MEDIA REACTION: U.S., AFGHANISTAN, EU, U.S.; Berlin

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 BERLIN 001280 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 US AF EU US SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S., AFGHANISTAN, EU, U.S.; Berlin ¶1. Lead Stories Summary ¶2. (U.S.-Russia) Secretary Clinton in Moscow ¶3. (Afghanistan) Secret Increase in U.S. Forces ¶4. (EU) Ratification of Lisbon Treaty ¶5. (U.S.) Climate Protection ¶1. Lead Stories Summary ZDF-TV's early evening newscast Heute led with a story on the coalition talks in Berlin and ARD-TV's early evening newscast Tagesschau opened with a story on the financial problems of the northern German bank HSH Nordbank. Newspapers and editorials focused on the sluggish coalition talks between the CDU/CSU and FDP and the demotion of federal banker Sarrazin. ¶2. (U.S.-Russia) Secretary Clinton in Moscow All media (10/14) reported on Secretary Clinton's visit to Moscow, focusing on the topics of Iran, disarmament and missile defense. Sddeutsche's front page report, "U.S. and Russia cooperate in missile defense," highlighted that "Secretary Clinton offered to cooperate closely with Russia on missile defense." Frankfurter Allgemeine headlined "Lavrov insists on getting Washington's plans straight," noting that "Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov expressed skepticism over the American offer to cooperate in missile defense." Under the headline "Harmony in Moscow," Frankfurter Rundschau wrote that the "U.S. and Russia got closer in their negotiations on nuclear disarmament and also want to cooperate closely in the nuclear dispute with Iran." Die Welt headlined "U.S. and Russia do not want sanctions against Iran for the time being," and Berliner Zeitung headlined "Russia protects Iran from sanctions." Under the headline "A little bit of peace," Tagesspiegel noted that "the U.S. and Russia have expressed unity in the nuclear dispute over Iran. Frankfurter Allgemeine (10/14) editorialized: "A secretary and a minister who have nothing to say spoke together in Moscow. Hillary Clinton only plays a minor role in a government whose President has defined foreign policy and delegated diplomatic operations to a host of envoys and special ambassadors. And Lavrov, who is serving two leaders, is extremely busy with trying to reconcile their sometimes 
 diverging views. The results of the Moscow talks reflect this: there is nothing apart from an exchange of friendly words.... Their bosses will discuss the real problems." Under the headline "In absolute harmony," Sddeutsche (10/14) opined: "No sooner has the relationship between the U.S. and Russia improved, then a new problem is emerging. Secretary Clinton's latest problem is holding even slightly differing views from Lavrov. A short reference to Georgia was the only publically expressed disagreement. Both leaders celebrated absolute harmony when they appeared together.... BERLIN 00001280 002 OF 005 However, it was particularly America that reached out to Moscow. The U.S. renouncement of the missile defense shield woke up Russian military strategists because they fear that the world might expect something in return, such as a tougher approach towards Iran. Clinton has assuaged this fear by stating that she believes new sanctions would come too early. In the post-START agreement, it is Barack Obama's turn anyway. The U.S. President with the diplomatic burden of a Nobel Peace Prize cannot afford to get lost in little disputes over hundreds of nuclear warheads and carrier rockets. He cannot afford for the talks to fail. Russia's position is more comfortable because the giant country under financial straits is interested in reducing the level of arms.... There is no doubt that Russia is enjoying its newly won power. Moscow appreciates being heard international questions. Being on an equal playing field with Washington suggests to Moscow that it is once again a superpower, a message that is being communicated well to the people through the media. However, Russia cannot claim the successes concerning the foreign political issues of Iran, missile defense and START. These are the result of a change of direction in the White House. Moscow's interests should go beyond the craving for more prestige. The strategists in the Kremlin know that real power is more than a few old nuclear bombs and the veto right on the UN Security Council. If Russia does not manage to become a stable and strong economic power in the long run, its influence will remain limited." ¶3. (Afghanistan) Secret Increase in U.S. Forces "Is Obama Secretly Increasing Forces in Afghanistan?" headlined Tagesspiegel. Meanwhile Die Welt (10/14) wrote: "Obama Secretly Increases Forces," and reported: "Obviously, President Obama is sending considerably more forces to Afghanistan than was previously known. The Washington Post reported that Obama authorized the sending of an additional 13,000 forces in addition to the announced increase of 21,000 soldiers. Since taking office, Obama has now sent 34,000 additional forces to Afghanistan." Sueddeutsche Zeitung (10/14) carried a report, headlined: "Discreet Reinforcements," and noted: "President Obama has ordered the deployment of far more soldiers in Afghanistan then the general public had previously assumed. In March, Obama increased combat forces in the war against the Taliban and al- Qaida by 21,000 forces but did not explicitly mention that this would also mean the sending of an additional 13,000 support forces." BERLIN 00001280 003 OF 005 In an editorial, Sueddeutsche Zeitung (10/14) judged: "As far as military matters are concerned, Washington's decision to send more forces to Afghanistan is o.k. 13,000 additional soldiers will be sent to Afghanistan to support the 21,000 combat soldiers whose mission the president already announced in March. At that time, Obama approved the sending of an additional 34,000 soldiers which then corresponded to a doubling of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But he did not make a big thing about it and at the time there was only talk of about 21,000 forces. The question now is how serious is the president about the loudly announced transparency in the White House? But if the public is even now discussing the full extent of the U.S. engagement in Afghanistan, then this has nothing to do with the new demands of Obama's supreme commander in the country. The debate is drawing attention to the extent that the U.S. engagement would have if General McChrystal got all the forces he wanted. Then up to 130,000 U.S. soldiers would be in Afghanistan, almost the same number as in Iraq. But following all the years at war, this would hardly be conveyable to the American people." ¶4. (EU) Ratification of Lisbon Treaty Under the headline: "EU Threatening Czech Republic with Loss of Commissioner Position in Brussels," Tagesspiegel (10/14) wrote: "In the tug-of-war over the ratification of the EU reform treaty, the European Union has now threatened the Czech Republic with consequences. On Tuesday, European Commission President Barroso warned the Prague government that it may lose its commissioner position if President Klaus continues to refuse to ratify the treaty. Following a meeting with Barroso, however,Czech Prime Minister Fischer backed his president's demands to safeguard the controversial Benes decrees in an addendum to the treaty." In a report headlined: "Exception for Czech Republic," Sueddeutsche Zeitung (10/14) wrote that "In the power struggle with his own government, Czech President Klaus has asserted his view on his own government. Prime Minister Fischer backed Klaus's demand for an additional protocol to the Lisbon Treaty in order to safeguard the continued existence of the controversial Benes decrees." In an editorial under the headline "Like in a Circus," Die Welt (10/14) dealt with the problems Czech President Vaclav Klaus has with signing the ratification document of the Lisbon Treaty, and editorializes: "Czech President Vaclav Klaus is leading the political class in Europe by the nose around the circus ring. At the upcoming EU summit, everything will focus on Klaus and his abstruse amendments to the EU Treaty. Currently, the EU is dancing to Klaus's tunes. This may not be a shining moment for the EU's history but it is a wise move BERLIN 00001280 004 OF 005 because Klaus is slowly running out of arguments. If the EU meets his demands and the Czech Constitutional Court rules that the Lisbon Treaty is constitutional, Klaus will be placed under immense pressure. Then he will sign. He is a gambler but he is not someone who commits political suicide. The EU will then have a new treaty, but what then? The European Parliament will have greater powers, the votes will be redistributed and the EU will get a diplomatic service, but these are achievements for the European elite. The ordinary citizens have different concerns. They want to know where the EU's external borders are; they want to know what the EU will bring for the individual citizen; and they want to know how far integration will go. It is time to give answers to these questions." ¶5. (U.S.) Climate Protection Sueddeutsche Zeitung (10/14) carried a report under the headline: "Climate Protection Postponed," by its Washington correspondent Reymer Klver who wrote: "The announcement did not come as a surprise: when the world meets in Copenhagen to solve the problem of global climate protection, the U.S. delegation will come empty-handed. By then, the United States is not likely to have any climate protection bill that would indicate that the United States really wants to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. But Barack Obama's highest climate protection official, Carol Browner, said: 'This will not happen.' At the beginning of this year, however, we heard different things from Washington. Then the newly elected president called climate protection one of his priorities...and the Democratic leadership in Congress asserted confidently that it could adopt a climate protection bill before the Copenhagen conference.... But America's climate protectors are not only dissatisfied with a lame Congress, but the government and President Obama are also under increasing fire. Pressure is coming from all sides...and even industry is criticizing the hesitant man in the White House, who is not determined enough to push forward climate protection. But there is by no means a standstill in U.S. climate protection policy. President Obama is pursuing a double strategy, i.e. he is leaving it to Congress to develop a bill on climate protection, while he has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to develop procedures that help reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the case that Congress is unable to reach an agreement. That is why EPA head Lisa Jackson, in one of her first great initiatives, declared carbon dioxide an environmental poison. As far as administrative law is concerned, this is a precondition for the EPA to set ceilings for carbon dioxide emissions. But this approach has one great advantage: following a change of government, such an approach BERLIN 00001280 005 OF 005 can be immediately rescinded. For Copenhagen, too, the legislative snail's pace does not mean the end of all efforts. It is clear that there will be no agreement la Kyoto...but Congress is discussing the idea of setting up an international climate register in which each state commits itself to achieving certain climate protection goals. This would not be binding but it would produce internal pressure, even in the United States." MURPHY