VZCZCXRO0282
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHLZ
DE RUEHRL #1458/01 3211212
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 171212Z NOV 09
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5794
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 1729
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0446
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0962
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 2472
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 1488
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 0661
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 07 BERLIN 001458 
 
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 AF GM US XG
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S.-CHINA, CLIMATE, MIDEAST, FAO-SUMMIT, 
EU;BERLIN 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
¶2.   (U.S.-China)   Obama Visit 
¶3.   (Climate)   Copenhagen Conference 
¶4.   (Mideast)   Peace Process, Palestinian State 
¶5.   (Environment)   FAO Summit Meeting 
¶6.   (EU)   Future President 
 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
 
Primetime TV newscasts Heute and Tagesschau opened with the 
beginning 
of the meeting at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome. 
 
Newspapers led with diverse stories, including President Obama's 
visit 
to China, GM, climate protection, and student protests.  Editorials 
 
focused on many different issues. 
 
¶2.   (U.S.-China)   Obama Visit 
 
All media (11/17) carried prominent reports on President Obama's 
visit 
to China, highlighting that he emphasized the significance of human 
 
rights and the advantages of an uncensored Internet during a town 
hall 
with students in Shanghai.  Frankfurter Allgemeine led with the 
headline: "Obama urges China to be more open and generous," and 
Sddeutsche headlined its lead story: "Obama flatters China-U.S. 
President praises Beijing as an equal partner and avoids direct 
criticism of human rights violations."  Media also report that the 
President assured his audience that America would not try to contain 
 
China's rise.  "We welcome China as a strong, prosperous and 
successful member of the community of nations," Frankfurter 
Allgemeine 
quotes Obama as saying. 
 
ZDF-TV's Heute (11/16) newscast reported this morning: "During his 
visit to China, U.S. President Obama met with President Hu Jintao 
for 
a second time to discuss economic relations.  "Both countries must 
appropriately resolve their trade tensions," Hu Jintao commented 
after 
the meeting.  The talks also focused on political topics.  In a 
speech 
to students, Obama called on China to respect human rights. 
ZDF-TV's 
correspondent in China Johannes said: "Barack Obama went down very 
well with young people.  Many even said 'we would like him to be our 
 
president.'  This was too much for censors and those statements were 
 
deleted right away.  Barack Obama made a good impression 
particularly 
on young people." 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine (11/17) editorialized on its front-page: 
"Little Strokes Fell Great Oaks.  For years, U.S. Presidents have 
been 
talking about human rights when they visited China.  Sometimes, they 
 
are even allowed to do this in public.  Nobody knows whether this is 
 
understood.  China has seen massive changes, but the state 
leadership 
 
BERLIN 00001458  002 OF 007 
 
 
remains stubborn on individual freedoms.  It is therefore strange 
that 
Americans were disappointed that President Obama's statements in 
Shanghai were not broadcast throughout China.  Why should Beijing 
risk 
this?   The leadership would have shown true greatness and 
strength.... 
But this is not how China works.  Criticism has been falling on deaf 
 
ears in the Chinese government for a long time.  The weak giant 
suddenly is very strong, knowing that the world needs its economic 
and 
political participation." 
 
Sddeutsche (11/17) opined: "The truth is that there is no 
alternative 
to finding a compromise with the surly regime in Beijing.  Obama's 
predecessor quickly learned that confrontation does not get you 
anywhere.   There is little hope that Obama's soft ball game will 
achieve what so many before him have not achieved: luring China's 
leadership to accept more freedoms for its people.  However, it's 
worth a try." 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine's (11/17) front page editorial noted: "China 
 
benefits from the exchange rate to the dollar, and it does not even 
 
think about giving up this advantage by a gesture of solidarity 
towards trade partners....  China has been talking about a 
harmonized 
world for some time.  We hear the words, we just cannot believe 
them. 
Towards Barack Obama, who is most credible when it comes to 
goodwill, 
Beijing is currently demonstrating that harmony means that the outer 
 
world should not make demands on China.  Whenever China is 
constructive (as in the case of North Korea), it is because of its 
own 
rationale, not because somebody abroad would like to see it.  This 
would not be too bad, however, we do not have any guarantee that 
China 
is willing to be constructive, e.g. in climate policy issues." 
 
Die Welt (11/17) remarked in an editorial: "Barack Obama is seeing 
the 
beginning of the transpacific age, which will succeed the 
transatlantic age that has dominated world politics for 60 years. 
There will be no way around China anymore, although the country 
still 
has enormous shortcomings concerning its civil society and has not 
yet 
come to terms with itself.  Only because of its economic power and 
its 
appetite for energy, China cannot be ignored.  Beijing's state 
capitalism with the undervaluation of the Yuan results in excellent 
 
export returns.  This makes China the biggest creditor of the U.S. 
and 
inevitably produces unpleasant dependencies." 
 
¶3.   (Climate)   Copenhagen Conference 
 
All papers (11/17) reported that Chancellor Merkel will travel to 
Copenhagen to attend the climate summit.  Sueddeutsche headlined: 
"Merkel To Travel to Climate Summit - Chancellor Wants to 'Get the 
Maximum out of Summit Meeting' in Copenhagen."   In a lengthy report 
 
 
BERLIN 00001458  003 OF 007 
 
 
the paper wrote under the headline: "Merkel Dissatisfied with 
Climate 
Talks," that "Chancellor Merkel criticized the preparations for the 
 
Copenhagen global climate summit.  Deputy government spokesman 
Christoph Steegmans said that the results that have been known so 
far 
'have not caused great euphoria.'  He added that this is a reason 
why 
Chancellor Merkel would travel to the UN climate summit in 
Copenhagen. 
Thus far, Merkel only said that she would travel to Copenhagen, if 
the 
results were 'promising.'  Steegmans added that Merkel's decision 
stressed her will to 'make Copenhagen a success' and to 'to get the 
 
maximum out of it.'" 
 
Tagesspiegel carried a lengthy report headlined: "EU Insists on 
Ambitious Climate Protection Goals," and wrote: "The EU appealed to 
 
the United States and the big threshold countries to approve 
ambitious 
climate protection goals at the global climate conference in 
Copenhagen.  The EU said that, even though it would no longer be 
possible to adopt a legally binding climate protection agreement, a 
 
negotiating framework should be finalized with clear targets for the 
 
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the financing of climate 
protection in developing nations." 
 
ARD-TV's late evening newscast Tagesthemen (11/16) broadcast the 
following commentary: "There are also different approaches than the 
 
current one for the Copenhagen conference.  For the rescue of banks 
 
and states, for economic stimulus programs, governments quickly 
established close links.  They demonstrated solidarity at the 
international level and offered billions of euros for rescue 
programs. 
Prosperity should not melt away.  And what about glaciers?  We are 
damned to pursue a sustainable development.  But the others should 
go 
first, but where? To Noah's Ark?" 
 
Norddeutscher Rundfunk radio of Hamburg (11/16) aired the following 
 
commentary: "How can the Copenhagen summit turn into a success? 
With 
such an approach it can no longer become a success.  This is a 
disappointing end of a promising climate year.  The omens at the 
beginning of the year have never been as promising.  As climate 
chancellor, Angela Merkel paved the way for the EU, and President 
Obama, when entering office, promised the world a U.S. climate 
change 
[policy], but the U.S. president has failed.  His slimmed down 
climate 
bill is likely to be adopted only next year.  Compared to President 
 
Bush, only the rhetoric has changed.  And what about the EU?  The 
EU, 
too, has given up its ambitions at the end of October....  Let us 
hope 
that the failed APEC summit will mobilize the last forces for real 
progress in Copenhagen." 
 
Deutschlandfunk radio (11/16) commented: "Even though the chances 
 
BERLIN 00001458  004 OF 007 
 
 
for 
an agreement are bad right now, the climate summit should take place 
 
notwithstanding.  Climate protection activists and environmental 
organizations will again exert massive pressure and there may still 
be 
a chance to move something.  On the other hand, the conference will 
 
again demonstrate that time is of the essence.  Declarations of 
intent 
are the last thing the people need right now. The time for nice 
speeches is over." 
 
Under the headline: "Trip with a Symbolic Value," Sueddeutsche 
(11/17) 
argued: "Chancellor Merkel will travel to Copenhagen to contribute 
to 
achieving a result that can be interpreted as a success.   But it is 
 
totally insignificant for the success of a climate conference 
whether 
this or that state leader will take part in it, even if it is the 
president of the most powerful nation on earth.  It is uncertain 
whether Barack Obama will take part.  It may be possible that he is 
 
shying away from a trip to the city where he had to accept his first 
 
defeat a few weeks ago when Chicago was not awarded with the 2016 
Olympics." 
 
Die Welt (11/17) editorialized: "The hesitant attitude of the 
Asian- 
Pacific economic forum and of President Obama towards binding 
targets 
for the reduction carbon dioxide emissions will not result in the 
world going down.  This view is only an expression of the things 
that 
move the people beyond the close German horizon.  Is it reasonable 
to 
jeopardize economic growth on the basis of computer models?  This 
question is being discussed differently in the threshold countries 
than in Germany and growing doubts in the U.S. about these horror 
scenarios have added to this [skepticism].  There are different 
problems in the world: The number of starving people has been on the 
 
rise and in Rome the FAO is discussing these problems right now. 
Unfortunately, global summits tempt us to show off with a well- 
sounding policy of symbols.  Diplomats cannot perform miracles, the 
 
least when we constantly demand such things from them." 
 
According to an editorial in Handelsblatt (11/17), "we owe it to the 
 
Danish government that it has gotten things straight three weeks 
before the beginning of the summit.  The confession that, at the end 
 
of the summit, there will only be a political declaration speaks of 
 
its sense of reality.  Another result would be desirable, but is 
totally out of the question and would be wishful thinking.  We can 
even take a positive position in view of the current developments: 
If 
the Copenhagen summit does not have to approve binding legal rules, 
 
the delegations have the opportunity to concentrate on what is 
essential instead of getting lost in small print." 
 
Regional daily General-Anzeiger of Bonn (11/17) judged: "Maybe some 
 
BERLIN 00001458  005 OF 007 
 
 
of 
us still remember early 1995.  At that time the global climate 
conference in Berlin under the wise orchestration of former 
Environment Minister Angela Merkel adopted a last-ditch compromise 
that resulted in the Kyoto Protocol two years later.  At issue in 
Copenhagen will be approving a sound political framework that will 
be 
the basis for a concrete agreement.  In this respect, Merkel can 
play 
a decisive role such as in 1995 - if she only wants it." 
 
¶4.   (Mideast)   Peace Process, Palestinian State 
 
Die Welt (11/17) editorialized: "The Palestinian chief negotiator, 
Saeb Erekat, revived an old idea:  given that no Palestinian state 
exists after 18 years of negotiations, one could one-sidedly 
pronounce 
a state without a peace agreement....  The truth is that 
Palestinians 
would only lose by such a move.  They would not control a square 
meter 
more than the current 40 percent of the West Bank, which is already 
 
under its control.  Even though every Israeli attack would then be a 
 
violation of Palestinian sovereignty-no western country would raise 
 
its hand when Israel arrests Hamas fighters beyond the border.   The 
 
one-sided proclamation of sovereignty could in fact lead to in clear 
 
disadvantages.  If they cancel to peace process, Israelis would no 
longer have to stick to any agreements either.  The Oslo agreement, 
 
however, had paved the way for cooperation on a lower level.  If 
this 
were stopped now, it would pose a danger to the survival of a 
Palestinian state.  Given that Palestinians also know this, the plan 
 
of a unilateral state foundation remains an empty threat." 
 
Sddeutsche (11/17) headlined "A dreamy solution," and commented: 
"The 
topic is very unpleasant for Washington, Berlin and co. because 
there 
are reasons that speak in favor of Erekat's plan.  By founding its 
own 
state, the Palestinian would only take the international community 
at 
its word.  They were promised this state.  Already in 1993, the 
peace 
of Oslo formulated this goal and the two-state solution remains the 
 
foundation of today's peace efforts.  U.S. President Obama as well 
as 
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have committed themselves to it.... 
 
Palestinians could also refer to a precedent: the case of Kosovo... 
 
Legally, the Palestinians have the same rights as the people in 
Kosovo.  However, in real life the plan does not have a chance. 
They 
know that ever since Yasser Arafat tried the strong man act with 
declaration of independence in 1988.  Unlike the Albanians freed by 
 
NATO troops, the Palestinians would not be in the position to found 
a 
state of their own, and this is not just because Israeli soldiers 
 
BERLIN 00001458  006 OF 007 
 
 
still occupy a large part of their country.   Their prime minister 
noted that working institutions must be created first.  In addition, 
 
the state-to-be is divided into two enemy entities.  Without an 
agreement between the Fatah in Ramallah and the Hamas in Gaza, 
Palestinians can't even apply to the UN for recognition." 
 
¶5.   (Environment)   FAO Summit Meeting 
 
In a commentary, Norddeutscher Rundfunk radio of Hamburg (11/16) 
judged: "the fight against hunger has obviously no high priority. 
The 
list of participants in the FAO summit in Rome is evidence of it. 
Apart from hosting Prime Minister Berlusconi, no state leader from 
the 
eight leading industrialized countries attended the meeting.  Angela 
 
Merkel, Gordon Brown, and Barack Obama have better things to do. 
Their representatives and ministers have taken over the task of 
selling the meager promises of the summit as a strategic success. 
The 
final declaration, which has already been adopted, hides this 
inactivity in an empty phrase:  assistance for the least developed 
countries is to be increased 'substantially.'  This means in plain 
English: more funds, but there are no timetables or binding 
promises. 
At the summit in Rome, the industrialized countries are again 
demonstrating that their own economic output is more important than 
 
the suffering of millions of people in the world.  One billion 
starving people - this figure has not yet resulted in a rethinking. 
 
The community of nations continues to allow the developing nations 
to 
literally starve at outstretched arms." 
 
Under the headline: "What Now?" Frankfurter Allgemeine (11/17) 
argued: 
"Can such a meeting, as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon demanded, 
really develop a 'global vision' to fight hunger?  Or will there 
only 
be an appeal to the bad conscience of the wealthy countries?  There 
 
are many reasons why there is not enough food for all the people: 
climate changes impede agricultural production and subsidies in the 
 
wealthy nations are responsible for the fact that not only an 
abundance of food is being produced but that it can also be exported 
 
and push competitors in the poor countries out of the markets. 
Robert 
Mugabe, however, reminds us of the fact that a rather rich country 
can 
also be ruined by a bad government." 
 
die tageszeitung (11/17) judged in a front-page editorial under the 
 
headline: "Empty Bellies, Empty Chairs," that "such summit meetings 
 
are reasonable to learn more about international dependencies  That 
is 
why it is all the more disgraceful that that those governments which 
 
could contribute the most to a better agricultural policy are 
conspicuous by their own absence.  All the Obamas, Hus, Merkels, 
Browns, and Sarkozys must give this issue top priority; otherwise, 
such a meeting will be a meeting of experts who enter into talks by 
 
 
BERLIN 00001458  007 OF 007 
 
 
excluding the public.  With respect to climate change, politicians 
have understood this.  Hunger in the world, which is as great a 
challenge as climate change, deserves the same kind of attention." 
 
¶6.   (EU)   Future President 
 
Welt am Sonntag (11/15) carried an editorial under the headline: 
"Vaira Vike-Freiberga for President!" and opined: "Europe will get a 
 
president on Thursday but the problem is that there is still no 
European public.  That is why there has been no election campaign 
for 
this most important job in the EU.  Let's pretend there would have 
been an election campaign, let's pretend we citizens of the European 
 
Union would have a say. What about [former Latvian] Vaira Vike- 
Freiberga for president?  There is no doubt about the qualifications 
 
of this multi-culturally raised candidate who is patriotic, 
intellectually versed and, at the same time, knows every trick in 
the 
books.  But why Vike-Freiberga and not Tony Blair, Jean-Claude 
Juncker 
or Hermann van Rompuy?  She is a woman and in addition, a strong 
woman.  She represents the new Europe of the former Eastern bloc 
countries, and she will represent the interests of the smaller EU 
countries.  She has no illusions about Russia, would strengthen the 
 
transatlantic partnership and is in a certain sense the Angela 
Merkel 
of the European Union.  The personality of the new EU president will 
 
be decisive of whether the new office will turn into a 
crystallization 
point of a new European awareness or become a mere secretariat. 
That 
is why Europe needs a strong personality at the top.  Vaira Vike- 
Freiberga for President!" 
 
MURPHY