VZCZCXRO2577
RR RUEHIK RUEHYG
DE RUEHFR #7439/01 3211638
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 171638Z NOV 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3200
INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE
RUEHMRE/AMCONSUL MARSEILLE 1447
RUEHSR/AMCONSUL STRASBOURG 0253

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 007439 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EUR/PPD, EUR/WE, INR, R 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL KPAO OPRC FR
SUBJECT:  MEDIA WRAP-UP: U.S. MID-TERM ELECTIONS/ MIDDLE EAST 
STRATEGY SHIFT, SOCIALIST PRIMARIES AND FRENCH MEDIA SHAKE-UPS. 
NOVEMBER 17, 2006. 
 
 
PARIS 00007439  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
Sensitive but unclassified.  Please protect accordingly. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) The U.S. mid-term election results fueled speculation about 
a possible shift in U.S. Middle East policy beyond Iraq. 
Commentators used the occasion of the Israeli Prime Minister's visit 
to Washington and the Beit Hanoun incident to discuss Washington's 
support to Israel in the context of moves to involve Iran and Syria 
in a pullout strategy for Iraq.  The Socialist Party's overwhelming 
vote for Royal as its presidential candidate led to comparisons with 
the American electoral process.  Management changes at left-wing 
Liberation and at TF1 television, elicited media comments on a 
"longstanding malaise" noting that "editorial boards must adapt to 
their audiences, not the other way around."  End Summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
MID-TERM ELECTIONS AND MIDDLE EAST STRATEGY SHIFT 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶2. (SBU) In its post-election coverage, right-of-center Le Figaro 
concluded that "the Democratic landslide would lead President Bush 
to revise not only his Iraq policy but his entire Middle East 
policy."  Left-of-center Le Monde, in an editorial entitled "Getting 
Out of Iraq," argued that "everyone [in the U.S.] appeared eager for 
a policy change."  Several outlets, including left-of-center Le 
Monde, claimed that "James Baker and Lee Hamilton would recommend 
talking with Iraq's immediate neighbors."  Alexandre Adler, in 
right-of-center Le Figaro, went further and argued that "President 
Bush needed to convert to realism" and that U.S. strategy in the 
Middle East should in no way "threaten existing regimes, like Syria 
and Iran."  Adler concluded that "by pulling out of Iraq, by calling 
on Iran and forcing Syria to secure western Iraq, the Americans 
could come out of the Iraq crisis with their heads held high." 
Left-of-center Le Monde hoped "for a return to more pragmatism" in 
the Bush Administration, thanks to James Baker who, like Tony Blair, 
"was calling for a dialogue with Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Syria." 
Left-wing Liberation concluded that "Damascus was the axis of lesser 
evil for a politically weakened Bush."  But left-of-center Le Monde 
highlighted Secretary Rice's remarks on Iran ("at this time I don't 
see anything that would indicate Iran is ready to contribute to 
Iraq's stability") and Syria ("Syria seems for the time being to be 
aligning with extremist forces") and argued that "the rumored 
recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, as well as recent Iranian 
and Syrian declarations did not appear to have softened the 
Secretary's position."  Yet right-of-center Le Figaro countered that 
 
SIPDIS 
"Secretary Rice, afraid of being marginalized by the Baker 
Commission, was considering a dialogue with Iran, in order to regain 
control over Iraq." 
 
¶3. (SBU) The Israeli Prime Minister's visit to Washington in the 
wake of the fallout from the Beit Hanoun incident led 
right-of-center Le Figaro to conclude that "the American shield of 
protection had not failed Israel."  Catholic La Croix's 
Jean-Christophe Ploquin agreed that Olmert "would continue to 
receive Washington's unconditional support."  But in right-of-center 
Le Figaro, Pierre Rousselin countered that "in Washington, nothing 
would be the same," and that "Olmert's quick decision to travel to 
Washington illustrated his level of concern."  Rousselin argued that 
"Iraq would not serve as an example for transformational democracy 
in the region" and that U.S. "disengagement" would prevail.  He 
concluded that the shift to include Syria and Iran in a pullout 
strategy would "put new pressure on Israel" just when Iran was 
"making renewed threats."  Gilles Delafon in right-of-center Le 
Journal du Dimanche claimed that "Israel was acting without 
restraint," but he also warned that "Syria was looking increasingly 
dangerous." 
 
¶4. (SBU) Amidst conjecture about a Middle East policy shift, 
commentators such as Pierre Haski in left-wing Liberation warned 
against "the dangers of a weakened U.S. executive branch" because 
the impact on "still smoldering fires" could have negative 
consequences on "world governance."  Haski argued that there was no 
one other than the U.S. to "play a mediating role in the region" and 
warned that "the leadership vacuum" in the U.S. was nothing to 
rejoice about.  In right-of-center Le Figaro, think tanker Nicole 
Bacharan echoed a similar concern and criticized France's 
"benevolent welcome" to the new majority, arguing that "the return 
of the Democrats did not necessarily mean easier times for the 
transatlantic relationship."  She warned that "those who deplored 
America's imperialism [in Iraq] might soon regret its indifference," 
which she believed would be "America's stance after President Bush." 
 Bacharan conceded that the future "did not lie in American 
'hegemony' but in the sharing of the burden among democracies." 
 
PARIS 00007439  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
Alain Barluet highlighted this ambivalence in right-of-center Le 
Figaro, arguing that "France favored a progressive pullout, but 
feared a greater burden for the Europeans."  Barluet quoted an 
anonymous diplomat, saying "a more multilateral America could lead 
to a greater European military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq." 
 
--------------------------------- 
ROYAL CARRIES SOCIALIST PRIMARIES 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) The run-up to November 16's Socialist primaries elicited 
widespread discussion of the "American-style" primary system. 
Catholic La Croix led with a positive assessment of the Socialist 
Party's methodology, "which the Party's adversaries and allies alike 
appreciated."  In its editorial, Catholic La Croix argued that "the 
experience benefited democracy" and while the debates had not 
determined a winner, "the public debates granted legitimacy to the 
elected candidate."  Vincent Tiberj, in Catholic La Croix, compared 
the situation to American primaries, "where voters ask themselves 
'is the best candidate the one who fully shares my beliefs, or the 
one who can beat the opposite party's candidate?'"  Tiberj concluded 
that in order to "fully appreciate what was going on in the 
Socialist Party one had to look to the U.S. example." 
 
¶6. (SBU) The results of the primary gave an overwhelming victory to 
Segolene Royal; final figures confirmed her first-round nomination 
with near 61 percent of the votes.  Strauss-Kahn received 20.8 
percent of the votes and Fabius 18.5 percent.  Royal, wearing her 
trademark white suit, was prominently featured on Friday's front 
pages while FR2's television commentators called her victory a 
"White Tornado." Left-wing Liberation saluted "this historic moment" 
with "a woman finally in a position to win a French presidential 
election" and argued that her victory was due to "her playing to the 
people's desire for change," while "skirting the pitfalls of 
populism."  Left-wing Liberation concluded that she would be "the 
most difficult opponent for Nicolas Sarkozy to beat."  The editorial 
in right-of-center Le Figaro acknowledged a "clear and clean 
victory" and agreed with left-wing Liberation that "[Royal] would be 
a daunting adversary for Sarkozy."  Beyond her "obvious advantage" 
of breaking with tradition "by way of being a woman," 
right-of-center Le Figaro argued that her strong points lay in her 
"break with the traditional Socialist Party line."  But 
right-of-center Le Figaro continued to warn that this "could be her 
weakness within her own camp," in an editorial entitled, "Royal 
Against Royal."  Asking whether she would be able to "reconcile" the 
irreconcilable, right-of-center Le Figaro concluded that "Royal 
could be more fragile than she looked." 
 
----------------------- 
FRENCH MEDIA SHAKE-UPS 
----------------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) Left-wing Liberation, in the throes of its own 
reorganization, characterized this week's planned changes at TF1 
television as a "regime crisis."  The communique announcing the 
nomination of the network's communications director to head the news 
bureau at TF1 led left-wing Liberation to argue that the present 
information director, Robert Namias, "was not only too old, but 
suffered a major handicap:  being too close to President Chirac, 
which in turn exposed him to Nicolas Sarkozy's blatant enmity."  The 
left-wing daily ironically concluded, "Imagine TF1's embarrassment 
if Sarkozy were elected President..."  In left-of-center Le Monde, 
Bertrand Pecquerie, Chairman of the World Editors Forum, argued that 
recent changes at right-of-center Le Figaro and left-wing 
Liberation, with Edouard de Rothschild buying into the latter, and 
Serge Dassault into the former, tended towards an "insidious 
confusion of the genres, reminiscent of the 20s and 30s, and unheard 
of in modern European democracies, outside Italy and Turkey." 
Pecquerie bemoaned erroneous analyses which faulted a "dwindling 
readership" and argued that France was instead suffering from "a 
crisis in its media offerings."  He concluded optimistically that 
the future resided "in editorial boards adapting to their audiences, 
not the other way around."  Pecquerie illustrated his theory with 
some eye-opening figures, "France's general press sells fewer papers 
than England's Daily Telegraph alone, and France has 81 dailies, 
compared to Sweden's 93, a country seven times less populated than 
France." 
STAPLETON