COP-15 SUMMIT REPORTING IN SWEDEN

UNCLAS STOCKHOLM 000791 SIPDIS SECSTATE FOR INR/R/MR, EUR/PPD, EUR/NB BRUSSELS FOR REGIONAL MEDIA HUB E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO PINR SW XA SUBJECT: COP-15 SUMMIT REPORTING IN SWEDEN ¶1. (U) SUMMARY: The domination of COP-15 in Swedish media was only temporarily broken when General Motors announced the closure of car manufacturer SAAB on December 19. All outlets relayed a sense of disappointment on the outcome of the conference, calling it a 'failure' and delivering a 'weak result.' Several referred to the lack of binding commitments. The participation by President Obama was regarded as a whole positively, but the U.S. was also critiqued for not putting anything new on the table. China was regarded as inflexible. Most notably the U.S. and China were seen as taking over negotiations, sidelining the EU, and several Swedish media also questioned the wisdom of the UN system that they say broke down, an interesting view because Sweden is known for its strong support of the UN system. END SUMMARY -------------- BROADCAST MEDIA -------------- ¶2. (U) COP-15 was extensively covered in national broadcast media, even with live broadcasts from the conference. SVT's Erika Bjerstrm concluded that while the climate negotiations "stumbled on world politics ... I cannot understand the indignation that there was no legally binding agreement, everyone had made it clear far in advance that it would not happen in Copenhagen." She opined that "It does NOT mean that Greenpeace is right when they announce that the world is heading for a climate catastrophe. A weak agreement is not the same as nothing being done. Both China and the United States are investing enormous amounts in green energy for domestic purposes, they know that they have a lot to gain by leaving dirty fossil energy. Barack Obama said in his speech that he is absolutely convinced that the new jobs will be found in the green sector." Bjerstrm closed with "When the shock after Copenhagen has died down, maybe new paths will become visible." TV4's Rolf Porseryd summarized the result as "everyone who takes the environment and climate threat seriously is disappointed," and "Reinfeldt has done everything he could have" but that as a whole, it was a failure. Public service Swedish Radio (SR),which takes a neutral reporting view, noted a range of different opinions from "failure greater than the most pessimistic had feared" to "in reality the Swedish EU presidency will hardly be blamed for the negotiations ending in relative disagreement" and that "in a large and completed process with almost 200 nations, other countries have played a more important part." -------------- PRINT MEDIA -------------- ¶3. (U) Swedish morning daily DN's main editorial on Sunday under the heading "Fiasco for the UN" opined that "Even the most pessimistic have reason to be disappointed," but also that "only the most incorrigible optimists had expected it [a binding climate agreement]. Most had instead believed the result would be a watered-down and non-binding final document. It hardly became even that. And the reason for it is spelled the UN." DN continued "To get 193 countries united up to the smallest comma appears relatively utopian." "The United States definitely has a historic debt but to its credit must be attributed the complete turnaround the country has achieved since changing president less than a year ago. Nothing would have become better if President Obama had promised more in Copenhagen than the Congress would have been prepared to keep," continuing "You have to pick your battles, and President Obama chooses to invest his political capital in a major health care reform. Seen from that perspective, the timing for the Copenhagen summit was bad. It is possible the outcome would have been better, had the meeting been held one year later. Morning daily Svenska Dagbladet's Susanna Baltscheffsky concluded that "Primarily the two climate super powers U.S. and China controlled the outcome of the meeting," and that "President Obama and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao met in Copenhagen and agreed on difficult issues. In such an agreement the EU's by far most important demand, that the text from Copenhagen should result in a legally binding agreement, disappeared." Baltscheffsky concluded that "Climate policy is world politics, not just an environmental issue. It is an important explanation for the failure in Copenhagen." Most opinion pieces noted the non-binding nature of the agreement, and that perhaps, DN noted, the time for all-inclusive binding international agreements has passed. The widely-read major tabloids Expressen and Aftonbladet, were more critical of the United States. They saw the positions of the United States (primarily) and China (secondarily) as main culprits for no binding agreement resulting from the summit. Expressen called the summit "a lost opportunity," and was critical of what they regarded as small initiatives by the United States. Aftonbladet concluded that "It does not matter how much we want to save the world. In Copenhagen we learnt that such difficult issues are not resolved over a few days." -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶4. (U) Several media also noted that the EU became a bit player in the discussions as the United States and China took leadership. Most media illustrated the Friday talks with an image of a group of European leaders gathered around President Obama, waiting and listening. The criticism of the UN system was also remarkable as Sweden is one of the staunchest supporters of the equal one nation, one vote system. SILVERMAN