MEDIA REACTION: GMOs, Bagram, DPRK, Iran, Cuba, Thailand

UNCLAS BERLIN 000443


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 CU MD SO IT RS UP GG KG
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: GMOs, Bagram, DPRK, Iran, Cuba, Thailand


1. Lead Stories Summary

2. (Germany) Ban on GMOs

3. (U.S.) Bagram Prisoners

4. (North Korea) Six-Party Talks

5. (Iran) Nuclear Program

6. (U.S.-Cuba) Relaxation of Sanctions

7. (Thailand) Revolution Cancelled



1. Lead Stories Summary

Editorials focused on Agriculture Minister Aigner's decision to ban
the cultivation of genetically modified corn and North Korea's
decision to cancel its participation in the six-party talks.
Aigner's decision was also the lead story in the press and in
ZDF-TV's early evening newscast Heute and ARD-TV's early evening
newscast Tagesschau.


2. (Germany) Ban on GMOs

ARD-TV's Tagesthemen aired the following commentary: "Genetic
engineering is for Germans as emotional as nuclear energy. The
Chancellor and the research minister may have a sober scientific
view on this matter, but the majority of Germans are afraid of
mutants in the corn field. And that is why Agriculture Minister
Aigner's decision is not only a factual but also a political
decision. The majority of German farmers do not pin their hopes on
genetically modified corn because they know that the consumers do
not want it. That is why it is logical that the ban is valid only
for individual cases, because no one knows whether we will need GMOs
in the future because of climate change."

Die Welt argued: "Again fear has won: the CSU's fear of the
elections to the European Parliament. That is why scientists are
chased away, and the otherwise often-heard demand for more
innovation and greater entrepreneurial spirit is ignored. The
feeling of being weak in the knees is not determining politics. The
term progress has turned into a dirty word. Aigner decided contrary
to her knowledge. We wonder how CSU politicians would act if such a
fear-mongering campaign were successful in other areas. Bavaria's
Environment Minister Sder called Aigner's decision 'courageous.'
The opposite is true."

Deutschlandfunk broadcast the following commentary: "The election
campaign was the driving force behind Agriculture Minister Aigner's
decision to ban the cultivation of MON 810. Thus far, the EU has
not yet brought about a clear legal basis for the use of GMOs in
agriculture. The basis of its decisions is primarily documents
submitted by the applicants instead of documents of independent
institutes. The result is that we know less about the safety and
environmental compatibility of new genetically modified plants than
we could know. The discussion over new test procedures is not new.
Maybe the next government can give this discussion a new impetus
once the election campaign is over."

According to Frankfurter Allgemeine, "Agriculture Minister Aigner's
reasons for banning MON 810 may be diverse and highly different.
Concerns, however, should also be taken seriously if consumers were
indifferent to GMOs or if they liked them. This is not the case
here. The rejection of GMO is not a specialty of marginal social
groups but is the official government policy in five other EU
countries. The fact that Brussels is of a different opinion, may
certainly have spurned Mrs. Aigner to make a profound decision...."

In the view of Frankfurter Rundschau, "the decision to ban the only
genetically modified corn from the market, thus declaring Germany as
a whole a GMO-free zone is evidence of courage. Irrespective of the
populist considerations that may be behind her decision, genetically
modified corn is a risk for the environment, is totally superfluous
for agriculture, represents an industrial agriculture economy,
burdens food production that is GMO free with unnecessary costs, and
can even ruin bee-keepers. All this has been mentioned all over
again. It is finally a logical decision that all these arguments
have resulted in a ban."

Sueddeutsche Zeitung judged: "Advocates of genetic engineering are
right when they say: a 'possibly' or a 'maybe' are no evidence of
GMOS to be dangerous. But this is not decisive. They do not prove
that GMOS are not dangerous. That is why Agriculture Minister
Aigner acted in a responsible manner. It is likely that she hopes
for some additional votes in the upcoming elections [for the
European Parliament] but tin view of the current facts, this is
totally insignificant."

Regional daily Westdeutsche Zeitung of D|sseldorf opined: "The
accusation that Germany would isolate itself internationally with
this ban is wrong. The unease about MON 810 has created fear among
many European governments. Obviously there is growing skepticism
towards experiments to play with evolution in the laboratories of
big industry. Brussels would be well advised to take national
reservations seriously."

Abendzeitung of Munich noted: "Irrespective of how she reached her
decision, with respect to its contents, the decision is correct. It
may be possible that a sophisticated and profoundly studied genetic
engineering will really be able to help alleviate hunger some day in
the future. But dangers and imponderables are predominant. And
once this stuff is really in the fields, its spread can hardly be
controlled. Such GMOs are primarily of use for U.S. monopolist
Monsanto and its coffers. In Asia, it shows future developments:
manipulated seeds in a lucrative package with manipulated
pesticides, because the one does not work without the other."


3. (U.S.) Bagram Prisoners

Frankfurter Allgemeine argued: "It is not so easy for President
Obama to shake off the legacy of the Bush era. Obama's government
has now appealed a court decision according to which prisoners on
the U.S. base in Bagram can demand a review by U.S. courts of the
grounds for their imprisonment. The problem is that the prisoners
in Bagram were not captured in Afghanistan but were transported
there only for interrogation. That is why they are prisoners in the
global and unlimited war on terrorism, such as the ones in
Guantnamo. It is true that this conflict can hardly be settled
with obsolete war rules, but it cannot justify the systematic
violation of basic freedom rights. Obama should be consistent."


4. (North Korea) Six-Party Talks

According to Frankfurter Allgemeine, "President Obama is now seeing
how North Korea understands how to play with the international
community, when the issue is nuclear policy. Pyongyang is now
demonstrating that we cannot rely on its promises. The five
countries that have tried to settle the conflict with diplomatic
means are now being blackmailed and North Korea is making a fool of
them. Will Obama allow anyone to blackmail him? When looking at
Tehran, the president is willing to make considerable concessions in
order to prompt it to enter into constructive talks. Whys should
Iran now be willing to enter into serious talks when it can expect
the offer to become even better? There is the mounting danger that
some day in the future, there is nothing left to talk about."

Financial Times Deutschland argued: "Even with a tattered Kim,
nothing will change on the Korean peninsula for the foreseeable
future. The reason is that behind the nuclear ambitions of states
such as North Korea and Iran there are not individual fanatics, as
the West liked to believe for a long time, but that Pyongyang is
following a strategy that is both rational and extremely successful.
Seen from a sober point of view, the West has no military
alternative but to pursue diplomacy. That is why Kim & Co. will
continue to play their poker game and raise the price for abandoning
their nuclear programs."

Sueddeutsche Zeitung noted: "The fear of war is to unite the
country. The stupid thing is that South Korea in particular does
not take seriously the nuclear threat, but is more concerned about
conventional armed forces. Washington, too, is less afraid of the
regime but rather of the sale of nuclear and missile technology to
the Middle East. North Korea is trying to safeguard its survival by
using all means possible, especially U.S. guarantees. In order to
get these guarantees, Kim will use threats as long as possible. But
Kim will try to avoid an armed conflict, since he does not want to
commit suicide. All five participants in the six-party talks say
that there is no alternative to talks, and probably no alternative
to direct talks between Washington and Pyongyang. The West could
then win time."


5. (Iran) Nuclear Program

According to Sueddeutsche Zeitung, "ideology and obstructionist
behavior about accepting reality has determined U.S. policy towards
Tehran for a long time. It was always the core message of the U.S.
to enter into talks with Tehran once it stops its uranium
enrichment, but with each additional centrifuge that the Iranians
set up in Natans, this condition became more absurd. The new
negotiating approach, however, will make it more difficult for
Tehran to continue to pursue its delaying tactics. The formal
arguments with which it has rejected talks in the past no longer
exist. There are no longer any preconditions and the Americans will
directly take part in talks. At the same time, Russia and China
make it more difficult for Tehran to find excuses when the issue is
to lure Iran with offers but also to threaten tough sanctions. The
P5+1 should now call upon Iran to sign the Additional Protocol to
the NPT. With it, the regime could demonstrate its peaceful
intentions, and the IAEA would be allowed to launch comprehensive
inspections and search for secret plants. But an end of the nuclear
conflict is by no means in sight, despite the new negotiating
tactics. It would be naive to think that it would be possible to
buy Iran's nuclear program with aircraft parts and light water
reactors. It is a first, important step that the parties are now at
least talking about the complex political problems that have thus
far prevented a solution."


6. (U.S.-Cuba) Relaxation of Sanctions

Die Welt judged: "Following Iran and Russia, Cuba is next. This is
only a minor revolution, but the White House indicated that further
steps could follow. Almost 50 years of the embargo did not result
in the desired success. That was why it was necessary to make a new
beginning in the ideologically burdened relations. President
Obama's new policy could stabilize a regime that is about to come to
its biological end anyway. If Castro is to die, it is by no means
clear that his less popular brother will stay in power for long.
That is why Obama must try a tightrope act: align views with Cuba
and soften the policy of the regime without giving away too many
trump cards too early. The trade embargo is the great prize
Washington can give away. All indications are to save this prize
for the time after the Castro brothers, and to use it after a change
of power in Havana to promote change, which Cubans and Americans
hope for."

Die tageszeitung opined: "The announced lifting to restrictions is
more than a break with the policy of the predecessor government. It
is the greatest step in the direction of a normalization of
relations between the capitalist power and the regional dwarf after
50 years. Obama is willing for change, but he no longer needs to be
very courageous. Time is simply ripe. His election result in
Florida demonstrated that the old hardliners of the Cuban exiled
community no longer set the tone. In order to make possible a real
normalization, more should happen. Guantnamo is not only a prison
of injustice but also a constant reminder of the U.S. imperialist
policy. It would really be a courageous step to return the
Guantanamo military base to Cuba."


7. (Thailand) Revolution Cancelled

"It was a wise decision to give in," Frankfurter Allgemeine wrote,
and noted: "But everyone realizes that, despite this tactical
withdrawal, the problems of the country have by no means been
resolved, even if the government proclaims a return to 'normalcy.'
If Prime Minister Abhisit comes to the conclusion that Thailand's
future is at stake, he would now declare his willingness for serious
talks. It seems to be brazen to hope for such a development,
because the protesters have made a fool of Abhisit in the world. It
is also unclear whether the other side is willing to talk. Former
Prime Minister Thaksin does not create the impression that he would
be willing to make compromises. But Thailand will be saved from
bloodshed only if all sides demonstrate good will."