VZCZCXRO1877
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHLZ
DE RUEHRL #1608/01 3551313
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 211313Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6108
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 1847
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0567
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 1085
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 2590
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 1612
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 0775
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 001608 
 
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 KGHG US AF
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: COP15, AFGHANISTAN, HEALTHCARE;BERLIN 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
¶2.   Copenhagen Climate Conference 
¶3.   Afghanistan 
¶4.   Healthcare Bill 
 
¶1.    Lead Stories Summary 
 
Primetime newscasts opened with reports on the impact the cold 
weather had in Europe and along the East Coast.  Most newspapers led 
with stories on the aftermath of the climate conference in 
Copenhagen.  Headlines included: QMerkel: DonQt badmouth results of 
CopenhagenQ (Frankfurter Allgemeine), QClimate: Merkel defends 
minimum compromiseQ (Die Welt), QMerkel defends climate summit 
(Tagesspiegel), QClimate protection must waitQ (Berliner Zeitung), 
QThe world faces a climate depressionQ (Frankfurter Rundschau), 
QState leaders euphemize the summitQs failureQ (FT Deutschland). 
Sueddeutsche led with a story on Defense Minister zu GuttenbergQs 
proposal to speak with insurgents in Afghanistan.  Several media 
carried reports on President ObamaQs efforts to reach a health care 
bill.  Editorials focused on the Copenhagen conference and the 
German debate over Afghanistan. 
 
¶2.   Copenhagen Climate Conference 
 
Summary: The German media agreed that the Copenhagen conference was 
a QdisasterQ and a Qfailure.Q  Frankfurter RundschauQs editorial 
emphasized QHopenhagen turned into Brokenhagen.Q  Commentators in 
particular expressed skepticism over whether the structure of the UN 
is the right one to resolve the climate problem.  QThe UN conference 
process has failed in Copenhagen.  Governments that are serious 
about climate protection must therefore move ahead independently, 
FT Deutschland editorialized. 
 
ARD-TVQs Tagesthemen commented: QA disaster.  The fuss made in 
Copenhagen made the climate catastrophe more likely.  Our 
great-great-grand children might burn, drown, suffocate or die of 
thirst.  Ecologically seen, America remains an ecological rogue 
state even under Obama and industrialized nations remain the axis of 
evil.   ChinaQs environmental behavior is bad, but we are worse. 
Industrial countries should have delivered more.  Politicians have 
failed miserably in Copenhagen. However, every person can do 
something to protect the climate.  We fail every day.  Our children 
will curse us. 
 
On ZDF-TVQs Morgenmagazin analyzed: QToo many cooks spoil the broth 
 Many participants must be blamed.  The emerging countries did not 
have a good approach to climate protection because they focused on 
their national interests and it was also Barack Obama who did not 
perform well diplomatically.  He delivered a lukewarm speech, and he 
wanted to produce a mock result.  One could notice that he did not 
really care and he left behind sad results when he departed. 
 
Westdeutscher Rundfunk radio opined: QThe international climate 
protection process will go on somehow.  However, it was badly 
damaged.  Copenhagen has made clear that the climate protection 
caravan cannot simply continue on this course and agree on a minimum 
consensus every year.  The process itself must be fundamentally 
reconsidered.  The Danish presidency acted clumsily and the UN 
contributed to the chaos by allowing tens of thousands of 
participants to attend the conference.  All this led to the evil 
spirit of Copenhagen and such a sobering result.  There might be 
alternatives to such negotiations--for instance the G20.  Complex 
international problems cannot be resolved in the framework of a UN 
conference, where representatives of 193 countries with the most 
diverse interests and culture are sitting around the table.  This 
process was discredited in Copenhagen. 
 
ZDF-TVQs Heute stated: QThe result is a sad pile of leftovers, a 
disaster.  Twelve years of international climate policy went down 
 
BERLIN 00001608  002 OF 003 
 
 
the drain.  We have fallen back behind the Kyoto Protocol.  It 
remains completely unclear whether we can catch up one day.  The 
summit failed because of national selfishness of many countries.  In 
particular the U.S. and China did not want to give up their 
sovereignty in climate protecting matters  Also the way the 
negotiations were conducted was wrong.  Prime Minister Rasmussen was 
sometimes extremely clumsy and contributed to this failure. 
 
 
Deutschlandfunk radio commented: QGermany has gambled away much 
confidence at the climate summit in Copenhagen, in particular among 
developing countries.  The unfortunate discussion that development 
assistance could be taken into account for the climate protection 
measures put off the third world.  In addition, state and government 
leaders did not agree on a common political goal early enough. Only 
when the negotiations were already underway, the EU met at the 
highest level to discuss the goal  This was not a lead role that 
the EU and Germany could be proud of. 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine noted in a front-page editorial: QThe climate 
summit of Copenhagen was not a success, not even a small one.  We 
cannot therefore badmouth the results, as Chancellor Merkel warned. 
The results are not presentable.  Nobody should euphemize them.  The 
failure of Copenhagen is sweeping.  The conference of the 193 state 
and government leaders demonstrated the Chinese and Indian influence 
on the future of world politics.  It demonstrated the helplessness 
of the Europeans to push through their goals without the help of the 
Americans. The content of the agreement could not be smaller. 
Although the goal of keeping the increase of temperature below two 
degrees of Celsius was stated, it was said nowhere how to achieve 
it.  It remains a riddle how this can be brought to a good end next 
year. 
 
Sueddeutsche editorialized: QCopenhagen is an insult to the 
international community.  Never have the expectations of a climate 
conference been higher, never before have so many state leaders 
gathered to resolve one problem.  However, they did not resolve it, 
they made it worse. 
 
Frankfurter Rundschau remarked: QIt does not make sense to continue 
the circus of the UN climate conference.   The only chance we have 
is that the greatest emitters must take the lead, if in doubt, 
without any guarantee that the others will join in.  Fifteen 
countries in the world are responsible for 80 percent of carbon 
dioxide emissions.  They all said in Copenhagen how important 
climate protection is to them.  The politicians of these countries 
must now implement this, and their voters must hold them 
responsible. 
 
Handelsblatt highlighted: QThe climate conference in Copenhagen 
failed especially due to the conflict between rich and poor.  When 
the great powers of world politics put their proposals on the table, 
less powerful countries rebelled and won.  Not just climate politics 
has reached a low.  Also UN conference diplomacy in its current 
format faces its end. 
 
FT Deutschland editorialized: QAfter the fiasco of Copenhagen, there 
is no ground to be optimistic that things will be better next year. 
It has been an illusion right from the start that the worldQs two 
biggest emittersQChina and the U.S.Qwould agree to a binding treaty 
with clear emission goals and international checks under the 
auspices of the United Nations.  It was never before demonstrated so 
brutally to Europeans that they have lost enormous influence in 
central questions of international politics.  They are only being 
noticed.  The UN conference process has failed in Copenhagen. 
Governments that are serious about climate protection must therefore 
move ahead independently instead of waiting for a breakthrough in 
Bonn, Mexico or elsewhere. 
 
 
BERLIN 00001608  003 OF 003 
 
 
¶3.    Afghanistan 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine editorialized: QIt has been candidly said in 
public and in parliament for the first time that the Bundeswehr is 
at war in Afghanistan.  This does not make the decision about 
increasing the German contingent easier.  A competitive vote in the 
Bundestag would be poisonous for the moral of the troops in 
Afghanistan. 
 
QAt last, a debate about a war,Q Berliner Zeitung commented: QOne 
might praise the SPD for enforcing an overdue political debate over 
the war in Afghanistan and the role of the Germans.  At least, they 
have a position.  We would indeed like to know more about the goal 
and strategy the German government will pursue at the international 
Afghanistan conference.  The realization of the Social Democrats 
has come late.  The Bundestag renewed the Bundeswehr mandate for 
Afghanistan only a few weeks ago.  This would have been the right 
time for a debate.  The war in Afghanistan has been controversial 
for a long time, and it is time to have this controversy in 
public. 
 
¶4.   Healthcare Bill 
 
Berliner Zeitung noted that Qthe President is about to achieve an 
historic victory.  Obama has allowed Senate leader Harry Reid enough 
flexibility to reach a compromise in the Senate.  It now looks as if 
the reform of a century could be passed on Christmas Eve.   It is 
natural that not everybody is happy with the result.  The matter is 
very complex.  Instead of walking into the trap of all or nothing, 
Obama showed himself once again to be a pragmatic politician.  Given 
that the President has not yet used all his capital, he can 
influence the upcoming negotiations in Congress.  These are the best 
conditions for finally establishing a comprehensive healthcare 
insurance in the United States. 
 
Under the headline QObamaQs lousy good compromise,Q Sueddeutsche 
editorialized:  QMaybe the Senate will now approve the draft of the 
reform.  Obama will be jubilant and still be suspicious about what 
will come next.  Also the House of Representatives must still agree. 
 There, the President must still persuade liberals that half a 
success is still a success, and that it is better than nothing. 
 
Tagesspiegel commented: QBarack Obama is about to achieve the 
greatest success of his presidency: the approval of the healthcare 
reform in the Congress.  The House of Representatives has agreed on 
its version in November.  The president now has obviously cobbled a 
majority together in the Senate.  Both drafts then have to be 
matched by a mediation committee.  ObamaQs victory on this front is 
now highly likely. 
 
DELAWIE