R 301205Z MAR 09
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 3705
INFO WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON DC
SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
DIA WASHINGTON DC
CIA WASHINGTON DC
DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
FRG COLLECTIVE
AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 
AMEMBASSY LONDON 
AMEMBASSY PARIS 
AMEMBASSY ROME 
USMISSION USNATO 
USMISSION USOSCE 
HQ USAFE RAMSTEIN AB GE
HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE//J5 DIRECTORATE (MC)//
CDRUSAREUR HEIDELBERG GE
UDITDUSAREUR HEIDELBERG GE

UNCLAS BERLIN 000372 
 
 
STATE FOR INR/R/MR, EUR/PAPD, EUR/PPA, EUR/AGS, INR/EUC, INR/P, 
SECDEF FOR USDP/ISA/DSAA, DIA FOR DC-4A 
 
VIENNA FOR CSBM, CSCE, PAA 
 
"PERISHABLE INFORMATION -- DO NOT SERVICE" 
 
E.0. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO GM US AF PK TU IS IR CU
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: AFGHANISTAN, NATO, UNFCCC, DOHA, LATAM 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
¶2.   New Afghanistan Strategy 
¶3.   NATO Summit Meeting 
¶4.   New NATO Secretary-General 
¶5.   Bonn UNFCCC 
¶6.   Doha--Arab Summit 
¶7.   Progressive Leaders' Conference 
 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
 
Editorials focused on the discussion over the future of Deutsche 
Bahn's CEO Hartmut Mehdorn, the decision of Cologne's Mayor Schramma 
not to run again following the collapse of the building that carried 
the archive of the city, the government taking over a stake in Hypo 
Real Estate, and the upcoming summit meetings in Europe.  Headlines 
centered on Deutsche Bahn, President Obama's invitation for a 
climate summit to Washington, and the debate over NATO's future 
secretary-general.   ZDF-TV's early evening newscast Heute opened 
with a report on Cologne's Mayor Schramma, while ARD-TV's early 
evening newscast Tagesschau opened with a story on Deutsche Bahn's 
CEO Mehdorn. 
 
¶2.   New Afghanistan Strategy 
 
All major German papers carried on Saturday front-page reports on 
President Obama's review of the strategy on Afghanistan and 
Pakistan, highlighting that the President is determined to deploy 
more soldiers and civilians to destroy al Qaida.  The commentaries 
ranged from support to skepticism. 
 
Frankfurter Rundschau analyzed under the headline "Obama's War": 
"The approach sounds familiar.  What U.S. President Obama announced 
in Washington as the new Afghanistan strategy is a consistent 
exploitation of the experience of the U.S. army in Iraq over the 
last three years....  With the change of strategy, Obama has made 
the war in Afghanistan his top priority.  It has not been as 
prominent on the U.S. public agenda like Iraq.  However, the tow 
fights have a common fate:  they are terribly unpopular.... 
Victory or defeat in Afghanistan will be tied to Obama's name in the 
future.  The new President wants to win this war with grenades, 
money and good words....  However, as successful as this strategy 
was in Iraq, it is not yet clear whether it can be copied to the 
conditions of the multiethnic country of Afghanistan with its 
archaic tribal structures." 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine commented:  "The fanatics of the Taliban and 
al Qaida do not just threaten Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The fact 
that Pakistan, particularly the secret service ISI, condones or even 
promotes the situation out of false reasoning is a scandal.  It is 
right that Obama now offers Pakistan more help but also links it 
with the demand to finally end this dangerous game." 
 
Berliner Zeitung wrote: "Obama's Afghanistan plan promotes 
corruption...Obama's nice plan might not be anything else but a 
gigantic stimulus package for corruption.  Currently, there is 
something in almost every aid project for so-called Afghan partners. 
 What is true for Afghanistan is also true for Pakistan.  Islamabad 
demonstrated already in the 1980s how you benefit from foreign 
assistance without improving the situation. A considerable part of 
the six billion dollars Washington supplied to jihadists at the time 
went into the pockets of the generals." 
 
Under the headline "America leads," Tagesspiegel editorialized: "Why 
does no German politician deliver such a clear speech on 
Afghanistan? ....  The West must do more to improve its security. 
Barack Obama openly says so - and he is prepared to take action 
despite the economic crisis and budget problems.  Politicians in 
Europe only repeat what is popular in their countries, but they 
ignore the unpopular demand for more troops....  Once again it is 
becoming clear: Obama differs from Bush and his change of policy is 
 
in Europe's interest.  However, this does not necessarily mean that 
he will be a convenient president for his partners." 
 
die tageszeitung commented on its front page: "Despite contrary 
statements, the goal will no longer be democracy and the rights of 
women.  It is about the stabilization of a pro-American regime.  The 
path to it will be Obama's war.   Nobody should be under any 
illusions.  Even if it cannot be ruled out that the U.S. can still 
win this war, there will be not less but more war for the time 
being." 
 
FT Deutschland commented: "Particularly because the U.S. policy is 
now clearly closer to German policy, Germany must not stand aside 
but, given the new situation, consider a new strategy....  This is 
about a new concept, not a few more aid workers.  Without it, the 
German claim to be the civilian lead nation will be at the sidelines 
in Afghanistan." 
 
ZDF-TV's Heute remarked that the new Afghanistan strategy is "a 
clear renunciation of George Bush's policy.  The core points of the 
new strategy are a stronger engagement in Pakistan and a massive 
increase in troops....  Behind Obama's change of course stands the 
realization that this war cannot be won with more troops alone. 
Obama must win whatever it takes." 
 
¶3.   NATO Summit Meeting 
 
According to Sueddeutsche Zeitung, "America is and remains the 
strongest power in the world, but it looks weaker than ever.  In 
this situation, the United States has only one trump card: 
President Obama.  Obama has turned into a projection screen of 
global wishes.  Everywhere in the word, but primarily in Europe, 
millions of people are directing their hope and longings to this 
president.  On this trip it is Obama's mission to bundle this energy 
and to implement his political goals and America's interests in the 
world.  But this can only happen to a certain extent." 
 
Tagesspiegel argued in a front-page editorial: "Those who do more 
have also greater influence on the strategy.  President Obama is now 
jettisoning ideological ballast.  The goal of the war [in 
Afghanistan] is no longer the establishment of a democracy but a 
state in which al-Qaida is unable to plan any more terrorist 
attacks.  This is a break with the Bush strategy.  This is also less 
than those Germans want who argue that the Bundeswehr is in 
Afghanistan to help set up a civil society in which all girls have a 
chance to attend school.  In order to achieve his goals, Obama is 
willing to disrespect Pakistan's sovereignty.  If Pakistan does not 
attack Al-Qaida along its border region to Afghanistan, he will do 
this.  In some areas, Obama's policies might get really 
uncomfortable." 
 
Regional daily Rheinische Post of D|sseldorf argued: "Chancellor 
Merkel is quite happy in the international arena where she can get a 
certain distance from the bickering at home.  But caution: this time 
the summit will not turn into an Angela Merkel show such as in 
Heiligendamm in 2007.  At that time, the government leaders were 
Bush, Chirac, and Blair and they were about to be replaced.  The new 
guild around Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy and the new powers 
China and Brazil, will not allow the Merkel system to develop. 
Especially Obama will prove that he is not thinking of giving in as 
the number one in the world only because the crisis spilled over 
from the U.S. to us.  He will use all his power to implement his 
agenda of greater demand, more debt, and better controls.  Merkel 
can counter this only by demonstrating her perseverance and 
persistence." 
 
Financial Times Deutschland opined: "It seems as if the German 
government could await the NATO summit in a relaxed manner. 
Finally, the Americans have copied the German approach in many 
respects.  The civilian reconstruction is now becoming the focus of 
the NATO mission.  But this is putting Germany under pressure.  For 
the German government it is now more urgent than ever to answer the 
question of which goals it is pursuing, and with what means.  For 
the United States, the answer is now clear: Barack Obama wants to 
win the war with all means, destroy al-Qaida and the Taliban and 
rebuild Afghanistan to such a degree that a return for terrorists is 
impossible.  Seven years after the beginning of the war, this 
conflict is now entering its hot stage.  Western resolve will be one 
of the strongest weapons.  And what about Germany?   What is at 
issue is not a few more aid workers but a new strategic plan. 
Without such a plan, Germany, which once reclaimed the civilian 
leading role in this mission, will totally fall by the wayside in 
the Hindu Kush." 
 
¶4.   New NATO Secretary-General 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine had this to say: "Everywhere we will get nice 
photos with the chancellor in the center.  And everywhere we will 
see that the crisis does not forge together all participants.  But 
NATO's party mood is marred not only because of the idea that it 
could still fail in Afghanistan, even though Barack Obama is now 
heading the U.S. administration.  All of a sudden, the NATO summit 
will also be burdened by a discussion over the next NATO 
secretary-general.  Turkey has turned into the mouthpiece of the 
'irritation of Islamic countries' (i.e. of the non-NATO members) by 
the candidacy of Denmark's government leader Rasmussen who 
uncompromisingly sided with the freedom of the press in the 
controversy over the Mohammed caricatures. This should be reason for 
thought for all those who still rave about the wonderful 'bridging 
function' of Turkey to the rest of the Islamic world." 
 
Sueddeutsche Zeitung argued: "NATO pretends to be more than a 
military alliance.  It also claims to be a community that shares the 
same values.  Following Turkey's Premier Erdogan's attacks on Danish 
Prime Minister Rasmussen, the Alliance now has the opportunity to 
prove to what extent this is true...and it should not miss this 
opportunity.  At issue is no longer who is going to be the next NATO 
Secretary-General but the credibility of the Alliance is at stake. 
If the highest civilian job in NATO is not given to Rasmussen 
because the Islamic nations hate him, then the Alliance would be 
morally giving itself up.  The defense of the freedom of the press 
and freedom of opinion is not a disqualification.  On the contrary, 
it should be one of the preconditions for the job.  If NATO wants to 
remain loyal to itself, it must reject Erdogan's attacks and appoint 
Rasmussen without delay.  Everything else would create the 
impression that NATO would consider giving in to pressure from 
countries that ignore human and freedom rights." 
 
In the view of Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, "Turkey's 
Prime Minister Erdogan likes to play the mouthpiece for the Islamic 
world.  Erdogan's objections [to Rasmussen] are not without weight 
especially with a view to the NATO engagement in Afghanistan.  But 
Erdogan's contribution is also a contribution to the election 
campaign in Turkey.  Ankara will hardly go so far as to veto 
Rasmussen.  President Abdullah Gul already found words of praise for 
the Danish premier." 
 
¶5.   Bonn UNFCCC 
 
German primetime TV newscasts and most major papers carried 
prominent reports on the UN Climate policy, highlighting that "U.S. 
President Obama pushes for climate protection" (Sueddeutsche 
front-page headline).  Berliner Zeitung lead headline said:  "Obama 
launches Green Change" and added in its intro: "President Obama does 
not just focus on curbing the financial crisis, but also wants to 
exert more pressure in the fight against climate change." 
 
ARD-TV's primetime Tagesschau reported: "Special Envoy Todd Stern is 
the face of the new American climate protection policy.  With Stern, 
the U.S. government does not only begin participating in UN climate 
negotiations after years of being on the sidelines, it is also 
taking the initiative by inviting leading economic countries to an 
 
environment meeting in Washington in April....  Although the 
Americans were sitting in the back rows during the conference, their 
message is heard:  the U.S. wants to cut 17 percent of today's 
carbon dioxide emissions by 2020.  This is a first step."  ARD-TV's 
and ZDF-TV's primetime newscasts show Stern saying that "we now have 
a U.S. government that is serious [about fighting climate change]. 
We see the problem.  We will spend 80 billion on green technologies. 
This is very robust." 
 
Berliner Zeitung commented: "If Obama could do what he wanted to do, 
there would not be much to negotiate between Europeans and 
Americans.  The U.S. President is pushing for a green change of the 
economy, which would sustainably transform the United States.  He 
does not just underscore this with symbolic gestures, like the 
assignment of Todd Stern to the UN climate conference in Bonn shows, 
but also by taking concrete steps.  With his 800 billion economic 
stimulus program, Obama has set the course for an ecological 
renewal." 
 
Regional daily Rheinpfalz of Ludwigshafen editorialized: "The 
situation concerning climate protection can be compared to the big 
financial meltdown....  The European Union only recently announced 
its climate protection ideas during the spring summit.  In America, 
it becomes clear that President Obama will not get his plans through 
the Senate in time for Copenhagen.  This could endanger the 
international treaty.  However, it must be clear to all of us that 
there is a difference between the financial world and the real one. 
The damage done to the financial world can be repaired.  The damage 
it would cause to the climate inaction cannot yet be estimated." 
 
¶6.   Doha--Arab Summit 
 
According to Frankfurter Rundschau, "most of the Arab potentates 
seem to have realized that they have to unite if they do not want to 
play another act in their play of absolute chaos.  Such as in normal 
life, nothing has a greater uniting effect than a common enemy and a 
common outrage.  And there are more of those things today than there 
were in the past.  New Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu would not 
have been enough to bring the Arab states back to the table again. 
The second bogeyman is Iranian President Ahmadinejad with his 
grandiloquent nuclear plans.  And the Arab league is not considering 
the global arrest warrant against Sudanese President al-Bashir a 
Western attempt to make a global example of Sudan's president.  But 
time will tell whether the current outrage can be translated into a 
long-term political unity.  The growing unrest continues to smolder 
because of the 22 state leaders, five will definitely not attend 
this summit." 
 
¶7.   Progressive Leaders' Conference 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine reported under the headline: "Sanctions on 
Cuba Remain," that "according to Vice President Joe Biden, the U.S. 
administration plans to maintain economic sanctions on Cuba. 
Following the Progressive Leaders' Conference in Chile, journalists 
asked Biden whether Washington planned to lift sanctions on the 
communist Cuba, Biden said: 'No.'  He added: 'We think that the 
people in Cuba should determine their fate themselves and that they 
should live in freedom and with the intention for economic growth. 
But Cuba would not be the greatest challenge for the southern 
hemisphere. This would be the economy," he said. 
 
KOENIG