VZCZCXRO9794
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHLZ
DE RUEHRL #1280/01 2871236
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 141236Z OCT 09
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5474
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 1629
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0336
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0854
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 2370
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 1379
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 0562
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 001280 
 
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 US AF EU US
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S., AFGHANISTAN, EU, U.S.; Berlin 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
¶2.   (U.S.-Russia)   Secretary Clinton in Moscow 
¶3.   (Afghanistan)   Secret Increase in U.S. Forces 
¶4.   (EU)   Ratification of Lisbon Treaty 
¶5.   (U.S.)   Climate Protection 
 
 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
 
ZDF-TV's early evening newscast Heute led with a story on the 
coalition talks in Berlin and ARD-TV's early evening newscast 
Tagesschau opened with a story on the financial problems of the 
northern German bank HSH Nordbank.  Newspapers and editorials 
focused 
on the sluggish coalition talks between the CDU/CSU and FDP and the 
 
demotion of federal banker Sarrazin. 
 
¶2.   (U.S.-Russia)   Secretary Clinton in Moscow 
 
All media (10/14) reported on Secretary Clinton's visit to Moscow, 
focusing on the topics of Iran, disarmament and missile defense. 
Sddeutsche's front page report, "U.S. and Russia cooperate in 
missile 
defense," highlighted that "Secretary Clinton offered to cooperate 
closely with Russia on missile defense."  Frankfurter Allgemeine 
headlined "Lavrov insists on getting Washington's plans straight," 
noting that "Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov expressed skepticism 
over 
the American offer to cooperate in missile defense."  Under the 
headline "Harmony in Moscow," Frankfurter Rundschau wrote that the 
"U.S. and Russia got closer in their negotiations on nuclear 
disarmament and also want to cooperate closely in the nuclear 
dispute 
with Iran." Die Welt headlined "U.S. and Russia do not want 
sanctions 
against Iran for the time being," and Berliner Zeitung headlined 
"Russia protects Iran from sanctions."  Under the headline "A little 
 
bit of peace," Tagesspiegel noted that "the U.S. and Russia have 
expressed unity in the nuclear dispute over Iran. 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine (10/14) editorialized: "A secretary and a 
minister who have nothing to say spoke together in Moscow.  Hillary 
 
Clinton only plays a minor role in a government whose President has 
 
defined foreign policy and delegated diplomatic operations to a host 
 
of envoys and special ambassadors.  And Lavrov, who is serving two 
leaders, is extremely busy with trying to reconcile their sometimes 
 
diverging views.  The results of the Moscow talks reflect this: 
there 
is nothing apart from an exchange of friendly words....  Their 
bosses 
will discuss the real problems." 
 
Under the headline "In absolute harmony," Sddeutsche (10/14) 
opined: 
"No sooner has the relationship between the U.S. and Russia 
improved, 
then a new problem is emerging.  Secretary Clinton's latest problem 
is 
holding even slightly differing views from Lavrov.  A short 
reference 
to Georgia was the only publically expressed disagreement.  Both 
leaders celebrated absolute harmony when they appeared together.... 
 
BERLIN 00001280  002 OF 005 
 
 
 
However, it was particularly America that reached out to Moscow. 
The 
U.S. renouncement of the missile defense shield woke up Russian 
military strategists because they fear that the world might expect 
something in return, such as a tougher approach towards Iran. 
Clinton 
has assuaged this fear by stating that she believes new sanctions 
would come too early.  In the post-START agreement, it is Barack 
Obama's turn anyway.  The U.S. President with the diplomatic burden 
of 
a Nobel Peace Prize cannot afford to get lost in little disputes 
over 
hundreds of nuclear warheads and carrier rockets.  He cannot afford 
 
for the talks to fail.  Russia's position is more comfortable 
because 
the giant country under financial straits is interested in reducing 
 
the level of arms....  There is no doubt that Russia is enjoying its 
 
newly won power. Moscow appreciates being heard international 
questions.  Being on an equal playing field with Washington suggests 
 
to Moscow that it is once again a superpower, a message that is 
being 
communicated well to the people through the media.  However, Russia 
 
cannot claim the successes concerning the foreign political issues 
of 
Iran, missile defense and START.  These are the result of a change 
of 
direction in the White House.  Moscow's interests should go beyond 
the 
craving for more prestige.  The strategists in the Kremlin know that 
 
real power is more than a few old nuclear bombs and the veto right 
on 
the UN Security Council.  If Russia does not manage to become a 
stable 
and strong economic power in the long run, its influence will remain 
 
limited." 
 
¶3.   (Afghanistan)   Secret Increase in U.S. Forces 
 
"Is Obama Secretly Increasing Forces in Afghanistan?" headlined 
Tagesspiegel. Meanwhile Die Welt (10/14) wrote: "Obama Secretly 
Increases Forces," and reported: "Obviously, President Obama is 
sending considerably more forces to Afghanistan than was previously 
 
known.  The Washington Post reported that Obama authorized the 
sending 
of an additional 13,000 forces in addition to the announced increase 
 
of 21,000 soldiers.  Since taking office, Obama has now sent 34,000 
 
additional forces to Afghanistan."  Sueddeutsche Zeitung (10/14) 
carried a report, headlined: "Discreet Reinforcements," and noted: 
"President Obama has ordered the deployment of far more soldiers in 
 
Afghanistan then the general public had previously assumed.  In 
March, 
Obama increased combat forces in the war against the Taliban and 
al- 
Qaida by 21,000 forces but did not explicitly mention that this 
would 
also mean the sending of an additional 13,000 support forces." 
 
 
BERLIN 00001280  003 OF 005 
 
 
In an editorial, Sueddeutsche Zeitung (10/14) judged: "As far as 
military matters are concerned, Washington's decision to send more 
forces to Afghanistan is o.k. 13,000 additional soldiers will be 
sent 
to Afghanistan to support the 21,000 combat soldiers whose mission 
the 
president already announced in March.  At that time, Obama approved 
 
the sending of an additional 34,000 soldiers which then corresponded 
 
to a doubling of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan.  But he did not 
make 
a big thing about it and at the time there was only talk of about 
21,000 forces.  The question now is how serious is the president 
about 
the loudly announced transparency in the White House?  But if the 
public is even now discussing the full extent of the U.S. engagement 
 
in Afghanistan, then this has nothing to do with   the new demands 
of 
Obama's supreme commander in the country.  The debate is drawing 
attention to the extent that the U.S. engagement would have if 
General 
McChrystal got all the forces he wanted.  Then up to 130,000 U.S. 
soldiers would be in Afghanistan, almost the same number as in Iraq. 
 
But following all the years at war, this would hardly be conveyable 
to 
the American people." 
 
¶4.   (EU)   Ratification of Lisbon Treaty 
 
Under the headline: "EU Threatening Czech Republic with Loss of 
Commissioner Position in Brussels," Tagesspiegel (10/14) wrote: "In 
 
the tug-of-war over the ratification of the EU reform treaty, the 
European Union has now threatened the Czech Republic with 
consequences.  On Tuesday, European Commission President Barroso 
warned the Prague government that it may lose its commissioner 
position if President Klaus continues to refuse to ratify the 
treaty. 
Following a meeting with Barroso, however,Czech Prime Minister 
Fischer backed his president's demands to safeguard the 
controversial 
Benes decrees in an addendum to the treaty."   In a report 
headlined: 
"Exception for Czech Republic," Sueddeutsche Zeitung (10/14) wrote 
that "In the power struggle with his own government, Czech President 
 
Klaus has asserted his view on his own government.  Prime Minister 
Fischer backed Klaus's demand for an additional protocol to the 
Lisbon 
Treaty in order to safeguard the continued existence of the 
controversial Benes decrees." 
 
In an editorial under the headline "Like in a Circus," Die Welt 
(10/14) dealt with the problems Czech President Vaclav Klaus has 
with 
signing the ratification document of the Lisbon Treaty, and 
editorializes: "Czech President Vaclav Klaus is leading the 
political 
class in Europe by the nose around the circus ring.  At the upcoming 
 
EU summit, everything will focus on Klaus and his abstruse 
amendments 
to the EU Treaty. Currently, the EU is dancing to Klaus's tunes. 
This 
may not be a shining moment for the EU's history but it is a wise 
move 
 
BERLIN 00001280  004 OF 005 
 
 
because Klaus is slowly running out of arguments.  If the EU meets 
his 
demands and the Czech Constitutional Court rules that the Lisbon 
Treaty is constitutional, Klaus will be placed under immense 
pressure. 
Then he will sign.  He is a gambler but he is not someone who 
commits 
political suicide.  The EU will then have a new treaty, but what 
then? 
The European Parliament will have greater powers, the votes will be 
 
redistributed and the EU will get a diplomatic service, but these 
are 
achievements for the European elite.  The ordinary citizens have 
different concerns.  They want to know where the EU's external 
borders 
are; they want to know what the EU will bring for the individual 
citizen; and they want to know how far integration will go.  It is 
time to give answers to these questions." 
¶5.   (U.S.)   Climate Protection 
 
Sueddeutsche Zeitung (10/14) carried a report under the headline: 
"Climate Protection Postponed," by its Washington correspondent 
Reymer 
Klver who wrote: "The announcement did not come as a surprise: when 
 
the world meets in Copenhagen to solve the problem of global climate 
 
protection, the U.S. delegation will come empty-handed.  By then, 
the 
United States is not likely to have any climate protection bill that 
 
would indicate that the United States really wants to reduce its 
carbon dioxide emissions.  But Barack Obama's highest climate 
protection official, Carol Browner, said: 'This will not happen.' 
At 
the beginning of this year, however, we heard different things from 
 
Washington.  Then the newly elected president called climate 
protection one of his priorities...and the Democratic leadership in 
 
Congress asserted confidently that it could adopt a climate 
protection 
bill before the Copenhagen conference....   But America's climate 
protectors are not only dissatisfied with a lame Congress, but the 
government and President Obama are also under increasing fire. 
Pressure is coming from all sides...and even industry is criticizing 
the 
hesitant man in the White House, who is not determined enough to 
push 
forward climate protection.   But there is by no means a standstill 
in 
U.S. climate protection policy.  President Obama is pursuing a 
double 
strategy, i.e. he is leaving it to Congress to develop a bill on 
climate protection, while he has ordered the Environmental 
Protection 
Agency to develop procedures that help reduce carbon dioxide 
emissions 
in the case that Congress is unable to reach an agreement.  That is 
 
why EPA head Lisa Jackson, in one of her first great initiatives, 
declared carbon dioxide an environmental poison.  As far as 
administrative law is concerned, this is a precondition for the EPA 
to 
set ceilings for carbon dioxide emissions.  But this approach has 
one 
great advantage:  following a change of government, such an approach 
 
 
BERLIN 00001280  005 OF 005 
 
 
can be immediately rescinded.  For Copenhagen, too, the legislative 
 
snail's pace does not mean the end of all efforts. It is clear that 
 
there will be no agreement  la Kyoto...but Congress is discussing 
the 
idea of setting up an international climate register in which each 
state commits itself to achieving certain climate protection goals. 
 
This would not be binding but it would produce internal pressure, 
even 
in the United States." 
 
 MURPHY