VZCZCXYZ0002
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHIN #0242/01 0640957
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 050957Z MAR 09
FM AIT TAIPEI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1057
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 8993
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 0443

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 000242 
 
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.'S MIDDLE-EAST POLICY, U.S.'S DEFENSE 
POLICY 
 
¶1. Summary:  Taiwan's major Chinese-language dailies focused news 
coverage March 5 on former President Chen Shui-bian's appearance in 
the pre-trial hearing in his money laundering and corruption cases; 
on the Cabinet's measures to boost the local economy; and the 
opening of China's National People's Congress (NPC) on Thursday.  In 
terms of editorials and commentaries, a column in the 
pro-unification "United Daily News" commented on the United States' 
recent "aggressive diplomacy" in the Middle East.  The column said 
Clinton's trip to the Middle East was not well timed, because the 
political scenarios in Israel and Palestine were not stable yet. 
The column said another future development in the Middle East worth 
watching closely is Clinton's decision to send two United States 
envoys to visit Syria.  An op-ed in the pro-independence, 
English-language "Taipei Times" expressed concern that the potential 
decline of the United States Navy's power in the Asia-Pacific region 
might start a conventional arms race and the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons in the region.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. U.S.'s Middle-East Policy 
 
"The United States' Aggressive Diplomacy towards the Middle East" 
 
Professor Liu Pi-jung of Soochow University's Department of 
Political Science wrote in his column in the pro-unification "United 
Daily News" [circulation: 400,000] (3/5): 
 
"... Strictly speaking, [United States Secretary of State] Hillary 
[Clinton]'s visit to the Middle East at this moment was not at the 
right time.  It is because Israel is establishing a new government. 
[Israeli Prime Minister-designate] Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet 
lineup in the end will still be very likely central-right.  Such a 
cabinet is not necessarily willing to compromise with Palestine.  In 
terms of [the situation in] Palestine, Israel's launching of a war 
in Gaza at the end of last year failed to destroy Hamas.  Instead, 
[the war] boosted support [for Hamas] as well as increased [Hamas'] 
bargaining chips during its negotiations with Fatah on the issue of 
'a unity government.'  The negotiations are still ongoing.  Before 
the political situations in Israel and Palestine stabilize, it is 
impossible to have any progress in the Middle East peace process. 
... 
 
"There will be several points worth watching regarding [Secretary of 
State Clinton's announcement to send two] envoys to visit Syria. 
First, among the two envoys, one is a White House official [Daniel 
Shapiro], and the other is a State Department official [Jeffrey 
Feltman].  It showed that Obama and Clinton are coordinating [with 
each other] in this aspect.  Second, Syria plays a decisive role in 
the Middle East, whether in geography, history, or politics. 
Furthermore, [Syria] is an indispensable player in pushing the 
Middle East peace process.  In the past, the United States and 
Syria's hostility toward each other prompted Syria to ally with 
Iran.  Now, the United States' friendly outreach to Syria will 
certainly change the situation in the Middle East.  However, the 
difficulty lies in the third point.  It is impossible for Syria to 
give up its guiding role [sic] in Lebanon. (Former United States 
President George W. Bush recalled the United States ambassador to 
Syria in 2005 was because Syria was allegedly involved with former 
Lebanon Prime Minister Rafic Hariri's assassination).  It is also 
impossible for Syria to adopt the U.S. style of democracy.  How both 
[the United States and Syria] accommodate each other regarding this 
point remains to be seen. ..." 
 
¶3. U.S.'s Defense Policy 
 
"US Strength Crucial to Asia Peace" 
 
James Holmes, an associate professor of strategy at the Naval War 
College, opined in the pro-independence, English-language "Taipei 
Times" [circulation: 30,000] (3/5): 
 
"... Today's Navy packs more punch than the Reagan Navy on a 
ship-for-ship basis.  Still, numbers matter - especially in Asia, a 
predominantly maritime theater.  Former US president George W. 
Bush's administration reconfigured the global US force posture, 
concentrating assets at Asia-Pacific strongholds like Guam.  Too 
severe a drawdown of the US Navy nonetheless might leave US allies 
and friends in the region wondering whether Washington will - or can 
- honor its guarantees of their security. ... 
 
"Consider Japan's plight.  Japanese leaders might interpret US naval 
decline, coinciding with China's rise, as portending a collapse of 
the US-Japan Security Treaty.  Finding itself on what Chinese 
strategist Sun Tzu called 'death ground,' Tokyo might see no 
recourse other than to abrogate its self-imposed cap on defense 
spending (at 1 percent of GDP), freeing up resources to augment the 
Maritime and Air Self-Defense Forces. 
 
"A conventional arms race could ensue as China, Japan and even South 
POLICY 
 
Korea look to their own defenses, hedging against one another's 
military endeavors.  Worse, the unthinkable - a nuclear-armed Japan 
- could become thinkable under such nightmare circumstances. 
There's no denying the potency of Japanese antinuclear sentiment. 
But even Japan's 'peace constitution,' which codifies these 
attitudes, is not a suicide pact.  Should the US nuclear umbrella 
become unreliable - or be viewed as such - Tokyo would see the 
nation's survival as at risk.  This could warrant measures like 
developing a submarine-based deterrent. 
 
"There's precedent for a conventional US drawdown spurring efforts 
at nuclear proliferation.  South Korea interpreted the pullout of a 
US combat division from the Korean Peninsula in 1971 as a precursor 
to a withdrawal of the US nuclear guarantee - and launched a crash 
nuclear-weapons program in response.  Similarly, China's nuclear 
breakout in the 1960s, followed by US force reductions on Taiwan in 
the 1970s, prompted Chiang Kai-shek to initiate clandestine research 
into a Taiwanese bomb. 
 
"Washington prevailed on Taipei and Seoul to forego the nuclear 
option, in part by convincing them it remained committed to their 
defense and possessed the wherewithal to fulfill its commitment. 
Now as then, as [United States journalist Walter] Lippmann might 
counsel, the repercussions could be dire if Asian leaders lose 
confidence in the US armed forces' staying power in the region." 
 
YOUNG