MEDIA REACTION: AFGHANISTAN, CLIMATE OBAMA, RUSSIA,

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 BERLIN 001539 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 AG KGHG US RS ETRD SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: AFGHANISTAN, CLIMATE OBAMA, RUSSIA, WTO;BERLIN ¶1. Lead Stories Summary ¶2. (Afghanistan) Reaction To President Obama's Address ¶3. (Climate) Copenhagen Summit ¶4. (U.S.) Obama Administration ¶5. (Russia) Putin Comments ¶6. (Economic) WTO Talks ¶1. Lead Stories Summary Print media leads with reports on Defense Minister zu Guttenberg's remarks in the Bundestag that the Sept 4. air strike on two fuel trucks near Kunduz "was not appropriate." Frankfurter Rundschau leads with a story on the upcoming climate summit in Copenhagen and carried a supplement that deals with the event. Handelsblatt focused on the European Central Bank and signs that it is moving away from its expansive monetary policy as a result of improvements in the economy. Editorials centered on the Bundestag debate over the airstrike near Kunduz and the decision by the European Court on Human Rights that increased custody rights of fathers for their children. ZDF-TV's early evening newscast heute and ARD-TV's early evening newscast Tagesschau opened with Defense Minister zu Guttenberg's speech to the Bundestag on the Afghanistan air strikes. ¶2. (Afghanistan) Reaction To President Obama's Address German editorials on Afghanistan focused on German Defense Minster zu Guttenberg's reassessment of the September 4 airstrikes against fuel tankers near Kunduz that reportedly killed many civilians. Only a few editorials dealt with yesterday's renewal of the parliamentary mandate for the German mission in Afghanistan and the new U.S. strategy. Frankfurter Allgemeine (12/04) opined: "The Bundestag renewed an unchanged mandate for the mission in Afghanistan for one year. But for how long will the limit of 4,500 soldiers last? ... It is not a secret that the German army can hardly achieve its self-chosen mission in the north of the country with current troop levels.... It is also clear that President Obama is expecting more from the Germans. Postponing the decision now is not convincing. What do we gain-apart from time? We must not use Obama's month-long debate about a strategy 
as an example. However, it would not be bad if the responsible generals in Germany could say something in public." Tagesspiegel (12/04) remarked in an editorial: "The German government wants to make a statement on a potential increase of the German contingent only after the London conference on Afghanistan at the end of January. It is more than doubtful whether it will be able to stick to this. The attempt to simply discuss civilian assistance appears to be artificial." BERLIN 00001539 002 OF 006 The Munich-based Abendzeitung (12/04) editorialized: "Do we actually care about what the Afghans want? They want to work, need hospitals and schools, also for their girls. Soldiers build the infrastructure for these things and protect them. If they withdrew, the Taliban would destroy them and with it the approach to create a civilization the majority of the people in the world wants. We need more of it, not just soldiers. This is the only chance that rich countries have to get out of Afghanistan. This costs a lot of money and takes time, but the alternative is the victory of the Taliban. And this must not happen." Sddeutsche (12/04) highlighted in an editorial that "America should seek support from the Muslim countries in the war in Afghanistan." The paper explains: "The fact that the rulers in the Gulf region and their Islam preachers had good relations with the Taliban leadership and met with them regularly has been forgotten again. American President Barack Obama has now announced his strategy to end the chaos in Afghanistan: 30,000 fresh soldiers will be deployed soon and the Afghan security forces will be armed better. This is not convincing. Obama's decision to begin withdrawing troops in 2011 invites the Taliban to wait out the American offensive in the caves of Tora Bora. Apart from opium, time is the only thing the country has. The building up of an Afghan army is wishful thinking. The end of the Soviet occupation in 1989 and the following disaster shows what kind of troops they have: the soldiers laid down their weapons as soon as the enemy was visible. Obama's idea of an army can work only if a state is simultaneously set up with which the soldiers can identify. This will not happen. Obama is, however, right about one thing: his army cannot do nation building in Afghanistan.... This would require the kind of legitimacy the U.S. does not have. Other countries are more credible - Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey. Muslim involvement would deprive the Taliban of their main argument; that infidel occupiers trample on Islam with their military boots. Of course, Muslim countries are involved in the reconstruction... and Turkey is part of the NATO troops. However, they need to influence the country's policy more." Thringische Landeszeitung (12/04) opined: "The Europeans would be well-advised to subject this 'mission impossible' to a critical evaluation. More military will not do any good if there is no stability in the country and the (Afghan) people do not trust their own government. Any strategy which disregards this aspect is doomed BERLIN 00001539 003 OF 006 to fail." Thringer Allgemeine Zeitung seconded this view in an editorial saying: "Tanks are not the way to restore trust with the population." SQchsische Zeitung (12/04) commented: "President Obama is taking a great risk - not only militarily but also politically - because he has no guarantee that Germany and the other allies will follow him and boost their contingents in Afghanistan as requested. Obama's goal to turn around the war in Afghanistan within the next 18 months is not based on a persuasive concept but on the principle of hope - not enough to send additional troops into this risky mission with a clean conscience." Freie Presse (12/04) commented: "With this daring mix of escalation and withdrawal, Obama is playing his last trump card. While success remains uncertain, one thing is 100 percent sure: the number of U.S. casualties will rise in the coming months. And from now on they will be Obama's dead." Volksstimme (12/04) remarked: "You want to bet that Germany will up its contingent by 2,000 troops (at the London) Afghanistan conference)? The German government has allegedly already taken this into consideration." Mass tabloid Bild (12/04) editorialized: "It is smart that the new defense minister has spoken so clearly... The U.S. allies, who sharply criticized the attack so early on, no longer appear to be backstabbers.... And what will soldiers now think of their boss, who is not afraid of making decisions? They will appreciate him even more because zu Guttenberg protects the tragic colonel who decided in the deep of the night in favor of the security of his troops." ARD-TV's Tagesthemen (12/03) commented on Defense Minister zu Guttenberg's reassessment of the September 4 airstrikes: "This was a remarkable performance. A minister who corrected himself and apologized for a disastrously wrong assessment he had made three weeks earlier. He did so in front of parliament and not hedged in by clauses in a press interview. This is unprecedented in the usually diehard defense ministry. This earned him respect." ¶3. (Climate) Copenhagen Summit The Bundestag approved the ambitious government goals for the upcoming climate summit in Copenhagen, with speakers saying it will be necessary "at least to reach an agreement on the core points of a future agreement." The details should be negotiated in the first half of 2010. BERLIN 00001539 004 OF 006 In the Bundestag debate, Environment Minister Norbert RQttgen (CDU) expressed his optimism about a positive outcome of the conference, arguing: "I am pleased to see that the preparatory talks have developed momentum and that all sides are willing to achieve a success." He added that "there is no alternative" to success because the climate problems are too serious. Representatives of all parties represented in the Bundestag made similar statements (Sueddeutsche). Frankfurter Rundschau (12/04) carried a supplement that examines environmental problems from all angles. One report dealt with U.S. efforts to fight climate change and reported that "without waiting for Washington, half of the 50 U.S. states have made their own laws for the use of renewable energies. The operators of power plants must constantly increase their share in renewable energies since they are otherwise threatened with hefty fines. The report states that pessimists cite the varied history of wind and solar power in the United States where bankruptcies always followed a boom, but the founder and President of the Earth Policy Institute, Lester Brown said: 'This time, there is no way back.'" According to Handelsblatt (12/04),"China and the United States are playing the decisive role at the climate summit in Copenhagen. After a long climate policy abstinence, the two most important countries in the world have finally committed themselves to pursuing their own climate goals. But they lag far behind what would be necessary in order to reach at least a limit to global warming of two degrees centigrade. All indications are that China and the United States will sign an agreement only if the reduction goals are based on 2005, not 1990 as originally planned. This sounds harmless but resembles a 1000 meter race that is stopped after 500 meters to allow two well-rested runners to join the race. Of course, Germany and the EU have, compared to other industrialized nations, made enormous efforts and that is why Germany in particular is leading in the development of future technologies with respect to environmental protection. The demand for such products will grow and domestic industries have the best chances to profit from this development. But Germany and the EU cannot save the global climate on their own. But they can be a model that is copied by other countries because they also want to make a profit." Frankfurter Rundschau (12/04) editorialized: "If leading climate politicians such as Barack Obama, Wen Jiaobao, Merkel, and Co. and their successors fail to meet the two-degree centigrade goal, they will shoulder an unprecedented responsibility. It is true that hectic activities are not necessary but French President Sarkozy is right when he says 'The future of our planet is at stake in Copenhagen.' That is why it is all the more grotesque to see how the climate BERLIN 00001539 005 OF 006 powers are reacting in the preparatory stages of the Copenhagen summit. They have wasted a lot of time and energy. The APEC summit three weeks ago created the impression that the climate summit could be cancelled out of a lack of interest of the world leaders. But this was a salutary shock and more than 70 leaders have promised to attend the summit. Measured against the things that are at stake, Obama and Co. cannot afford to produce hot air in Copenhagen. If they do, then the only thing that helps will be to pray." Under the headline: "Hunger on a Hot Planet," die tageszeitung (12/04) opined: "At the Copenhagen summit, the developing countries will demand additional funds to adapt to climate change. And they are right. First, because the consequences of climate change have hit them harder than, for instance, Germany. And second, the industrialized countries are responsible for the problem. The United States alone produced 350 percent more greenhouse gases than China between 1903 and 2000. That is why the industrialized countries promised developing countries more funds at the Bali summit; they want to discuss their own commitments only if the North has paid. The German government is now testing the reverse approach. The developing nations should reduce their emissions first, before they will get money, but only from the millennium budget. But one millennium goal is to halve the number of starving people, not to build higher dams. The number of starving people, however, increased by 80 million over the past few years, not least because of the climate crisis." ¶4. (U.S.) Obama Administration Under the headline "Delayed New Beginning," Berliner Zeitung (12/04) analyzed: "President Obama would have liked to present himself as a peace maker during the December 10 awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize.... Now, Obama is traveling to the ceremony, fairly inappropriately, with a decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan. The new U.S.-Russian disarmament agreement could have been the desired positive signal. But it will not be ready in time.... The plans were boldly optimistic anyway because the matter is as complex and difficult as two decades ago.... So far, the rhetoric of a new beginning has changed only little of the substance of the U.S.-Russian relations. Both countries have not defined the general line for the way they deal with each other. Obama knows that he needs Russia if he wants to overcome the legacy of his predecessor in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. It is BERLIN 00001539 006 OF 006 however still unclear whether he sees Medvedev as someone who can help or as an equal partner. On the other side, Moscow needs an agreement with the U.S. because the progress of modernization is advancing more slowly than the ambitious plans from the time before the financial crisis foresaw. Both approaches do not yet express any strategic redefinition." ¶5. (Russia) Putin Comments Sueddeutsche Zeitung (12/04) editorialized: "Vladimir Putin said he would possibly run for the presidency in 2012. Dimitrij Medvedev said that he could also run. But those who consider this race a real competition for the Russian presidency reduce a highly complex interplay of interests and dependencies to a binary system. But it is not that easy. Of course, the almost familiar Putin TV show differs from Medvedev's pompous visions with which he wants to make the Russians happy. But the great, almost socialist gestures with which the Russian president develops a shining future once Russia has freed itself from stagnation and dependence is attracting the Russians much less than Putin's appearance. Medvedev is getting completely involved in his modernization craze, even though he has only two years left in office." ¶6. (Economic) WTO Talks In an editorial Handelsblatt (12/04) argued that "in a crisis, charity begins at home." The paper added: "For the recovery of the global economy, the protection and the extension of free trade can contribute more to the global economic recovery than any other economic stimulus program. And the best thing about it is that the tearing down of trade walls does not cost a penny. On the contrary, the reduction of agricultural subsides would even reduce the burden on the taxpayer. Free trade also contributes to a more peaceful co-existence of all peoples. And that is why it should be irresistible for all sides involved...but reality looks different. Even if we judge the WTO meeting in Geneva by the minimum expectations of its participants, then the meeting was a failure. The trading nations again blamed each other for the failure and only professional optimists such as WTO head Pascal Lamy expect the Doha Round to conclude 2010. The WTO is threatening to turn into a chatting club. In this crisis, many nations act according to the slogan: charity begins at home.' But this approach will make everyone a loser in global trade. British economist David Ricardo proved 200 years ago that everyone profits if each nations concentrates on its economic strengths and buys the rest abroad. This is still true today." MURPHY