Cablegate: Media Reaction: Global War On Terrorism, G-8

Published: Mon 11 Jul 2005 08:08 AM
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
110808Z Jul 05
E.O. 12958: N/A
Summary: While the major Taipei dailies quickly shifted
their news coverage from the blasts in London back to
local politics July 9-11, several newspapers
nonetheless continued to editorialize on the global war
on terrorism as well as its connection to the G-8
Summit. A centrist "China Times" editorial said last
Thursday's terrorist attacks in London will re-direct
the discussion of global issues in the G-8 summit; in
addition, the editorial said it is necessary to review
the U.S.-led war on terrorism. A separate "China
Times" commentary noted that both the United States and
Britain claim that they have been playing the role of
"liberator" in the Islamic world over the past three
years, but in reality, they are acting as powerful
"suppressors." A pro-unification "United Daily News"
editorial called on the United States and Britain to
review the sources of clashes between civilizations and
ethnic confrontations so as to prevent having innocent
people all over the world suffer the consequences of
their unilateral actions. An editorial in the limited-
circulation, conservative, pro-unification, English-
language "China Post" weighed in on the topic of the G-
8 Summit by saying with mainland China and India
missing, the meeting was in essence devoid of substance
and achievement. End summary.
1. Global War on Terrorism
A) "Terrorist Attacks in London Will Re-direct the
[Discussion of] Global Issues"
The centrist, pro-status quo "China Times"
[circulation: 600,000] editorialized (7/9):
". In the wake of [last Thursday's] terrorist blasts in
London, the G-8 Summit, whose focus originally fell on
Africa and environmental issues, will inevitably move
toward a discussion of anti-terrorism issues.
Terrorism is indeed the most serious issue in the
international community, but the ways currently
employed to handle it, as represented by the United
States, have already proven to be full of drawbacks and
thus definitely need to be reviewed. .
"Nonetheless, since the September 11 terrorist attacks
happened in New York, the threats posed by terrorism to
human beings have entered a new stage. The blasts in
London on July 7 were in fact a new turning point that
causes the public to realize that they need [new] anti-
terrorism policies that can better cope with terrorism.
But where [to find these new policies] and what the new
policies are -- is after all a common challenge that
the world must face together, including Taiwan."
B) "Terrorists under Every Rock"
Commentator Nan Fang Shuo noted in the "Weekly Review"
column of the centrist, pro-status quo "China Times"
[circulation: 600,000] (7/11):
". As a result, the focus of the United States' and
Britain's war on terrorism, as well as those means
adopted to fight terrorism over the past three years,
have now come to a stage that can hardly continue.
Over the past three years, the war on terrorism [headed
by the United States and Britain] has mainly relied on
using military forces, suppressive rule of terror, and
global monitoring and surveillance, [and] even torture
to exact confessions, in the hope to subdue the Islamic
world. But now, the `liberators,' the roles that the
United States and Britain claim that they have been
playing, is in reality more powerful `suppressors.'
The U.S. military occupied Afghanistan and Iraq and did
whatever pleased them. It has arrested some 65,000
people there just in order to suppress them and obtain
anti-terrorism intelligence. The most serious problem
is the prisoner abuse case that has yet to be
concluded. `Amnesty International' Director William
Schulz has thus clearly criticized the case as a new
type of `Gulag Archipelago. .'
"The war on terrorism has now entered an anti-reversion
stage. The public views in the United States, Europe
and the world are changing fast. The wars of
resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq are getting more
active, and many Islamic international soldiers have
crossed the borders to join the war [against the
coalition forces] and have brought along with them new
combat technology. The war on terrorism has, after a
period of time . moved from the edge to the center.
"In the beginning of the war on terrorism, the United
States and Britain, to create a sense of crisis and to
publicize their actions, invented a slogan that said
`There are terrorists under every rock.' But after
three years, [it seems] there are more and more
terrorists. The blasts in London seem to indicate that
the slogan has become a reality, and London is a
starting point of this `self-fulfilling prophesy.'"
C) "Revenges of Terrorism and War on Terrorism"
The conservative, pro-unification "United Daily News"
[circulation: 600,000] commented in an editorial (7/9):
". In the wake of the September 11 incident that took
place four years ago, almost the entire world joined
together to echo and participate in the U.S.-led war on
terrorism. But the 9-11 incident dealt a serious blow
to the United States' `centralism,' and the various
militarily expansive movements conducted by the Bush
administration afterwards in an attempt to play the
role of leader of the world's fight against terrorism
have been viewed as an unscrupulous demonstration of
U.S. hegemonic power. In the face of the
confrontations between superpowers like the United
States and Britain and the Islamic world, the
international community has gradually responded with
different interpretations and public views. Over the
past four years, the United States have moved from the
role of a victim of the 9-11 incident to a country
whose international image is deteriorating. The United
States' wars against Afghanistan and Iraq are neither
justifiable nor convincingly reasonable, and they have
failed to win strong support from even Americans. .
"When the United States and Britain review the reasons
why their anti-terrorism strategies have failed,
perhaps they should also reflect on the sources of
clashes between civilizations and ethnic confrontations
so as to prevent having innocent people all over the
world jointly suffer the consequences of unilateral
actions of the bigger countries."
2. G-8 Summit
"G-8 in Transition"
The conservative, pro-unification, English-language
"China Post" [circulation: 30,000] editorialized (7/9):
". So, the G-8 is changing in nature and substance.
There's nothing wrong about the change, because the
high-level gathering should discuss urgent matters
facing the world today. It should be the stage of the
world's most important players.
"But something is missing. Mainland China, the world's
most populous nation and the seventh largest economy,
is absent. So is India, an emerging economy and the
world's second most populous country. The former
wields clout - political, military, economic - second
only to the United States. Any discussion at the
summit on economic and political issues would not make
practical sense without mainland China participating. .
"So, this week's G-8 summit was devoid of substance.
The meeting, in which the mainland watched on
sidelines, achieved little, as usual."
View as: DESKTOP | MOBILE © Scoop Media