MEDIA REACTION: US, AFGHANISTAN, TERRORISM, U.S.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 BERLIN 000016 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: AF PTER US KGHG SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: US, AFGHANISTAN, TERRORISM, U.S. ENVIRONMENT;BERLIN ¶1. Lead Stories Summary ¶2. (U.S.) Obama-Intelligence Services Meeting ¶3. (Afghanistan) Run-up to London Conference ¶4. (U.S.) Guant namo, Yemen ¶5. (U.S.) Obama Policy ¶6. (Environment) Climate Policy ¶1. Lead Stories Summary ZDF-TV's early evening newscast Heute opened with a story on the technical problems German banks and customers are having with flawed cash cards and ARD-TV's early evening newscast Tagesschau opened with a story on the FDP's Epiphany meeting in Stuttgart. Frankfurter Allgemeine also led with a story on the FDP, headlining: "Westerwelle: We stay on course." Sddeutsche and Frankfurter Rundschau led with the ongoing controversy over the role of the German Federal Association of Expellees. Tagesspiegel led with AfPak Envoy Holbrooke's interview with Die Zeit. Berliner Zeitung highlighted that children living with single parents will get more money. Editorials focused on President Obama's meeting with intelligence officials, the FDP's Epiphany meeting, the German Federal Association of Expellees and the massive technical problems of cash cards. ¶2. (U.S.) Obama-Intelligence Services Meeting Almost all papers (1/7) carried reports on the meeting between President Obama and the heads of his intelligence services. Sueddeutsche headlined: "Obama Accuses his Intelligence Services of Failure U.S. President announced Reforms After Failed Terrorist Attack and stops Release of Guant namo Prisoners." Handelsblatt carried a report under the headline: "Obama Harangued Intelligence Services," while Die Welt wrote: "Obama Criticizes Failure of Intelligence Services." Under the headline: "Bush Light?" Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/7) argued that: "The issue of security and terror has again showed up overnight on the Americans' agenda of concerns. It is obvious that the Republicans will now try to damage Obama's reputation. Whether he likes it or not, Obama now finds himself playing the role of a fighter against terrorism, who, with a few exceptions, continues where his predecessor left off. And government officials again use a term that the current government had banned from its vocabulary: the war on terror. Is this 'Bush light'?" Die Welt (1/7) carried an editorial, saying: "The President is in trouble now because the impression has developed that terror is no longer a top issue for Obama. It is true that he can refer to the fact that a few of the planners of the attack in Yemen were released from Guant namo under the Bush government, but the series of blunders that the U.S. intelligence services made over the past few weeks also shows that the vigilance of the U.S. government has eased. Obama BERLIN 00000016 002 OF 006 does not like swaggering gestures, and this is one reason for his high reputation abroad. But he knows that his government cannot allow any more blunders. That is why he treated his security czars so harshly." Under the headline; "Barack Obama Finds Strong Words for the Failure of his Intelligence Services - But There is a Lack of Deeds," Sueddeutsche Zeitung (1/7) editorialized: "The President announced that he would now take the necessary steps, but he didn't say what they would be. Thus far, these strong words have not been followed by strong deeds. This could turn out to be a serious political mistake.... Obama's reaction to the blunder is laudable but the time has now come for something different. He must address the nation and assume responsibility for the failure of his apparatus. And he must replace his intelligence czar whom he installed a year ago. Otherwise, Obama will have difficulty regaining the confidence of Americans and that he is serious about demonstrating his promise to learn his lesson from the debacle." According to Frankfurter Rundschau (1/7),"basically, Obama is reacting in a way a government must react after a failed terrorist attack. He orders an analysis of mistakes, examines security gaps, and intensifies controls. One can wonder why travelers from 14 nations, of which 13 countries are Muslim countries, must systematically accept body searches or why he stopped the deportation of Guant namo prisoners to Yemen, even though U.S. courts order this. But Obama cannot be accused of blind revenge. Unlike Bush, this President does not pursue a policy of fear." Under the headline: "Organized Uncontrolled Growth," Handelsblatt (1/7) argued: "All of a sudden, President Obama is presenting himself as a resolute fighter. This is a totally new facet. But Obama does not reveal how he wants to eliminate the deficiencies among his intelligence services. After the crisis meeting in the White House, it is becoming clear that there is no panacea but one insight: the current system of spooks is choking from its own organization. Obviously the system has become unwieldy' it must be streamlined. For more than one year, Obama has pushed aside the anti-terror issue, but now it is caching up with him. Now Obama is confronted with the same questions as George W. Bush, but he does not have different answers than his predecessor. After the fiasco of the past few days, Obama should have realized that he must work on a new construction site in addition to the ones he already has." die tageszeitung (1/7) judged in a front-page editorial, headlined: "A BERLIN 00000016 003 OF 006 Rational Commander," that "those are wrong who consider Obama a prince of peace. He is a rational commander. But he is at least rational, and honest, as far as we can judge from here. Both characteristics distinguish him from his predecessor. George W. Bush proclaimed a crusade, began a war under false conditions, lied to the public, and declared Islam an enemy. Barack Obama is not Islamophobic and he is no crusader. This does not yet make him a European diplomat, but at least a reliable interlocutor." Regional daily Westdeutsche Zeitung of Dsseldorf (1/7) argued: "it is very likely that the unnerved U.S. security agencies will again overreact and get things moving in the wrong direction. The psychological consequences - the nervousness of security forces connected with fears and an increase in inconvenience for the public - are already a form of terror itself." Rhein-Zeitung of Koblenz (1/7) judged: "With this debacle, the security agencies did not make a slight hitch, they almost made a disastrous mistake. That is why President Obama should have taken a more drastic step. It is surprising that he left the officials responsible for the intelligence services in office, and this could be interpreted as a sign of weakness. At least for the time being, Obama missed the opportunity to teach [the nation] to respect him." ¶3. (Afghanistan) Run-up to London Conference Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/7) editorialized: "It is an old chestnut that Afghanistan cannot be stabilized by military means alone, despite the warlike conditions in some of its regions. NATO acknowledged this since the summit in autumn 2006 at the latest. The continuously repeated call for a new strategy only serves as an excuse in the domestic debate, so one does not have to seriously discuss the military engagement of the international community.... The talk of war after the incident in Kunduz does certainly not make the decision of deploying additional soldiers easier. However, Germany has accepted a job in the north of the country, which it should do without referring to the demands of others." Berliner Zeitung(1/7) opined: "There are three weeks to go to the London conference on Afghanistan. How does the German government see the German contribution for Afghanistan? Only vague statements are made in public. Interior Minister Thomas de Maizire does not believe that it is necessary to say when and how many additional police officers should be sent. The Americans take the lead and plan to deploy several hundred U.S. trainers to the region where the Germans are. The [German] government can only blame itself for this disgrace. BERLIN 00000016 004 OF 006 Those who only deal with the policy on Afghanistan behind closed doors must not be surprised that the Americans now take action and that the German public is increasingly skeptical about the mission." Under the headline "Doubts about Germany," Tagesspiegel remarks in an editorial: "U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, has made clear to the weekly Die Zeit what it is really about. It is in the German as well as the American interest that the war is not lost. Washington has responded to Berlin's delaying tactics and will deploy additional troops to Kunduz. The Germans are apparently no longer trusted to be able and willing to defend the north." Die Welt (1/7) notes: "Islamists have apparently been focusing on the fights in Afghanistan for months to demoralize the people and frustrate the West. It shows that they want the decision to be made there that is expected to bring them not just Afghanistan but also Pakistan with its nuclear weapons. This would be the triumph of all triumphs.... Afghanistan is not yet lost, but the torn country can be lost... Future historians will date the Islamists' victory to the day when the last helicopter leaves from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul." ¶4. (U.S.) Guant namo, Yemen Berliner Zeitung (1/7) carried an analysis on the most recent U.S. steps to counter terrorism and reported under the headline: "Obama, Guant namo and Double Standards," that "as a reaction to the failed terrorist attempt, President Obama decided not to release more Guant namo prisoners to Yemen. That is why dozens of alleged innocent prisoners in Guant namo will begin their ninth year in the camp without hope for release. Their worst crime is that they were born as Yemenites, not Americans. Last week, federal judge Ricardo Urbina demonstrated what kind of difference this makes. He suspended proceedings against five guards of Blackwater were accused of having killed 17 Iraqis. But because U.S. investigators promised the defendants that they can keep their jobs if they make a testimony, the judge declared the entire proceedings to be inadmissible. Then the U.S. commander in Iraq spoke of a "lesson in the rule of law." This is unbelievable. It is this injustice that drives recruits into al Qaida's hands. Obama should know that Guant namo is only a symbol of this." Regional daily Stuttgarter Zeitung (1/7) editorialized: "Shortcomings come back to haunt [politicians] -- some sooner, some later. In BERLIN 00000016 005 OF 006 hindsight it has turned out to be a serious mistake that the Afghanistan and Iraq-fixated Americans have lost sight of Yemen. Al- Qaida's attack on the USS Cole in Aden Harbor almost a year before the 9/11 attacks should have been an alarm call at that time in order to take action against the Islamic terrorists in the south of the Arab peninsula. Today, almost ten years later, the chances to succeed are far worse, the risks attached to driving Osama bin Laden's followers out of their hideouts in Yemen much higher. Washington correspondent Andreas Geldner opines in regional daily Freie Presse of Chemnitz (1/7): "Obama's admirers abroad should gear up for quite a few surprises in the coming weeks which are bound to alter their image of the 'global president.' The Americans singling out persons from 14 allegedly terrorist-infiltrated countries, is just the beginning. Nonetheless Obama is very aware of the fact that he needs - first and foremost - solid international cooperation to fight terrorism. He stubbornly refuses to resort to the term "war against terror" because - from his perspective - it disregards the much more essential civilian component. Obama is also staying the course when it comes to the closure of Guant namo, all the while knowing that a turnabout on this issue would be a disastrous for his international credibility." ¶5. (U.S.) Obama Policy Weekly Die Zeit (1/7) had this to say: "Barack Obama is by no means a naQve peace apostle who is brutally being thrown into reality by a thwarted attack. Since he is in office, he has been waging a fight against Islamic terrorists with all consequence, even though with fewer battle cries than his predecessor and with a fine instinct for the limits of the rule of law. The supporters of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are now attacking the incumbent in the White House as being too soft, arguing that the security of the country is in bad hands with him. But is this president too yielding towards Islamic terrorists? Not this president. He knows about the constant terrorist dangers. He is not only a master of words. He does not only talk but he also takes action by sending another 30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan.... But Obama is by no means a cloned Bush. As president and supreme commander, he promised the American people to protect them from hostile attacks and to respect the Constitution and freedom rights. Under Bush these were contradictions. Obama, however, wants to show that even in difficult times, the tightrope act between security and freedom can succeed. Barack Obama is not a naQve BERLIN 00000016 006 OF 006 idealist but a pragmatist who is serious about his principles." Regional daily MQrkische Oderzeitung of Frankfurt on the Oder (1/7) opined: "Obama succeeded in setting a new tone - in relations to Moscow, with respect to disarmament, in his approach to the Islamic world. The reward was - and this was probably a bit premature - the awarding of the Nobel Peace prize. The war in Iraq is not yet over, the one in Afghanistan is being intensified, and in the war on terror new fronts are opening on a global scale. Obama, the Nobel Peace laureate, has arrived as war president in tough reality." ¶6. (Environment) Climate Policy Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/7) remarks in a front-page editorial: "The despondency after the climate conference in Copenhagen was great. Not just the Europeans had to digest a disappointing result. The experience was unpleasant and indicated a future loss of global influence and power.... It is clear that the Europeans did not find any allies among the U.S. and larger threshold countries that shared their priorities and determination. At the end, Europeans and those most hit by global climate change stood alone. On a field where they wanted to take the lead by making great efforts, support was hardly visible.... New institutions are required in the new century. Traditionalists still support the United Nations under all circumstances and everywhere. However, given that the multilateralism of the UN is ineffective, takes a lot of time, and is often abused by anti-Western propagandists, there is a trend to bypass it. This trend toward informal groups might increase." DELAWIE