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