I think you've got it backwards - the point is to be fastidiously neutral.

Some people think it's reunification, some people think it isn't. So instead of taking one side and saying what they think, they just tell you what the relevant person said. They aren't quoting a whole sentence, as it comes from a speech and they want to make it understandable without having to read the whole thing.

It's supposed to be simple reporting, not opinion. Especially if you look at the venue - it's a news agency.

This is all totally normal, completely above-board, best-practice journalism. I have no idea why people push back against it.

Are you possibly confusing quotation marks with scare quotes? That's not what these are. They aren't making a point using the quotation marks. They're trying to not make a point. Just to convey the facts.

It's a legitimate use of quotations IMO as it clarifies the text, in particular the relationship between the writer (the journalist) and the originator of the message being relayed and interpreted.