VZCZCXRO9213
RR RUEHCN RUEHGH RUEHVC
DE RUEHBJ #3264 3411002
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 071002Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY BEIJING
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7098
INFO RUEHOO/CHINA POSTS COLLECTIVE
RHMFIUU/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI
UNCLAS BEIJING 003264
DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/CM, EAP/PA, EAP/PD, C
HQ PACOM FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ADVISOR (J007)
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL ECON KMDR OPRC CH
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: CLIMATE CHANGE, AFGHANISTAN, NORTH KOREA
--------------------
Editorial Quotes
--------------------
1. CLIMATE CHANGE
a. "The world sets its eyes on Copenhagen"
The official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao)(12/07)(pg
13): "Many people describe the Copenhagen Conference as the last
chance to save the globe. For Bangkok and cities in the neighboring
area, climate change has become a matter of survival. In India,
local people's concern over protecting the tropical rain forests in
fact matters to their survival and employment. An Indian professor
said that people have to make actions at once, giving a broad
consideration of environmental protection, even if personal
interests would be sacrificed. Wang Gengchen, a researcher at the
Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the Chinese Academy of Sciences,
stressed that climate change negotiations go far beyond climate
science. Developing countries' rights need not to be ignored and
developed countries should help developing countries by providing
more funds and technologies."
b. "The U.S. factor spells doom for the Copenhagen Climate Change
Conference"
The official Communist Youth League China Youth Daily (Zhongguo
Qingnianbao)(12/07)(pg 5): "Quite a few climate experts argue that
China and the United States' commitments to climate change targets
are not enough to make up the difference between developed and
developing countries. Because the United States still has not made
any progress in combating climate change, expectations for the
United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen should not be
high. The U.S. commitment to emissions reduction is indispensable
for reaching a new global climate change treaty. However, the
U.S.'s announced goal of emissions reduction is far removed from its
role as the world's super power. What's even more worrying is that
such a disappointing goal may not be passed by the U.S. Congress.
Regarding the mid-term election, senators opposing the bill will
unlikely compromise. At the same time, the carbon tariff bill in
the process of gaining approval from the U.S. Congress is in fact
trade protection measures in the name of environmental protection.
The impasse has yet to be broken. Therefore prospects for the
Copenhagen Conference are dim."
2. AFGHANISTAN
"To increase troops in Afghanistan, the U.S. seeks Wakhan corridor"
The official Communist Party international news publication Global
Times (Huanqiu Shibao)(12/07)(pg 8): "Experts believe that logistic
supplies are crucial for increasing troops in Afghanistan.
Regarding the important geographical locations of China and Russia,
it will be critical to see whether the two countries can stay
outside the U.S. plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan. Chinese
military expert Peng Guangqian said that it is hard to deliver
transport supplies to U.S. troops in Afghanistan through the Wakhan
Corridor since China-NATO military cooperation is still at an
initial phase. It is even more "impossible" that China would send
combat troops to Afghanistan. The U.S. will have to stop its
efforts to try to pull China down into the water."
3. NORTH KOREA
"What's the harm if the U.S. takes one step back on the North Korea
nuclear issue?"
The official Communist Party international news publication Global
Times (Huanqiu Shibao)(12/07)(pg 14): "The U.S. is unwilling to
leave the world with the impression that it started to have talks
with North Korea due to pressure from North Korea. In fact, only
when the U.S., as the big country, takes the lead and makes
adjustments (to its strategy) will a turning point on the nuclear
issue arrive. If the U.S. can compromise first, a process of mutual
trust could be established. In fact these compromises can be undone
if North Korea refuses to compromise after the U.S.'s compromise.
Obviously in that way North Korea will receive a more severe
punishment, of which it can't bear the consequence. Even if North
Korea completely gives up its nuclear programs, capacity to possess
nuclear technology can't now be taken away. At this point, the U.S.
long-term strategy should be to compromise first. In fact, in
history, although the U.S. has not benefited much from compromising,
the truth is that the U.S. did not make real compromises at all.
The U.S. policy for the future should be based on solving issues
instead of just being conciliatory. North Korea, at the same time,
should also take the initiative to make active reactions."
HUNTSMAN