VZCZCXRO4413
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHLZ
DE RUEHRL #1192/01 2681135
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 251135Z SEP 09
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5307
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 1568
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0261
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0783
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 2308
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 1316
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 0501
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 05 BERLIN 001192 
 
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 GM US HO CH
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: G-20, UNGA, CHINA, HONDURAS, U.S.-TRAVEL, 
GERMANY;BERLIN 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
¶2.   (Economic)   G-20 Summit 
¶3.   (UNGA)   Reaction to Obama Speech, Iran 
¶4.   (China)   Climate Protection Proposals 
¶5.   (Honduras)   Power Struggle 
¶6.   (U.S.)   Travel Alert 
¶7.   (Germany)   Bundestag Elections/Afghanistan 
 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
 
Print media centered on the development of a new vaccine against 
HIV/AIDS and on the debate in the UN General Assembly, while 
Frankfurter Rundschau opened with the State Department's travel 
alert for U.S. travelers to Germany.  Editorials focused on the 
meeting of the UN General Assembly, the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh 
and the upcoming Bundestag elections.  ZDF-TV's early evening 
newscast heute and ARD-TV's early evening newscast Tagesschau opened 
with the UN General Assembly's resolution on the abolition of 
nuclear weapons. 
 
¶2.   (Economic)   G-20 Summit 
 
All papers carried factual news reports on the beginning of the G-20 
summit meeting in Pittsburgh.  Sueddeutsche opened a report with a 
remark by Chancellor Merkel: "G-20 Summit is 'Decisive,'" while Die 
Welt headlined: "G-20 Summit Threatened to become Insignificant," 
arguing that the feeling of urgency has gone and that there is no 
pressure to approve regulations any more.   Handelsblatt headlined 
"British Insist on G-20 to be New Global Government," and reported: 
"Britain's PM Gordon Brown several times said that he wanted to make 
the G-20 a kind of global economic government.  His close aide 
Shriti Vadera was a key player in Brown's preparations for the 
London [G-20] summit at the beginning of April.  To everyone's 
surprise she stepped down from her job as undersecretary for the 
economy.  It will now be her main task to implement a framework 
agreement on "sustainable and balanced growth.'  With this move, 
Brown is now adding another controversial aspect to the tense 
relations between he British and Americans the one side and German 
on the other side." 
 
ZDF-TV (9/24) commented: "A year ago, the world looked into an 
abyss.  The looming collapse of the global financial system made the 
governments all over the world join forces and take action.  But 
this unanimity is over now.  The reason is not only the U.S. and 
British governments but also Chancellor Merkel and Finance Minister 
Steinbr|ck's catalogue of demands they will present at the G-20 
summit.  Their list is oriented to the mood among the German voters 
rather than the goal of effectively regulating financial markets. 
The duo Merkel-Steinbr|ck is calling for effective control over 
financial products and markets, but why is the government not doing 
its homework by trying everything to protect customers from highly 
risky investments?  There is no doubt that an international 
framework agreement must come.  But by then, the German government 
should do its homework first." 
 
Norddeutscher Rundfunk of Hamburg (9/24) broadcast the following 
commentary: "Symbols instead of strategies, repentance instead of 
rules.  These will probably be the signals which the most powerful 
leaders in the world are likely to send to the world after the 
Pittsburgh G-20 summit.  There is a great lack of agreement, even 
within the EU, let alone in the rest of the world.  That is why the 
summit from Pittsburgh will leave the people feeling helpless rather 
than hopeful.  The tactical moves of the German government must also 
be blamed for this. 
 
Sueddeutsche Zeitung (9/25) editorialized: "It was not the poor 
bonus rules that caused the greatest banking disaster of all times. 
 
BERLIN 00001192  002 OF 005 
 
 
The reason was the blind trust of many elites in the forces of the 
markets, a lack of regulations, and cheap money from the central 
banks - but primarily the knowledge of the boards of the banks that 
the state will help them in case of an emergency.  To eliminate all 
these deficiencies is complicated, for at issue are capital 
requirements for banks, credit levers, and anti-cyclical reserves. 
Such terms are hardly conveyable to the public.  That is why many 
G-20 leaders - and with them the media - prefer to turn to the issue 
of banker bonuses.  This is certainly popular but it will not 
prevent the next crisis." 
 
Financial Times Deutschland (9/25) argued: "Unlike what Chancellor 
Merkel wants to make us believe, it is more than an obvious red 
herring that Britain and the United States want to put the issue of 
global imbalances on the agenda of the G-20 summit.  This is a 
genuine international problem and Germany is a big part of this 
problem.  German critics argue that a global economy which lives on 
credit must collapse at some time in the future.  But they do not 
mention that it is countries that are dependent on exports such as 
Germany or China which made possible the consumption craze of U.S. 
consumers, and that they profited from it.  In order to avoid future 
crises, it is decisive to approve financial market regulations but 
also global trade imbalances." 
 
Regional daily N|rnberger Zeitung (9/25) judged: "Let us not fool 
ourselves: politicians always lag behind developments.  They can 
only react to shortcomings while the financial sector is already 
exploring new possibilities to bypass looming sanctions.  It is an 
advantage for the financial actors that politicians must always 
agree on the smallest common denominator.  Especially the British 
and Americans - both economies are strongly dependent on a 
flourishing financial sector - are again throwing spanners into the 
works.  In the end, the Pittsburgh summit will again produce 
grandiloquent declarations which no banker needs to fear.  That is 
why the sad consequence of all this is that, following this crisis, 
we are facing the next one." 
 
¶3.   (UNGA)   Reaction to Obama Speech, Iran 
 
S|ddeutsche (9/25) noted in an editorial commentary: "This is the 
moment of truth in New York for Tehran, Washington and Moscow. 
President Obama has made Russia's dream come true and stopped the 
missile defense shield in Eastern Europe shortly prior to the UN 
General Assembly, where the Iranian nuclear program was marginally 
discussed.  America and Russia deny that both events have anything 
to do with each other, which now sounds fairly ridiculous, and can 
only be explained by the years of rhetorical armament.    Admitting 
now that Moscow are doing each other a favor would be a loss of 
face, or even a sellout of national interests.  In fact, we can only 
welcome it when Moscow is reaching out to Washington a little bit 
and exerting more pressure on Tehran....  Moscow's political capital 
in Tehran was fantastic compared with that of Washington.  It is 
time to convert this capital into results.  Russia has complained 
for years that the missile defense shield blocks good relations with 
America.  Moscow can now prove that this was not just an excuse. 
America should examine this offer with due mistrust." 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine (9/25) opined: "We can assume that President 
Obama's utopia of a world without nuclear weapons is pursuing the 
goal of preventing the proliferation of such weapons....  The 
Russians may play the game for some time to increase the pressure on 
Iran.  However, in the past, the Russian tactic was: one step 
forward, one step backward." 
 
Die Welt (9/25) editorialized on its front page: "With a dramatic 
gesture, Barack Obama made an advance payment.  Unlike his 
predecessors, he paid the UN the highest respect in an attempt to 
open a new chapter in the American policy on the UN and prove that 
 
BERLIN 00001192  003 OF 005 
 
 
the principle of dialogue is not a defensive one.  By his moves, he 
wanted to get other countries, which tend to be rogue states, to 
also make a move.  It remains to be seen whether this will happen. 
Looking at the history of the UN, this is an illusive hope.   As if 
they wanted to prove this, Libya's dictator Qaddafi and Iranian 
President Ahmadinejad delivered aggressive and delirious speeches, 
indicating that they are not at all thinking to do justice to the 
honor of the house.  Both of them showed that they continue to be 
wiling to use the UN as a stage to polemicize against the West and 
to forge an anti-Semite and Anti-American alliance.  They good thing 
is that the world is watching when these men make fools out of 
themselves." 
 
Berliner Zeitung (9/25) editorialized: "Apart from a few exceptions, 
the leadership of the countries in the broader Middle East, 
including in Iran, is a catastrophe.  Most leaders are senile, 
brutal, ignorant or dangerous. And some of them are all of that. 
The performance of Libya's leader Qaddafi in UN General Assembly can 
be described as bizarre, but not dangerous.  However, Iranian 
President Ahmadinejad not only denied the Holocaust but also 
threatened Israel and indulged in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. 
 More than seven decades ago, the Nazis made such thinking their 
ideology and acted accordingly by murdering millions of Jews and 
starting a world war.  Ahmadinejad's speech is anti-Semitic and 
dangerous, particularly for Iran and his own people....  The speech 
will further isolate the country, preventing us from finding a 
reasonable solution for the nuclear conflict and provoking new 
sanctions." 
 
Tageszeitung (9/25) commented: "The first days of the UN General 
Assembly was at best an unnecessary media spectacle.  At worst, it 
has made resolving the world's most pressing problems more 
difficult.  Given the bad experience with the unilateral and 
UN-hostile Bush administration, Obama's push for multilateral 
efforts and the renouncement of America's leadership role were good, 
but charisma alone does not suffice.  Many UN members indeed desire 
the U.S. to play a constructive leadership role, particularly in 
conflicts like the Mideast, in which Washington has the tools to 
find a solution, and also in global challenges like climate change, 
in which the U.S is part of a problem." 
 
¶4.   (China)   Climate Protection Proposals 
 
Under the headline: "Beijing's Hot Balloon," Sueddeutsche Zeitung 
(9/25) argued: "All of a sudden, China also wants to be a model in 
climate protection.  China's President Hu Jintao had hardly finished 
in speech in New York, when he was effusively praised.  But we 
should deflate this hot air balloon before we begin a factual 
discussion.  Here are a few facts: first, China is globally the 
biggest producer of greenhouse gases; second, China is opposed to 
binding reduction goals and Hu did not change this in New York; 
third, China's economy is rapidly growing and needs a lot of dirty 
coal for its energy supplies.  This cannot be changed overnight 
because Hu discovered this issue so late.  China as a model in 
environmental protection?  If this is the case some time in the 
future, we would be delighted but currently it is too early to say 
this.  It is good that environmental protection has become an issue 
in the Chinese leadership, but unfortunately, Hu did not mention 
concrete figures.  We could at least call upon Hu to mention the 
year when China's emissions are to go down.  But the fact that this 
remains open is disappointing shortly before the World Climate 
Conference in Copenhagen." 
 
¶5.   (Honduras)   Power Struggle 
 
According to die tageszeitung (9/25), "the economic elite is aware 
of the fact that it is not the European Union and the United States 
which are ruining the country (Honduras) by cutting their economic 
 
BERLIN 00001192  004 OF 005 
 
 
and military assistance.  It is the elite itself that is the 
problem.  The Organization of American States (OAS) should use the 
current situation for a new negotiating attempt.  It has talked for 
too long with the clowns in the [political] arena.  It must now go 
to the circus directors in the background.  They know how to get rid 
of someone like Micheletti." 
¶6.   (U.S.)   Travel Alert 
 
Regional daily Ostsee-Zeitung of Rostock (9/25) editorialized: "The 
fact that Germany is in the crosshair of terrorists is not really 
new.  The thwarted attempts of the 'suitcase bombers' and the 
Sauerland terrorist group have made clear that [the terror alert] is 
not mere talk. But the danger lurks in the neighborhood. We must 
take the risk seriously.  Still, the U.S. travel alert for trips to 
Germany is irresponsible.  There are no real indications of a 
special or new threat towards Americans.  They are safer here than 
they would be in many cities at home.  That is why [such travel 
alerts] do serious security analyses a disservice because the limits 
between a genuine and an alleged terror danger will be blurred." 
 
Under the headline: "Among Friends," Frankfurter Rundschau (9/25) 
opined: "It would be careless to consider the travel alert a kind of 
pearl on a chain of evidence according to which a terror threat is 
imminent in Germany and that the United States, not the German 
government, is warning its citizens against such a threat..  No, 
such alerts are not unusual on the international stage.  But unlike 
the German government, which rarely issues such alerts, the State 
Department wants to be on the safe side.  For the U.S. laws would 
allow possible victims to demand compensation from the government. 
In the current travel alert for Germany, it is said that there is 
the danger of being accosted by skinheads or rowdies or to get 
involved in brawls in Germany.  One may add that this danger is 
currently very high at the Oktoberfest in Munich.  We should not 
minimize the terror threat but we should not overestimate it 
either." 
 
¶7.   (Germany)   Bundestag Elections/Afghanistan 
 
Deutschlandfunk radio (9/24) remarked on the foreign policy of the 
grand coalition: "Concerning the foreign policy of the grand 
coalition, Chancellor Merkel has made clear from the start that she 
is the boss.  Foreign Minister Steinmeier had to leave the red 
carpet to her again and again, while he was doing the tough work in 
the Foreign Ministry....  Germany remained a reliable partner in the 
EU, NATO and UN and did its bit as a medium-sized power in 
international crises.   However, some things went wrong: Merkel's 
opposition to presidential candidate Obama's speech at the 
Brandenburg Gate and the request to take Guantanamo detainees has 
not been forgotten in Washington....  In Afghanistan, the German 
government played the role of the headmaster and told NATO partners 
to take a 'comprehensive approach'...   Although the German 
contingent has grown, the security situation deteriorated and the 
Bundeswehr is increasingly involved in fights for which it is 
inappropriately armed.  The German government has also failed to 
train [Afghan] police forces." 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine (9/25) editorialized on its front page: "For 
a short time, the topic of Afghanistan seemed to get the 
significance in the election campaign that the mission of thousands 
of German soldiers would deserve.  However, German election 
campaigners of most parties, particularly those of the coalition 
government, have quickly turned away from the topic again because 
Germany's partners candidly call the mission a war and because it is 
unpopular.  The Left Party is an exception, which popularly but 
irresponsibly calls for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.... 
 The assessment of the most senior American commander in Afghanistan 
made clear what the new German government will have to do.... 
General McChrystral demands more troops, more trainers, more aid 
 
BERLIN 00001192  005 OF 005 
 
 
workers - in short, more resources - to defeat the Taliban and 
improve the situation of the Afghans.... A defeat would have grave 
consequences for NATO and the security of it members.  Fighting 
separately and losing together - this is the disastrous outlook.  We 
cannot go on like this.  The costs are too high.  However, the 
current engagement does not help us reach our goals." 
 
Handelsblatt (9/25) editorialized on its front page: "Never before 
was there such a rift between the uncertainty of the electoral 
outcome and the clear necessity of what the future policy will look 
like. The rivals and voters know that the next German government 
faces an agenda that requires tougher decisions than that of the 
last grand coalition.  The dimension of the program will push aside 
any party politics." 
 
  MURPHY