MEDIA REACTION: AFGHANISTAN, IRAN, ANTI-TERROR, PAKISTAN,

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 08 BERLIN 000002 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 AF IR ZP PK SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: AFGHANISTAN, IRAN, ANTI-TERROR, PAKISTAN, Islam, 2009/2010;BERLIN ¶1. Lead Stories Summary ¶2. (Afghanistan) Governance, Cabinet Selection ¶3. (Iran) Nuclear Conflict ¶4. (Anti-Terror Fight) Yemen, Guant namo, Security Measures ¶5. (Pakistan) Attack on Volleyball Game ¶6. (Islam in European Society) Westergaard Attack ¶7. Look Back at 2009, Look Ahead at 2010 ¶1. Leads Stories Summary Frankfurter Allgemeine covered the debate over the Bundeswehr mission in Afghanistan, while Sueddeutsche Zeitung headlined: "Closure of Guant namo in Danger." Tagesspiegel dealt with the discussion over the introduction of full body scanners. Several other dailies led with reports on U.S. and UK efforts to fight the Taliban in Yemen. Editorials focused on the atmosphere between the coalition parties and on an extension of the anti-terror fight against Yemen. ZDF-TV's early evening newscast heute and ARD-TV's early evening newscast Tagesschau opened with a report on intensified U.S. efforts to fight terrorism in Yemen. ¶2. (Afghanistan) Governance, Cabinet Selection Several papers (01/04) carried reports on President Karzai's failure to have the Afghan parliament confirm his list of new Cabinet members. While Sueddeutsche Zeitung spoke of a" Brush-off for Karzai's Cabinet," Frankfurter Allgemeine headlined: "Karzai Discovers Beauty of Democracy." Under the headline: "The Farce Continues," Frankfurter Allgemeine (01/04) editorialized: "It is almost impossible for Hamid Karzai to present a Cabinet that will meet expectations, either those of the West, which wants a new beginning, and those of the Afghan parliamentarians, who understand under the term 'new beginning' this and that.... But Karzai's list of Cabinet members did not include the name of one member of his opponent Abdullah's camp. That is why the election farce, which was concluded in November by Abdullah giving up his demand for a run-off election, had to go on with a Cabinet farce. In countries that call themselves democracies, the result of such a vote of no-confidence would have been clear." Frankfurter Rundschau (01/04) editorialized under the headline: "Ugly Mirror Image" that "Hamid Karzai does not have a Cabinet and this is especially embarrassing a few weeks before the London conference on Afghanistan. It is by no means a coincidence that Karzai has now become the victim of the parliamentarians' retaliation. Karzai will now have great difficulty presenting a functioning Cabinet before the BERLIN 00000002 002 OF 008 donors' conference in London on January 28." According to die tageszeitung (01/04),"the rejection of two-thirds of his Cabinet members is by no means a defeat but a success for Hamid Karzai. He again demonstrated who is the boss in the house. He confused commentators, misguided politicians, evaded the pressure from his most important allies and gained time and latitude. Karzai's partners are, on the one side, the warlords. He can now say he was not lucky with his selection and that he would have liked to get their representatives in his cabinet but the parliament did not go along with his proposals. On the other side, we have the international community which declared his Cabinet selection a yardstick for his willingness to implement reforms...but after the vote in parliament the government leaders at the donors conference in London will now sit around a big table but have no addressee. Karzai can now await this conference with great calm. Will Americans and the British understand what is going on and criticize Karzai's governmental style of deliberate confusion? We need not expect this because the two most important ministers will stay in office: Defense Minster Warak and Interior Minister Atmar. Karzai has now enough time to install a Cabinet that fits his policies. His spokesman demonstrated that Karzai is not worried by saying that the vote of the parliament reflected 'the beauty of democracy.'" ¶3. (Iran) Nuclear Conflict Under the headline "Iran delivers an ultimatum to the West," Handelsblatt (1/4) reported that "Iran turned the tables in the nuclear dispute with the West. The government set a deadline of one month for the West to accept its proposal for the enrichment of uranium." Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/4) editorialized: "The Iranian leadership has difficulties. Mottaki apparently believes that being more critical of the West might be a worthwhile strategy in such a situation.... The Iranian leadership is splitting hairs. The regime is apparently interested in an escalation. It hopes that a foreign political 'threat' might calm the situation in the country. The nuclear question will be really interesting once there is a new leadership in Iran. Is the program in the nation's interest or is it just the project of an increasingly irrational leadership?" Berliner Zeitung (1/4) analyzed: "The legitimacy of the regime has been seriously damaged in Iran. However, it has not yet lost all support throughout the country. Since Ahmadinejad stayed in power in June only by election fraud, it has become clear that broad parts of the Iranian people as well as parts of the political and religious elite, who once made the success of the revolution possible, are disappointed about the idea of the Islamic state. However, important groups, particularly the Bassij, still stand by the regime and Ayatollah Khamenei." BERLIN 00000002 003 OF 008 ¶4. (Anti-Terror Fight) Yemen, Guant namo, Security Measures Yemen: Die Welt (1/4) led with the headline "Yemen and Somalia--the breeding ground of terrorism. U.S. and Britain close Embassies in fear of al Qaida attacks." The paper noted in a front-page editorial on the U.S. efforts in Yemen: "The American public is shocked that its media, intelligence services and former President Bush ignored the growing terror network in Yemen for almost one decade. On October 12, 2000, when a speed boat loaded with explosives hit the battleship USS Cole and killed 17 sailors, America focused on Yemen. At the time, Washington and Sana'a could have nipped terrorism in the bud.... [However,] mistrust has been a burden to the relationship between both countries for years. It is anything but certain that the U.S. will make more friends than enemies with all the money, trainers and drones it provides to Yemen." Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/4) editorialized: "Yemen has turned into the front line in the war on terrorism... However, like in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Americans and the world face a dilemma. The governments in these countries are too weak to fight against terrorists, or they try to appease the insatiable enemy in the hope they will be eaten last. American airstrike might hit local al Qaida leaders. However, only Muslim societies can defeat Islamist terrorism, which kills particularly Muslims." Under the headline "The perfect place for al Qaida," tageszeitung (1/4) commented: "The U.S. responds to this real danger by rearming the Yemenite government and by participating - to only some extent so far - in the military fight against Islamists. We might at least doubt that this fight will be more successful in Yemen than in Afghanistan." Westdeutsche Zeitung (1/4) opined: "Yemen is desperately poor, but its position is strategically highly important. The U.S. and Britain are right about this. However, there is also the lesson of Afghanistan. Bombs do not create peace but only stir up an unequal opponent. Maybe the worst can be prevented this time - by a steady hand during the Afghanistan conference in London." The Munich-based Abendzeitung (1/4) remarked: "The West faces a dilemma in Yemen. If it is does nothing, the weak government will not defeat the terrorists. If it increases the military pressure too massively and kills innocent people, the people will turn against BERLIN 00000002 004 OF 008 the West. The answer is not simple. However, staying out of it does not automatically create peace." Berliner Zeitung (1/4) noted on British Prime Minister Brown's counterterrorism efforts: "Brown fosters the image of a competent leader who wants to tackle genuine problems. Last autumn, we already had the impression that the British tail wagged the American dog. While President Obama still considered his strategy on Afghanistan, the Briton had new ideas and announced an increase in the number of troops. Security measures: Deutschlandfunk (1/3) opined: "The key question is: how many checks, rules and data collection do we want to accept? When does security turn into snooping? Do we have to suspect any fellow citizen as a potential terrorist to effectively counter the threat? ... Flight 253 and its happy end told us that collecting data alone does not help. We have to rely on ourselves because the determination of passengers prevented flight 253 from crashing." Sddeutsche (1/4) editorialized on the debate about body scanners: "Experts promise that neither the traveler's face nor the sex will be recognizable. If this promise is kept and these scanners do not pose a health risk, nothing can be said against this technology. However, it can be doubted whether these machines can contain international terrorism. Potential terrorists will search for new ways to smuggle weapons and explosives on board. History shows that they will find them. And how do we want to protect trains and subways against attacks in the future? Nobody will seriously propose to scan every commuter every morning." Tagesspiegel (1/4) commented: "The new German government has finally discovered a common project: counterterrorism. Over Christmas, politicians of the coalition government were seriously concerned about the renewed debate about body scanners and did not want under any circumstances to violate the dignity of the people. Suddenly, a new generation of body scanners that would respect the privacy of people was being discussed. In 2010, the interior and research ministers surprisingly have new information that removes all technical and ethnical concerns... although Justice Minister Leutheusser- Schnarrenberger stressed that the flood of data and not the lack of security tools poses a problem." Guant namo Under the headline: "Terror Recycling," Sueddeutsche Zeitung (01/04) BERLIN 00000002 005 OF 008 opined: "the thwarted terror attack on Flight 253 is likely to have an impact on an important pillar of President Obama's anti-terror policy: the difficult closure of Guant namo has now become even more complicated. It has been clear for a long time that Obama will miss his goal of closing this disgraceful camp. As a matter of fact, there is no doubt about the fact that there has been a kind of 'terror recycling' with prisoners from the camp in Guant namo. Suspects were released as harmless but found themselves in the ranks of al-Qaida again. Republicans but also security experts of his own party are now calling for a moratorium on the release of further prisoners to Yemen. But if Obama is unable to get rid of prisoners, he will be faced with the alternative of transferring them to the U.S. mainland or keeping them in Guant namo. We do not have to guess what he will do in an election year. Guant namo will stay for the time being." Financial Times Deutschland (01/04) argued, "As simple and correct it is for President Obama to support Yemen with money and military support in its fight against al-Qaida, as complicated are the consequences, for instance, that it will become even more difficult for President Obama to close Guant namo. But as difficult as it may be, the U.S. government should continue to find countries that are willing to accept the remaining Yemenites in Guant namo. In order to avoid a ghettoization and a further radicalization, the Arab world would be more appropriate than Europe or an island paradise such as the Bermudas. The states in the region that cooperate with the United States should together seek a solution to accept the Yemenites. Otherwise the closure of Guant namo will become the next victim in the fight against terror." ¶5. (Pakistan) Attack on Volleyball Game Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/4) carried a report under the headline: "Peace Committee Criticizes Pakistan's Security Forces," and wrote: "Following the devastating attack in a village in northwestern Pakistan with more than 90 people killed, the secretary general of the local government-friendly peace initiative criticized security forces. He said that they did not do justice to their responsibility to protect the villagers. As is usual in attacks with many killed civilians, no Taliban group assumed responsibility for the crime. Meanwhile, violence in the Northwestern part of the country continued. A former minister of the province was killed by a remote controlled bomb In the Hangu district." Sueddeutsche Zeitung (1/4) carried a similar report, headlined: "The Revenge of the Taliban." Die Welt (1/4) reported under the headline: "Pakistan: Accusations against [Security] Agencies Following Attack." BERLIN 00000002 006 OF 008 Berliner Zeitung (1/4) analyzed the situation in Pakistan and wrote under the headline: "The Plans of the Taliban No Longer Always Come True," that "what at the beginning seemed to be a senseless terror attack is now turning out to be a well-conceived part of a brutal intimidation campaign of the Taliban in the border area to Afghanistan against villages and Pashtun tribes which are opposed to the extremists and which have sided with the government. This attack seems to be a retaliatory strike. However, a 50-year old village councilor said after the attack that such attacks would only strengthen their resolve because they were Pasthuns and revenge would be the only answer to the cruel murder. If his words come true, the Taliban's calculations would be wrong to intimidate the villagers and people of other regions." ¶6. (Islam in European Society) Westergaard Attack Munich's Mnchener Merkur (01/04) noted: "The deadly seeds which preachers of hatred sowed with their calls to kill Danish cartoonist Westergaard, have borne fruit. The attack of this fanatic Islamic terrorist is really not surprising. The crime itself is not surprising, neither the eloquent silence of those who are outraged when they consider the feelings of Muslims to be insulted, such as Turkish Premier Erdogan who saw fascism at work when the Swiss advocated a ban on minarets. But the hatred in the name of Allah cannot be overcome by remaining silent. The outrage of western politicians is also hypocritical: out of fear of further eruptions of outrage in the Muslim world, Europe's political and intellectual elites could not disassociate themselves quickly enough from this regrettable cartoonist after the publication of these cartoons." Regional daily SchwQbische Zeitung of Leutkirch (01/04) opined: "Thus far, Islam has evaded a discussion over its historical background. For the majority, the Koran is the literal revelation of God and non- negotiable, including the anachronistic role of women and diverse medieval rules of the Sharia. This is the core problem which the non- Islamic world cannot resolve. But a tinge of understanding and concessions would be the worst of all reactions: The west must defend its values tooth and nail and hope that the Muslims will sooner or later begin to have their religion arrive in the 21st century. It would be a comfortable signal if all Islamic authorities, who fiercely criticized the Mohammed caricatures four years ago, now reacted similarly to the assassination attempt of Westergaard. Unfortunately, silence dominates." Mannheimer Morgen (01/04) judged: "As was the case with the Fatwa against writer Salman Rushdie, the same attitude is behind such attacks: the fight of willing Islamic terrorists, who stop at nothing, against the freedom of the western world. With this fight, they are discrediting millions of Muslims who are want peaceful co-existence. We can certainly describe Westergaard's cartoons as tasteless but BERLIN 00000002 007 OF 008 religion should not be an area that is free from criticism. And their self-appointed leaders have no right to take it upon themselves to set limits and take justice into their own hands." Regional daily Lbecker Zeitung (02/01) had this to say: The relationship between the West and the Muslim world is full of misunderstandings and antipathies. Following the thwarted terrorist attack on Danish Mohammed cartoonist, it is difficult to soberly assess the incident. It should be clear that the alleged Islamic terrorist is not a representative of the great majority of Muslims." Regional Landeszeitung of Lneburg (1/4) argues: "Up until today, western state leaders have not found an answer to the question of why Christians in Islamic countries have been prevented from practicing their religion or are even persecuted, while freedom of religion dominates here. Fanatics have a great interest in maintaining this imbalance. They draw their strength from the 'weakness' of the West." ¶7. Look Back at 2009, Look Ahead at 2010 Sueddeutsche Zeitung (12/31) noted under the headline: "The Failure of Politics" that "the year again ended with a painful insight: the international community of nations is unable to govern itself. It had gathered in Copenhagen to safeguard its basis of living but failed to do so. A global climate agreement that could have contained global warming will not come into existence for the time being. While scientists only offer advice and warn against the consequences of false decisions, real politicians follow different laws. They do not implement what is necessary, but what guarantees their political survival. A model example of this is the U.S. president. His first trips looked like campaigns, his speeches like promises. He created worldwide hopes, promised a more peaceful and fairer society, an ecological policy and a domesticated capitalism. But at the end of his first year in office, Barack Obama has lost his magic.... And 2009 revealed even more: there is no longer a domestic policy, but only a global policy. The Americans may consider their 'national interest' to be the guideline of their policy. But the illusion that they alone would be able to save the world has disappeared into thin air with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The global policy agenda is no longer determined by the United States. It must find an arrangement with other powers. The frenzy that came along with the election of the first black U.S. president made many people believe that the United States would be able to regain its leadership role. But the loss of BERLIN 00000002 008 OF 008 significance of the western superpower does not depend on individuals. It is inevitable because the global edifice has structurally changed." Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/4) carried a front-page editorial under the headline: "A Year of Reliability," and judged: "In 2010, peoples' attention will go beyond Germany to President Obama in Washington. When he was elected, everyone spoke of a different, a new, a better leadership in America and hoped for a better world in 2010. But President Obama must also demonstrate his reliability now. He spent his first year in office to appear totally different than his predecessor George W. Bush. He delivered brilliant speeches, reached out America's hand to its opponents and enemies, and made new offers for cooperation...but the yield of this policy has thus far been meager. Iran and North Korea have refused to accept this hand, while Russia does not really know whether to grab it or not. The emerging power China snubbed Obama, first during his state visit, then in Copenhagen. The European allies have benevolently commented on the new U.S. foreign policy but are hesitant to help him where it would be most necessary. The question of whether the Europeans should support Obama in Afghanistan could turn out to be decisive for the western Alliance. It is true that NATO would not go down if Afghanistan's stabilization failed, but doubts about the meaning and the purpose of NATO would continue to increase in Washington. America is able to provide for its own security, while the Europeans are decades away from reaching this goal. But the crises and conflicts, in which America is engaged, are also threats for Europe." MURPHY