VZCZCXRO7758
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHLZ
DE RUEHRL #1539/01 3381247
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 041247Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5969
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 1800
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0519
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 1038
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 2543
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 1563
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 0728
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 001539 
 
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 AG KGHG US RS ETRD
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: AFGHANISTAN, CLIMATE OBAMA, RUSSIA, 
WTO;BERLIN 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
¶2.   (Afghanistan)   Reaction To President Obama's Address 
¶3.   (Climate)   Copenhagen Summit 
¶4.   (U.S.)   Obama Administration 
¶5.   (Russia)   Putin Comments 
¶6.   (Economic)   WTO Talks 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
 
Print media leads with reports on Defense Minister zu Guttenberg's 
remarks in the Bundestag that the Sept 4. air strike on two fuel 
trucks near Kunduz "was not appropriate."  Frankfurter Rundschau 
leads 
with a story on the upcoming climate summit in Copenhagen and 
carried 
a supplement that deals with the event.  Handelsblatt focused on the 
 
European Central Bank and signs that it is moving away from its 
expansive monetary policy as a result of improvements in the 
economy. 
Editorials centered on the Bundestag debate over the airstrike near 
 
Kunduz and the decision by the European Court on Human Rights that 
increased custody rights of fathers for their children.  ZDF-TV's 
early evening newscast heute and ARD-TV's early evening newscast 
Tagesschau opened with Defense Minister zu Guttenberg's speech to 
the 
Bundestag on the Afghanistan air strikes. 
 
¶2.   (Afghanistan)   Reaction To President Obama's Address 
 
German editorials on Afghanistan focused on German Defense Minster 
zu 
Guttenberg's reassessment of the September 4 airstrikes against fuel 
 
tankers near Kunduz that reportedly killed many civilians.  Only a 
few 
editorials dealt with yesterday's renewal of the parliamentary 
mandate 
for the German mission in Afghanistan and the new U.S. strategy. 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine (12/04) opined: "The Bundestag renewed an 
unchanged mandate for the mission in Afghanistan for one year.  But 
 
for how long will the limit of 4,500 soldiers last? ... It is not a 
 
secret that the German army can hardly achieve its self-chosen 
mission 
in the north of the country with current troop levels....  It is 
also 
clear that President Obama is expecting more from the Germans. 
Postponing the decision now is not convincing.  What do we 
gain-apart 
from time?  We must not use Obama's month-long debate about a 
strategy 
as an example.   However, it would not be bad if the responsible 
generals in Germany could say something in public." 
 
Tagesspiegel (12/04) remarked in an editorial: "The German 
government 
wants to make a statement on a potential increase of the German 
contingent only after the London conference on Afghanistan at the 
end 
of January.  It is more than doubtful whether it will be able to 
stick 
to this.  The attempt to simply discuss civilian assistance appears 
to 
be artificial." 
 
BERLIN 00001539  002 OF 006 
 
 
 
The Munich-based Abendzeitung (12/04) editorialized:  "Do we 
actually 
care about what the Afghans want?  They want to work, need hospitals 
 
and schools, also for their girls.  Soldiers build the 
infrastructure 
for these things and protect them.  If they withdrew, the Taliban 
would destroy them and with it the approach to create a civilization 
 
the majority of the people in the world wants.  We need more of it, 
 
not just soldiers.   This is the only chance that rich countries 
have 
to get out of Afghanistan.  This costs a lot of money and takes 
time, 
but the alternative is the victory of the Taliban.  And this must 
not 
happen." 
 
Sddeutsche (12/04) highlighted in an editorial that "America should 
 
seek support from the Muslim countries in the war in Afghanistan." 
 
The paper explains: "The fact that the rulers in the Gulf region and 
 
their Islam preachers had good relations with the Taliban leadership 
 
and met with them regularly has been forgotten again.  American 
President Barack Obama has now announced his strategy to end the 
chaos 
in Afghanistan: 30,000 fresh soldiers will be deployed soon and the 
 
Afghan security forces will be armed better.  This is not 
convincing. 
Obama's decision to begin withdrawing troops in 2011 invites the 
Taliban to wait out the American offensive in the caves of Tora 
Bora. 
Apart from opium, time is the only thing the country has.  The 
building up of an Afghan army is wishful thinking.  The end of the 
Soviet occupation in 1989 and the following disaster shows what kind 
 
of troops they have: the soldiers laid down their weapons as soon as 
 
the enemy was visible.  Obama's idea of an army can work only if a 
state is simultaneously set up with which the soldiers can identify. 
 
This will not happen.   Obama is, however, right about one thing: 
his 
army cannot do nation building in Afghanistan....  This would 
require 
the kind of legitimacy the U.S. does not have.  Other countries are 
 
more credible - Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey.  Muslim involvement 
 
would deprive the Taliban of their main argument; that infidel 
occupiers trample on Islam with their military boots.  Of course, 
Muslim countries are involved in the reconstruction... and Turkey is 
 
part of the NATO troops.  However, they need to influence the 
country's policy more." 
 
Thringische Landeszeitung (12/04) opined: "The Europeans would be 
well-advised to subject this 'mission impossible' to a critical 
evaluation.  More military will not do any good if there is no 
stability in the country and the (Afghan) people do not trust their 
 
own government.  Any strategy which disregards this aspect is doomed 
 
BERLIN 00001539  003 OF 006 
 
 
 
to fail."  Thringer Allgemeine Zeitung seconded this view in an 
editorial saying:  "Tanks are not the way to restore trust with the 
 
population." 
 
SQchsische Zeitung (12/04) commented: "President Obama is taking a 
great risk - not only militarily but also politically - because he 
has 
no guarantee that Germany and the other allies will follow him and 
boost their contingents in Afghanistan as requested. Obama's goal to 
 
turn around the war in Afghanistan within the next 18 months is not 
 
based on a persuasive concept but on the principle of hope - not 
enough to send additional troops into this risky mission with a 
clean 
conscience." 
 
Freie Presse (12/04) commented:  "With this daring mix of escalation 
 
and withdrawal, Obama is playing his last trump card.  While success 
 
remains uncertain, one thing is 100 percent sure:  the number of 
U.S. 
casualties will rise in the coming months.  And from now on they 
will 
be Obama's dead."   Volksstimme (12/04) remarked:  "You want to bet 
 
that Germany will up its contingent by 2,000 troops (at the London) 
 
Afghanistan conference)?  The German government has allegedly 
already 
taken this into consideration." 
 
Mass tabloid Bild (12/04) editorialized: "It is smart that the new 
defense minister has spoken so clearly...  The U.S. allies, who 
sharply 
criticized the attack so early on, no longer appear to be 
backstabbers....  And what will soldiers now think of their boss, 
who is 
not afraid of making decisions?  They will appreciate him even more 
 
because zu Guttenberg protects the tragic colonel who decided in the 
 
deep of the night in favor of the security of his troops." 
 
ARD-TV's Tagesthemen (12/03) commented on Defense Minister zu 
Guttenberg's reassessment of the September 4 airstrikes: "This was a 
 
remarkable performance.  A minister who corrected himself and 
apologized for a disastrously wrong assessment he had made three 
weeks 
earlier.  He did so in front of parliament and not hedged in by 
clauses in a press interview.  This is unprecedented in the usually 
 
diehard defense ministry.    This earned him respect." 
 
¶3.   (Climate)   Copenhagen Summit 
 
The Bundestag approved the ambitious government goals for the 
upcoming 
climate summit in Copenhagen, with speakers saying it will be 
necessary "at least to reach an agreement on the core points of a 
future agreement."  The details should be negotiated in the first 
half 
of 2010. 
 
 
BERLIN 00001539  004 OF 006 
 
 
In the Bundestag debate, Environment Minister Norbert RQttgen (CDU) 
 
expressed his optimism about a positive outcome of the conference, 
arguing: "I am pleased to see that the preparatory talks have 
developed momentum and that all sides are willing to achieve a 
success."  He added that "there is no alternative" to success 
because 
the climate problems are too serious.  Representatives of all 
parties 
represented in the Bundestag made similar statements 
(Sueddeutsche). 
 
Frankfurter Rundschau (12/04) carried a supplement that examines 
environmental problems from all angles.  One report dealt with U.S. 
 
efforts to fight climate change and reported that "without waiting 
for 
Washington, half of the 50 U.S. states have made their own laws for 
 
the use of renewable energies.  The operators of power plants must 
constantly increase their share in renewable energies since they are 
 
otherwise threatened with hefty fines.  The report states that 
pessimists cite the varied history of wind and solar power in the 
United States where bankruptcies always followed a boom, but the 
founder and President of the Earth Policy Institute, Lester Brown 
said: 'This time, there is no way back.'" 
 
According to Handelsblatt (12/04), "China and the United States are 
 
playing the decisive role at the climate summit in Copenhagen. 
After 
a long climate policy abstinence, the two most important countries 
in 
the world have finally committed themselves to pursuing their own 
climate goals.  But they lag far behind what would be necessary in 
order to reach at least a limit to global warming of two degrees 
centigrade.  All indications are that China and the United States 
will 
sign an agreement only if the reduction goals are based on 2005, not 
 
1990 as originally planned. This sounds harmless but resembles a 
1000 
meter race that is stopped after 500 meters to allow two well-rested 
 
runners to join the race.  Of course, Germany and the EU have, 
compared to other industrialized nations, made enormous efforts and 
 
that is why Germany in particular is leading in the development of 
future technologies with respect to environmental protection. The 
demand for such products will grow and domestic industries have the 
 
best chances to profit from this development.  But Germany and the 
EU 
cannot save the global climate on their own. But they can be a model 
 
that is copied by other countries because they also want to make a 
profit." 
 
Frankfurter Rundschau (12/04) editorialized: "If leading climate 
politicians such as Barack Obama, Wen Jiaobao, Merkel, and Co. and 
their successors fail to meet the two-degree centigrade goal, they 
will shoulder an unprecedented responsibility.  It is true that 
hectic 
activities are not necessary but French President Sarkozy is right 
when he says 'The future of our planet is at stake in Copenhagen.' 
 
That is why it is all the more grotesque to see how the climate 
 
BERLIN 00001539  005 OF 006 
 
 
powers 
are reacting in the preparatory stages of the Copenhagen summit. 
They 
have wasted a lot of time and energy.  The APEC summit three weeks 
ago 
created the impression that the climate summit could be cancelled 
out 
of a lack of interest of the world leaders.  But this was a salutary 
 
shock and more than 70 leaders have promised to attend the summit. 
 
Measured against the things that are at stake, Obama and Co. cannot 
 
afford to produce hot air in Copenhagen.  If they do, then the only 
 
thing that helps will be to pray." 
 
Under the headline: "Hunger on a Hot Planet," die tageszeitung 
(12/04) 
opined: "At the Copenhagen summit, the developing countries will 
demand additional funds to adapt to climate change.  And they are 
right.  First, because the consequences of climate change have hit 
them harder than, for instance, Germany.  And second, the 
industrialized countries are responsible for the problem.  The 
United 
States alone produced 350 percent more greenhouse gases than China 
between 1903 and 2000.  That is why the industrialized countries 
promised developing countries more funds at the Bali summit; they 
want 
to discuss their own commitments only if the North has paid. The 
German government is now testing the reverse approach.  The 
developing 
nations should reduce their emissions first, before they will get 
money, but only from the millennium budget.  But one millennium goal 
 
is to halve the number of starving people, not to build higher dams. 
 
The number of starving people, however, increased by 80 million over 
 
the past few years, not least because of the climate crisis." 
 
¶4.   (U.S.)   Obama Administration 
 
Under the headline "Delayed New Beginning," Berliner Zeitung (12/04) 
 
analyzed: "President Obama would have liked to present himself as a 
 
peace maker during the December 10 awarding of the Nobel Peace 
Prize.... 
Now, Obama is traveling to the ceremony, fairly inappropriately, 
with 
a decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan.  The new U.S.-Russian 
 
disarmament agreement could have been the desired positive signal. 
 
But it will not be ready in time....  The plans were boldly 
optimistic 
anyway because the matter is as complex and difficult as two decades 
 
ago....  So far, the rhetoric of a new beginning has changed only 
little 
of the substance of the U.S.-Russian relations.  Both countries have 
 
not defined the general line for the way they deal with each other. 
 
Obama knows that he needs Russia if he wants to overcome the legacy 
of 
his predecessor in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea.  It is 
 
BERLIN 00001539  006 OF 006 
 
 
however still unclear whether he sees Medvedev as someone who can 
help 
or as an equal partner.    On the other side, Moscow needs an 
agreement with the U.S. because the progress of modernization is 
advancing more slowly than the ambitious plans from the time before 
 
the financial crisis foresaw.  Both approaches do not yet express 
any 
strategic redefinition." 
 
¶5.   (Russia)   Putin Comments 
 
Sueddeutsche Zeitung (12/04) editorialized: "Vladimir Putin said he 
 
would possibly run for the presidency in 2012.  Dimitrij Medvedev 
said 
that he could also run.  But those who consider this race a real 
competition for the Russian presidency reduce a highly complex 
interplay of interests and dependencies to a binary system.  But it 
is 
not that easy.  Of course, the almost familiar Putin TV show differs 
 
from Medvedev's pompous visions with which he wants to make the 
Russians happy.  But the great, almost socialist gestures with which 
 
the Russian president develops a shining future once Russia has 
freed 
itself from stagnation and dependence is attracting the Russians 
much 
less than Putin's appearance.  Medvedev is getting completely 
involved 
in his modernization craze, even though he has only two years left 
in 
office." 
¶6.   (Economic)   WTO Talks 
 
In an editorial Handelsblatt (12/04) argued that "in a crisis, 
charity 
begins at home."  The paper added: "For the recovery of the global 
economy, the protection and the extension of free trade can 
contribute 
more to the global economic recovery than any other economic 
stimulus 
program.  And the best thing about it is that the tearing down of 
trade walls does not cost a penny.  On the contrary, the reduction 
of 
agricultural subsides would even reduce the burden on the taxpayer. 
 
Free trade also contributes to a more peaceful co-existence of all 
peoples.   And that is why it should be irresistible for all sides 
involved...but reality looks different.  Even if we judge the WTO 
meeting in Geneva by the minimum expectations of its participants, 
then the meeting was a failure.  The trading nations again blamed 
each 
other for the failure and only professional optimists such as WTO 
head 
Pascal Lamy expect the Doha Round to conclude 2010.  The WTO is 
threatening to turn into a chatting club.  In this crisis, many 
nations act according to the slogan: charity begins at home.'  But 
this approach will make everyone a loser in global trade.  British 
economist David Ricardo proved 200 years ago that everyone profits 
if 
each nations concentrates on its economic strengths and buys the 
rest 
abroad.  This is still true today." 
 
MURPHY