MEDIA REACTION:NORTH KOREA, IRAN, AFGHANISTAN, MIDEAST,

UNCLAS BERLIN 000803 STATE FOR INR/R/MR, EUR/PAPD, EUR/PPA, EUR/AGS, 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 AF XF HO XG SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION:NORTH KOREA, IRAN, AFGHANISTAN, MIDEAST, HONDURAS, OBAMA-MEDVEDEV MEETING, LISBON TREATY, CROATIA ¶1. Lead Stories Summary ¶2. UNSC Sanctions on North Korea ¶3. Iranian Protests ¶4. Afghanistan ¶5. Mideast Settlement Policy ¶6. Aftermath of Coup in Honduras ¶7. Run-Up to Obama-Medvedev Meeting ¶8. EU Presidency, Constitutional Court on Lisbon Treaty ¶9. Croatian Premier Steps Down ¶1. Lead Stories Summary ZDF-TV's and ARD-TV's early evening newscasts opened with stories on the meeting of the German farmers' organization. Newspapers and editorials focused on many different stories, including the financial crisis, the Lisbon Treaty, counterterrorism measures, tax cut proposals and the Berlin public transport system. Ambassador Daalder's comments to the press during his visit to Berlin received prominent coverage. ¶2. UNSC Sanctions on North Korea Frankfurter Allgemeine noted: "If it is right that a North Korean freighter, which the U.S. navy observed, is trying to escape controls by returning home, then two interpretations are possible. First, the freighter had loaded things that should not leave North Korea according to UN resolutions. Second, it could also mean an orderly retreat. The search of the freighter would have resulted in a loss of face for Kim Jong-il and would have probably led him to a panic reaction. As an outsider we can now choose between these two interpretations. Does it mean that the sanctions imposed by the UN have an effect? Is Kim Jong-il so busy with finding a successor that he does not need a serious confrontation? Or was the outing to the sea only a test for the vigilance of the international community? North Korea continues to remain a dangerous puzzle." ¶3. Iranian Protests In a front-page editorial weekly Die Zeit argued: "Barack Obama warned Iran's powers-that-be that the world would be looking at them in view of the crimes against the protesters. But Obama did not do one thing: He did not encourage the Iranians to put up resistance against the state authority. He did not interfere in Iran's domestic affairs. Obama is breaking with the policy of his predecessor. It is Obama's noblest task to restore the U.S. credibility after eight years of Bush. He made a great step forward with his speech to the Muslims in Cairo. With it, Obama is turning away from the policy of regime change of his predecessor. In addition to misery and hundreds of thousands of dead people, Bush's policy resulted primarily in one thing: Iran's hegemony over the region. Nothing would have discredited the protests against the Ahmadinejad/Khamenei clique more than U.S. interference. One false word would have been enough to take the legitimacy of the revolt away. Regime critics in Iran certainly feel more encouraged by an unwavering and level-headed Obama than by a swiping Bush. Those who view Obama's stance as weakness, naivet and appeasement have understood nothing. For Obama, the Iranian nuclear program is also unacceptable, but he is willing to enter into direct talks about it with Iran. No one should feel deceived by his will to show toughness, but because he reached out his hand, he is credible. Soft power can be the best realpolitik, a subversive force for change. No one has realized this better than the Iranian opposition and, of course, the hardliners in Tehran who are about to lose an enemy image." ¶4. Afghanistan Strategy Broadcast and online media reported this morning that, "the U.S. has started one of the most comprehensive operations in Afghanistan in recent months. According to the Pentagon, more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers and 650 Afghan security forces are participating. The goal is to gain control of Helmand province, which is now predominantly ruled by the Taliban. This is the first larger operation as part of President Obama's new strategy on Afghanistan" (ZDF-TV's Heute). In response to a Forsa poll saying that 61 percent of Germans are in favor of withdrawing German troops from Afghanistan, Tagesspiegel commented: "Those who continue to favor a pull out now would leave behind not just pure chaos and a future global center for terrorists, but also make the sacrifices of the Bundeswehr appear to be in vain. However, Iraq, where the Americans are currently pulling out, cannot serve as a model. The conditions are too different. There was no terrorism and no drugs there before the war... Afghanistan must go its own way. Militarily, the country cannot be won, but it could be lost in many ways. This would have dramatic consequences for NATO's credibility. If the world's most powerful military alliance could not succeed over a few Taliban with self-made explosives, it would lose its deterrent nature. NATO's credo of 'those who attack one of us attacks all of us' would no longer impress aggressors. It is questionable whether this would make the world safer." Die Welt editorialized: "The fact that the Germans seriously doubt the mission in Afghanistan is more than understandable.... The country has departed over six decades from its formerly militaristic attitude.... The fact that a majority of Germans reject the Afghanistan mission is also due to the reluctance of German politicians to explain the mission. However, this is not all. The Germans are more pacifist than ever before.... Good governance also means to sometimes stay the course in disagreement with the people." Tageszeitung opined on tomorrow's decision by the Bundestag on the deployment of AWACS planes in Afghanistan: "The German government insists that there is no war in Afghanistan, and, secondly, if there was one, it had nothing to do with it. As much as we-the good Germans-helped Afghans build bridges, wells, and schools for their thriving democracy, we now want to help them build up their air traffic infrastructure. The Bundeswehr soldiers are presented as normal air traffic controllers, who happen to wear uniforms. The AWACS mission is described as technical development aid. The silly talk of a robust reconstruction mission is reaching new dimensions. This all happens because the German government does not want to make a clear statement. Does it stand by NATO's military approach in Afghanistan? If yes, the deployment of AWACS planes would be consistent and should be explained in this way. However, this would mean talking frankly about the operation in Afghanistan. This is not desired, particularly not right before the German elections. So, Germany is flying blindly into the ninth year of war." ¶5. Mideast Settlement Policy Deutschlandfunk commented: "We can only hope that Israeli newspaper reports on a narrowing of views between Jerusalem and Washington about the settlement question are wrong, for they would mean that the United States is giving up its demand for a total stop to the construction of new settlements. The Israeli government, in turn, has not moved an inch. President Obama has realized that the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians cannot be resolved with such a policy. Obama is now picking up the thread of the U.S. policy 30 years ago. At that time, the State Department stated that settlements are in contradiction to the 4th Geneva Convention. Obama's turn has now encouraged all those who continue to stick to the two-state solution - in Israel, in Palestine and in the international community. But if the U.S. government failed because of the Israeli adamancy and gave in to a continued existence of the block of settlements, then the last chance for a fair peaceful solution in the Middle East would have failed." ¶6. Aftermath of Coup in Honduras Under the headline: "Showdown in Honduras," Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported: "The Organization of American States (OAS) gave an ultimatum to the putschists in Honduras. Ousted President Zelaya should be back in office within 72 hours; otherwise Honduras will be excluded from the OAS. There is growing concern in neighboring countries that the example of Honduras could find supporters. In an opinion poll commissioned by Guatemala's biggest daily Prensa Libre, 50 percent of those interviewed expressed their concern about democracy. Democracy and the economy in almost all Central American countries are unstable, and they have not yet overcome the consequences of the civil wars of the 20th century. Violence and corruption are rampant and small conservative minorities set the tone. And Honduras's President had started a fight with them." Frankfurter Allgemeine editorialized: "The crisis in and around Honduras has the traits of a picture puzzle. President Zelaya, who tried to abolish the constitutional order of his country, can now present himself to the UN and the Organization of American States (OAS) as a democrat and victim of the bourgeoisie where he comes from. But the Honduran military and politicians of all parties, who have ousted Zelaya in accordance with the constitution and the approval of the country's supreme court, are ostracized everywhere ranging from Washington via Havana to Caracas and Brussels. But it was the goal of the putschists to restore the democratic order in the country. And this is exactly what distinguishes this case from the unholy past in Latin America. No one should certainly like the fact that the military was necessary to do this. But the often formal democracy in Latin America is jeopardized much more by people such as Zelaya than by the generals." ¶7. Run-Up to Obama-Medvedev Meeting Under the headline "Global Power Boys," weekly Die Zeit carried a full-page article saying: "For Barack Obama, the second stage of his foreign policy is now beginning. First, there were the opening and good will gestures, the work on the U.S. image ranging from the ban on torture to the commitment to climate protection to his speech to the Muslims in Cairo. As of today, he needs cooperation with others to realize his plans. [In Moscow], President Obama must hope that President Medvedev will emancipate from his anti-western stepfather leaving behind the spirit of the aggressive era ranging from 9/11 to the Georgia war last year .. Obama cannot hope for successful nuclear talks with Iran. That is why it is all the more important that he achieves something with the Russians, since the Mr. Nice-Guy president could otherwise become assailable. It seems that Medvedev is better at dealing with criticism than Putin who considers criticism as an attack on this authority. Like Obama, Medvedev tends to an unideological approach and, at the same time, is more cooperative in international relations. A tendency to a friendly coolness and objectivity is linking the two new leaders in contrast to their predecessors, for whom global politics found an expression in friendships among men and arch rivalries. But U.S.-Russian disarmament policy will not become easy under Obama and Medvedev either. A reduction of warheads would certainly be welcomed by Russia but Moscow is linking a disarmament treaty to a rejection of the planned U.S. anti-missile plan in Poland and the Czech Republic. Nevertheless, the Obama-Medevev combination offers a precious chance. Under Putin, Russia was striving for a global leading role which lacked substance. Medvedev could now develop a more realistic assessment of Russia's strength to alleviate conflicts over Iran's nuclear program, the global rivalry of energy currents, and Russia claim for power in its neighborhood. With Obama's assistance, Medvedev could improve Russia's foreign policy reputation and push domestic reforms that would turn Russia from a raw material regime into a modern post-industrial state." ¶8. EU Presidency, Constitutional Court on Lisbon Treaty Deutschlandfunk commented: "We can clearly hear a sigh of relief in Brussels. The Czech chaos presidency is over now and the Swedes are coming. The contrast could hardly be greater. The Steinfeldt government is pro-European. It has formulated two goals: to create the basis for successful talks on a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. The success of the Swedish presidency will be measured against the outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit. Second, to master the financial crisis. But it will be the most important task to settle the conflict between the EU leaders and the European Parliament over European Commission President Barroso." According to Sueddeutsche Zeitung, "this is a great, very important ruling because it clearly outlines the significance of the national state in the future. The message is: there are many peculiarities in Germany and these peculiarities determine what Germany is. The court ruled that the national state is allowed to give away rights to supranational organizations, but if, as a consequence of such moves, the national state has no longer 'sufficient latitude to politically shape it, then this is unconstitutional.' To put it in simpler terms: As long as the Basic Law is validated, Germany is more important than Europe. Because this is the case, the Bundestag must examine more bills [from Brussels] and not nod everything through. In a good sense, the ruling from Tuesday is Europe-skeptical. It warns against a secret restructuring of the national state by the executive, which often argues that the policy which it considers right, is without an alternative. Of course, the many pages of the ruling from the Constitutional Court are not understandable for many Germans such as the Lisbon treaty. But the ruling seems to correspond to a basic feeling in Germany and offers reason to strengthen this view: Europe is good, but not as good that would prevent us from taking a very close look." ¶9. Croatian Premier Steps Down Frankfurter Rundschau commented: "The real Europe has left its friends, like outgoing Croatian Prime Minister Ivo Sanader, in the lurch. Slovenia was allowed to blackmail Croatia's government as it pleased-Austria and Italy was not allowed to do this at the time of Slovenia's entry. At the latest when Serbian reformers lose faith in Europe, the conflicts of 1990s will return." KOENIG