VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHSM #0791/01 3561026
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 221026Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 5010
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS

UNCLAS STOCKHOLM 000791 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SECSTATE FOR INR/R/MR, EUR/PPD, EUR/NB 
BRUSSELS FOR REGIONAL MEDIA HUB 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO PINR SW XA
SUBJECT: COP-15 SUMMIT REPORTING IN SWEDEN 
 
¶1. (U) SUMMARY: The domination of COP-15 in Swedish media was only 
temporarily broken when General Motors announced the closure of car 
manufacturer SAAB on December 19. All outlets relayed a sense of 
disappointment on the outcome of the conference, calling it a 
'failure' and delivering a 'weak result.'  Several referred to the 
lack of binding commitments.  The participation by President Obama 
was regarded as a whole positively, but the U.S. was also critiqued 
for not putting anything new on the table.  China was regarded as 
inflexible.  Most notably the U.S. and China were seen as taking 
over negotiations, sidelining the EU, and several Swedish media also 
questioned the wisdom of the UN system that they say broke down, an 
interesting view because Sweden is known for its strong support of 
the UN system. 
END SUMMARY 
 
--------------- 
BROADCAST MEDIA 
--------------- 
 
¶2. (U) COP-15 was extensively covered in national broadcast media, 
even with live broadcasts from the conference.  SVT's Erika 
Bjerstrm concluded that while the climate negotiations "stumbled on 
world politics ... I cannot understand the indignation that there 
was no legally binding agreement, everyone had made it clear far in 
advance that it would not happen in Copenhagen."  She opined that 
"It does NOT mean that Greenpeace is right when they announce that 
the world is heading for a climate catastrophe.  A weak agreement is 
not the same as nothing being done.  Both China and the United 
States are investing enormous amounts in green energy for domestic 
purposes, they know that they have a lot to gain by leaving dirty 
fossil energy.  Barack Obama said in his speech that he is 
absolutely convinced that the new jobs will be found in the green 
sector."  Bjerstrm closed with "When the shock after Copenhagen has 
died down, maybe new paths will become visible."  TV4's Rolf 
Porseryd summarized the result as "everyone who takes the 
environment and climate threat seriously is disappointed," and 
"Reinfeldt has done everything he could have" but that as a whole, 
it was a failure. Public service Swedish Radio (SR), which takes a 
neutral reporting view, noted a range of different opinions from 
"failure greater than the most pessimistic had feared" to "in 
reality the Swedish EU presidency will hardly be blamed for the 
negotiations ending in relative disagreement" and that "in a large 
and completed process with almost 200 nations, other countries have 
played a more important part." 
 
----------- 
PRINT MEDIA 
----------- 
 
¶3. (U) Swedish morning daily DN's main editorial on Sunday under the 
heading "Fiasco for the UN" opined that "Even the most pessimistic 
have reason to be disappointed," but also that "only the most 
incorrigible optimists had expected it [a binding climate 
agreement].  Most had instead believed the result would be a 
watered-down and non-binding final document.  It hardly became even 
that.  And the reason for it is spelled the UN."  DN continued "To 
get 193 countries united up to the smallest comma appears relatively 
utopian." "The United States definitely has a historic debt but to 
its credit must be attributed the complete turnaround the country 
has achieved since changing president less than a year ago.  Nothing 
would have become better if President Obama had promised more in 
Copenhagen than the Congress would have been prepared to keep," 
continuing "You have to pick your battles, and President Obama 
chooses to invest his political capital in a major health care 
reform.  Seen from that perspective, the timing for the Copenhagen 
summit was bad.  It is possible the outcome would have been better, 
had the meeting been held one year later.  Morning daily Svenska 
Dagbladet's Susanna Baltscheffsky concluded that "Primarily the two 
climate super powers U.S. and China controlled the outcome of the 
meeting," and that "President Obama and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao 
met in Copenhagen and agreed on difficult issues.  In such an 
agreement the EU's by far most important demand, that the text from 
Copenhagen should result in a legally binding agreement, 
disappeared."  Baltscheffsky concluded that "Climate policy is world 
politics, not just an environmental issue.  It is an important 
explanation for the failure in Copenhagen." Most opinion pieces 
noted the non-binding nature of the agreement, and that perhaps, DN 
noted, the time for all-inclusive binding international agreements 
has passed.  The widely-read major tabloids Expressen and 
Aftonbladet, were more critical of the United States.  They saw the 
positions of the United States (primarily) and China (secondarily) 
as main culprits for no binding agreement resulting from the summit. 
 Expressen called the summit "a lost opportunity," and was critical 
of what they regarded as small initiatives by the United States. 
Aftonbladet concluded that "It does not matter how much we want to 
save the world.  In Copenhagen we learnt that such difficult issues 
are not resolved over a few days." 
 
----------- 
COMMENT 
----------- 
 
¶4. (U) Several media also noted that the EU became a bit player in 
the discussions as the United States and China took leadership. 
Most media illustrated the Friday talks with an image of a group of 
European leaders gathered around President Obama, waiting and 
listening.  The criticism of the UN system was also remarkable as 
Sweden is one of the staunchest supporters of the equal one nation, 
one vote system. 
 
SILVERMAN