VZCZCXYZ0003
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHIN #1290/01 3070931
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 030931Z NOV 09
FM AIT TAIPEI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2597
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 9466
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 0881

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 001290 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/TC, EAP/P, EAP/PD - THOMAS HAMM 
DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO TW
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S. BEEF IMPORTS TO TAIWAN 
 
¶1. Summary:  Taiwan's major Chinese-language dailies focused 
November 3 news coverage on Shim Nakagomi, former coach of the 
Brother Elephants baseball team, who was involved in the game fixing 
scandal in the Taiwan professional baseball league and who attempted 
to leave Taiwan on Monday but was detained by the National 
Immigration Agency at Taiwan's Taoyuan International Airport.  Most 
newspapers also had extensive coverage on the Taiwan authorities' 
formal announcement to ease restrictions on the import of U.S. beef 
products.  Newspapers were concerned about the safety of President 
Ma Ying-jeou, after a Fokker 50 VIP transport plane trailed smoke 
and sparks as it landed in Taichung with President Ma on board on 
Monday. 
 
¶2. In terms of editorials and commentaries, editorials in the 
pro-independence "Liberty Times" and the pro-independence, 
English-language "Taipei Times," a sister newspaper of the "Liberty 
Times," had contradictory views about a signature drive launched by 
the Consumers' Foundation and other civic groups to hold a 
referendum that would require the government to renegotiate with the 
United States on the beef issue.  The "Liberty Times" editorial 
urged the public to support the drive to launch a referendum in 
order to overturn the protocol signed between Taiwan and the United 
States.  The "Taipei Times" editorial instead criticized the 
Consumers' Foundation as an organization which "over the years has 
launched consumer crusades of dubious priority and zero scientific 
rigor."  The "Taipei Times" editorial said a referendum on beef is 
"the most absurd suggestion for a referendum topic to date."  End 
summary. 
 
A) "Using a Referendum to Deny the Ma Ying-jeou Administration's 
'Compulsion' against the Whole People" 
 
The pro-independence "Liberty Times" [circulation: 680,000] 
editorialized (11/3): 
 
"... Why did [President] Ma Ying-jeou give up....during the 
negotiations with the United States [on the issue of beef] without 
receiving any substantial benefit from the United States?  The 
explanation that he [President Ma] gave during an interview with a 
magazine may reflect what was on his mind.  He said, 'many people 
were worried that we were leaning too heavily toward the mainland 
because we have improved relations with them.  However, after 
opening [Taiwan's market] to [U.S.] beef, Taiwan could improve [its] 
relations with the United States.  This further indicated that we 
have removed an important obstacle lying between Taiwan and the 
United States.'  In order to demonstrate that [he] was not leaning 
toward China, he gave Taiwan's interests to the United States, 
rather than taking [interests for Taiwan from the United States]. 
If this 'equilibrium' is logical, does this equal an admission that 
he has been ladling out [Taiwan's resources] to China over the past 
year?  However, the other side [of the Taiwan Strait] must have seen 
all this with its own eyes after [Taiwan] accorded these benefits to 
the United States.  What will the 'Chief Executive of China's Taipei 
Special Administrative Region' give China in the next phase?  Is 
[Ma] going to make a cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Framework 
Agreement (ECFA) a foregone conclusion following the precedent [of 
U.S. beef] as well?  Ma Ying-jeou caused Taiwan to fall into this 
plight as a result of being extorted by the two hegemonies.  Won't 
the seven million voters who helped him win the presidency regret 
this? 
 
"Indeed, it is too late to regret.  It is useless to simply feel 
regret.  At this point, in order to overrule the 'revisions to the 
regulations on the import of U.S. beef,' the most effective way is 
to propose a referendum and let people use direct civic rights to 
overturn the government's executive order. ..." 
 
B) "A Plebiscite on a Petty Beef?" 
 
The pro-independence, English-language "Taipei Times" [circulation: 
30,000] editorialized (11/3): 
 
"... Joining these disingenuous legislators, councilors and party 
hacks in their attacks on US beef are a number of interest groups 
whose contributions to the debate have been uninformed, 
unintelligent and even deceitful.  The main offender is the 
Consumers' Foundation, which over the years has launched consumer 
crusades of dubious priority and zero scientific rigor. 
 
"If this organization applied its ferocious strictness on US beef 
imports to all other health matters affecting consumers, it would 
extend its campaign to instituting bans on imports and local 
production of alcohol and tobacco, introduce bans on betel nuts, 
motor scooters, sports cars, meat with high levels of fat and night 
market food.  This would just be the start.  The fact that the 
Consumers' Foundation does not engage in such quixotic behavior 
points to opportunism and cynicism, not a sense of proportion or 
respect of the right consumers should enjoy to choose what they wish 
to consume. 
 
 
"This week the debate has raised the specter of that tactical 
chestnut of the Chen Shui-bian presidency, the referendum, as a 
possible new front for opponents of US beef - as if prime rib and 
sirloin were a fit and proper subject for a plebiscite. 
 
"This gratuitous use of the referendum - not as a gauge of popular 
opinion but as a threat to intimidate governments away from actions 
within their administrative mandate - is no less cynical and inept 
than the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) attempts to solve 
political problems through a mechanism that would override the 
legislature. ... 
 
"The prospect of a national referendum on beef is about the most 
absurd suggestion for a referendum topic to date, although the DPP's 
suggestion that a referendum be held to assess whether a certain 
referendum topic be held comes a close second.  This is a health 
issue, not a political issue, but the way that this situation is 
developing augurs the overriding of individual choice by interest 
groups with no health expertise, let alone an understanding of the 
US beef industry. ..." 
 
STANTON