MEDIA REACTION: G20, NATO, CHINA-US, ISRAEL, ECB

UNCLAS BERLIN 000402 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" E.0. 12958: N/A TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO GM US CH IS SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: G20, NATO, CHINA-US, ISRAEL, ECB ¶1. Lead Stories Summary ¶2. G-20 Summit ¶3. NATO Summit ¶4. Hu-Obama Meeting ¶5. New Israeli Government ¶6. Lowering of Interest Rates ¶1. Lead Stories Summary Editorials focused on the G-20 summit and the financial problems of the far-right National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD). The headlines in the press are dominated by the outcome of the G-20 meeting. ZDF-TV's early evening newscast Heute and ARD-TV's early evening newscast Tagesschau opened with reports and stories on the G-20 summit in London. ¶2. G-20 Summit All papers carried extensive coverage of the summit meeting. Handelsblatt headlined: "G-20 Promises One Trillion Dollars." Tagesspiegel opened a report under the headline: "Master Plan To Save the World," Die Welt said: "One Trillion Dollar to Save the Global Economy," and showed a picture showing President Obama and Chancellor Merkel chatting at the photo-op, while Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported on "Stricter Rules for the Global Financial Markets." "More Rules for Control and One Trillion Dollars" is the headline in Frankfurter Allgemeine. The papers primarily addressed the outcome of the meeting and what it would mean for the global economy. They emphasized that the most important economic nations in the world agreed to a comprehensive reform of the financial system, i.e. to subject hedge funds to more scrutiny, fend off protectionism, and boost loans to developing countries, and to circulate a blacklist of countries that serve as tax heavens. ARD TV's Tagesthemen commented: "What a summit! We can now hear a sigh of relief everywhere...and all this was negotiated by Merkel, Brown, Obama, Hu, and Sarkozy -- all those on whose willingness for compromise not too many people would have bet before the summit. Now they are representing themselves as winners. In the end, it was probably Chancellor Merkel who cut the best figure. She asserted her view that all sides involved have now run up enough debt and that it is time for more controls. In a smart way she integrated the host, left it to the French president to play the role of Rumplestiltskin and, first of all, ensured that she does not steal the show from Barack Obama. The new U.S. president surprisingly held back and gave up playing a leading role. The results from London - the achievements of a team." Ex-Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher commented on ZDF-TV's Heute Journal: "The signals from London are encouraging. The German government can be satisfied. The Franco-German alliance again withstood the test. This alliance also proved its worth by insisting on creating rules for an international global financial architecture. This will create confidence. This is a result that is quite respectable, but which continues to require tough work. In this respect, Europe can make an important contribution." Westdeutscher Rundfunk radio of Cologne commented: "The 'monopoly' business model is over. This will be painful for the City, and Wall Street will not dance with joy, but the London decisions will restore the stability of the financial system. The G-20 summiteers really laid a new foundation. Merkel & Co. presented clear rules. But it is the great unknown whether controls will be complete. The Europeans must now present proposals and continue to exert pressure when it comes to adopting regulations. The danger is not yet eliminated that individual financial markets could fall back into their old habits. That is why the IMF will play a key role.... In addition to the chancellor, the IMF is the second winner of the meeting. For decades, no other institution has had so much power." According to a front-page editorial in Frankfurter Allgemeine, "[the summiteers] did not refuse to offer assistance to the least developed countries via the IMF and the World Bank. This will hardly leave any mark in the domestic budgets as long as there is no country in default. From a political point of view, the nicest thing about such common decisions is that no one will be liable if it turns out that enormous sums were wasted without creating any effect. But was this summit meeting not supposed to discuss liability and responsibility? Chancellor Merkel rightfully insisted on a correction of the financial market order when it promotes the taxpayers to pay for the risks. Better rules would have been more favorable for the global economy than a quick loan from the IMF." Die Welt argued: "The world hopes that the United States will play the global economic engine, while everyone else demonstrates a restrained attitude. We could call it the spare-my-house-but-burn-the-other principle of international politics. We live in interesting times. The [financial] crisis and two wars are threatening to overstretch the U.S. capacity as the leading economic power. At the same time, it is becoming clear that the leadership on the globe is not based on economic power and military superiority alone but also on a global mentality. It is certainly not the worst thing that the crisis is teaching the Americans greater humility and that they have with Barack Obama a president who incorporates this in a credible way. But Sarkozy and Merkel should not understand this as an incentive to pound the table in a self-righteous way." Mass-circulation, right-of-center tabloid Bild-Zeitung of Hamburg opined: "Around the globe, the crisis creates fear and anger, but it also teaches the powers-that-be a new degree of responsibility. For President Obama this is a new chapter: the United States no longer sets the tone, the speed, and the direction. For Chancellor Merkel, this is a great success: President Obama followed the policy that she suggested. The G-20 established itself as something that one can describe as the global government. Not on all days but on the most important ones, the world follows the same line, not because someone gives a command but because all sides involved realize that this is necessary. This is historic." Sueddeutsche Zeitung judged: "It was the U.S. that was unable to assert its view with new demands for even more economic stimuli programs. And we owe it to the German government that the U.S. failed. If too much money caused the crisis, then even more money cannot end it. Those who like the British and the Americans continue to fight for the advantage of Britain and the U.S. as business sites for their financial industries, and who want less rather than more controls to achieve this goal, will soon revert to old habits during the rehabilitation period and continue to 'dope' their financial sector. Then Merkel and Sarkozy will again have to stand the test. Only then it will become clear whether the great Barack Obama is more than a lobbyist for Wall Street." Frankfurter Rundschau noted: "The era of deregulation has definitely come to an end. The craze is over that deregulated markets equal God or are technically highly efficient. By giving up this false belief, the will has been become stronger to strengthen the IMF, which had turned into an extended arm of Washington's power policy. Now the IMF will again become the center of the financial markets. We owe this not only to the global shift in power, i.e. the end to the western dominance in the global economy but also to the insight that there is no country in the world that can cope with this crisis on its own." Tagesspiegel had this to say: "As dissatisfying as the outcome of the G-20 summit may be, it marks the change of an era in global politics. The G-20 leaders are clearly demonstrating that they have learned the most important lesson from the ongoing global crisis: there are no national or regional ways out. The representatives of the threshold and developing countries, i.e. the representatives of the great majority of mankind, will have an equal say when it comes to shaping the rules for a globally interconnected society. And it is also foreseeable that this will be valid not only for the informal G-20 summit but also soon for the IMF, the World Bank, and the Banking Oversight Committee in Bale." Handelsblatt opined; "In hindsight, the London summit will be considered an important waystation on the path to a new global financial architecture - no more but also no less. However, the summit was unable to resolve the contradiction that we have to deal with global capital markets that are overseen by national oversight agencies. No country has yet found a solution to the problem of the so-called toxic assets. There is still much to do. A reform of financial regulations can help contribute to restoring confidence. But this will not be enough." ¶3. NATO Summit 60 years and still alive ARD-TV's commentator in Baden-Baden said: "60 years of NATO is a great success story. No if and or buts!" Frankfurter Allgemeine's front-page editorial commented under the headline "NATO - still alive" that "the fact that NATO celebrates its 60th anniversary is a remarkable event. History shows that most military alliances did not live long.... Over the weekend, NATO will even welcome Croatia and Albania as its youngest members... and France, which thought for a long time it would be stronger on its own, returns to the military command." Afghanistan Frankfurter Allgemeine commented: "Especially the Afghan people suffered from the fact that the allies have been sending too few soldiers to Afghanistan. They were easy targets for the Taliban because there was nobody who could protect them. This reveals a great weakness of the powerful alliance: the members' differences of opinion about geopolitical issues." Handelsblatt editorialized: "Obama launched an overdue change in Afghanistan. Finally, Washington wants to pursue a comprehensive approach that combines civilian matters and military security, which Berlin has been demanding for a long time. At long last, Russia and Iran are being approached. This change of course raises hope. However, first of all the war will be expanded to Pakistan. The situation will get worse before it might get better. NATO will only play a minor part in the fight over Afpak. This will be Obama's first war. If he wins, his allies will depend ever more on America. Let's not consider what happens if he loses. Of course, this is a welcome breather for the Europeans. They are no longer under pressure to send more soldiers to Afghanistan." Future Strategy ARD-TV's special report this morning noted: "In its last 60 years, NATO turned into a global policeman. This is exactly the problem.... With its adamant eastern enlargement strategy for NATO, the U.S. put off Russia as a partner." Frankfurter Allgemeine noted: "The self-praise we will hear in Baden-Baden and Strasbourg should not deceive us. NATO is internally disrupted. Although it is deploying tens of thousands of soldiers, it has been lacking a strategy for years. It faced the great challenges of our time, including terrorism, proliferation, and Russia's posturing, as a collation of the unwilling. This has had serious consequences the public hardly knows about. Particularly in Germany, NATO is perceived as an alliance whose (American) generals call for more soldiers.... The most remarkable feature of today's NATO is Germany's disorientation. The Germans, who would not be united in peace without NATO, recently kept their heads down... Since September 11, 2001, the majority of Germans no longer understand the world. The German government is therefore on the defensive in NATO to calm the public opinion at home. At the summit, NATO must task itself with reworking its strategic plan.... First of all, NATO is there to guaranty security. In a globalized world, this leads [the army] abroad and to other continents. Germany also needs security... Politicians must become more aware of this again." Handelsblatt editorialized: "NATO has gotten a bit long in the tooth but it still doesn't know where it stands. This is the sad result on the eve of its 60th birthday. Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, NATO is searching for a new raison d'tre. The former enemy, the Soviet Union, is no more. The former military doctrine of defending the north-Atlantic area was thrown over board. Since the wars on Kosovo and Afghanistan there are no clear borders any more. Will the NATO summit in Strasbourg and Kehl be the turning point? We can be doubtful." ¶4. Hu-Obama Meeting Die tageszeitung is of the opinion that "for many observers, the summit was over before it really had begun. They called the first meeting between Barack Obama and Hu Jintao G-2, as if China and the United States were able to settle the financial and economic crisis on their own. But the new G-2 catchphrase is distracting attention from the EU and pretends that the world has been reinvented. But China and the U.S. are spending money on economic stimuli programs that only try to maintain the status quo, while the most radical suggestions for a reform of the global financial system come from Europe. In reality, China's contribution to solving the crisis will be small. Even if Beijing succeeded in stimulating the economy, China's domestic economy is not much bigger than the one of the Benelux countries. No, the U.S. and Europe must resolve the crisis they caused on their own. This time, China will only stand on the sidelines." ¶5. New Israeli Government Under the headline "Embarrassing Beginning in Jerusalem," Sueddeutsche editorialized: "Lieberman said the Annapolis agreements are dead. However, he has no alternative to offer, apart from the idea that the Palestinians must first renounce violence and get rid of the Hamas radicals. The new foreign minister is referring to the roadmap of the Mideast Quartet, but it seems like he has not read the plan carefully enough. It says that Israel must simultaneously stop the settlement plans in the West Bank. He claims he purposefully ignored it because he himself lives in one of the settlements in the West Bank." Handelsblatt commented: "Things are never as bad as they look. However, if Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman has given us a foretaste of his future policy, the Middle East faces a bad phase.... Everybody knows that Israel's top diplomat is a poltergeist; someone who ignores the etiquette. We now know that the ultra-nationalist is scrapping his predecessor's policy just like that. Lieberman acknowledged the 2003 roadmap, but the fact is that it failed in 2007 despite enormous efforts of the Mideast Quartet to persuade the Palestinians to renounce violence and the Israelis to build no more settlements in the West Bank. Israel is playing the martial card." ¶6. Lowering of Interest Rates Berliner Zeitung had this to say: "Indeed, the other important central banks in the world have gone much further than the European Central Bank. In the U.S., the key interest rates have practically reached zero, while it is hardly higher in Britain with 0.5 percent. The problem is that the British and U.S. central banks have exhausted their possibilities. The decision of the ECB to lower interest rates only by 0.25 percent indicates that it wants to remain steadfast. It deserves praise for this courageous decision, for courage can also be expressed by showing restraint." According to Sueddeutsche Zeitung, ECB head Jean-Claude Trichet and his colleagues are hesitating to start the money printing machines. But why? The economy is in a deep recession, and, according to the OECD, the number of jobless will rise to more than five million in Germany alone, while inflation rates will continue to drop. But the ECB is not in a rush to stop the decline in prices. The fear of inflation is unfounded today. It is certainly true that the money volume is on the rise, but a lot of money does not result in a higher inflation. Prices will begin to rise only if people spend the money instead of saving it. Insecurity is high today and now one is really in the mood to consume and invest. The only thing that grows is deflation and is the burden of debt. This is dangerous. And that is why the ECB would be well advised to follow in the steps of the U.S. a bit." KOENIG