MEDIA REACTION: HAITI, U.S. YEMEN, IRAN, FRANCE,

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 BERLIN 000114 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" SIPDIS E.0. 12958: N/A TAGS: OPRC KMDR HA US YM AF IR FR SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: HAITI, U.S. YEMEN, IRAN, FRANCE, AFGHANISTAN;BERLIN ¶1. Lead Stories Summary ¶2. (Haiti) Aftermath of Quake, Montreal Conference ¶3. (U.S.) State of the Union, Austerity Program, Banking Crisis ¶4. (Yemen) London Conference ¶5. (Iran) Karrubi Gives In ¶6. (France) Ban on Burqas ¶7. (Afghanistan) London Conference, German Strategy ¶1. Lead Stories Summary The main item in the print media is the government's new strategy on Afghanistan. Editorials focused on the government's new Afghanistan strategy and the new leadership of the Left Party. ZDF-TV's early evening newscast heute opened with a report on the new leadership of the Left Party following Oskar Lafontaine's withdrawal, and ARD-TV's early evening newscast Tagesschau opened with a story on the new strategy in Afghanistan. ¶2. (Haiti) Aftermath of Quake, Montreal Conference Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/27) editorialized: "The estimated costs of Haiti's reconstruction are three, ten or even fifteen billion dollars. Nobody has yet made a sustainable calculation as the period of providing emergency assistance is not yet over. There is no functioning Haiti government to speak of, which is not its fault. It is clear that, given the extent of the destruction, Haiti will depend on international support for a long time.... The U.S. Secretary of State was right to note at the international donors' conference that assistance must be transparent and efficient, not wasted and disappear. Haiti needs patient partners-and sustainable infrastructure projects." Under the headline "New Colonies," Die Welt (1/27) opined: "Aid organizations had to ignore state structures after the earthquake in Haiti. UN forces were also not capable of responding effectively. In order to prevent chaos and violence, the U.S. Army had to take the initiative and set up its own logistics. Without this protection, aid would not have reached the people, and rescue teams and doctors would have had to fear for their lives. The strong role of the U.S in Haiti raised old memories. However, this time around it was about help, not predominance. The word of neo-colonialism was spread in Port-au-Prince, but it had a positive connotation. A colony of aid workers was created. This phenomenon is not just restricted to emergency cases. There are now new kinds of colonies in many parts of the world because security must be provided where only long-term international engagement can help." ¶3. (U.S.) State of the Union, Austerity Program, Banking Crisis Several papers (1/27) carried reports on President Obama's plan to pursue an austerity course and impose a budget ceiling. Under the headline: "Restart for a Man - Barack Obama Suffered Defeats, but Now he Wants to Improve his Image - Among other Things by following an Austerity Course," Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported: "The TV interview with ABC is only a prelude to many others. On TV we saw a humble president, one who concedes that 'I probably make one, maybe two mistakes per day.' And we saw a president who is blaming himself in view of declining ratings and a painful defeat in the by-elections for the Senate, even though Obama struck a totally different tone last week." Die Welt carried a report under the headline: "Obama Announces Radical Austerity Course - It Could Cost him his Re-Election," and wrote: "Obama said in ABC news two days before his State of the Union address that he wants to stick to his controversial healthcare reform plans even if it cost his re-election. He also said that in his address to the nation he would primarily focus on jobs and economic growth." BERLIN 00000114 002 OF 005 Sueddeutsche (1/27) headlined: "Without Substance - Obama's Budget Ceiling Is Ineffective And this is Good" and judged: "Driven by the fear of losing the support of the voters, the U.S. President presents new, ill-conceived initiatives almost on a daily basis. He presented the plan that pretends to cut down the size of banks, then there is the idea of offering tax cuts to the middle class tax, even though it only need secure jobs, and the most recent one is to reduce debt by imposing a ceiling on the budget. Why? The budget ceiling is a defensive maneuver. The opposition is putting pressure on the government by demanding a quick reduction in debt. But the ideology that calls for budget discipline during times of crises was discredited already in the 1930s. Obama knows this, but instead of standing up for his convictions, he is giving in to the Republicans. Without massive state spending, the United States would have faced a depression. The IMF is strongly warning against ending economic stimulus programs prematurely. That is why we must count ourselves lucky that the budget ceiling is without substance. But, nevertheless, it is dangerous because it is preparing the ground for further cuts, months, probably years, too early." "Battle Against the Banks" is the headline in Sueddeutsche Zeitung (1/27),which editorialized: "The world is waging two great wars: one against terror, and one against the financial industry. George ¶W. Bush instigated the first...and Barack Obama proclaimed the second one last week. But the enemy has not entrenched itself in the distant mountains of Afghanistan but this time it is sitting in the U.S. itself: It is the gentlemen on Wall Street. Obama is attacking the doctrine that the economy can only thrive if it is ruled by the financial markets. But this war is much more difficult to wage than the one in Afghanistan and Iraq. And Obama will win this war only if he succeeds with two things: He must gather enough allies...but these allies were surprised about the battle plan because Obama missed the opportunity to integrate Germans, French, and the British to form a 'coalition of the willing.' But it will be decisive to see whether Obama will also use the right weapons, and in this respect we have our doubts. In principle, Obama is heading in the right direction but of what use will it be to ban the banks from doing certain kinds of business if this business emigrates to hedge funds?... If Obama is able to stay the course, he can become a great president, but if he fails, Obama will rather be compared to James Buchanan...and, according to historians, Buchanan was a weak, indecisive president without fortune." ¶4. (Yemen) London Conference Under the headline: "120 Minutes For a New Trouble Spot," Sueddeutsche Zeitung (1/27) reported that "the meeting in the Foreign Office will only last two hours. This will not be much time if the representatives of all the 21 invited nations want to take to the floor. But primarily, these 120 minutes are too short to discuss the complex array of problems with which the Yemen Conference in London wants to deal. Only since the failed bomb attack in Detroit has the general public realized that al-Qaida is training attackers in this poverty stricken Southern Arab country.... The meeting in London will alternate between admonition and encouragement.... Yemen's President, who has been in office for more than 32 years now, will not travel to London, but he will send several Cabinet members instead. Secretary Clinton announced her participation. She wants to make good governance in Sana'a a precondition for the complete payment of the 3.3 billion euros in international aid which were already promised at the Yemen conference in 2006." Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/27) carried a report under the headline: "A Failing State," and wrote: "It may be possible that that the London conference will create a new confidence and lead to a rapprochement between the parties in Yemen. The most important western and Arab nations are pressing Yemen to initiate a political BERLIN 00000114 003 OF 005 process and no longer rely on weapons only. Foreign Minister al-Qirbi said that the issues in London should only be development funds and support in the fight against terror, and that internal conflicts and human rights were domestic issues that were no business for the international community. But economic assistance does not exhaust itself in funds. The Yemenites hope that the Gulf states will approve the return of several hundreds of thousands of workers who would reduce the burden on the labor market and whose return would result in new transfers of money from migrant workers. The Yemenites also hope for Arab investment in new industrial plants which would create jobs in Yemen itself. The Yemenites are also complaining that the Saudis, for security reasons, are blocking the transit of trucks loaded with fruit. But after the Arab neighboring countries ignored Yemen for a long time, it is now primarily up to them to avert a further looming destabilization of the country. ¶5. (Iran) Karrubi Gives In In an editorial under the headline: "The Revolution Divides Its Children," Sueddeutsche Zeitung (1/27) focused on opposition leader Karrubi who has made an offer of peace to the powers-that-be in Tehran. The paper wondered: "Is this gesture of subjugation the demise of the Iranian opposition? Has the resistance now been broken? No, Karrubi's remarks only show that the regime has gained the upper hand in the power struggle. Karrubi has now drawn a red line for himself and his supporters: We must accept the authority of supreme religious leader Ayatollah Khamenei. And between the lines, Karrubi is saying that it would be good to criticize individual government members but not to question Khamenei's power. If Karrubi decides to take such a step, then this says much about the regime's persistence. He submitted an offer of reconciliation to the regime and, at the same time, fired a warning shot at his supporters. Karrubi thus shows responsibility for the fate of his followers, but whether he has done the opposition a favor is a different question. The opposition remains a patchwork of people, groups, and networks. At the grassroots level they often act in a spontaneous way. This is the basis for its strength but it is unlikely that this strength, which lacks a cohesive leadership, will be enough to counter a regime that stops at nothing." ¶6. (France) Ban on Burqas According to an editorial in Die Welt (1/27),"a large majority of French think that the burqa will threaten the core values of the French Republic, even though there are only a few hundreds women in France as a whole who wear a burqa. Now it is then same Republic that intervenes and issues a ban that restricts, in the name of its highest value - freedom - the people's right to wear what they like. This paradox cannot be resolved even with a well formulated bill." In a front-page editorial, Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/27) judged: "When dealing with its Muslim minority, France is pinning its hope on even less tolerance. This 'burqa ban' is probably expressing the helplessness of the ones who are politically responsible to prevent the spread of an extremist Islam by means other than strict conditions laid down in a law.... France wants to express that it is not willing to give in to a militant Islam and to relativize equal opportunities for men and women in the name of Islam.... Only recently, President Sarkozy recommended to the Muslim believers 'humble discretion.' With this remark, he reacted to the Swiss vote on minarets. In the midst of the debate over national identity, he formulated what France is expecting of the Muslim citoyens: more discretion, less provocation." Regional daily Volksstimme of Magdeburg (1/27) judged: "Europeans always have difficulties accepting Muslim women wearing headscarves, but when it comes to the burqa the line has been crossed. The burqa does not fit European culture, nor does a bikini fit the culture in BERLIN 00000114 004 OF 005 Yemen. France has now taken a first step against the burqa. It is to be pushed out of public life and President Sarkozy declared it to be 'undesired.' This requires a ban, but such a ban hardly fits a pluralist society which usually guarantees the freedom to wear whatever the individual wants to wear. Sarkozy could also have openly said that democratic tolerance ends here." Regional daily Allgemeine Zeitung of Mainz (1/27) had this to say: "We can certainly argue about female teachers wearing headscarves or about minarets, but not about burqas. It is a political religious symbol that elevates the Muslim claim to rule and it is at the same time an instrument that suppresses women even though they deny this. Every reasonable citizen of a country is interested in getting along with his neighbor, irrespective of whether or not he has a migratory background. But this does not mean one has to accept every peculiarity if it is diametrically opposed to one's own cultural background." die tageszeitung (1/27) judged under the headline; "Islamophobia Instead of Economics," that "it could be possible that this debate over the burqa, which has kept the parties in France busy for a long time, is a red herring in order to avoid talking about the deep crisis of capitalist society, because it is no coincidence that France has spent so much energy on the fight against an ideological enemy. With this more or less nationalistic campaign, President Sarkozy's governing UMP wants to prevent disappointed voters migrating to the extremist right." ¶7. (Afghanistan) London Conference, German Strategy In a front-page editorial, Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/27) wrote: "The goal of turning Afghanistan into a Westminster democracy has been abandoned. The governments of the allies only want to stabilize the country and the Afghan government to be able to withdraw from the expedition, so that it does not collapse the next day. What has to be done to reach this goal must be discussed again, this time in London. The German government wants to follow the American example by providing more money and additional soldiers to be able to withdraw one day. However, Chancellor Merkel's government is pursuing a special German path. Berlin, which praised the strategy of a comprehensive approach at a time when Americans did not care much about the victims of their bombings, is shifting the priorities even further to the civilian side than Washington." ARD-TV's Tagesthemen (1/26) remarked on the German strategy for Afghanistan: "The macabre logic of this war is that we first have to send in more soldiers before we can withdraw gradually. This is difficult to understand, but there is no alternative to the international community's last desperate attempt to give Afghanistan and its people a chance for a future without the rule of the Taliban. It was high time that the German government agreed to this strategy shortly prior to the London conference on Afghanistan, after weeks of embarrassing battles." Deutschlandfunk (1/26) opined: "The German government is serious about its change of policy on Afghanistan. Although many details are not new, there is a new commitment. With the change of government last autumn, an essential part of the policy on Afghanistan is no longer the object of ideology. The attempt to coordinate the efforts in the north now makes a compressive approach possible.... However, disbanding the rapid response unit now is premature. The more the Bundeswehr withdraws from such tasks, the more it will be left to the Americans in the north, where actually the Germans are responsible. Do we really want this to be handled with the methods of the U.S. Army? And do we really want another debate about a lack of German commitment within the alliance? Domestic considerations have won the upper hand, which is always bad in foreign policy. However, overall, it is a clear change of BERLIN 00000114 005 OF 005 strategy. If it works, it will be possible to withdraw forces in a few years. Afghan President Karzai must be the first one to take action." Norddeutscher Rundfunk (1/26) commented: "The policy announced in Berlin is a suitable present for the international conference in London and will work if pursued with others.... The acid test for the creation of Afghan security will not come in London but in Kabul. The Karzai government and the difficult warlords must be told that enough is enough. They must get their people to give the reconstruction of the country more priority than religious and cultural fundamentalism. Foreign soldieries cannot enforce such priorities and the West must not pour money into the pockets of a few. Hopefully, the chance to tell Karzai the conditions will not be wasted in Berlin and London." In an editorial, Sddeutsche (1/27) remarked: "The U.S. actions, the 30,000 additional soldiers and financial assistance, which will surpass all the money Europe is providing, will determine the future of Afghanistan. It is strange that the German government and opposition view President Obama's massive engagement from a distance, while simultaneously making use of his goal of a quick withdrawal. The half-truths of Germany's policy on Afghanistan have not changed." Die Welt (1/27) commented on its front page: "It is worrying that the question of a withdrawal has become the priority in all countries of the western alliance. It sounds like a last effort before we are quickly moving out as if the withdrawal is more important than success. It would have been better if the governments had made the case once more to their people as soberly as possible that a withdrawal without having achieved any results would be a catastrophe." MURPHY