MEDIA REACTION: G20, CLINTON, GUANTANAMO, NATO, ECONOMICS,

UNCLAS BERLIN 000218


STATE FOR INR/R/MR, EUR/PAPD, EUR/PPA, EUR/AGS, INR/EUC, INR/P,
SECDEF FOR USDP/ISA/DSAA, DIA FOR DC-4A

VIENNA FOR CSBM, CSCE, PAA

"PERISHABLE INFORMATION -- DO NOT SERVICE"

E.0. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO GM US CH FR IR IS XG
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: G20, CLINTON, GUANTANAMO, NATO, ECONOMICS,
IRAN, ISRAEL, EU


1. Lead Stories Summary

2. G-20 Preparatory Meeting

3. Secretary Clinton's Trip to Asia

4. Guantnamo

5. France's Return to NATO's Structures

6. U.S. Budget Deficit, Efforts to Fight Financial Crisis

7. Former Chancellor Schroeder's meeting with President Ahmadinejad

8. Formation Of A New Israeli Government

9. Danger For EU Monetary Union



1. Lead Stories Summary

Editorials focused on the G-20 preparatory meeting in Berlin, the
future of Opel, and ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's meeting with
Iranian President Ahmadinejad. The lead story in almost all papers
centered on the meeting in Berlin. ZDF-TV's early evening newscast
Heute and ARD-TV's early evening newscast Tagesschau opened with
reports on the EU/G-20 meeting in Berlin.


2. G-20 Preparatory Meeting

Berliner Zeitung headlined: "Europe Wants To Dry Up Tax Oases,"
while Financial Times Deutschland headlined: "EU Wants Total Control
Of Markets," and FAZ opened with the headline: "EU Wants Complete
Control Of Financial Markets."

In a commentary ARD-TV's Tagesthemen said: "It is a value in itself
that the leaders in Berlin agreed on a joint position in the fight
against the financial and economic crisis. Now these demands must
remove all obstacles at the G-20 summit in London. It will not be
easy to agree on joint rules for the international world of finance.
That is why the summit was only an interim step, though an
important one. But time is pressing, because a few Eastern European
states are threatened with a financial collapse."

Deutschlandfunk aired the following commentary: "It was a surprise
that the six EU leaders agreed on a common position. Even Britain's
PM Gordon Brown submitted to the general mood in Berlin which
desired complete control of the financial markets. But EU leaders
will need a lot of persuasive power if they really want to implement
this complete control. It will be decisive whether this new
European unity will last--doubts about this are appropriate."

According to Frankfurter Allgemeine, "The calls for greater
transparency and more controls of financial market players may be
justified, but we should remember that the crisis did not develop
out of a lack of insufficient data. Everything we are complaining
about today was known before: the imbalance in the balance of
payments, loan pyramids in the banks, trade in complex derivate
products, the bonus system for the bankers. But no one got excited
about them then, they were even considered chic."

In the view of Sueddeutsche, "we can doubt whether Chancellor Merkel
and Finance Minister Steinbr|ck's goodwill will suffice to
profoundly restructure the financial system, because it was not just
a few unimportant things that went wrong with international capital
markets. This system has, as President Khler said, developed into
a 'monster.' But a monster cannot be reined in with a great deal of
coaxing, a monster needs a chain that limits the freedom of its
actions." The daily concluded: "A true reform of the global markets
will fail if the G-20 do not agree on at least three things: there
should be no more derivatives, certificates and financial
instruments which have not been approved before by an international
agency; second, finance concerns should no longer be allowed to
strike deals that do not show up in their balance sheets; and,
third, all tax oases must be closed down."

Financial Times Deutschland judged: "Not long ago, Finance Minister
Steinbr|ck earned at best a condescending pat on the back from his
colleagues with his calls for tougher rules for the financial
architecture. But yesterday's EU/G-20 decisions demonstrated to
what extent the global financial crisis has changed old roles. The
list of demands the EU/G-20 will bring to the summit meeting in
London go back to Steinbr|ck, point by point."

Berliner Zeitung deals with the future role of the IMF and judged:
"In view of all the measures which the EU/G-20 has now suggested,
the problem is that the IMF, of all international financial
institutions, is now to play the decisive role as 'crisis manager.'
But it was the IMF which pushed for decades the opening of capital
markets and demanded deregulation. That is why it must be
considerably blamed for the current crisis. Before the IMF can
contribute to fighting the crisis, it must be newly equipped as far
as its personnel and structure is concerned."

Tagesspiegel commented: "The agreement that new rules are necessary
is not enough. The details are important. And when it comes to
approving details, the states are well advised to use fundamental
rules as a basis instead of indulging in an unbridled craze to
regulate everything. That is why the motto should not be to ban as
much as possible but to create wise incentives for responsible
action."

Regional daily Muenchener Merkur argued: "Chancellor Merkel said
that deeds will now be matched with words. This is a bold proposal.
We should recall this fact: only 20 months ago, the chancellor
called for stricter rules for the global financial market at the G-8
summit in Heiligendamm. But the United States and Britain in
particular rejected stricter laws because they profited too much
from the risky businesses of their bankers. In the meantime, the
entire system has collapsed and we are all paying the price."


3. Secretary Clinton Trip to Asia

ARD's TV's newscast Tagesschau noted: "The U.S. wants to stand
shoulder to shoulder with China. Secretary Clinton said during her
visit to Beijing that she is hoping for a new era in the
relationship.... On the way to the 21st century: the fact that
Clinton's first visit abroad led her to the Far East with a final
stopover in Beijing is a symbolic beginning of a new world order.
China can no longer be bypassed. The new policy of the Obama
government was also visible here: extended hands and open ears.
And a surprising message, which China liked but was harshly
criticized by human rights organizations, Tibet and human rights are
not supposed to be high on the agenda and must not obstruct
solutions for economic and climate problems. Clinton needs China
because of the country's mutual dependence and the North Korean
conflict.... Hillary Clinton redefined U.S.-Chinese relations:
China is supposed to be a partner and not a rival, because global
problems can no longer be resolved without China."

Sueddeutsche's report headlined "Clinton announces a new era" and
highlights that "the U.S. Secretary of State stresses common
interests with Beijing during her visit to China." The paper's
editorial noted: "The U.S. shows up abroad with a new modesty.
Clinton said she came to listen... She has also set new priorities,
and she picked the right ones. The cooperation in climate
protection matters between China and the U.S., the world's largest
emitters of greenhouse gases, has been terribly neglected so far....
The fact that Clinton only marginally mentioned human rights came
as a surprise. It was probably consistent with the new message of
modesty and therefore understandable. In the long run, this
position would be unacceptable if the U.S. wants to regain its
international reputation."

Under the headline "Temporary Cooperation," Handelsblatt expressed
skepticism saying: "The staged rapprochement between the U.S. and
China has not removed the mutual distrust.... Rarely before have
both sides been so cordial with each other.... Does the global
crisis lead to more cooperation and not, as pessimists fear, to more
confrontation? Yes, but only for the time being. Given the dispute
over Yuan devaluation and protectionism in recent weeks, this is
astonishing. Clinton bypassed any difficult diplomatic edges
elegantly. Not even the topic of human rights played a role.
China's leadership can be pleased with the visit, which caused so
many uncertainties because its goal is to present itself to its own
people as an equal partner of the U.S. superpower.... President
Obama wants to solidify old friendships in the region and set new
priorities. Beijing interpreted the itinerary of the visit in its
own way: China was not the end of the visit but the crowning
highlight of the Clinton mission. Maybe this language is true.
However, Clinton at least realized that the axis of
Washington-Beijing is important to keep the world in balance."


4. Guantnamo

Sueddeutsche sub-headlined: "Before the elections, the new U.S.
president had announced a change in U.S. terror policy and a closure
of Guantnamo - but now he is hesitating." In the report the daily
wrote: "In words, change has begun long since...but the means and
methods with which America prosecutes, incarcerates and tries
alleged terrorists are only slowly changing. And the nasty term of
'Obama's Guantnamo' already exists, as human rights activists refer
to the U.S. military camp in Bagram in Afghanistan. And since
Friday night, one thing is certain: [With respect to Bagram]
President Obama is sticking to President Bush's course."
Frankfurter Allgemeine carried a similar report on Bagram under the
headline: "Bagram Complaint Failed - Prisoners Are Not Allowed to
Appeal the Reasons for their Imprisonment In The U.S." Tagesspiegel
carried a factual news report under the headline: "Captive Of The
Old System - U.S. President Obama obviously wants to change little
with respect to the treatment of prisoners in Guantnamo and
Afghanistan. Will he give up his promised political change?"
Under the headline: "U.S. Report Called Guantnamo 'Human,'"
Frankfurter Rundschau wrote: "the Pentagon report stating that the
Geneva Conventions are not being violated in Guantnamo has caused
doubts about whether there will really be a political change in
Washington. Human rights groups criticized the report as imprecise
and euphemistic."


5. France's Return to NATO's Structures

In a front-page editorial, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung opined:
"It is not a military revolution that France will return to NATO's
integrated military structure. Since the end of the Cold War,
France has gradually intensified its military participation in NATO.
But a rethinking is now required not only by the French political
and diplomatic class but also by the French themselves. Because
America and France claim to be the authors of human rights and
democracy and think they have to fulfil a 'universal' mission, one
must add philosophical rivalry to the political military complex.
But with the end of the bipolar order of the world, the military
political reasoning for the French special position is outdated. In
an emerging multipolar world, it would not make sense to cultivate a
principle rivalry with the United States. France is now hoping for
a political dividend...and this means that France will not become an
easy ally for the U.S. and NATO. It will continue to stick to its
notion of national greatness and self-determination."


6. U.S. Budget Deficit, Efforts to Fight Financial Crisis

Frankfurter Allgemeine judged: "It is really strange; the ink of
Barack Obama's signature on the most expensive economic stimulus
program in history had hardly dried when the president pronounced a
budget policy change of course and announced a consolidation of
state finances. We need not be Democrats to have doubts about the
seriousness of this promise to make savings. This is all the more
true because Democrats and Republicans have always had difficulty
cutting expenses. For instance, without the votes from Capitol
Hill, George W. Bush would not have succeeded in doubling the
indebtedness during his term to 11 trillion dollars. But we wish
Washington to show the courage and the moderation that is right: a
sound budgeting and a reduction of debt are bitterly necessary in
the medium-term."

In the view of Sueddeutsche Zeitung, "It is one of those typical
explanations that do not explain anything. The White House
spokesman said the U.S. government continues to believe in a
'privately-run banking system." This phrase is certainly true but
it is irrelevant in the literal sense of the word. The question is
not whether the government wants to have this privately-run banking
system but whether it can still be saved without the banks being
nationalized and then liquidated. The greatest danger right now is
that President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner do not have the
time to weigh pros and cons because developments in the financial
markets are forcing them to take immediate action. But this new
insecurity is closely linked to Geithner's bailout package. His
plan is demanding and comprehensive but it leaves many questions
open. The government must answer these questions. If not, it will
not be able to shape things but will be able to react. Then
Geithner would have no other way out but to nationalize banks. And
without the solution of the banking question, President Obama's
economic program will have no effect either. Now everything depends
on Geithner."


7. Former Chancellor Schroeder's meeting with President
Ahmadinejad

All German media carry reports on former Chancellor Schroeder's
visit to Iran, noting that "Schroeder criticized the denial of the
Holocaust shortly before his meeting with Iranian President
Ahmadinejad" and that "participants described the meeting with
Ahmadinejad as tense" (Frankfurter Allgemeine). Frankfurter
Rundschau headlined "Cool meeting with the Hardliner."

Die Welt's editorial viewed former Chancellor Schroeder's meeting
with Ahmadinejad as "a moral and political scandal" (headline) and
added: "This is a moral scandal because a former German chancellor
must not lower himself to upgrade a radical who hates Israel, an
anti-Semite and somebody who denies the Holocaust. Politically, this
is a scandal because Schroeder's visit coincides with the critical
phase of the Iranian presidential election campaign and will be
exploited by Ahmadinejad to show that he is not so isolated as his
moderate opponent Khatami always claims."

Sueddeutsche editorialized: "Schroeder visited Iran at a moment when
the new man in the White House has not yet decided about his new
policy on Iran. Washington and Tehran are still exploring the
opportunity for a new beginning. If both sides want to take the
opportunity, the former Chancellor could be the pioneer of a new
beginning... Those who want to resolve problems in the Middle East
must talk to the other side, not just with kindred spirits."

Frankfurter Allgemeine commented: "The business world will
certainly welcome Schroeder's visit as German entrepreneurs have
been annoyed for some time that Berlin is taking trade sanctions on
Iran more seriously than other European governments.... However, it
can be doubted that this role also includes a 'private' meeting with
Ahmadinejad."

Berliner Zeitung stated: "Describing former Chancellor Schroeder's
visit to Iran as 'private' is of course a big joke. Did he travel
to Tehran as in unofficial representative of the Europeans - maybe
even in agreement with the new folks in Washington - or as an
employee of his Russian employer Gazprom? This question is
important in times of great concerns over energy security and with a
view on the latest European-Russian tensions. However, the fact that
Schroeder was in Tehran is even more important. This is the
beginning of a path to bring back outlaws such as the PLO or Iran
into the international community. Talks start cautiously,
unofficially and with mediators who are not directly involved in the
conflict and bear no responsibility for making decisions."

Frankfurter Rundschau commented: "Whatever the true purpose of his
visit was - laying the foundation of an acquaintance's hospital
cannot possibly be the reason - the diplomatic effect is disastrous.
The visit only helps Ahmadinejad. Although Schroeder publically
criticized his denial of the Holocaust, the image of the meeting
with the Iranian President will be remembered. Only the two of them
know what the meeting was really like. Secret diplomacy - if that
was the unspoken purpose of the visit - looks different."


8. Formation Of A New Israeli Government

Handelsblatt's editorial noted that U.S. Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer
warned against an ultra-right coalition: "Netanyahu would have a
foreign political problem with an ultra-right coalition because it
would put him under pressure to extend the settlement project on the
occupied West Bank. This radical coalition would not allow any
concessions to the Palestinians. A collision course with the new
government in Washington could not be avoided."

Sueddeutsche commented: "Netanyahu is an old-fashioned politician
from whom we have not yet heard any fresh ideas about how he wants
to take advantage of the opportunity for the better of the Middle
East and Israel after the change of the U.S. government.... There
is no indication how he wants to get back to business with his
political home, the United States, and the new U.S. President.
Netanyahu's domestic alliance is fragile even before it is put
together..... Netanyahu might have the majority but not the power."



9. Danger For EU Monetary Union

According to Sueddeutsche Zeitung, "the struggle against the
financial crisis shows that this fight is too much for the financial
power of many countries. The names of the countries which are in
dire straits have been known for a while. They need assistance to
prevent a horror scenario for the euro zone: its disintegration.
The deeper the economic crisis, the more obvious is the fundamental
deficit of the monetary union. The Maastricht Treaty was inspired
by the spirit of the 80s: the market will take care of everything.
But if, in the course of the crisis, all sides involved agree on
common financial assistance, the states must also intensify their
cooperation in fiscal and economic policies and give up part of
their sovereignty. This is a sluggish approach but will lead back
to the idea of the euro founders: that the monetary union might
develop into a political union."

Tagesspiegel dealt with Ireland's problems and noted: "Finance
Minister Steinbrueck made clear that no one wants a development in
which, in the end, the Irish are jeopardizing the entire monetary
union. For the Irish, European integration is now a real advantage.
This has possibly to do with the fact that the Lisbon Treaty, which
the Irish rejected last year, all of a sudden seems to have a new
chance on the island. Sometimes, the EU appears to be embarking on
strange paths."

KOENIG