VZCZCXRO4582
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHLZ
DE RUEHRL #1310/01 2931225
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 201225Z OCT 09
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5533
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 1654
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0363
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0879
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 2395
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 1404
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 0587
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 03 BERLIN 001310 
 
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 IR AF SU
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: IRAN, AFGHANISTAN, SUDAN 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
¶2.   Iranian Talks in Vienna 
¶3.   Afghanistan Election Fraud 
¶4.   New U.S. Policy on Sudan 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
 
ZDF-TV's primetime newscast Heute opened with a story on the 
criticism 
of the H1N1 vaccine and ARD-TV's primetime Tagesschau opened with a 
 
story on the government's plans to cut taxes.  Most newspapers led 
with stories on the government's plans to reduce taxes. 
Sueddeutsche 
headlined: "Karzai snubs the West" by opposing a runoff.  FAZ led 
with 
a story on EU subsidies for farmers.  Tagesspiegel and Bild focused 
on 
the debate over H1N1.    Editorials focused on the coalition talks, 
 
H1N1, and food security. 
 
¶2.   Iranian Talks in Vienna 
 
Many newspapers carried factual reports on the talks on the Iranian 
 
nuclear program in Vienna. Frankfurter Allgemeine headlines 
"Constructive Nuclear Talks," referring to a statement by IAEA 
Director El Baradei who described the meetings as "quite 
constructive."   Sueddeutsche headlined: "Tehran snubs Paris in 
nuclear dispute," noting in the intro: "Serious problems seem to 
have 
arisen in the talks between Iran, the U.S., Russia, France and the 
IAEA over the potential delivery of nuclear fuel rods for the 
research 
plant in Teheran.  The Iranian TV network PressTV reported that Iran 
 
took Paris off the list of potential suppliers."  Several newspapers 
 
also continued to focus on the recent bomb attack in Iran that 
killed 
42 people.  Sueddeutsche headlined: "Iran threatens U.S. and Britain 
 
with retaliation." 
 
¶3.   Afghanistan Election Fraud 
 
Die Welt headlined "Election Commission presents devastating 
analysis," and reported: "Sources say Karzai is outraged about the 
prospect of a second round of elections." Sueddeutsche headlined 
"Karzai snubs the West" by opposing a runoff," while Spiegel Online 
 
headlined: "U.S. pushes Karzai to runoff," asking: "Will Hamid 
Karzai 
give into American pressure?  Given the massive election fraud last 
 
summer, the Afghan president is supposed to run once again against 
his 
rival Abdullah.  According to the latest agency reports, he seems to 
 
be willing to reach a compromise." 
 
In a front page editorial, Frankfurter Allgemeine highlighted: "The 
 
elections in Afghanistan have brought the country into a hopeless 
situation.  Only the Taliban will benefit from it."  The editorial 
elucidates: "Through involuntary cooperation with the former darling 
 
Karzai, the international community has managed to maneuver the 
 
BERLIN 00001310  002 OF 003 
 
 
country into an absolutely hopeless situation....  If it comes down 
to 
it, a runoff will not lead to more legitimacy simply because there 
will be low voter turnout.  Neither would the option of cooperation 
 
between Karzai and Abdullah be promising.  Voters will feel deceived 
 
if Karzai and Abdullah agree to cooperate.  Given the inherent 
centrifugal forces of a national unity government, such a situation 
 
would soon result in new elections anyway.  The Taliban are watching 
 
maliciously.  They could not make a better fool out of the 
international community and the Karzai government than if they were 
 
doing this themselves." 
 
Sueddeutsche editorialized: "Karzai faces two unpleasant options: if 
 
he gives in to international pressure and allows a runoff, he would 
 
again be more popular in the West.  However, he would also lose 
respect among his Pashtu voters, from whose point of view, there can 
 
be no doubt that one of them has to run the country....  The second 
 
option is that Karzai ignores the evidence of massive election fraud 
 
and rejects the runoff that he is offered as a means to regain his 
legitimacy.  He would then make any cooperation with the 42 nations 
 
rebuilding his country impossible." 
 
Tagesspiegel commented: "It can be debated whether a runoff is 
necessary or whether the will of the people would be legitimately 
expressed if Karzai and Abdullah share the power.  Together, they 
received some 70 percent of the votes.  However, the blackmailing 
must 
be stopped.  The West cannot create the elite it needs there, but it 
 
is also true that those who need help must credibly earn it through 
 
their own efforts.  Stabilization efforts will not succeed if the 
Afghans don't help themselves.  If the goal is unreachable, the 
sacrifices would no longer make sense." 
 
FT Deutschland remarked: "Two months after the presidential 
elections 
in Afghanistan, things are becoming clearer.  This is the good news. 
 
However, on the other hand, the UN commission's results have plunged 
 
NATO allies into a serious dilemma with no good way out.  The camp 
of 
President Karzai, which the West supported, did not just massively 
manipulate the elections, but also failed to get the absolute 
majority 
despite the use of fraud.  This does not mean that any of his 
opponents would have won the elections.  All sides tried to 
manipulate 
the outcome.   However, given these facts, one thing no longer 
works: 
the fraud can no longer be played down as insignificant, suggesting 
 
that Karzai would have won anyway.  The democratic legitimacy of the 
 
president is no more.  However, it is completely unclear what the 
West's response should be.  A runoff would be the only option under 
 
 
BERLIN 00001310  003 OF 003 
 
 
normal circumstances....  However, Afghan circumstances are anything 
 
else but normal, particularly because of the extremely tense 
security 
situation in the country.    " 
 
¶4.   New U.S. Policy on Sudan 
 
Die Welt headlined: "Obama no longer wants to isolate Sudan," and 
added: "The U.S. government has presented a new strategy on Sudan- 
Darfur conflict is no longer the focus but instead the stabilization 
 
of the whole region."  Under the headline "And nobody is interested 
in 
Hillary Clinton-America's foreign policy is not defined by its 
appropriate secretary," Frankfurter Allgemeine reported: "On Monday, 
 
Secretary Clinton announced Washington's new strategy to create 
peace 
in Sudan.  Hardly anybody in the country took notice of her 
presentation and the change of American policy on Sudan.  Special 
Envoy Scott Gration had already discussed in the press the basics of 
 
the new approach...  All that was left to the official head of the 
State 
Department was to officially announce the change," the paper notes. 
 
Under the headline "Obama the cold-blooded realist," Sueddeutsche 
editorialized that "the pragmatic course towards Sudan's murderous 
regime shows the President's view....  There was a time when Barack 
 
Obama simply viewed Sudan as hell....  As a candidate for the most 
powerful office in the world, he promised in the election campaign 
to 
deploy international troops and exert more pressure on Khartoum by 
imposing sanctions.  After nine months in office, the President 
takes 
a different view on the world and seeks a qualified dialogue with 
Sudan's regime.  The dictator Bashir, formerly outlawed as the 
devil, 
can now hope for some American respect.  America's new strategy on 
Sudan means a change indeed-not just in the sense of the promises 
the 
prophet of change and hope made, but particularly compared with the 
 
saber-rattling policy of the Bush administration.  America now tries 
 
to take a different route.  In the style of classic diplomacy, 
Washington now offers many carrots and not many sticks." 
 
Under the headline "Policy on the verge of an illusion," Die Welt 
opined: "The discrepancy between word and action must be highlighted 
 
concerning Obama's new strategy on Sudan.  The difference might not 
be 
larger than that of other politicians but it does reduce the 
unrealistic redemptive expectations that we saw during the 
inauguration of the 44th President.  The wheel has been invented 
before." 
 
MURPHY