NETHERLANDS/EU/UNGA: ICJ SEPARATION BARRIER ACTION

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 002398

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/20/2014
TAGS: PREL NL UNSC EUN
SUBJECT: NETHERLANDS/EU/UNGA: ICJ SEPARATION BARRIER ACTION

REF: STATE 201935

Classified By: DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION DANIEL R. RUSSEL FOR REASONS 1.4
(B) AND (D).


1. (C) DCM discussed reftel talking points with Herman
Schaper, the Dutch Deputy POLDIR, on September 20. Schaper
confirmed that Dutch UN Permrep Dirk van den Bergh, in his EU
capacity, had discussed the issue of the security barrier
with the Palestinian mission (al-Kidwa) in New York. The
Palestinians had raised several scenarios, ranging from a
second UNGA resolution to "challenging Israel's credentials."
According to Schaper, referring the barrier issue to the
UNSC was "not excluded" as one possible option by al-Kidwa.
Van den Bergh reportedly cautioned the Palestinians not to
"overreach" on this issue, noting that they could not count
on EU consensus for an aggressive, non-constructive
Palestinian strategy. (Privately, Schaper said that he could
imagine a two- or three-way split on the issue within the EU,
and stressed that reaching consensus on the earlier UNGA
resolution had been extremely difficult.) DCM argued that
the EU should make clear at the outset that it opposed
referral to the UNSC. He also noted that the EU had said,
following its support for the earlier resolution, that it
intended to work with the Palestinians to reduce the overall
number of Middle East UNGA resolutions and asked whether the
Palestinians were acting productively in this area; Schaper
said there had been some discussion on this subject but
indicated it had been inconclusive.


2. (C) POLCOUNS separately followed up with Jaap Werner, head
of the Dutch MFA's Political Affairs Department. Although he
was unaware of a specific Palestinian push to refer the issue
to the UNSC, Werner observed that the EU "had it coming"
after it supported the earlier resolution. He noted that
consensus on the earlier resolution had been predicated on
two assumptions: 1) that that resolution represented "the
maximum" the EU could support, and that 2) the Palestinians
would work constructively to lower the tone and consolidate
resolutions at UNGA. He added that some EU members would
nevertheless respond positively to a Palestinian push to
raise the profile of the issue. As EU president, the Dutch
would prefer to reach a consensus position again, even though
their national position was relatively close to that of the
U.S. Werner also noted that Israeli actions would play a
role in how the EU responded to the Palestinian initiative,
and stressed that it was critical that the Israelis were seen
to be taking international concerns about the security
barrier and settlements seriously. POLCOUNS stressed that
the EU had nothing to gain from encouraging the Palestinians
to put forward a UNSC resolution certain to be vetoed, and
argued that the EU could play a more productive role by
pushing the Palestinians to make good on their earlier
commitments.


3. (C) In the absence of Karel van Kesteren (head of the
MFA's International Organizations Department),POLOFF passed
reftel points to van Kesteren's deputy, Giovanni van der
Lugt. Van der Lugt did not comment substantively on the
points, but promised to forward them to van Kesteren in New
York promptly.

SOBEL