MEDIA REACTION: AFGHANISTAN, SWITZERLAND;BERLIN

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 BERLIN 001530 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 AF SZ SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: AFGHANISTAN, SWITZERLAND;BERLIN ¶1. Lead Stories Summary ¶2. (Afghanistan) Reaction to Obama Speech ¶3. (Switzerland) Ban on Minarets ¶1. Lead Stories Summary ZDF-TV's and ARD-TV's primetime newscasts as well as most major newspapers led with reports on President Obama's strategy for Afghanistan. Berliner Zeitung led with a report saying that contributions to the German HEALTH care system might have to be increased next year. Several papers also carried prominent reports on carmaker Daimler's decision to move parts of its production to the United States. Most major paper also carried front-page editorials on Afghanistan. ¶2. (Afghanistan) Reaction to Obama Speech In a front-page editorial, Frankfurter Allgemeine (12/03) remarked: "The endgame over Afghanistan has begun for America.... Given the alternative of withdrawing from Afghanistan or increasing the efforts there, the President decided in favor of the second option - also because he was able to link the increase in troop numbers with the prospect of a withdrawal, which the American people desire as much as the Europeans. Apart from a few individual countries, the European governments, however, want to make their decisions only after the Afghanistan conference at the end of January whether they will live up to Obama or just jump on the bandwagon.... Let's hope the German government does not just wait for London to begin thinking about its strategy for Afghanistan. It has been clear for a long time that Obama would make the decision he now made. It would be wrong and a huge blow to the transatlantic alliance, to abandon America in the final battle over Afghanistan and Pakistan. The events in the neighboring nuclear power of Afghanistan must be of greater concern to the West than the question of how many girl schools there are in Kabul. The German politicians, however, seem to be completely preoccupied with the renewal of the mandate for the troops and a scandal over allegedly hiding information." ARD-TV's Tagesthemen (12/02) aired the following commentary: "Barack Obama's demand for more forces in Afghanistan reveals the full dilemma of Germany's policy towards Afghanistan: limit [the mission], stay out, and downplay it. But now Obama has reminded NATO of its responsibility. He has linked his political fate to the war, whose outcome is still uncertain. What Germany now urgently needs is an honest debate about the fact that the mission in Afghanistan is much more than offering reconstruction aid. We will have to send more forces to Afghanistan, even though no ONE wants to concede it right now. Maybe there will be a growing challenge in the German government now to credibly represent its policy -- this is a war." Deutschlandfunk radio (12/02) opined: "Even the opposition - apart from the Left Party - is full of praise: right approach, smart BERLIN 00001530 002 OF 006 strategy, the beginning of the end. The Chancellor speaks of a powerful approach to bring the bad situation in Afghanistan to a good end. What is not being said in this country, particularly within the coalition government, is that this end and the withdrawal of international troops from a mostly secure Afghanistan can only be achieved with the great help by all NATO countries, including Germany. The German army is currently planning to increase the number of troops from currently 4,500 by two to three thousand soldiers. When if not now would be the right time to advocate in favor of this in public? Instead, there is hesitation and silence. When NATO meets next week to discuss troop levels, it would be the right time for it, but nothing will happen apart from the repetition of references to the London conference on Afghanistan. Does anybody believe that there will be new fact then?... There is not enough courage to hit the nail on its head. There will be another round of debates in spring." In the view of Tagesspiegel (12/03),"those are called for now who want the President to succeed. Obama is asking the allies for a moderate increase in forces. This request must be fulfilled. This will not be easy, including for the Germans. Angela Merkel says that the Bundeswehr mission in Afghanistan contributes to protecting Germans from international terrorism. If she means what she says she must soon show her true colors." The Washington D.C. correspondent of Der Spiegel, Gabor Steingart, posted a remarkably nasty opinion peace on Spiegel online (12/02). Under the title: Winner of the Nobel War Prize (meaning President Obama, Steingart wrote: "Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught. ... It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly. An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate. Regional daily KQlner Stadt-Anzeiger (12/03) argued: "U.S. President Obama is modernizing [his strategy]. The international community will hardly be able to evade this strategy that has been sold as a strategy without alternative. If the Bundestag decides today on extending the ISAF mandate, then the government will keep this fact out of the BERLIN 00001530 003 OF 006 debate, because it will know only early next year how many forces NATO will order. And then Merkel, like all others, will have to deliver soldiers. Merkel and the military officials use all their energy to avoid a discussion in public about the things the Bundeswehr is to do in the name of the people. In the three months since the Sept 4. bombing in Kunduz, the Bundeswehr soldiers have learned ONE thing: this is the third government that only hesitantly gives up its maneuvering, and the majority of Germans now disapprove of the Bundeswehr mission in Afghanistan. But these soldiers are part of the entire society that must know and make up its mind on the sacrifices and the means that must be used to end this war." Regional daily Trierischer Volksfreund (12/03) had this to say: "The core of things in Afghanistan is the establishment of stable structures. They alone should determine the timing of the withdrawal. The military resolve must thus correspond to the resolve with respect to civilian reconstruction. Only if these questions have been answered, Germany will - and must - also advocate an increase in forces. But if not, then not." Sueddeutsche Zeitung (12/03) opined: "Obama primarily spoke of the circumstances that will turn the war into a success or a failure. But at the end, there was the insight that a politically and ideologically based resistance movement cannot be defeated militarily. Afghanistan can be pacified only politically. He made clear much more than his European allies: I have understood, my voters no longer wants to be concerned about Afghanistan, America only wants to get out of the country. Obama's answer to the war-weary nation is the year 2011. He made clear that the first U.S. soldiers will withdraw then, for reasons that are based on domestic U.S. policy, irrespective of what is happening in the country. In the end, this promise to the U.S. people is more important than an unstable situation in Afghanistan. This is a very courageous policy which would be of no use if the mood turned against him." Die Welt (12/03) opined in a front-page editorial that "in West Point it was not a strategist, but a politician, who delivered a speech. Barack Obama's announcement...should do justice to all sides involved. But such calculations hardly ever come true. It is right to make clear when the mission will end. But what effect will such a date have on the Afghans who reject the Taliban and who have considered themselves being protected by international forces? And what effect will it have on the allies from whom Obama rightfully demands more forces? It would have been much more convincing to orient [the strategy] to criteria such as the establishment of Afghan forces and BERLIN 00001530 004 OF 006 reforms in Kabul. However, Obama's 'Planistan' is much more convincing with respect to bidding farewell to ambitious goals. At issue is not the establishment of a 'model democracy,' but a minimum of stability and the elimination of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Barack Obama is right: Afghanistan is not lost but it would be ominous to jump to conclusions and to declare victory in order to withdraw. For the U.S. and for the allies, there is no alternative but to enforce troops and increase efforts. Handelsblatt (12/03) is of the opinion that, "a question of loyalty will come for the allies if [Obama's] strategy is not convincing. To what extent should they support the U.S. partner in Afghanistan if doubts are mounting that the new course is right? The allies still do not dare to leave their cover. But possibly tomorrow at the NATO foreign ministers meeting we will find out how convincing Barack Obama's policy is when looking at promises to send more troops. There is a high probability that the majority will back the German position: wait and see for the time being and, if possible, decide on nothing." Frankfurter Rundschau (12/03) editorialized: "It would be interesting to know how President Obama sees the chances for success of his new strategy for Afghanistan.... He does not believe that it will be absolutely successful. We know that because the President announced the beginning of the withdrawal when he gave the marching orders for additional 30,000 soldiers.... The date is now set, and it is absurdly precise so that it can only be of a political nature. A view on America's election calendar suggests why the withdrawal must begin in summer 2011. Then, Obama will get ready for running for a second term. Until then, he needs a change in Afghanistan because this war is now his." FT Deutschland (12/03) opined: "It is also dangerous to set a date for withdrawal. There were good reasons for this taboo. If the Afghan people cannot permanently rely on the West, insurgents will be more likely to find new supporters. However, the counter-argument has become more important since the debacle over Karzai's re-election. The allies need to build up a threat scenario concerning Karzai. Only if the corrupt president knows that he must live without western financial and military help in the foreseeable future, can he be moved to set up a functioning state." Leipziger Volkszeitung (12/03) opined: "The Chancellor does not say whether she considers Obama's strategy to be right or wrong. She only praises the vigorous signal. This is praise without contents, BERLIN 00001530 005 OF 006 because only the London conference on January 28 will take stock of the military and civilian efforts of the international community in Afghanistan. Either Washington is now much wiser than the government in Berlin or the German government is afraid, because the activities of Colonel Klein already seem to be too much for it. Obama decided to massively increase forces and then to withdraw as quickly as possible. This is the only variant he is able to convey to his people. For the Chancellor the matter is easier: to send massive forces has not been an option the German people have ever been willing to accept." Regional daily SQchsische Zeitung of Dresden (12/03) judged: "With this plan Barack Obama is accepting great risks, not only militarily but also politically because the U.S. President does not have a guarantee that Germany and the other allies will follow him and increase their forces in Afghanistan. Obama's goal of creating a decisive change in Afghanistan in the coming 18 months is not based on a convincing concept but on the principle of hope. This is too little as a reason to send more soldiers." Regional daily Kieler Nachrichten (12/03) opined: "The Taliban will not consider President Obama's promise... to begin the withdrawal as of 2011 as a sign of unwavering commitment to win. But Obama had no other choice. Only with such time horizon in mind was the President able to justify this unpopular campaign among the Americans. The German government is under the same time pressure. But the unpertinent tone with which the chancellor and her foreign minister withhold a decision until January does not do justice to the matter. If they want to keep a minimum degree of influence on the course of events, they should quickly say what they want." ¶3. (Switzerland) Ban on Minarets Frankfurter Allgemeine (12/03) commented on the response in the Muslim world on the Swiss ban to build new minarets: "The harsh response clearly shows that the Swiss referendum seriously hit the Muslim soul." Die Welt opined: "The Swiss controversy over minarets also has its good sides: freedom of religion has not been discussed so passionately for a long time. However, it must make us skeptical that some of the people who are now outraged have not really been advocates of human rights in the past. There are many places in the world where the freedom of religion, also for Christians, is restricted more seriously than in Switzerland.... Reactionary religions should not be the yardstick for the West, but those who discover religious freedom only for themselves must be told that it is more urgent to spread this principle everywhere where its basis is threatened. And this BERLIN 00001530 006 OF 006 applies in fact to large parts of the Muslim world." MURPHY