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."