VZCZCXRO9292
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHLZ
DE RUEHRL #0114/01 0271329
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 271329Z JAN 10
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6385
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 1960
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0683
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 1202
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 2702
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 1721
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 0884
RHMFIUU/HQ USAFE RAMSTEIN AB GE
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE//J5 DIRECTORATE (MC)//
RHMFISS/CDRUSAREUR HEIDELBERG GE
RUZEADH/UDITDUSAREUR HEIDELBERG GE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 BERLIN 000114 
 
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 HA US YM AF IR FR
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: HAITI, U.S. YEMEN, IRAN, FRANCE, 
AFGHANISTAN;BERLIN 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
¶2.   (Haiti)   Aftermath of Quake, Montreal Conference 
¶3.   (U.S.)   State of the Union, Austerity Program, Banking Crisis 
¶4.   (Yemen)   London Conference 
¶5.   (Iran)   Karrubi Gives In 
¶6.   (France)   Ban on Burqas 
¶7.   (Afghanistan)   London Conference, German Strategy 
 
 
¶1.   Lead Stories Summary 
 
The main item in the print media is the government's new strategy on 
Afghanistan.  Editorials focused on the government's new Afghanistan 
strategy and the new leadership of the Left Party.   ZDF-TV's early 
evening newscast heute opened with a report on the new leadership of 
the Left Party following Oskar Lafontaine's withdrawal, and ARD-TV's 
early evening newscast Tagesschau opened with a story on the new 
strategy in Afghanistan. 
 
¶2.   (Haiti)   Aftermath of Quake, Montreal Conference 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/27) editorialized: "The estimated costs of 
Haiti's reconstruction are three, ten or even fifteen billion 
dollars.  Nobody has yet made a sustainable calculation as the 
period of providing emergency assistance is not yet over.  There is 
no functioning Haiti government to speak of, which is not its fault. 
 It is clear that, given the extent of the destruction, Haiti will 
depend on international support for a long time....  The U.S. 
Secretary of State was right to note at the international donors' 
conference that assistance must be transparent and efficient, not 
wasted and disappear.  Haiti needs patient partners-and sustainable 
infrastructure projects." 
 
Under the headline "New Colonies," Die Welt (1/27) opined: "Aid 
organizations had to ignore state structures after the earthquake in 
Haiti.  UN forces were also not capable of responding effectively. 
In order to prevent chaos and violence, the U.S. Army had to take 
the initiative and set up its own logistics.  Without this 
protection, aid would not have reached the people, and rescue teams 
and doctors would have had to fear for their lives. The strong role 
of the U.S in Haiti raised old memories.  However, this time around 
it was about help, not predominance.  The word of neo-colonialism 
was spread in Port-au-Prince, but it had a positive connotation.  A 
colony of aid workers was created.  This phenomenon is not just 
restricted to emergency cases.  There are now new kinds of colonies 
in many parts of the world because security must be provided where 
only long-term international engagement can help." 
 
¶3.   (U.S.)   State of the Union, Austerity Program, Banking Crisis 
 
Several papers (1/27) carried reports on President Obama's plan to 
pursue an austerity course and impose a budget ceiling.  Under the 
headline: "Restart for a Man - Barack Obama Suffered Defeats, but 
Now he Wants to Improve his Image - Among other Things by following 
an Austerity Course," Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported: "The TV 
interview with ABC is only a prelude to many others.  On TV we saw a 
humble president, one who concedes that 'I probably make one, maybe 
two mistakes per day.'  And we saw a president who is blaming 
himself in view of declining ratings and a painful defeat in the 
by-elections for the Senate, even though Obama struck a totally 
different tone last week."  Die Welt carried a report under the 
headline: "Obama Announces Radical Austerity Course - It Could Cost 
him his Re-Election," and wrote: "Obama said in ABC news two days 
before his State of the Union address that he wants to stick to his 
controversial healthcare reform plans even if it cost his 
re-election.  He also said that in his address to the nation he 
would primarily focus on jobs and economic growth." 
 
 
BERLIN 00000114  002 OF 005 
 
 
Sueddeutsche (1/27) headlined: "Without Substance - Obama's Budget 
Ceiling Is Ineffective And this is Good" and judged: "Driven by the 
fear of losing the support of the voters, the U.S. President 
presents new, ill-conceived initiatives almost on a daily basis.  He 
presented the plan that pretends to cut down the size of banks, then 
there is the idea of offering tax cuts to the middle class tax, even 
though it only need secure jobs, and the most recent one is to 
reduce debt by imposing a ceiling on the budget.  Why?  The budget 
ceiling is a defensive maneuver.  The opposition is putting pressure 
on the government by demanding a quick reduction in debt.  But the 
ideology that calls for budget discipline during times of crises was 
discredited already in the 1930s.  Obama knows this, but instead of 
standing up for his convictions, he is giving in to the Republicans. 
 Without massive state spending, the United States would have faced 
a depression.  The IMF is strongly warning against ending economic 
stimulus programs prematurely.  That is why we must count ourselves 
lucky that the budget ceiling is without substance.  But, 
nevertheless, it is dangerous because it is preparing the ground for 
further cuts, months, probably years, too early." 
 
"Battle Against the Banks" is the headline in Sueddeutsche Zeitung 
(1/27), which editorialized: "The world is waging two great wars: 
one against terror, and one against the financial industry.  George 
¶W. Bush instigated the first...and Barack Obama proclaimed the 
second one last week.  But the enemy has not entrenched itself in 
the distant mountains of Afghanistan but this time it is sitting in 
the U.S. itself:  It is the gentlemen on Wall Street.  Obama is 
attacking the doctrine that the economy can only thrive if it is 
ruled by the financial markets.  But this war is much more difficult 
to wage than the one in Afghanistan and Iraq.  And Obama will win 
this war only if he succeeds with two things: He must gather enough 
allies...but these allies were surprised about the battle plan 
because Obama missed the opportunity to integrate Germans, French, 
and the British to form a 'coalition of the willing.'  But it will 
be decisive to see whether Obama will also use the right weapons, 
and in this respect we have our doubts.  In principle, Obama is 
heading in the right direction but of what use will it be to ban the 
banks from doing certain kinds of business if this business 
emigrates to hedge funds?...  If Obama is able to stay the course, 
he can become a great president, but if he fails, Obama will rather 
be compared to James Buchanan...and, according to historians, 
Buchanan was a weak, indecisive president without fortune." 
 
¶4.   (Yemen)   London Conference 
 
Under the headline: "120 Minutes For a New Trouble Spot," 
Sueddeutsche Zeitung (1/27) reported that "the meeting in the 
Foreign Office will only last two hours.  This will not be much time 
if the representatives of all the 21 invited nations want to take to 
the floor.  But primarily, these 120 minutes are too short to 
discuss the complex array of problems with which the Yemen 
Conference in London wants to deal.  Only since the failed bomb 
attack in Detroit has the general public realized that al-Qaida is 
training attackers in this poverty stricken Southern Arab 
country....  The meeting in London will alternate between admonition 
and encouragement....  Yemen's President, who has been in office for 
more than 32 years now, will not travel to London, but he will send 
several Cabinet members instead.  Secretary Clinton announced her 
participation.  She wants to make good governance in Sana'a a 
precondition for the complete payment of the 3.3 billion euros in 
international aid which were already promised at the Yemen 
conference in 2006." 
 
Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/27) carried a report under the headline: 
"A Failing State," and wrote: "It may be possible that that the 
London conference will create a new confidence and lead to a 
rapprochement between the parties in Yemen.  The most important 
western and Arab nations are pressing Yemen to initiate a political 
 
BERLIN 00000114  003 OF 005 
 
 
process and no longer rely on weapons only.  Foreign Minister 
al-Qirbi said that the issues in London should only be development 
funds and support in the fight against terror, and that internal 
conflicts and human rights were domestic issues that were no 
business for the international community.  But economic assistance 
does not exhaust itself in funds.  The Yemenites hope that the Gulf 
states will approve the return of several hundreds of thousands of 
workers who would reduce the burden on the labor market and whose 
return would result in new transfers of money from migrant workers. 
The Yemenites also hope for Arab investment in new industrial plants 
which would create jobs in Yemen itself.  The Yemenites are also 
complaining that the Saudis, for security reasons, are blocking the 
transit of trucks loaded with fruit.  But after the Arab neighboring 
countries ignored Yemen for a long time, it is now primarily up to 
them to avert a further looming destabilization of the country. 
 
¶5.   (Iran)   Karrubi Gives In 
 
In an editorial under the headline: "The Revolution Divides Its 
Children," Sueddeutsche Zeitung (1/27) focused on opposition leader 
Karrubi who has made an offer of peace to the powers-that-be in 
Tehran.  The paper wondered: "Is this gesture of subjugation the 
demise of the Iranian opposition?  Has the resistance now been 
broken?  No, Karrubi's remarks only show that the regime has gained 
the upper hand in the power struggle.  Karrubi has now drawn a red 
line for himself and his supporters:  We must accept the authority 
of supreme religious leader Ayatollah Khamenei.  And between the 
lines, Karrubi is saying that it would be good to criticize 
individual government members but not to question Khamenei's power. 
If Karrubi decides to take such a step, then this says much about 
the regime's persistence.  He submitted an offer of reconciliation 
to the regime and, at the same time, fired a warning shot at his 
supporters. Karrubi thus shows responsibility for the fate of his 
followers, but whether he has done the opposition a favor is a 
different question.  The opposition remains a patchwork of people, 
groups, and networks.  At the grassroots level they often act in a 
spontaneous way.  This is the basis for its strength but it is 
unlikely that this strength, which lacks a cohesive leadership, will 
be enough to counter a regime that stops at nothing." 
 
¶6.   (France)   Ban on Burqas 
 
According to an editorial in Die Welt (1/27), "a large majority of 
French think that the burqa will threaten the core values of the 
French Republic, even though there are only a few hundreds women in 
France as a whole who wear a burqa. Now it is then same Republic 
that intervenes and issues a ban that restricts, in the name of its 
highest value - freedom - the people's right to wear what they like. 
 This paradox cannot be resolved even with a well formulated bill." 
 
In a front-page editorial, Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/27) judged: 
"When dealing with its Muslim minority, France is pinning its hope 
on even less tolerance.  This 'burqa ban' is probably expressing the 
helplessness of the ones who are politically responsible to prevent 
the spread of an extremist Islam by means other than strict 
conditions laid down in a law....  France wants to express that it 
is not willing to give in to a militant Islam and to relativize 
equal opportunities for men and women in the name of Islam....  Only 
recently, President Sarkozy recommended to the Muslim believers 
'humble discretion.'  With this remark, he reacted to the Swiss vote 
on minarets.  In the midst of the debate over national identity, he 
formulated what France is expecting of the Muslim citoyens: more 
discretion, less provocation." 
 
Regional daily Volksstimme of Magdeburg (1/27) judged: "Europeans 
always have difficulties accepting Muslim women wearing headscarves, 
but when it comes to the burqa the line has been crossed.  The burqa 
does not fit European culture, nor does a bikini fit the culture in 
 
BERLIN 00000114  004 OF 005 
 
 
Yemen.  France has now taken a first step against the burqa.  It is 
to be pushed out of public life and President Sarkozy declared it to 
be 'undesired.'  This requires a ban, but such a ban hardly fits a 
pluralist society which usually guarantees the freedom to wear 
whatever the individual wants to wear.  Sarkozy could also have 
openly said that democratic tolerance ends here." 
 
Regional daily Allgemeine Zeitung of Mainz (1/27) had this to say: 
"We can certainly argue about female teachers wearing headscarves or 
about minarets, but not about burqas.  It is a political religious 
symbol that elevates the Muslim claim to rule and it is at the same 
time an instrument that suppresses women even though they deny this. 
 Every reasonable citizen of a country is interested in getting 
along with his neighbor, irrespective of whether or not he has a 
migratory background.  But this does not mean one has to accept 
every peculiarity if it is diametrically opposed to one's own 
cultural background." 
 
die tageszeitung (1/27) judged under the headline; "Islamophobia 
Instead of Economics," that "it could be possible that this debate 
over the burqa, which has kept the parties in France busy for a long 
time, is a red herring in order to avoid talking about the deep 
crisis of capitalist society, because it is no coincidence that 
France has spent so much energy on the fight against an ideological 
enemy.  With this more or less nationalistic campaign, President 
Sarkozy's governing UMP wants to prevent disappointed voters 
migrating to the extremist right." 
 
¶7.   (Afghanistan)   London Conference, German Strategy 
 
In a front-page editorial, Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/27) wrote: "The 
goal of turning Afghanistan into a Westminster democracy has been 
abandoned.  The governments of the allies only want to stabilize the 
country and the Afghan government to be able to withdraw from the 
expedition, so that it does not collapse the next day.  What has to 
be done to reach this goal must be discussed again, this time in 
London.  The German government wants to follow the American example 
by providing more money and additional soldiers to be able to 
withdraw one day.  However, Chancellor Merkel's government is 
pursuing a special German path.  Berlin, which praised the strategy 
of a comprehensive approach at a time when Americans did not care 
much about the victims of their bombings, is shifting the priorities 
even further to the civilian side than Washington." 
 
ARD-TV's Tagesthemen (1/26) remarked on the German strategy for 
Afghanistan: "The macabre logic of this war is that we first have to 
send in more soldiers before we can withdraw gradually.  This is 
difficult to understand, but there is no alternative to the 
international community's last desperate attempt to give Afghanistan 
and its people a chance for a future without the rule of the 
Taliban.  It was high time that the German government agreed to this 
strategy shortly prior to the London conference on Afghanistan, 
after weeks of embarrassing battles." 
 
Deutschlandfunk (1/26) opined: "The German government is serious 
about its change of policy on Afghanistan.  Although many details 
are not new, there is a new commitment.  With the change of 
government last autumn, an essential part of the policy on 
Afghanistan is no longer the object of ideology. The attempt to 
coordinate the efforts in the north now makes a compressive approach 
possible....  However, disbanding the rapid response unit now is 
premature.  The more the Bundeswehr withdraws from such tasks, the 
more it will be left to the Americans in the north, where actually 
the Germans are responsible.  Do we really want this to be handled 
with the methods of the U.S. Army?  And do we really want another 
debate about a lack of German commitment within the alliance? 
Domestic considerations have won the upper hand, which is always bad 
in foreign policy.  However, overall, it is a clear change of 
 
BERLIN 00000114  005 OF 005 
 
 
strategy.  If it works, it will be possible to withdraw forces in a 
few years.  Afghan President Karzai must be the first one to take 
action." 
 
Norddeutscher Rundfunk (1/26) commented: "The policy announced in 
Berlin is a suitable present for the international conference in 
London and will work if pursued with others.... The acid test for 
the creation of Afghan security will not come in London but in 
Kabul.  The Karzai government and the difficult warlords must be 
told that enough is enough. They must get their people to give the 
reconstruction of the country more priority than religious and 
cultural fundamentalism.  Foreign soldieries cannot enforce such 
priorities and the West must not pour money into the pockets of a 
few.  Hopefully, the chance to tell Karzai the conditions will not 
be wasted in Berlin and London." 
 
In an editorial, Sddeutsche (1/27) remarked: "The U.S. actions, the 
30,000 additional soldiers and financial assistance, which will 
surpass all the money Europe is providing, will determine the future 
of Afghanistan.   It is strange that the German government and 
opposition view President Obama's massive engagement from a 
distance, while simultaneously making use of his goal of a quick 
withdrawal.  The half-truths of Germany's policy on Afghanistan have 
not changed." 
 
Die Welt (1/27) commented on its front page: "It is worrying that 
the question of a withdrawal has become the priority in all 
countries of the western alliance.  It sounds like a last effort 
before we are quickly moving out as if the withdrawal is more 
important than success.  It would have been better if the 
governments had made the case once more to their people as soberly 
as possible that a withdrawal without having achieved any results 
would be a catastrophe." 
 
MURPHY