VZCZCXRO6403
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHLZ
DE RUEHRL #1530/01 3371207
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 031207Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5951
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 1794
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0513
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 1032
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 2537
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 1557
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 0722
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 06 BERLIN 001530 
 
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 SZ
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: AFGHANISTAN, SWITZERLAND;BERLIN 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
¶2.   (Afghanistan)   Reaction to Obama Speech 
¶3.   (Switzerland)   Ban on Minarets 
 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
 
ZDF-TV's and ARD-TV's primetime newscasts as well as most major 
newspapers led with reports on President Obama's strategy for 
Afghanistan.  Berliner Zeitung led with a report saying that 
contributions to the German health care system might have to be 
increased next year.  Several papers also carried prominent reports 
on 
carmaker Daimler's decision to move parts of its production to the 
United States.  Most major paper also carried front-page editorials 
on 
Afghanistan. 
 
¶2.   (Afghanistan)   Reaction to Obama Speech 
 
In a front-page editorial, Frankfurter Allgemeine (12/03) remarked: 
 
"The endgame over Afghanistan has begun for America....  Given the 
alternative of withdrawing from Afghanistan or increasing the 
efforts 
there, the President decided in favor of the second option - also 
because he was able to link the increase in troop numbers with the 
prospect of a withdrawal, which the American people desire as much 
as 
the Europeans.  Apart from a few individual countries, the European 
 
governments, however, want to make their decisions only after the 
Afghanistan conference at the end of January whether they will live 
up 
to Obama or just jump on the bandwagon....  Let's hope the German 
government does not just wait for London to begin thinking about its 
 
strategy for Afghanistan.  It has been clear for a long time that 
Obama would make the decision he now made.    It would be wrong and 
a 
huge blow to the transatlantic alliance, to abandon America in the 
final battle over Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The events in the 
neighboring nuclear power of Afghanistan must be of greater concern 
to 
the West than the question of how many girl schools there are in 
Kabul.  The German politicians, however, seem to be completely 
preoccupied with the renewal of the mandate for the troops and a 
scandal over allegedly hiding information." 
 
ARD-TV's Tagesthemen (12/02) aired the following commentary: "Barack 
 
Obama's demand for more forces in Afghanistan reveals the full 
dilemma 
of Germany's policy towards Afghanistan: limit [the mission], stay 
out, and downplay it.  But now Obama has reminded NATO of its 
responsibility.  He has linked his political fate to the war, whose 
 
outcome is still uncertain.  What Germany now urgently needs is an 
honest debate about the fact that the mission in Afghanistan is much 
 
more than offering reconstruction aid.  We will have to send more 
forces to Afghanistan, even though no one wants to concede it right 
 
now.  Maybe there will be a growing challenge in the German 
government 
now to credibly represent its policy -- this is a war." 
 
Deutschlandfunk radio (12/02) opined: "Even the opposition - apart 
from the Left Party - is full of praise: right approach, smart 
 
BERLIN 00001530  002 OF 006 
 
 
strategy, the beginning of the end.  The Chancellor speaks of a 
powerful approach to bring the bad situation in Afghanistan to a 
good 
end.  What is not being said in this country, particularly within 
the 
coalition government, is that this end and the withdrawal of 
international troops from a mostly secure Afghanistan can only be 
achieved with the great help by all NATO countries, including 
Germany. 
The German army is currently planning to increase the number of 
troops 
from currently 4,500 by two to three thousand soldiers.  When if not 
 
now would be the right time to advocate in favor of this in public? 
 
Instead, there is hesitation and silence.  When NATO meets next week 
 
to discuss troop levels, it would be the right time for it, but 
nothing will happen apart from the repetition of references to the 
London conference on Afghanistan.   Does anybody believe that there 
 
will be new fact then?...  There is not enough courage to hit the 
nail 
on its head.  There will be another round of debates in spring." 
 
In the view of Tagesspiegel (12/03), "those are called for now who 
want the President to succeed.  Obama is asking the allies for a 
moderate increase in forces.  This request must be fulfilled.  This 
 
will not be easy, including for the Germans.  Angela Merkel says 
that 
the Bundeswehr mission in Afghanistan contributes to protecting 
Germans from international terrorism.  If she means what she says 
she 
must soon show her true colors." 
 
The Washington D.C. correspondent of Der Spiegel, Gabor Steingart, 
posted a remarkably nasty opinion peace on Spiegel online (12/02). 
 
Under the title: Winner of the Nobel War Prize (meaning President 
Obama, Steingart wrote: "Never before has a speech by President 
Barack 
Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new 
 
strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined 
 
with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling 
distraught. ... It was the least truthful address that he has ever 
held. 
He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of 
party 
tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was 
 
for exactly.  An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into 
Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. 
America 
is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. 
It 
was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate. 
 
Regional daily KQlner Stadt-Anzeiger (12/03) argued: "U.S. President 
 
Obama is modernizing [his strategy].  The international community 
will 
hardly be able to evade this strategy that has been sold as a 
strategy 
without alternative.  If the Bundestag decides today on extending 
the 
ISAF mandate, then the government will keep this fact out of the 
 
BERLIN 00001530  003 OF 006 
 
 
debate, because it will know only early next year how many forces 
NATO 
will order.  And then Merkel, like all others, will have to deliver 
 
soldiers.  Merkel and the military officials use all their energy to 
 
avoid a discussion in public about the things the Bundeswehr is to 
do 
in the name of the people.  In the three months since the Sept 4. 
bombing in Kunduz, the Bundeswehr soldiers have learned one thing: 
 
this is the third government that only hesitantly gives up its 
maneuvering, and the majority of Germans now disapprove of the 
Bundeswehr mission in Afghanistan.  But these soldiers are part of 
the 
entire society that must know and make up its mind on the sacrifices 
 
and the means that must be used to end this war." 
 
Regional daily Trierischer Volksfreund (12/03) had this to say: "The 
 
core of things in Afghanistan is the establishment of stable 
structures.  They alone should determine the timing of the 
withdrawal. 
The military resolve must thus correspond to the resolve with 
respect 
to civilian reconstruction.  Only if these questions have been 
answered, Germany will - and must - also advocate an increase in 
forces.  But if not, then not." 
 
Sueddeutsche Zeitung (12/03) opined: "Obama primarily spoke of the 
circumstances that will turn the war into a success or a failure. 
But 
at the end, there was the insight that a politically and 
ideologically 
based resistance movement cannot be defeated militarily. 
Afghanistan 
can be pacified only politically.  He made clear much more than his 
 
European allies: I have understood, my voters no longer wants to be 
 
concerned about Afghanistan, America only wants to get out of the 
country.  Obama's answer to the war-weary nation is the year 2011. 
He 
made clear that the first U.S. soldiers will withdraw then, for 
reasons that are based on domestic U.S. policy, irrespective of what 
 
is happening in the country.  In the end, this promise to the U.S. 
people is more important than an unstable situation in Afghanistan. 
 
This is a very courageous policy which would be of no use if the 
mood 
turned against him." 
 
Die Welt (12/03) opined in a front-page editorial that "in West 
Point 
it was not a strategist, but a politician, who delivered a speech. 
 
Barack Obama's announcement...should do justice to all sides 
involved. 
But such calculations hardly ever come true.  It is right to make 
clear when the mission will end.  But what effect will such a date 
have on the Afghans who reject the Taliban and who have considered 
themselves being protected by international forces?  And what effect 
 
will it have on the allies from whom Obama rightfully demands more 
forces?  It would have been much more convincing to orient [the 
strategy] to criteria such as the establishment of Afghan forces and 
 
 
BERLIN 00001530  004 OF 006 
 
 
reforms in Kabul.  However, Obama's 'Planistan' is much more 
convincing with respect to bidding farewell to ambitious goals. At 
issue is not the establishment of a 'model democracy,' but a minimum 
 
of stability and the elimination of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and 
Pakistan.  Barack Obama is right: Afghanistan is not lost but it 
would 
be ominous to jump to conclusions and to declare victory in order to 
 
withdraw.  For the U.S. and for the allies, there is no alternative 
 
but to enforce troops and increase efforts. 
 
Handelsblatt (12/03) is of the opinion that, "a question of loyalty 
 
will come for the allies if [Obama's] strategy is not convincing. 
To 
what extent should they support the U.S. partner in Afghanistan if 
doubts are mounting that the new course is right?  The allies still 
do 
not dare to leave their cover.  But possibly tomorrow at the NATO 
foreign ministers meeting we will find out how convincing Barack 
Obama's policy is when looking at promises to send more troops. 
There 
is a high probability that the majority will back the German 
position: 
wait and see for the time being and, if possible, decide on 
nothing." 
 
Frankfurter Rundschau (12/03) editorialized: "It would be 
interesting 
to know how President Obama sees the chances for success of his new 
 
strategy for Afghanistan....  He does not believe that it will be 
absolutely successful.  We know that because the President announced 
 
the beginning of the withdrawal when he gave the marching orders for 
 
additional 30,000 soldiers....  The date is now set, and it is 
absurdly 
precise so that it can only be of a political nature.  A view on 
America's election calendar suggests why the withdrawal must begin 
in 
summer 2011.  Then, Obama will get ready for running for a second 
term.  Until then, he needs a change in Afghanistan because this war 
 
is now his." 
 
FT Deutschland (12/03) opined: "It is also dangerous to set a date 
for 
withdrawal.  There were good reasons for this taboo.  If the Afghan 
 
people cannot permanently rely on the West, insurgents will be more 
 
likely to find new supporters.  However, the counter-argument has 
become more important since the debacle over Karzai's re-election. 
 
The allies need to build up a threat scenario concerning Karzai. 
Only 
if the corrupt president knows that he must live without western 
financial and military help in the foreseeable future, can he be 
moved 
to set up a functioning state." 
 
Leipziger Volkszeitung (12/03) opined: "The Chancellor does not say 
 
whether she considers Obama's strategy to be right or wrong.  She 
only 
praises the vigorous signal.  This is praise without contents, 
 
BERLIN 00001530  005 OF 006 
 
 
because 
only the London conference on January 28 will take stock of the 
military and civilian efforts of the international community in 
Afghanistan.   Either Washington is now much wiser than the 
government 
in Berlin or the German government is afraid, because the activities 
 
of Colonel Klein already seem to be too much for it.  Obama decided 
to 
massively increase forces and then to withdraw as quickly as 
possible. 
This is the only variant he is able to convey to his people.  For 
the 
Chancellor the matter is easier: to send massive forces has not been 
 
an option the German people have ever been willing to accept." 
 
Regional daily SQchsische Zeitung of Dresden (12/03) judged: "With 
this plan Barack Obama is accepting great risks, not only militarily 
 
but also politically because the U.S. President does not have a 
guarantee that Germany and the other allies will follow him and 
increase their forces in Afghanistan.  Obama's goal of creating a 
decisive change in Afghanistan in the coming 18 months is not based 
on 
a convincing concept but on the principle of hope.  This is too 
little 
as a reason to send more soldiers." 
 
Regional daily Kieler Nachrichten (12/03) opined: "The Taliban will 
 
not consider President Obama's promise... to begin the withdrawal as 
of 
2011 as a sign of unwavering commitment to win.  But Obama had no 
other choice.  Only with such time horizon in mind was the President 
 
able to justify this unpopular campaign among the Americans.  The 
German government is under the same time pressure.  But the 
unpertinent tone with which the chancellor and her foreign minister 
 
withhold a decision until January does not do justice to the matter. 
 
If they want to keep a minimum degree of influence on the course of 
 
events, they should quickly say what they want." 
 
¶3.   (Switzerland)   Ban on Minarets 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine (12/03) commented on the response in the 
Muslim 
world on the Swiss ban to build new minarets: "The harsh response 
clearly shows that the Swiss referendum seriously hit the Muslim 
soul."  Die Welt opined: "The Swiss controversy over minarets also 
has 
its good sides: freedom of religion has not been discussed so 
passionately for a long time.  However, it must make us skeptical 
that 
some of the people who are now outraged have not really been 
advocates 
of human rights in the past. There are many places in the world 
where 
the freedom of religion, also for Christians, is restricted more 
seriously than in Switzerland....  Reactionary religions should not 
be 
the yardstick for the West, but those who discover religious freedom 
 
only for themselves must be told that it is more urgent to spread 
this 
principle everywhere where its basis is threatened.  And this 
 
BERLIN 00001530  006 OF 006 
 
 
applies 
in fact to large parts of the Muslim world." 
 
MURPHY