VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHRL #1515/01 3351201
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 011201Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5921
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 1781
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0499
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 1019
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 2524
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 1544
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 0709
RHMFIUU/HQ USAFE RAMSTEIN AB GE
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE//J5 DIRECTORATE (MC)//
RHMFISS/CDRUSAREUR HEIDELBERG GE
RUKAAKC/UDITDUSAREUR HEIDELBERG GE

UNCLAS BERLIN 001515 
 
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 IR EU KGHG HO GM SZ
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S.-AFGHANISTAN, IRAN, EU, CLIMATE, 
HONDURAS, U.S.-GERMANY, SWITZERLAND;BERLIN 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
¶2.   (U.S.)   President Obama's Afghanistan Strategy 
¶3.   (Iran)   Nuclear Program 
¶4.   (EU)   Lisbon Treaty 
¶5.   (Climate)   Copenhagen Summit 
¶6.   (Honduras)   Elections 
¶7.   (U.S.-Germany)   Swift Agreement 
¶8.   (Switzerland)   Swiss Ban on New Minarets 
 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
 
ZDF-TV's and ARD-TV's primetime newscasts opened with stories on the 
 
trial of suspected Nazi war criminal Demjanjuk.  Most newspapers led 
 
with stories on the continuing international criticism of the Swiss 
 
ban on building new minarets.  Sddeutsche led with a story on the 
German government's policy on tax cuts.  Berliner Zeitung and FT 
Deutschland led with reports on the European approval of the SWIFT 
agreement with the United States.  Several media highlighted the 
entry 
into force of the Lisbon Treaty.  Editorials focused on the 
aftermath 
of the Swiss referendum and the trial against Demjanjuk. 
 
¶2.   (U.S.)   President Obama's Afghanistan Strategy 
 
There was hardly any coverage of President Obama's upcoming speech 
in 
the German media. Under the headline "Obama bids for more soldiers 
in 
Afghanistan," FT Deutschland (12/01) reported that the President 
would 
announce the "long-awaited strategy" on Afghanistan today.  "It will 
 
be Obama's task to sell the enormous mission with an unclear end 
date 
to an increasingly critical public.  He is expected to do this by 
incorporating military reinforcements into a general strategy," the 
 
paper noted. 
 
Under the headline "Brown upstages Obama," die tageszeitung (12/01) 
 
reported that "a day prior to the U.S. President's announcement of 
the 
new strategy on the war in Afghanistan, British Prime Minister Brown 
 
announces details....  He added that, apart from Britain and the 
U.S., 
eight other NATO countries also pledged more troops....  In 
addition, 
Afghan President Karzai will attend the Afghanistan conference on 
January 28 in London.  He is expected to promise the training of an 
 
additional 50,000 Afghan soldiers in 2010 and to send them to the 
province of Helmand....  Brown welcomed McChrystal's report, but was 
 
annoyed that Obama took so long to respond to it.  He therefore did 
 
not have any scruples about announcing the strategy earlier." 
 
Germany media focused on the aftermath of the September 4 airstrikes 
 
against fuel tankers near Kunduz.  In a lengthy editorial, FT 
Deutschland (12/01) remarked under the headline "Chance for 
 
improvement" that "the matter is not over at all after the 
resignation 
of the former defense minister Jung.  It will only be the case when 
an 
investigatory committee clarifies certain questions - particularly 
the 
role of the German chancellor...  Merkel must accept the accusations 
 
that she did not sufficiently care about the event in Afghanistan 
and 
failed to control her defense minister.  In the first days after the 
 
bombardment, Merkel did not say anything.  Only four days later, she 
 
said in a government declaration that criticism from abroad would be 
 
inappropriate.  She obviously did not try to get a comprehensive 
impression on the events." 
 
¶3.   (Iran)   Nuclear Program 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine (12/01) editorialized: "Western governments 
in 
general and the American government in particular must slowly admit 
 
that their approaches to Iran are not well received.  Or as the 
French 
defense minister bluntly put it: President Obama's policy of 
reaching 
out a hand has failed.  The Iranian leadership does not even 
seriously 
consider negotiating over the part of its nuclear program that might 
 
be used for military purposes.  On the contrary, it uses the 
resolution of the Vienna authority as a cheap excuse to expand the 
program....  Regardless of whether Iran is technically capable of 
doing 
this or whether it is just hot air, serious negotiations are 
something 
different.  Those protagonists who are trying to resolve the nuclear 
 
conflict are slowly running out of ideas - also because they have 
been 
playing the Iranian gamble for time for far too long.  This, at 
least, 
should be ended." 
 
¶4.   (EU)   Lisbon Treaty 
 
Several papers carry extensive coverage of the Lisbon Treaty 
entering 
into force on December 1.  Frankfurter Allgemeine (12/01) carried 
reports on the authorities the various EU institutions will now 
have. 
Under the headline: "Europe's New Instruments," and reported that 
"European policies remain complicated but many things have now been 
 
clearly structured." 
 
Die Welt (12/01) wondered under the headline: "Will The EU Now 
Become 
a Better one?' and answered the question saying: "Doubts and risks 
remain.  The fight is over.  As of today, Europe functions according 
 
new rules.  As of today, the so-called Lisbon Treaty enters into 
force.  The text is cool, technical, and short - and only 
specialists 
will understand it.  But for Europeans' everyday life, the new 
 
treaty 
has no consequences, while a lot will change in the engine room in 
Brussels." " 
 
"The End of the Beginning," headlined Tagesspiegel (12/01) and 
reported: "A new phase of European unification will begin this 
Thursday.  After almost ten years of political fighting and new 
beginnings, the Lisbon Treaty will now enter into force.  In 
contrast 
to the European Constitution, which failed in 2005 and which was 
simpler, more obvious, and more ambitious, the Lisbon Treaty is not 
a 
completely rounded piece of work but a compromise in which the scars 
 
of corrections, deletions, and national reservations are visible." 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine (12/01) carried a front-page editorial 
headlined: "The European Learning Process," and judged: "The path of 
 
the European Union to the Lisbon Treaty that enters into force this 
 
Tuesday can basically be described only as a sad story.  But a 
glorious chapter cannot grow on such a sad story. The Lisbon Treaty 
is 
better than its reputation and can really help the EU do its 
business, 
but the path to this result demonstrated that Europe has reached the 
 
limits of its political capacity. It will be unable to go beyond 
Lisbon simply because many politicians and many of its citizens do 
not 
want this.  Evidence of this is the appointment of the two 
politicians 
who are to fill the two most important political portfolios.  A 
strong 
leadership in the EU and, closely linked to it, a grown global 
policy 
significance of the EU cannot be imposed n the people by means of a 
 
constitution or a political coup.  Leadership in Europe develops and 
 
consolidates when there is a growing insight that the EU states can 
 
reach their political goals only together.  This is a permanent 
learning process, and a treaty or a constitution cannot shorten 
it." 
 
Under the headline: "Lisbon?  Europe!" Die Welt (12/01) opined: 
"Now, 
on December 1, the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force with two 
weak 
leaders at the top, one unknown Belgian, and an even more unknown 
British politician.  This is characteristic, un-heroic, and not very 
 
festive.  The European Parliament will get more rights, majority 
decisions will now be valid within the European Council and 
everything 
sounds as if the optimum institutional developments have now been 
reached.... The Europe of citizens, however, remains exciting. This 
is 
an unprecedented, transnational event whose dimensions are very 
attracting and create astonishment.  Some day in the future, this 
spirit will breathe new life in the institutions, too." 
 
¶5.   (Climate)   Copenhagen Summit 
 
Tagesspiegel (12/01) reported that "next week, the summit of 
superlatives begins" in Copenhagen.  The daily wrote that the 
 
"climate 
summit is likely to break the dimensions of all previous 
conferences. 
The agreement to be adopted in Copenhagen is complex, there are many 
 
bones of contention, and a consensus has not been reached yet." 
 
Under the headline: "Denmark is Softening its Climate Goals," 
Frankfurter Allgemeine (12/01) reported: "A few days before the 
beginning of the Copenhagen UN climate summit, the fighting for a 
final agreement is getting tougher.  On Monday, speculation came up 
on 
an alleged Danish draft for a final document.  This draft would 
result 
in a further weakening of the conference results of which no one 
expects any binding commitments for carbon dioxide emissions." 
 
¶6.   (Honduras)   Elections 
 
According to Sueddeutsche Zeitung (12/01), "Elections will be good 
even if they are held by an illegitimate regime.  But quite often 
they 
miss their target and do not create any legitimacy such as in the 
case 
of Honduras.  Can the world accept this wrong labeling?  As a matter 
 
of fact, it cannot.  Honduras is a bad example.  It cost Latin 
America 
much blood and power to go to the polls instead of staging a coup. 
 
Now a coup again preceded elections. The United States backed leader 
 
Micheletti and will support future President Lobo.  This is 
realpolitik - and there is no sign of a new policy towards the 
region. 
In return, Washington is now accepting a new rift in relations with 
 
Brazil.  And the German FDP and its Friedrich Naumann Foundation 
expressed understanding of Zelaya's ouster.  If this Honduran 
maneuver 
sets a precedent, then the next president will soon be ousted in 
Latin 
America." 
 
Under the headline: "Defeat for Democracy in Honduras," Berliner 
Zeitung (12/01) editorialized: "For both sides, the turnout is of a 
 
strategic interest because it says much about the legitimacy of the 
 
elections.  Only one thing is certain: Hondurans are fed up with the 
 
eternal fight between two men for the president's office.  The 
Hondurans finally want to return to normalcy, which is depressing 
enough in the poor house of Latin America.  But this request for 
normalcy cannot obscure the fact that these elections were illegal. 
 
The election campaign took place under quasi-dictatorial 
conditions.... 
But the normative power of the facts will result in the United 
States, 
and later the EU, recognizing the elections.  Their argument: People 
 
cannot be punished for the stupidity of politicians.  As correct as 
 
this argument is, by recognizing the elections, one will cement the 
 
defeat of democracy in Latin America 20 years after the end of the 
military dictatorships." 
 
 
¶7.   (U.S.-Germany)   Swift Agreement 
 
Under the headline: "[Put an] End to Data Fishing," Sueddeutsche 
Zeitung (12/01) opined: "The European Union has found an acceptable 
 
solution to the dilemma of protecting data and hunting terrorists at 
 
the same time.  The agreement between the U.S. and the EU on U.S. 
security agencies having access to European banking data is not 
perfect, but it is better than having no rules at all.  Now the 
Europeans have gained time to find a lasting agreement with the 
participation of the European Parliament (EP).  Thus far, the United 
 
States has gained access to every fourth banking transaction.  This 
 
was and still is a blatant violation of data protection rules.  It 
is 
reasonable to have the EP decide on it.  This offers the opportunity 
 
for a new public debate and creates the basis for a lasting 
agreement 
with the U.S., which does not allow data protection and terrorists 
to 
escape." 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine (12/01) argued: "For more than eight years, 
U.S. [security] agencies have inspected the financial transactions 
of 
European citizens without any agency here having had an influence on 
 
the handling of the data.  It is certainly progress that the EU 
concluded an agreement with the U.S. that puts an end to this fact. 
 
Maybe all concerns of data protection commissioners have not been 
included in the agreement, but this does not mean that we should do 
 
without a technology that helped to capture the Sauerland 
terrorists. 
This is something the EP should keep in mind because it will have 
the 
last word on it.  Now the parliamentarians can show that they are 
able 
to cope with the responsibility that the Lisbon Treaty has 
attributed 
to them.  Those who have a say in EU domestic policies should not 
forget that Islamic terrorism is still a great danger." 
 
Deutschlandfunk (11/30) commented: "What kind of understanding of 
democracy does this act reveal?  For years, the EU governments, with 
 
the German government at the helm, have worked towards the 
ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by referring to an increase in 
democracy in the EU.  But then the EU governments are taking 
advantage 
of the last possibility to prevent [the EP] from having a say and 
have 
rushed through a bill that guarantees U.S. terror investigators 
access 
to European banking transactions a few hours before the Lisbon 
Treaty 
enters into force.  It is likely that the German and other EU 
governments are afraid that the United States could have taken it 
amiss if the talks had dragged along for a few weeks and if the EP 
had 
demanded greater concession and information rights.  They are 
certainly right, but this is what we need the EU for to prevent the 
 
European countries from giving their approval to everything 
Washington 
wants.  If governments bypass democratic institutions when 
discussing 
the exchange of banking data, they do not create greater security 
but 
only distrust." 
 
Norddeutscher Rundfunk radio of Hamburg (11/30) broadcast the 
following commentary:  "The SWIFT agreement is still extremely 
questionable.  Evidence has not yet been presented that bank 
transaction data serves the fight against terrorism.  A simple 
statement that investigators, for instance, in three cases were able 
 
to prevent a terrorist attack because of an exchange of data would 
be 
enough for many people.  Then everyone could form his/her own 
opinion. 
But such figures are not being mentioned.  Why not? Because they do 
 
not exist?  This thought is coming up now." 
 
¶8.   (Switzerland)   Swiss Ban on New Minarets 
 
 ARD-TV's Tagesthemen (11/30) newscast opined: "This is a fiasco for 
 
Switzerland's reputation.  Fifty-eight percent of the voters 
seriously 
damaged the notion that the Swiss nation is open-minded and 
tolerant... 
Integration problems were played up as a national threat.  What a 
shame for this freedom-loving country!" 
 
Deutschlandfunk (11/30) radio remarked: "Many Europeans are 
suspicious 
about Islam-and most mosques confirm this view.  Somewhere between 
wholesale markets and carpet storerooms, Muslims gather on Fridays 
and 
preach in foreign languages. If mosques were situated in the middle 
of 
a city and were visible with minarets, everybody would know what is 
 
going on there.  Muslims would be acknowledged as a part of the 
society, and Imams would have to expect non-Muslims to listen to 
their 
prayers." 
 
Sddeutsche Zeitung (12/01) editorialized: "The Swiss vote matters 
to 
all of Europe because we must fear similar results if referendums 
were 
to be held in other countries, for instance in France and 
Germany.... 
The truth is that the majority of the Swiss Muslims are liberal and 
 
hardly religious.  Most of them are immigrants or former refugees 
from 
Kosovo, Bosnia and Macedonia.  All these countries can hope for 
joining the EU some time in the future....  Then, at the latest, the 
EU 
will comprise nations with a majority of Muslim inhabitants. Europe 
 
must not wait that long to redefine its relations with Islam." 
 
Frankfurter Rundschau (12/01) commented: "There are similar 
tendencies 
in our country.  Many people did not have a problem with ignoring 
the 
 
constitution in the dispute over a central mosque in Cologne.  Every 
 
third person categorically rejects Muslim prayer houses of any size, 
 
both with and without minarets.  Catholic and Protestant fears of 
being marginalized are becoming more evident at the moment where 
another religion begins to leave behind traces in the image of 
cities 
and towns.  This does not reveal the problems the majority has with 
 
the Muslim minority, but the problems non-Muslims have with 
themselves.  A building ban is a helpless and unimaginative 
response." 
 
 
MURPHY