VZCZCXRO0716
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHLZ
DE RUEHRL #1285/01 2881202
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 151202Z OCT 09
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5486
INFO RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON DC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUCNFRG/FRG COLLECTIVE
RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 1634
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0341
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0859
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 2375
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 1384
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 0567
RHMFIUU/HQ USAFE RAMSTEIN AB GE
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE//J5 DIRECTORATE (MC)//
RHMFISS/CDRUSAREUR HEIDELBERG GE
RUKAAKC/UDITDUSAREUR HEIDELBERG GE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 07 BERLIN 001285 
 
STATE FOR INR/R/MR, EUR/PAPD, EUR/PPA, EUR/CE, INR/EUC, INR/P, 
SECDEF FOR USDP/ISA/DSAA, DIA FOR DC-4A 
 
VIENNA FOR CSBM, CSCE, PAA 
 
"PERISHABLE INFORMATION -- DO NOT SERVICE" 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.0. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO AF US EU TK US RS
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: AFGHANISTAN, U.S.-RUSSIA, EU-TURKEY, EU, 
U.S., CHINA-RUSSIA;BERLIN 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
¶2.   (Afghanistan)   British Role 
¶3.   (U.S.-Russia)   Secretary Clinton in Moscow 
¶4.   (EU-Turkey)   Progress Report 
¶5.   (EU)   Future President 
¶6.   (U.S.)   Future Role in the World 
¶7.   (China-Russia)   Natural Resources Agreement 
 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
 
Print media focused on the coalition talks in which the CDU/CSU and 
 
the FDP agreed on correcting the Hartz IV social security laws, on 
the 
debate over  the H1N1 flu vaccine, and on presenting  the economic 
forecast for Germany's economy.  Editorials focused on the Hartz IV 
 
laws and on the EU's progress report on Turkey.   ZDF-TV's early 
evening newscast heute and ARD-TV's early evening newscast 
Tagesschau 
opened stories on a softening of the conditions for the Hartz IV 
laws. 
 
¶2.   (Afghanistan)   British Role 
 
Most papers carried short reports saying that "Britain will increase 
 
its troops in Afghanistan" under certain conditions (FT Deutschland 
 
10/15).  The weekly Die Zeit (10/15) carried a photo of President 
Obama across the fold, and headlined: "Mr. Peace and his war. 
Obama's 
tragedy: He just received the Nobel Peace Prize, while he sacrifices 
 
his soldiers in battles that can hardly be won." 
 
Under the headline "Worthless promise," Sddeutsche (10/15) 
editorialized on PM Brown's idea to deploy more soldiers: "A great 
statesman makes unpopular decisions.  Gordon Brown has just promised 
 
to increase the number of British troops in Afghanistan.  The 
announcement was made on the day a poll found that the number of 
Britons who support a withdrawal from Afghanistan is increasing. 
So, 
is Brown a great statesman?   The answer is no because Brown has 
made 
his not very generous offer dependent on a number of preconditions, 
so 
that one cannot really speak of an offer.   He just passed the buck 
to 
NATO allies and his own officers; allies must also increase their 
troops, and the general staff must guarantee that the soldiers' 
armament is sufficient.  This means that Britain will probably not 
send a single additional soldier to Afghanistan.  The army has made 
 
clear that it does not even have enough money to sufficiently equip 
 
the troops already in the battle zone." 
 
Nrnberger Nachrichten (10/15) commented:  "Finally and far too 
late, 
we realize that not all Taliban are the same.  The structures in 
Afghanistan are complex and are not just made up of religious 
fanatics.  Regional warlords, who seek more influence, and drug 
barons, who don't want western soldiers in their way, usual 
criminals 
and al Qaida fighters are similarly dangerous." 
 
BERLIN 00001285  002 OF 007 
 
 
 
¶3.   (U.S.-Russia)   Secretary Clinton in Moscow 
 
Tagesspiegel (10/15) analyzed "why the Americans and Russians are 
trying to restart their relations," noting that "resetting their 
relations as agreed upon by both Presidents has thus far been 
successful. works indeed Although Washington and Moscow are still 
worlds apart concerning Georgia and the status of the renegade 
provinces, their views on most issues of international politics, 
such 
as the Mideast, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, disarmament and 
non- 
proliferation are as close as they were during the short thaw period 
 
in  the early 1990s....  Barack Obama is obviously taking Russian 
feelings into consideration, or has better advisors than his 
predecessor....  Some observers explain Washington's soft line by 
claiming that it is prepared to pay any price to get Moscow's 
support 
in the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.  However, Moscow's 
influence on Tehran is smaller than the West thinks..., and Obama is 
too 
much of a realist to see Iran as a central challenge to his 
government, particularly because the U.S. needs Iran for its crisis 
 
management in Afghanistan.  And over there, the U.S. needs Russia 
even 
more.  In addition, the U.S. and Russia can only stand their ground 
 
together against a new supernova, which they find increasingly 
frightening: China.  The giant empire is about to replace America as 
a 
leading economic power." 
 
Frankfurter Rundschau (10/15) analyzed: "Time is getting short. 
START, in which Russia and the U.S. agreed 15 years ago to reduce 
their strategic nuclear weapons, is expiring in seven weeks. 
However, 
things are on the move.  Hillary Clinton reported after her visit to 
 
Moscow that progress has been made in the talks with her Russian 
counterpart Lavrov.  It remains to be seen whether this will 
suffice. 
The important negotiations will take place in Geneva.  If they can 
be 
finalized in time, they still have to be ratified, which the U.S. 
Senate will not accomplish this year, and the Russian Duma will not 
 
attempt first.  However, optimists believe that ratification can be 
 
achieved; reducing strategic nuclear arsenals by another third. 
Russia and the U.S. hold 90 percent of all nuclear weapons but 
neither 
side is ready to renounce them.  Barack Obama's vision of a world 
free 
of nuclear weapons is a vision and not yet a goal of current 
policies. 
As long as other powers possess nuclear weapons, this will not 
change." 
 
Under the headline "The boss talks - she works," Frankfurter 
Rundschau 
(10/15) carried a lengthy report on Secretary Clinton's policy 
making, 
saying: "During her visit to Europe, Secretary Clinton is fighting 
her 
way out of the shadow of her former rival.  Since Barack Obama has 
his 
 
BERLIN 00001285  003 OF 007 
 
 
hands full at home, Clinton is becoming increasingly important for 
the 
White House.   The Secretary, formerly pushed to the sidelines by 
Obama, must now pull the chestnuts out of the fire." 
 
Under the headline "Moscow's love for the bomb," Frankfurter 
Allgemeine (10/15) reported on its front page that "Russia is 
reducing 
the threshold for nuclear strikes." Many papers carried similar 
reports, though less prominently. 
 
¶4.   (EU-Turkey)   Progress Report 
 
All papers carried reports on the so-called "Progress Report" on the 
 
accession of Turkey to the EU. Sueddeutsche (10/15) headlined: 
"Turkey 
is Still Far Away from EU Accession," and reported that "Brussels is 
 
complaining about the ongoing violation of civil rights laws, but 
praises Ankara's reconciliation with Armenia," while Berliner 
Zeitung 
(10/15) reported that there was 'only mild criticism from Brussels" 
 
and that the European Commission is trying to keep Turkey on a 
course 
for implementing political reforms and is pressuring Turkey's 
reconciliation with its neighbors."  Tagesspiegel (10/15) 
highlighted 
that "Turkey has its own timetable" and that "the EU's progress 
report 
is hardly receiving any attention in Ankara."  The daily added that 
 
"Ankara is pursuing a course of political reforms almost without any 
 
cooperation from Brussels." 
 
Deutschlandfunk (10/14) broadcast the following commentary: "It is 
not 
necessary to look for progress in Turkey in the EU's Progress 
Report. 
It exists....  But it is more striking that nothing has moved with 
respect to freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, and freedom of 
 
religion.  The same is true for women's and children's rights, the 
independence of the courts, and the privileges of the Turkish 
military.  But these are the decisive sectors.  The EU is more than 
a 
large free trade zone:  it is exactly those values that keep the EU 
 
together.  Currently, a country such as Turkey has no place in the 
EU, 
but it would be of no use for anyone if the accession talks were 
cut. 
If the EU wants things in Turkey to change, then there is no better 
 
way than via accession talks and continued pressure on Ankara.  But 
 
the EU must also answer one question:  Why does it not insist that 
Turkey treat Cyprus in the same way it treats all the other 26 EU 
members?  An EU that does not stick to its promises will lose 
credibility, and an EU that does not take its own threats seriously 
 
will turn into a paper tiger." 
 
Frankfurter Rundschau and Berliner Zeitung (10/15) carried a 
syndicated editorial under the headline: "EU Must Offer Turkey 
another 
 
BERLIN 00001285  004 OF 007 
 
 
Alternative" and wrote: "Several things are turning out for the 
better 
in Turkey.  But there are also many things for which the Ankara 
government must be criticized. In the country the rule of law does 
not 
dominate; the protection of minorities is still insufficient; 
freedom 
of opinion is restricted; and only recently Premier Erdogan took 
drastic steps against media houses. But the demand of German 
politicians to slam the door on the country is as serious as the 
promise of comprehensive tax cuts in the midst of the financial 
crisis. Those who want to be taken seriously, cannot call for 
radical 
steps and ignore the foreseeable consequences.  To give up the talks 
 
would mean to immediately stop the reform process in Turkey. The EU 
 
would thus snub its strategic partner.  If necessary, the EU must be 
 
prepared to write ten or twenty progress reports and thus rap 
Turkey's 
knuckles." 
 
Under the headline: "Turkey's Long Path," Sueddeutsche Zeitung 
(10/15) 
argued: "In 15 years. Turkey will be a different country than it is 
 
today.  As far as the economy is concerned, it will grow faster than 
 
all EU countries.  And we believe that Turkey will make great steps 
 
toward achieving a genuine democracy.  That Turkey is 'structurally 
 
unable to join the EU,' as a CDU European Parliament member said, is 
 
nonsense.  But a favorable outcome of the EU-Turkey talks is not 
guaranteed.  The old undemocratic elite in the armed forces, 
bureaucracy, and the judicial system are no longer able to shape 
things. But they still have the power to sabotage.  Premier Erdogan 
 
and the Turkish democrats need all the support they can get.  Europe 
 
should give this support." 
 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine (10/15) opined: "As flattering as the demand 
 
for an accession to the EU is, it will be far more dangerous if 
countries are accepted which do not have the necessary maturity. 
That 
is why the European Commission is well-advised to demand further 
progress, for instance, in the judicial system.  It is no less 
important to eliminate one general deficiency:  The enlargement of 
the 
EU is not only an effective method to stabilize surrounding 
countries, 
but it is also basically the only method that has proved effective. 
 
Why does the EU not consider 'functioning partial memberships?' 
They 
would offer tangible advantages and would give credibility to the 
European perspective.  If not, those who are striving for a full 
membership, such as Turkey, could, in the end, witness disaster." 
 
Regional daily Mittelbayerische Zeitung of Regensburg (10/15) 
opined: 
"If Turkey really wants to join the EU, it must now speed up. The 
top 
 
BERLIN 00001285  005 OF 007 
 
 
priority must be the resolution of the Cyprus conflict.  A country 
that is trying to become an EU member cannot fail to recognize 
another 
EU member, Cyprus.  This is also the strongest argument of all those 
 
who do not want to see Ankara in the EU.  The EU will certainly 
continue to demand a lot from Turkey." 
 
¶5.   (EU)   Future President 
 
In an editorial under the headline: "Euro Blair," the weekly Die 
Zeit 
(10/15) argued: "It almost seems that Europe could not expect to 
demonstrate to the world what kind of a petty-minded continent it 
is. 
The Lisbon Treaty seems to become a reality now, when the EU is 
shying 
away from filling the new position of European Council president 
with 
a man who has the right stature for such a job: Tony Blair.  But 
there 
is no other name that is being mentioned with so much contempt at 
receptions in Brussels.  There is no doubt that it is Blair's stigma 
 
to have supported a war that was opened without the mandate of the 
international community and cost the lives of thousands of people. 
 
But there is one truth about this war, which is obviously too simple 
 
to be included in these considerations:  It was not the soldiers of 
 
the western coalition, but the radical Islamic terrorists, who 
killed 
so many civilians.  In reality, the Blair opponents are only 
interested in finding a Eurocrat who can represent the EU's 
interests. 
Why has no one criticized European Commission President Barroso who 
 
also supported the Iraq War?  No, the new EU president should use 
binoculars not a magnifying glass.  And he must be able to evoke 
change.  Blair gave evidence he was capable of this not only in 
Northern Ireland but also when he reawakened a seriously ill Labor 
Party and created a 'we' feeling in Great Britain.  And Blair 
already 
discovered the new world order in 2001, which Barack Obama is only 
now 
proclaiming.  And a few weeks after 9/11, Blair said the world 
"'needs 
a new dimension of international relations.'  In view of these 
ambitions, Europe needs to turn away from a quarter century of 
debate 
over treaties and turn toward new horizons." 
 
¶6.   (U.S.)   Future Role in the World 
 
Weekly Die Zeit (10/15) carried a lengthy report under the headline: 
 
"The Helplessness of the Most Powerful," and wrote: "The global echo 
 
of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama was not very 
enthusiastic. Nevertheless, there is a worldwide logical flaw in the 
 
demand for Obama to 'deliver' first and in the doubts about his 
strength. Yesterdays standards are being applied to today; standards 
 
that have decreased.  It is not Obama's lack of resolve that is 
primarily responsible for his thus far modest successes.  The fact 
that the world does not orient to U.S. wishes has little to do with 
 
BERLIN 00001285  006 OF 007 
 
 
 
the personal characteristics of the president but much to do with 
the 
historic loss of U.S. power (and the West in general).  It is a 
historical process, and he is the expression of it and he must 
manage 
it.  If we had had a global climate policy 50 years ago, Europeans 
and 
Americans would have stayed among themselves, but, today, nothing 
goes 
without China and India.  During the peak of the Iraq War, the U.S. 
 
was indifferent to the things the rest of the world was thinking; in 
 
the end, the U.S. did what it wanted.  But today, from Iran...to the 
 
Middle East...and to the global economic crisis, the United States 
is 
exhausting itself in garnering support from everyone.  It is pure 
imagination to think that a U.S. president must only pound the table 
 
to reverse the shift of power.  Do people really believe that a 
'more 
resolute' President McCain or a President Clinton...would have been 
able 
to push electoral fraudster Ahmadinejad out of office or won the 
support of the IOC for Chicago as Olympic City?  This rhetoric about 
 
'leadership' is nothing but a brandishing with plastic swords.  For 
 
U.S. commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthammer and 
their 
friends, these issues are pushing aside the facts: Barack Obama, his 
 
ideas, and his social milieu are made to be responsible for the 
crisis 
to avoid facing the bitter historical reality of a loss of 
influence. 
However, it is surprising that many people in the rest of the world 
 
make such arguments their own.  Disappointment at a 'weak' 
president, 
who does not 'deliver?'  People quickly forget what hopes they had 
pinned on him.  Not, as despisers of Obama like to claim, that he a 
 
Messiah who would resolve all evil on earth, but that he would 
restore 
a minimum degree of reason to the world, that the level of global 
crisis would go down and that the United States would adapt to the 
realities in the 21st century - to the reality that the United 
States 
is losing power." 
 
Stern magazine remarked: "Obama is like an architect who is being 
awarded for his sketches, but has not built a single house yet.  It 
is 
a bet on a better future.  The Norwegians have voted for hope and 
change, just like Americans a year ago, not for his achievements. 
Obama's greatest success so far is a world that likes America again. 
 
He has achieved a political climate of change.  He is the American 
that Europeans like: self-critical, sensitive, tolerant and 
anti-Bush. 
He is capable of expressing the gestures so greatly needed after the 
 
times of 'old Europe' and the 'axis of evil.'  He speaks words that 
 
reach the hearts of the people.  Barack Obama has ended a foreign 
 
BERLIN 00001285  007 OF 007 
 
 
political campaign.   He wanted the people to have confidence in 
America again....  He could become the first global president.  The 
 
Norwegians have encouraged him.  However, he has not yet achieved 
everything in foreign politics." 
 
¶7.   (China-Russia)   Natural Resources Agreement 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine (10/15) editorialized: "When China and Russia 
 
sign contracts on natural resources, the West and particularly 
Western 
Europe prick their ears because they wonder whether the dependency 
on 
Russian gas can be balanced by Western suppliers.  Although the 
Chinese regime, which depends on a rapid economic growth, is trying 
to 
secure its energy supplies around the globe, we should not ignore 
the 
difficulties if Russia changes its direction." 
 
 MURPHY