MEDIA REACTION: COUNTERTERRORISM, TALIBAN, BURMA, POPE,

UNCLAS BERLIN 000567


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 PK BM IS XF
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: COUNTERTERRORISM, TALIBAN, BURMA, POPE,
MEPP, OPEL


1. Lead Stories Summary. 1

2. Detainee Photos and Military Tribunals. 1

3. Pakistani Fight against the Taliban.. 2

4. Burma -- Aung San Suu Kyi Arrest 3

5. Papal Visit 4 to the Mideast

6. Israeli PM Netanyahu in Aqaba. 4

7. U.S.-German Efforts to Save Opel 5


1. Lead Stories Summary

Editorials focused on President Obama's reversal on abuse photos,
the budget draft for FY 2010, and the debate over Opel's future.
The headlines in the press are dominated by the budget draft and the
future of Opel. ZDF-TV's early evening newscast Heute and ARD-TV's
early evening newscast Tagesschau opened with stories on the tax
estimate and its implications on the budget.


2. Detainee Photos and Military Tribunals

Broadcast and online media picked up U.S. media reports that the
President plans to resurrect military tribunals. Most newspapers
carried lengthy reports and editorials on Obama's decision to
prevent the publication of the detainee photos. It is remarkable to
note that most commentaries express understanding for Obama's
decision.

ARD-TV's Tagesschau reported this morning that, "according to media
reports, President Obama is planning to announce today that the
controversial military tribunals for terror suspects in Guantanamo
will be resumed. CNN is referring to unnamed government
representatives. Obama had suspended the proceeding until May 20.
The rule of law will be applied in the future and statements made
under torture may not longer be used."

Germany's most important webzine Spiegel Online said in its intro:
"A new U-turn of the Obama government. The U.S. President wants
indeed to resurrect the controversial military tribunals for
Guantanamo detainees. However, stricter rules than during the time
of Bush Jr. will be applied." The report continues: "This would be
a withdrawal from one of his most important election promises."

Sueddeutsche editorialized: "There are serious reasons for Barack
Obama's decision to try to prevent the publication of additional
photos showing American torture victims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Without any doubt, this would trigger a new spate of outrage over
the United States. The anger over the mistreatment could ignite new
attacks on U.S. soldiers who fight in both countries. Although he
now holds back the photos because of this reason, Obama cannot get
rid of the debate on torture.... First there was indecisiveness
about the memos in which government lawyers justified torture, now
we have the tug of war about the photos, and soon there is a dispute
about the disastrous military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees.
It will go on like this. Obama won't be able to finesse his way
through. He must dare to make a painful step. The U.S. must
clarify its position on the use of torture and mistreatment in the
name of America."

Berliner Zeitung's editorial said: "Barack Obama is right. It would
not clarify anything but add fuel to the hatred of AMERICA across
the world if the government published the photos. We have known for
six years that U.S. soldiers tortured in Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo..... Without the photos, Obama would not have won the
election and have the chance to commit the country again to human
rights. New torture photos would not be helpful in this attempt.
However, those responsible for the torture should be taken to
court."

Tagesspiegel remarked: "The photos, which would serve as an excuse
for a flare-up of hatred, would not just pose a danger to U.S.
soldiers. Above all, the Afghan people could not protect themselves
against a new spate of violence. Particularly for them, the
publication of the photos would come at a bad time."

Frankfurter Allgemeine commented: "President Obama favors pragmatic
considerations over principles - and therefore bears the
responsibility of his office. This will not be the last turn,
particularly in the field of terrorism."

Die Welt opined: "By his refusal to publish the photos showing the
mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. soldiers, Obama made
clear to Democrats and Republicans alike that they cannot
ideologically trust him. Obama's supporters are outraged because he
explains his change of mind by using a slogan ffrom the Bush/Cheney
era... But is his U-turn therefore wrong or a sign of weakness?
.... It is particularly about his new strategy for Afghanistan.
Obama cannot simply win the hearts and minds of the people by an
additional 20,000 soldiers.... Obama needs more confidence if he
wants to stop Afghanistan becoming his Vietnam."

Under the headline "Security over transparency," FT Deutschland
commented: "The consequences of a potential new series of photos
would not just have an impact on the Americans, but also its allies
in Afghanistan, including the Bundeswehr. It is understandable that
the idealistic supporters of Obama feel deceived. The most
important thing about the change of power in Washington is not to
criticize the evil methods of the Bush era, but to stop them for
good."


3. Pakistani Fight against the Taliban

Under the headline "Pakistan at a turning point," Frankfurter
Allgemeine commented: "Washington is aware of the fact that there
are Pakistanis in the government and army who secretly approve of
Jihad and do not want to do without Pakistan's 'religious army,'
which played an important role in the Indian part of Kashmir in
1990s - and today in Afghanistan. The determination of the
government and army will be seen in the tribal regions where the
Taliban have their strongholds. So far, they are not taking any
action there. The fact that the only Islamic nuclear state remains
opaque and ambiguous also becomes clear in the outrage over the
American drones, which bombard terror havens in the tribal regions
week by week. Everybody who joins in the criticism knows that the
Pakistani army provides the U.S. with the necessary information on
the targets. It will take some time until we can trust Islamabad
again."


4. Burma -- Aung San Suu Kyi Arrest

Many national dailies carried reports on Aung San Suu Kyi's arrest.
Frankfurter Allgemeine headlined: "The One who Received an
Unexpected Visit is Sitting in the 'Devil's Hole'" and reported: "An
American visited Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi without her
having anything to do with it. Now the guest and the 'host' are in
prison and Suu Kyi is faced with a five-year imprisonment. Her
arrest is the most recent and most drastic measure with which the
military regime is taking action against this icon of resistance."
Financial Times Deutschland headlined: "Junta Arrests Opponent," and
noted: "Aung San Suu Kyi is the most important opposition politician
for the military junta that rules Burma with a tough hand."

Sueddeutsche wrote: "The new arrest and the accompanying
mud-slinging campaign against this icon of the opposition seems to
have been perfectly organized, because the house arrest against the
'Lady' should have ended in two weeks... Now the junta thinks it
has found a sound reason to keep Suu in detention and to possibly
transfer her from her house on the sea to the Insein prison."

Frankfurter Allgemeine noted: "It is hard to say from the outside
whether the American who forced his way into Aung San Suu Kyi's
house was 'apolitical,' but we can be sure that he came at the right
moment for the generals. Again they have a pretext to put the woman
of whom they are still afraid, on trial. And they are likely to
have prefabricated the verdict, too. Then the regime can be sure
that the situation will again remain calm. And as long as China is
of the opinion that it is in its interest to have a 'stable' regime
in Burma, western appeals will be in vain. Only if China had to
fear of its reputation, would Aung San Suu Kyi have a chance."

Sueddeutsche Zeitung opined under the sub-headline: "Only a New
Strategy, not a Blockade, Will Help Against the Military Junta in
Burma " and judged: "As usual the junta in Burma is ignoring
humanity, decency, and even its own laws because, in its
pigheadedness, it does not tolerate anything that could threaten its
rule, legitimized through the power of guns. In Burma, unteachable
generals have turned a potentially wealthy country into a poorhouse
with their tyranny. But the West must partly also be blamed for
this situation. For a long time, the only thing that has come to
its mind are sanctions to put pressure on the regime, even though it
has been clear for a long time that they are useless. There are two
reasons for this. India and China willingly stepped into the breach
and undermined western sanctions. Second, isolation as a means of
pressure will not help if a regime has isolated itself. But a new
economic approach could offer political options. People who need
not fear for their existence day by day and for whom the Internet
and the mobile phone have become self-evident will be totally
different factors once Burma's fate will be decided. The United
States now has a man at its top, who is embarking on new paths. Why
not also towards Burma?"

According to die tageszeitung, "the opposition will be further
weakened by Aung San Suu Kyi's imprisonment but it will also
increase the probability that the opposition NLD party will boycott
the 2010 mock elections. It is the goal of this entire mock
democratization process to keep influential neighbors such as China
in a good mood and to permanently safeguard the power of the junta.
The military want to demonstrate to its neighbors that they are able
to implement reforms but not according to the 'Western' model.
Since sanctions have thus far not been successful and since a policy
of integration has failed, we must now also fear that the military
will succeed with their policy and that the neighbors will not
insist on Aung San Suu Kyi's release."


5. Papal Visit to the Mideast

Sueddeutsche editorialized: "In the Holy Land, Benedict
particularly made progress in the dialogue with Islam. His
Jordanian hosts, who demonstrated to all Islamophobic people in the
West that there is a moderate, cooperative and tolerant Islam, were
particularly helpful. The bold engagement in favor of the rights of
the Palestinians will also improve the relations between Christians
and Muslims. That is a success of this highly political pilgrimage.
Not just the church will benefit from this. Benedict acted has a
global holy leader in the interest of the world. His moves towards
the Jews were less fortunate. Although he clearly condemned
anti-Semitism and acknowledged the Second Vatican Council, which
commits the church to the reconciliation with the Jews...Benedict's
performance in Yad Vashem was quite a failure."

Tagesspiegel commented: "Benedict's leeway in the Holy Land was
smaller than the one his predecessor John Paul II enjoyed. Given
the spectacular mistakes he had made in the past, his different
personality and the extremely difficult situation in the Middle
East, he has done the best job he could under the circumstances."


6. Israeli PM Netanyahu in Aqaba

Frankfurter Allgemeine headlined: "Abdullah Reiterated Two-State
Solution," and reported: "With his visit to the Aqaba for a meeting
with Jordan's king, Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to improve
relations with his Arab neighbor before going to meet President
Obama on Monday. Netanyahu, however, avoided speaking of a
Palestinian state."

"Jordan's King Accuses Netanyahu," is the headline in a report in
Financial Times Deutschland. The paper reported: "During an
unannounced visit of Israel's Premier Netanyahu, Jordan's King
Abdullah strongly criticized Israel. He accused Israel of working
step by step for the displacement of Christians and Muslims from
Jerusalem. He called upon Israel to end the settlement activities
in Eastern Jerusalem and in other occupied territories."


7. U.S.-German Efforts to Save Opel

In a front-page editorial, Financial Times Deutschland argued: "In
the efforts to find a solution for Opel, it cannot be an option to
keep Opel alive with state subsidies. This would be the preferred
American solution, but for the German taxpayer it would result in
the maximum risk. Against this background, the government's favored
trusteeship model is still the best solution.... The Opel question
can be resolved only if Washington and Berlin find a common
approach. Since time is pressing, the issue must now become a top
priority between Germany and the U.S. At the latest on May 20, when
all those who are interested in Opel have signed up in Berlin, the
facts will be on the table. Before GM files for bankruptcy, a
decision on the highest political level is necessary. As of now,
Opel is a matter for Obama and Merkel."

Frankfurter Allgemeine said in an editorial: "If Fiat or Magna
International present an acceptable solution and a more or less
binding offer to buy Opel, the German government wants a trustee to
take over parts of Opel. Then it is likely that Opel will get a
billion euro warranted loan. But this would be nothing but an
ill-concealed state intervention and thus a CDU/CSU breach of
promise. The chancellor had always ruled out any state
intervention."

According to Sueddeutsche Zeitung, "Opel would be an ideal election
campaign issue, and the SPD and the CDU/CSU could have distinguished
themselves in a competition to save Opel. But Economics Minister zu
Guttenberg fortunately wants to prevent such a development. Now the
state is to take over Opel for a few months as a trustee. But this,
too, is not a nice solution, because it is the state-owned,
ramshackle regional banks that are now to give the company money
beyond the upcoming Bundestag elections. It is now at least
possible to decide very calmly about Opel's future. That future
lies in Turin or Moscow, or if a buyer cannot be found, in Berlin."


In the view of Frankfurter Rundschau, "the government continues to
mess around when it comes to saving Opel. Now it is up to a trustee
to play a decisive role. But why a trustee? This has something to
do with the dogmas of our economics minister zu Guttenberg. He
wants to do everything to avoid the assistance for Opel looking like
state intervention.... It is high time that the government stops
messing around and addresses Opel's rescue as what it really is: a
central issue for industry policy."

Handelsblatt opined: "If there is no conclusive concept on which
politicians have a final say, then there is no trustee either. And
we doubt that Opel would be able to survive a bankruptcy of its
mother company General Motors in view of pressing liquidity
problems. But at the last moment, the government seems to have
straightened things out. The government, or a trustee who will be
commissioned by it, will take over Opel for a certain period of time
- if an investor is waiting at the door. The danger of a permanent
trusteeship solution seems to have been banned."

Regional daily Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung of Essen argued: "The
idea of the economics minister to give Opel into the hands of a
trustee is good and correct. What else should the government do?
Watch idly as a U.S. insolvency administrator takes control? The
talks with investors would become dramatically more difficult....
But one thing is clear: more than ever, the government now has a say
with Opel. It will no longer be able to get rid of the political
responsibility for a crash."


KOENIG