MEDIA WRAP-UP: U.S. MID-TERM ELECTIONS/ MIDDLE EAST

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 007439 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS DEPT FOR EUR/PPD, EUR/WE, INR, R E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL KPAO OPRC FR SUBJECT: MEDIA WRAP-UP: U.S. MID-TERM ELECTIONS/ MIDDLE EAST STRATEGY SHIFT, SOCIALIST PRIMARIES AND FRENCH MEDIA SHAKE-UPS. NOVEMBER 17, 2006. PARIS 00007439 001.2 OF 002 Sensitive but unclassified. Please protect accordingly. -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) The U.S. mid-term election results fueled speculation about a possible shift in U.S. Middle East policy beyond Iraq. Commentators used the occasion of the Israeli Prime Minister's visit to Washington and the Beit Hanoun incident to discuss Washington's support to Israel in the context of moves to involve Iran and Syria in a pullout strategy for Iraq. The Socialist Party's overwhelming vote for Royal as its presidential candidate led to comparisons with the American electoral process. Management changes at left-wing Liberation and at TF1 television, elicited media comments on a "longstanding malaise" noting that "editorial boards must adapt to their audiences, not the other way around." End Summary. -------------- -------------- MID-TERM ELECTIONS AND MIDDLE EAST STRATEGY SHIFT -------------- -------------- ¶2. (SBU) In its post-election coverage, right-of-center Le Figaro concluded that "the Democratic landslide would lead President Bush to revise not only his Iraq policy but his entire Middle East policy." Left-of-center Le Monde, in an editorial entitled "Getting Out of Iraq," argued that "everyone [in the U.S.] appeared eager for a policy change." Several outlets, including left-of-center Le Monde, claimed that "James Baker and Lee Hamilton would recommend talking with Iraq's immediate neighbors." Alexandre Adler, in right-of-center Le Figaro, went further and argued that "President Bush needed to convert to realism" and that U.S. strategy in the Middle East should in no way "threaten existing regimes, like Syria and Iran." Adler concluded that "by pulling out of Iraq, by calling on Iran and forcing Syria to secure western Iraq, the Americans could come out of the Iraq crisis with their heads held high." Left-of-center Le Monde hoped "for a return to more pragmatism" in the Bush Administration, thanks to James Baker who, like Tony Blair, "was calling for a dialogue with Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Syria." Left-wing Liberation concluded that "Damascus was the axis of lesser evil for a politically weakened Bush." But left-of-center Le Monde 
highlighted Secretary Rice's remarks on Iran ("at this time I don't see anything that would indicate Iran is ready to contribute to Iraq's stability") and Syria ("Syria seems for the time being to be aligning with extremist forces") and argued that "the rumored recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, as well as recent Iranian and Syrian declarations did not appear to have softened the Secretary's position." Yet right-of-center Le Figaro countered that SIPDIS "Secretary Rice, afraid of being marginalized by the Baker Commission, was considering a dialogue with Iran, in order to regain control over Iraq." ¶3. (SBU) The Israeli Prime Minister's visit to Washington in the wake of the fallout from the Beit Hanoun incident led right-of-center Le Figaro to conclude that "the American shield of protection had not failed Israel." Catholic La Croix's Jean-Christophe Ploquin agreed that Olmert "would continue to receive Washington's unconditional support." But in right-of-center Le Figaro, Pierre Rousselin countered that "in Washington, nothing would be the same," and that "Olmert's quick decision to travel to Washington illustrated his level of concern." Rousselin argued that "Iraq would not serve as an example for transformational democracy in the region" and that U.S. "disengagement" would prevail. He concluded that the shift to include Syria and Iran in a pullout strategy would "put new pressure on Israel" just when Iran was "making renewed threats." Gilles Delafon in right-of-center Le Journal du Dimanche claimed that "Israel was acting without restraint," but he also warned that "Syria was looking increasingly dangerous." ¶4. (SBU) Amidst conjecture about a Middle East policy shift, commentators such as Pierre Haski in left-wing Liberation warned against "the dangers of a weakened U.S. executive branch" because the impact on "still smoldering fires" could have negative consequences on "world governance." Haski argued that there was no one other than the U.S. to "play a mediating role in the region" and warned that "the leadership vacuum" in the U.S. was nothing to rejoice about. In right-of-center Le Figaro, think tanker Nicole Bacharan echoed a similar concern and criticized France's "benevolent welcome" to the new majority, arguing that "the return of the Democrats did not necessarily mean easier times for the transatlantic relationship." She warned that "those who deplored America's imperialism [in Iraq] might soon regret its indifference," which she believed would be "America's stance after President Bush." Bacharan conceded that the future "did not lie in American 'hegemony' but in the sharing of the burden among democracies." PARIS 00007439 002.2 OF 002 Alain Barluet highlighted this ambivalence in right-of-center Le Figaro, arguing that "France favored a progressive pullout, but feared a greater burden for the Europeans." Barluet quoted an anonymous diplomat, saying "a more multilateral America could lead to a greater European military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq." -------------- ROYAL CARRIES SOCIALIST PRIMARIES -------------- ¶5. (SBU) The run-up to November 16's Socialist primaries elicited widespread discussion of the "American-style" primary system. Catholic La Croix led with a positive assessment of the Socialist Party's methodology, "which the Party's adversaries and allies alike appreciated." In its editorial, Catholic La Croix argued that "the experience benefited democracy" and while the debates had not determined a winner, "the public debates granted legitimacy to the elected candidate." Vincent Tiberj, in Catholic La Croix, compared the situation to American primaries, "where voters ask themselves 'is the best candidate the one who fully shares my beliefs, or the one who can beat the opposite party's candidate?'" Tiberj concluded that in order to "fully appreciate what was going on in the Socialist Party one had to look to the U.S. example." ¶6. (SBU) The results of the primary gave an overwhelming victory to Segolene Royal; final figures confirmed her first-round nomination with near 61 percent of the votes. Strauss-Kahn received 20.8 percent of the votes and Fabius 18.5 percent. Royal, wearing her trademark white suit, was prominently featured on Friday's front pages while FR2's television commentators called her victory a "White Tornado." Left-wing Liberation saluted "this historic moment" with "a woman finally in a position to win a French presidential election" and argued that her victory was due to "her playing to the people's desire for change," while "skirting the pitfalls of populism." Left-wing Liberation concluded that she would be "the most difficult opponent for Nicolas Sarkozy to beat." The editorial in right-of-center Le Figaro acknowledged a "clear and clean victory" and agreed with left-wing Liberation that "[Royal] would be a daunting adversary for Sarkozy." Beyond her "obvious advantage" of breaking with tradition "by way of being a woman," right-of-center Le Figaro argued that her strong points lay in her "break with the traditional Socialist Party line." But right-of-center Le Figaro continued to warn that this "could be her weakness within her own camp," in an editorial entitled, "Royal Against Royal." Asking whether she would be able to "reconcile" the irreconcilable, right-of-center Le Figaro concluded that "Royal could be more fragile than she looked." -------------- FRENCH MEDIA SHAKE-UPS -------------- ¶7. (SBU) Left-wing Liberation, in the throes of its own reorganization, characterized this week's planned changes at TF1 television as a "regime crisis." The communique announcing the nomination of the network's communications director to head the news bureau at TF1 led left-wing Liberation to argue that the present information director, Robert Namias, "was not only too old, but suffered a major handicap: being too close to President Chirac, which in turn exposed him to Nicolas Sarkozy's blatant enmity." The left-wing daily ironically concluded, "Imagine TF1's embarrassment if Sarkozy were elected President..." In left-of-center Le Monde, Bertrand Pecquerie, Chairman of the World Editors Forum, argued that recent changes at right-of-center Le Figaro and left-wing Liberation, with Edouard de Rothschild buying into the latter, and Serge Dassault into the former, tended towards an "insidious confusion of the genres, reminiscent of the 20s and 30s, and unheard of in modern European democracies, outside Italy and Turkey." Pecquerie bemoaned erroneous analyses which faulted a "dwindling readership" and argued that France was instead suffering from "a crisis in its media offerings." He concluded optimistically that the future resided "in editorial boards adapting to their audiences, not the other way around." Pecquerie illustrated his theory with some eye-opening figures, "France's general press sells fewer papers than England's Daily Telegraph alone, and France has 81 dailies, compared to Sweden's 93, a country seven times less populated than France." STAPLETON