R 151206Z APR 09
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 3848
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 000443 
 
 
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" 
 
E.0. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO GM US CU MD SO IT RS UP GG KG
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: GMOs, Bagram, DPRK, Iran, Cuba, Thailand 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
¶2.   (Germany)   Ban on GMOs 
¶3.   (U.S.)   Bagram Prisoners 
¶4.   (North Korea) Six-Party Talks 
¶5.   (Iran)   Nuclear Program 
¶6.   (U.S.-Cuba)   Relaxation of Sanctions 
¶7.   (Thailand)   Revolution Cancelled 
 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
 
Editorials focused on Agriculture Minister Aigner's decision to ban 
the cultivation of genetically modified corn and North Korea's 
decision to cancel its participation in the six-party talks. 
Aigner's decision was also the lead story in the press and in 
ZDF-TV's early evening newscast Heute and ARD-TV's early evening 
newscast Tagesschau. 
 
¶2.   (Germany)   Ban on GMOs 
 
ARD-TV's Tagesthemen aired the following commentary:  "Genetic 
engineering is for Germans as emotional as nuclear energy.  The 
Chancellor and the research minister may have a sober scientific 
view on this matter, but the majority of Germans are afraid of 
mutants in the corn field.  And that is why Agriculture Minister 
Aigner's decision is not only a factual but also a political 
decision.  The majority of German farmers do not pin their hopes on 
genetically modified corn because they know that the consumers do 
not want it.  That is why it is logical that the ban is valid only 
for individual cases, because no one knows whether we will need GMOs 
in the future because of climate change." 
 
Die Welt argued: "Again fear has won: the CSU's fear of the 
elections to the European Parliament.  That is why scientists are 
chased away, and the otherwise often-heard demand for more 
innovation and greater entrepreneurial spirit is ignored.  The 
feeling of being weak in the knees is not determining politics.  The 
term progress has turned into a dirty word.  Aigner decided contrary 
to her knowledge.  We wonder how CSU politicians would act if such a 
fear-mongering campaign were successful in other areas.  Bavaria's 
Environment Minister Sder called Aigner's decision 'courageous.' 
The opposite is true." 
 
Deutschlandfunk broadcast the following commentary: "The election 
campaign was the driving force behind Agriculture Minister Aigner's 
decision to ban the cultivation of MON 810.  Thus far, the EU has 
not yet brought about a clear legal basis for the use of GMOs in 
agriculture.  The basis of its decisions is primarily documents 
submitted by the applicants instead of documents of independent 
institutes.  The result is that we know less about the safety and 
environmental compatibility of new genetically modified plants than 
we could know.  The discussion over new test procedures is not new. 
Maybe the next government can give this discussion a new impetus 
once the election campaign is over." 
 
According to Frankfurter Allgemeine, "Agriculture Minister Aigner's 
reasons for banning MON 810 may be diverse and highly different. 
Concerns, however, should also be taken seriously if consumers were 
indifferent to GMOs or if they liked them.  This is not the case 
here.  The rejection of GMO is not a specialty of marginal social 
groups but is the official government policy in five other EU 
countries.  The fact that Brussels is of a different opinion, may 
certainly have spurned Mrs. Aigner to make a profound decision...." 
 
In the view of Frankfurter Rundschau, "the decision to ban the only 
genetically modified corn from the market, thus declaring Germany as 
a whole a GMO-free zone is evidence of courage.  Irrespective of the 
populist considerations that may be behind her decision, genetically 
modified corn is a risk for the environment, is totally superfluous 
for agriculture, represents an industrial agriculture economy, 
burdens food production that is GMO free with unnecessary costs, and 
can even ruin bee-keepers.  All this has been mentioned all over 
again.  It is finally a logical decision that all these arguments 
have resulted in a ban." 
 
Sueddeutsche Zeitung judged: "Advocates of genetic engineering are 
right when they say: a 'possibly' or a 'maybe' are no evidence of 
GMOS to be dangerous.  But this is not decisive.  They do not prove 
that GMOS are not dangerous.  That is why Agriculture Minister 
Aigner acted in a responsible manner.  It is likely that she hopes 
for some additional votes in the upcoming elections [for the 
European Parliament] but tin view of the current facts, this is 
totally insignificant." 
 
Regional daily Westdeutsche Zeitung of D|sseldorf opined: "The 
accusation that Germany would isolate itself internationally with 
this ban is wrong.  The unease about MON 810 has created fear among 
many European governments.  Obviously there is growing skepticism 
towards experiments to play with evolution in the laboratories of 
big industry.  Brussels would be well advised to take national 
reservations seriously." 
 
Abendzeitung of Munich noted: "Irrespective of how she reached her 
decision, with respect to its contents, the decision is correct.  It 
may be possible that a sophisticated and profoundly studied genetic 
engineering will really be able to help alleviate hunger some day in 
the future.  But dangers and imponderables are predominant.  And 
once this stuff is really in the fields, its spread can hardly be 
controlled.  Such GMOs are primarily of use for U.S. monopolist 
Monsanto and its coffers.  In Asia, it shows future developments: 
manipulated seeds in a lucrative package with manipulated 
pesticides, because the one does not work without the other." 
 
¶3.   (U.S.)   Bagram Prisoners 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine argued: "It is not so easy for President 
Obama to shake off the legacy of the Bush era.  Obama's government 
has now appealed a court decision according to which prisoners on 
the U.S. base in Bagram can demand a review by U.S. courts of the 
grounds for their imprisonment.  The problem is that the prisoners 
in Bagram were not captured in Afghanistan but were transported 
there only for interrogation.  That is why they are prisoners in the 
global and unlimited war on terrorism, such as the ones in 
Guantnamo.  It is true that this conflict can hardly be settled 
with obsolete war rules, but it cannot justify the systematic 
violation of basic freedom rights.  Obama should be consistent." 
 
¶4.   (North Korea) Six-Party Talks 
 
According to Frankfurter Allgemeine, "President Obama is now seeing 
how North Korea understands how to play with the international 
community, when the issue is nuclear policy.  Pyongyang is now 
demonstrating that we cannot rely on its promises.  The five 
countries that have tried to settle the conflict with diplomatic 
means are now being blackmailed and North Korea is making a fool of 
them.  Will Obama allow anyone to blackmail him?   When looking at 
Tehran, the president is willing to make considerable concessions in 
order to prompt it to enter into constructive talks.  Whys should 
Iran now be willing to enter into serious talks when it can expect 
the offer to become even better?  There is the mounting danger that 
some day in the future, there is nothing left to talk about." 
 
Financial Times Deutschland argued: "Even with a tattered Kim, 
nothing will change on the Korean peninsula for the foreseeable 
future.  The reason is that behind the nuclear ambitions of states 
such as North Korea and Iran there are not individual fanatics, as 
the West liked to believe for a long time, but that Pyongyang is 
following a strategy that is both rational and extremely successful. 
 Seen from a sober point of view, the West has no military 
alternative but to pursue diplomacy.  That is why Kim & Co. will 
continue to play their poker game and raise the price for abandoning 
their nuclear programs." 
 
Sueddeutsche Zeitung noted: "The fear of war is to unite the 
country.  The stupid thing is that South Korea in particular does 
not take seriously the nuclear threat, but is more concerned about 
conventional armed forces.  Washington, too, is less afraid of the 
regime but rather of the sale of nuclear and missile technology to 
the Middle East.  North Korea is trying to safeguard its survival by 
using all means possible, especially U.S. guarantees.  In order to 
get these guarantees, Kim will use threats as long as possible.  But 
Kim will try to avoid an armed conflict, since he does not want to 
commit suicide.  All five participants in the six-party talks say 
that there is no alternative to talks, and probably no alternative 
to direct talks between Washington and Pyongyang.  The West could 
then win time." 
 
¶5.   (Iran)   Nuclear Program 
 
According to Sueddeutsche Zeitung, "ideology and obstructionist 
behavior about accepting reality has determined U.S. policy towards 
Tehran for a long time.  It was always the core message of the U.S. 
to enter into talks with Tehran once it stops its uranium 
enrichment, but with each additional centrifuge that the Iranians 
set up in Natans, this condition became more absurd.  The new 
negotiating approach, however, will make it more difficult for 
Tehran to continue to pursue its delaying tactics.  The formal 
arguments with which it has rejected talks in the past no longer 
exist.  There are no longer any preconditions and the Americans will 
directly take part in talks.  At the same time, Russia and China 
make it more difficult for Tehran to find excuses when the issue is 
to lure Iran with offers but also to threaten tough sanctions.  The 
P5+1 should now call upon Iran to sign the Additional Protocol to 
the NPT.  With it, the regime could demonstrate its peaceful 
intentions, and the IAEA would be allowed to launch comprehensive 
inspections and search for secret plants.  But an end of the nuclear 
conflict is by no means in sight, despite the new negotiating 
tactics.  It would be naive to think that it would be possible to 
buy Iran's nuclear program with aircraft parts and light water 
reactors.  It is a first, important step that the parties are now at 
least talking about the complex political problems that have thus 
far prevented a solution." 
 
¶6.   (U.S.-Cuba)   Relaxation of Sanctions 
 
Die Welt judged: "Following Iran and Russia, Cuba is next.  This is 
only a minor revolution, but the White House indicated that further 
steps could follow.  Almost 50 years of the embargo did not result 
in the desired success.  That was why it was necessary to make a new 
beginning in the ideologically burdened relations.  President 
Obama's new policy could stabilize a regime that is about to come to 
its biological end anyway.  If Castro is to die, it is by no means 
clear that his less popular brother will stay in power for long. 
That is why Obama must try a tightrope act: align views with Cuba 
and soften the policy of the regime without giving away too many 
trump cards too early.  The trade embargo is the great prize 
Washington can give away.  All indications are to save this prize 
for the time after the Castro brothers, and to use it after a change 
of power in Havana to promote change, which Cubans and Americans 
hope for." 
 
Die tageszeitung opined: "The announced lifting to restrictions is 
more than a break with the policy of the predecessor government.  It 
is the greatest step in the direction of a normalization of 
relations between the capitalist power and the regional dwarf after 
50 years.  Obama is willing for change, but he no longer needs to be 
very courageous.  Time is simply ripe.  His election result in 
Florida demonstrated that the old hardliners of the Cuban exiled 
community no longer set the tone.  In order to make possible a real 
normalization, more should happen.  Guantnamo is not only a prison 
of injustice but also a constant reminder of the U.S. imperialist 
policy.  It would really be a courageous step to return the 
Guantanamo military base to Cuba." 
 
¶7.   (Thailand)   Revolution Cancelled 
 
"It was a wise decision to give in," Frankfurter Allgemeine wrote, 
and noted: "But everyone realizes that, despite this tactical 
withdrawal, the problems of the country have by no means been 
resolved, even if the government proclaims a return to 'normalcy.' 
If Prime Minister Abhisit comes to the conclusion that Thailand's 
future is at stake, he would now declare his willingness for serious 
talks.  It seems to be brazen to hope for such a development, 
because the protesters have made a fool of Abhisit in the world.  It 
is also unclear whether the other side is willing to talk.  Former 
Prime Minister Thaksin does not create the impression that he would 
be willing to make compromises.   But Thailand will be saved from 
bloodshed only if all sides demonstrate good will."