MEDIA REACTION: IRAN, GITMO, NORTH KOREA, ISRAEL,

UNCLAS BERLIN 000713


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 IR KN IS AF ZI
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: IRAN, GITMO, NORTH KOREA, ISRAEL,
AFGHANISTAN, ZIMBABWE


1. Lead Stories Summary

2. Iranian Presidential Elections

3. Guantnamo Prisoners

4. New North Korean Threats

5. Israeli PM Netanyahu Address

6. Troop Re-enforcements in Afghanistan

7. Zimbabwe



1. Lead Stories Summary

Editorials focused on the outcome of the Iranian presidential
elections and the SPD party congress. This was also the focus of
this morning's headlines in the German press. ZDF-TV's early
evening newscast Heute and ARD-TV's early evening newscast
Tagesschau opened with reports on the clashes in Tehran following
the Iranian presidential elections.


2. Iranian Presidential Elections

All media carried lengthy reports and many commentaries on the "the
worst unrests in Iran for ten years" (ZDF-TV's Heute-Journal) after
"Ahmadinejad's dubious re-election" (FT Deutschland). Media
highlighted that they are no longer able to report freely from the
country. ARD-TV's Tagesthemen noted that "Ahmadinejad wants to stay
in power come what may.... Fear is haunting the country. Motorized
militias are hunting down everybody who seems to be suspicious....
The militias chase after everybody who is reporting on the
demonstrations."

FT Deutschland editorialized: "Ahmadinejad's dubious re-election is
the first real test for Obama's foreign policy. The omnipotent
Revolutionary Guards were apparently determined to prevent
Moussavi's election. For the time being, this dashed all hopes that
moderate forces could prevail. The highest political leader and
hardliner Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will continue is confrontational
foreign policy course, regardless of whether Obama extends his hand.
Anyway, it would have been hard enough for the U.S. President to
start talks with Iran over its nuclear program. He must NOW fear
that any dialogue leads to a diplomatic defeat. At worst, the case
of North Korea would be repeated, where concessions only bought the
regime more time to pursue its program to build a nuclear bomb.
Obama's charm offensive is based on the hope that a more positive
image of America could prevent such a scenario in Iran. The images
from Tehran let us assume that carrots alone will not make an
impression on such a regime."

Frankfurter Allgemeine commented: "The internal tension in Iran and
the tensions with foreign countries will increase. Disappointed and
curious young people will continue to rebel. In the provinces with
ethnic minorities, Ahmadinejad and his regime are not popular. The
international community will have its difficulties with this Iran.
All Arab countries had anticipated a change of government, and even
Syrian President Assad is supposed to have recently lost his
patience with Ahmadinejad. Russia is NOW also expressing its
concerns over Iran's nuclear program. U.S. President Obama is
facing a difficult decision. He had given a window of opportunity
for the next half a year. Ahmadinejad's Iran will not give in."

Sueddeutsche opined that "Dealing with Iran will be more difficult
for the international community. Washington could have started
talks over the nuclear program with a reform-minded President.
Ahmadinejad has so far not showed any interest in reaching
compromises. When the regime is getting under more pressure at
home, it will be even more stubborn abroad. This election will have
an impact for a long time-in Iran and abroad."

Berliner Zeitung remarked in an editorial: "Pressure on Iran will
now increase from all sides. Congress will soon approve new
sanctions, Europeans will strengthen their embargo soon after.

Tehran's leadership will not renounce its right to enrich uranium.
None of the other candidates had promised this, but Ahmadinejad's
re-election might have increased the obstacles for resolving the
conflict. Even if Ahmadinejad moderates his language, a military
attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear plants is becoming increasingly
likely. Prime Minister Netanyahu urged Obama before the elections
in Iran to present a diplomatic timetable and to prepare for its
failure. In the case of Iraq, this strategy led right into the
war."

Die Welt wondered whether the election result was a "fraud or the
victory of the province over the metropolises?" The paper concluded
its editorial: "The real danger for the regime is an American
President who can no longer be portrayed as the 'great Satan,'
someone who is tough on Israel and continues to extend his hand. A
military strike would really very much suit the regime of
Ahmadinejad. It would gather the people behind the government.
Nobody would do him this favor now."

Frankfurter Rundschau commented: "The UN Security Council has not
yet imposed the toughest sanctions against Iran: a complete stop to
the sale of petrol.... If you stop these supplies, then all
Iranians would rebel."


3. Guantnamo Prisoners

Suedwestrundfunk radio aired the following commentary: "First
Albania, then Palau, and NOW the Bermudas. What comes next? Maybe
further Guantnamo prisoners could be deported to Nauru. It is the
smallest island state in the world, in the center of the Pacific
Ocean. What other conclusion should we draw from the current
political debate? The Uighurs are among the 60 Guantnamo prisoners
whom the United States does not consider dangerous. If German
politicians, primarily in the CDU/CSU, treat them according to the
questionable motto: 'They might be dangerous,' then this corresponds
exactly to the perverse logic of the Bush administration. It is a
duty for Germany to help President Obama close Guantnamo. This is
a question of credibility and morality which German politicians have
referred to again and again. That is why it would be the correct
signal to end this indecent gamesmanship with these peoples' fate,
and to make a decision before the Bundestag election--namely to
accept the prisoners."

According to Frankfurter Allgemeine, "it has turned out that
President Obama's decision to close Guantnamo will bring a whole
string of legal and political problems with it. One is the attempt
to accommodate the prisoners in other countries. There are numerous
arguments against their acceptance but the strongest argument
against the acceptance is the ingenious question of why other
countries should allow these people to enter their territory, while
the Americans consider them to be too dangerous in their own
country. The currently practiced 'sale' of former prisoners to
other countries is at least an indecent practice."

Regional daily Mannheimer Morgen (6/13) observed: "Especially
Interior Minister Schduble is creating the impression as if very
dangerous terrorists were waiting at our front door to be let in.
The categorical 'no' to the acceptance of Uighurs cannot be
dismissed with such an argument. This only seems to be a pretext.
In reality, Germany does not want to jeopardize economic relations
with China. The regime in Beijing is calling for the extradition of
the Muslims to put them on trial. For the Uighurs, this would be
tantamount to the death penalty. But Barack Obama is not making a
good impression either. He himself does not want to accept
Guantnamo prisoners in the U.S. out of fear of opposition. That is
why he is carrying out an indecent human trafficking. The tropical
island of Palau is to get $85,000 per Uighur. With such a move he
has NOW bought new friends."

Badische Zeitung of Freiburg (6/13) had this to say: "Why should
Germany accept men who are considered to be too dangerous to be
accepted on the U.S. mainland? Interior Minister Schduble may feel
confirmed now. But all those who wanted to offer assistance to
Washington in finding a way out of the quagmire of injustice created
by Bush and Cheney were offended. It does not matter whether Obama
was unable or did not want to assert his views against domestic
resistance. In the end, the U.S. will resolve its Guantanamo
problem with the support of Palau, the Bermudas, and Saudi Arabia.
As long as none of the victims lands in the U.S., Washington can
spare further requests in Europe. It will only stir up bad
feelings."


4. New North Korean Threats

Frankfurter Allgemeine noted: "The North Korean regime rarely lacks
an answer, but over the past few weeks, Pyongyang used its
vocabulary of threats to such a degree that it could hardly find
more extreme words following the UN Security Council resolution. It
reported in a threatening manner that it would enrich uranium for
the construction of more nuclear weapons. This is a confession
because DPRK had always refused to acknowledge that it operated an
enrichment program. At the latest with this news report, every one
must have realized that it is impossible to strike a 'political'
deal with the leadership in Pyongyang. All forces affected by the
conflict must rather try to show the same cohesion they showed last
Friday in the Security Council. North Korea cannot be impressed by
making concessions, but steadfastness without any provocative
statements should not fail to have an effect."

Under the headline: "The Regime of Saber Rattlers," Sueddeutsche
Zeitung judged: "The regime in Pyongyang is rattling its sabers ever
more loudly. It wants to be perceived especially by President
Obama. But instead of assistance and security guarantees, Pyongyang
only achieved an intensification of sanctions by the UN Security
Council. Did Kim Jong-il fall into his own trap? He seems to be
pursuing domestic goals with his rhetoric. The North Koreans are
supposed to unite behind his third son, his designated heir. And
this can only happen with the fear of a war. Sanctions, if they
have an effect at all, will hardly be successful. They will only
aggravate the situation of the ordinary people. But even a slight
opening would take way any justification for the regime's existence.
If a coup takes place in North Korea, then it will come from the
inside. The first indication of a relaxation of the situation
exists - with the industry park Kae-song and also in border traffic
with China. That is why Kim needs nuclear weapons and
Intercontinental missiles to play for time. Otherwise his saber
rattling will be too soft."

According to Berliner Zeitung, "North Korea's powers-that-be would
be insane if they pushed things to the limit. And this would be all
the more so because the most recent sanctions are much less painful
than they look at first sight. It is much more worrying for the
regime in Pyongyang that China is not happy about Pyongyang's
nuclear adventures. What is of concern to Beijing is that Japan
could be provoked to modernize its arms and procure a few nuclear
weapons. From the perspective of power politics, this would be an
unpleasant. It is true that China could switch off electricity for
North Korea overnight, but this is a double-edged sword for Beijing
because it is more afraid of DPRK's economic collapse than of North
Korean nuclear weapons. That is why Beijing is taking efforts to
assume a conciliatory attitude towards Pyongyang - and one more
reason why the sanctions are not likely to be very effective. Kim
Jong-il has little reason to feel impressed by the most recent
sanctions. For him the most recent provocations serve domestic
purposes. He wants to exert foreign policy pressure to achieve
cohesion at home and to prepare his successor to enter the throne."


5. Israel PM Netanyahu Address

All media carried reports on Prime Minister Netanyahu's keynote
speech. ARD-TV's Tagesschau correspondent in Tel Aviv, Richard
Schneider, noted: "He tried to reach out to President Obama's
government by talking for the first time about a Palestinian state.
He said that, if the Palestinians acknowledged Israel, Israel would
acknowledge a Palestinian state, which must be de-militarized to
coexist peacefully with Israel.... However, he also said that he
would stop new settlement construction, but allow the expansion of
already existing settlements. This is a clear opposition to
President Obama, who demands a complete stop of settlement
expansion.... How will Washington respond? Will it be content with
half a loaf? Or will it call on Israel to do more?"

Tagesspiegel editorialized: "Much ado about many things that are not
new. In his speech about Israel's foreign policy, Prime Minister
Netanyahu said for the first time that he would recognize a
Palestinian state as Israel's neighbor. But with a well-known style,
he made his approval for Palestine dependent on a number of
conditions, of which quite a number are unacceptable by the
Palestinians. The brilliant speaker Netanyahu, however, should not
be measured against his words but against his deeds that will not
follow, or let us better say against deeds that are not likely to
happen. Those who, following his speech, expect Netanyahu to make
peace with the Palestinians can only believe in miracles. But even
in a Middle East that believes in miracles, such wonders have become
highly unlikely."

Under the headline: "Netanyahu: Palestinians Should Recognize
Israel," Frankfurter Allgemeine reported: "Israel's Prime Minister
Netanyahu set the conditions for the foundation of an independent
Palestinian state in a speech that was awaited with bated breath.
He called upon the Palestinians to accept Israel as 'national state
of the Jewish people.' In addition, the Palestinian state must be
demilitarized and Jerusalem would remain undivided."

Sueddeutsche Zeitung wrote under the headline: "Netanyahu Advocates
Demilitarized Palestinian State" and reported: "For the first time,
Israel' Prime Minister Netanyahu advocated a demilitarized
Palestinian state. But before such a state can be formed, there
must be international guarantees that the Palestinians would not get
their own armed forces and would not get control over their air
space, said Netanyahu on Sunday in a keynote address on the Middle
East conflict."


6. Troop Re-enforcements in Afghanistan

Frankfurter Allgemeine commented: "The United States will deploy
more troops, more diplomats and more aid workers, and it will
provide more money. Given this increasingly asymmetrical situation
between the U.S. and its NATO partners, there has been talk of an
Americanization for some time. This is not a good development.
Neither the Americans not the Europeans can be interested in
this.... European countries, which currently are increasing their
troops prior to the Afghan elections, should think twice before they
withdraw them again."

Tagesspiegel editorialized: "The advocates for a medieval
Afghanistan are mobilizing everything they have. The global
coalition is challenged. It must continue to focus on its goal. It
would otherwise be a bad omen for the future - everywhere in the
world."

Frankfurter Rundschau commented: "It must be clarified why the
mission in Afghanistan should be expanded. It would otherwise just
be the same old strategy, which has not helped anybody yet except
the resistance. There are an increasing number of insurgents and
attacks. The international community has so far failed to find the
right path. It must increase its efforts to search for it and then
determinedly pursue it - or finally leave it."

Koelnische Rundschau opined: "AWACS planes do not just serve the
purpose of controlling the civilian air traffc' as Defense Minister
Jung is implying. The special planes are rather good at support
allied air raids by improving the coordination of combat jets to
make direct hits. Minister Jung is selling the deployment of AWACS
planes as a self-defense measure, noting that six German Tornado
planes in the region would benefit from it. This can drive you to
despair."


7. Zimbabwe

Sueddeutsche Zeitung wondered: "How should the West react to the
developments in Zimbabwe? It is creating a difficult task for the
government leaders in Washington, Berlin, London, and Paris. How is
it possible to help the regime without strengthening Mugabe's
corrupt clique? It is still too early to lift the sanctions on the
old regime; it would be a false signal as long as human rights are
disrespected and Mugabe uses tricks. On the other hand, it is
important that the international community support Tsvangirai. The
West must find ways and means, for instance, to co-finance the
salaries for doctors and teachers without money being channeled to
Mugabe's supporters. It would be wrong to take a wait-and-see
attitude because such a course would catapult Zimbabwe back into
Mugabe's despotism. But the greater the changes Tsvangirai is able
to assert with other countries, the more difficult it will be for
the soldiers to fire at the people. The masses want Tsvangirai, not
Mugabe. This is Zimbabwe's future path; the downtrodden country has
no other."

KOENIG