN bid 
referendum being held next year, the United States is likely to 
raise its intensity and keep 'having dialogue' with the Taiwan 
people.  Its purpose is quite simple.  In order to be left alone and 
not to hear Hu Jintao's nagging like an old grandma, it is the best 
[for Taiwan] to call off the referendum; if the referendum can not 
be withdrawn, it is the second best that the referendum can not pass 
the threshold, so that Hu can have a graceful exit from the 
predicament. ... 
 
"Why is it so?  Just take a look at Christensen's talk and it is 
plain and clear enough.  He said that the UN referendum will not 
help Taiwan's status.  Even if the referendum is passed, the United 
States will not change its one-China policy and Taiwan is still not 
able to join the UN.  While describing the referendum as useless, 
Christensen was also saying that it is dangerous and provocative and 
that it may be a referendum on unification or independence.  The 
 
rhetoric itself is so contradictory that even Christensen is perhaps 
hardly aware how to clarify such a useless but dangerous logic. ... 
 
 
"It is actually not difficult to dig out the real answer behind the 
mystery; that is, the proposed UN referendum is actually useful. 
China is afraid of the referendum that can express the public 
opinion.  Once such a democratic mechanism becomes a normal 
practice, any issue can be put to refer to all the people in Taiwan. 
 In this vein, all the fairy tales made by China, such as Taiwan is 
part of China and that the 1.3 billion people in China and 23 
million people in Taiwan will jointly make decisions, are going to 
fall apart.  The situation is equivalent to the chain reaction set 
off after Taiwan people elected its president for the first time in 
¶1996. ..." 
 
C) "The United States Is Fed up" 
 
Journalist Sun Yang-ming wrote in the "United Notes" column in the 
pro-unification "United Daily News" [circulation: 400,000] (12/9): 
 
"The United States' cross-Strait policy has become very clear 
lately.  According to the wording of Washington, the United States 
has been 'fed up' with the relevant stories or statements made by 
the Bian administration.  Even though AIT Director Stephen Young has 
been very supportive of Bian, he still said eventually that the 
United States hopes to see both sides of the Taiwan Strait resume 
dialogue in May, 2008.  Former AIT Chairman Richard Bush even said 
in public that in the wake of Taiwan's presidential election next 
year, Washington and Taipei will have approximately one year of 
'golden time' to mend the trust between the two sides.  Judged from 
this statement, Washington's future cross-Strait policy is to [push 
for] 'cross-Strait dialogue,' and further, [to push for] 
'cross-Strait talks.'  Even though the Bush administration has yet 
to have completely clear steps for its cross-Strait policy, its 
direction is unambiguous. ..." 
 
D) "Christensen Shows U.S. Tunnel Vision" 
 
The pro-independence, English-language "Taiwan News" [circulation: 
20,000] editorialized (12/10): 
 
"United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific 
Affairs Thomas Christensen on Friday issued an apparent ultimatum to 
President Chen Shui-bian by claiming that the referendum initiated 
by the Democratic Progressive Party on entering the United Nations 
using the name of 'Taiwan' was designed to 'unilaterally change the 
status quo' in the Taiwan Strait. ...  Christensen's latest 
statement formed part of a series of moves by the right-wing 
Republican Bush administration to downplay the recent tension 
sparked by Beijing's high-profile refusal to allow the U.S. Kitty 
Hawk aircraft carrier to stop in Hong Kong and the decision by the 
White House to ask the carrier to sail to Japan through the Taiwan 
Strait.  Bush may also have decided to intensify pressure on 
President Chen and his DPP government to ease Beijing's 
dissatisfaction with Washington over the latter's handling of the 
Taiwan referendum issue. 
 
"After all, in the wake of the submission of 2.72 million signatures 
to the Central Election Commission by the DPP-supported Alliance for 
a Referendum for Taiwan's Entry into the United Nations, there is a 
good chance that the DPP will be able to energize voters to secure 
strong turnout, exceeding the threshold of 50 percent of eligible 
voters and secure passage of the initiative on March 22.  In this 
regard, we are not surprised that American Institute in Taiwan 
Taipei Office Director Steven Young, Washington's unofficial 
ambassador, stated last week that the U.S. hopes for better 
cross-strait relations after the March 22 presidential elections, a 
comment that implied that Washington has closed the door on the Chen 
administration. 
 
"The situation is actually quite similar to the external pressures 
and constraints that existed in our previous three presidential 
elections, with the notable difference that the threats in the past 
three polls were verbal threats and military intimidations from an 
expansionist and authoritarian PRC regime and this time the pressure 
is from the U.S., the self-styled paragon of democracy.  However, 
just as we opposed People's Republic of China intimidation to block 
Taiwan's progress toward democracy, we must express our opposition 
to the claim by Christensen that the U.N. referendum was specially 
designed to 'unilaterally change the status quo' and his implication 
that Taiwan should be treated as a kind of pariah state for being 
too democratic. ... 
 
"We urge U.S. officials to treat both sides of Taiwan Strait on an 
equal footing.  If the holding of a referendum makes Taiwan the 
party that is 'unilaterally changing the status quo,' we wonder how 
Washington sees the PRC's increasing deployment of missiles and 
other offensive forces targeted on Taiwan.  As we have previously 
 
noted, Washington seems to have turned a blind eye to Beijing's 
intensifying diplomatic suppression of Taiwan's international space 
and even voted in favor of the denigration of Taiwan's status in the 
Paris-based World Animal Health Organization (OIE).  We cannot but 
wonder whether Christensen truly expects the Taiwan people to ignore 
these diplomatic humiliations and Beijing's concrete 'unilateral' 
changes in the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.  We must also echo 
President Chen's timely reminder that Young's expectations will 
remain wishful thinking if Beijing continues to demand that Taipei 
must accept its 'one-China principle' before negotiations can 
resume.  Young seems to have forgotten that Beijing persistently 
ignored a series of 'olive branches' offered by Chen in his first 
term. ... 
 
"The ball is in Beijing's court and it is highly unlikely that the 
PRC regime will treat Taiwan's new president with "moderation" or 
make any adjustments in its 'one-China principle.'  These are the 
most inconvenient truths that the U.S. government and Taiwan's two 
presidential candidates need to face.  Attempts by Washington to 
escape this reality by pressuring Taiwan voters will only 
backfire." 
 
YOUNG