S E C R E T DUBLIN 000254

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/27/2014
TAGS: ETTC PTER EFIN EUN
SUBJECT: IRELAND IS UNDECIDED ON HIZBALLAH DESIGNATION,
REQUESTS WRITTEN INFORMATION

REF: STATE 34900

Classified By: POL/ECON CHIEF MARY DALY,
FOR REASONS 1.4 (B), (D)


1. (S) Summary. In a March 1 demarche, DFA said that it
remained undecided on whether to support designation of
Hizballah. "At first glance," DFA said, the information
emboffs provided fell short of a "smoking gun." Moreover,
DFA expressed concern that verbal information might not
satisfy the evidentiary standards required for Clearinghouse
discussions. End Summary.


2. (S) On March 1, Emboffs delivered reftel demarche to
Maurice Biggar, Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) First
Secretary, UN Desk for Terrorism and Illicit Drugs, Gerard

SIPDIS
Keown, DFA European Correspondent, and Stephen Dawson, DFA
Deputy Regional Director, Middle East and North Africa. The
DFA officials said that GOI remained "undecided" on whether
to support designation of Hizballah. "At first glance," DFA
said, the information that emboffs provided fell short of a
"smoking gun." Dawson said that the demarche information was
helpful and more substantive than in previous demarches, but
not as useful as would be the case with written copies for
review and circulation. Dawson told emboffs that reliance on
hastily handwritten notes from the demarche would make it
difficult for the GOI to conduct inter-agency deliberations
on Hizballah's designation.


3. (S) Biggar, who will represent the GOI at the EU
Clearinghouse on March 16, also expressed concern that verbal
information might not satisfy the evidentiary standards
required for Clearinghouse discussions. He interpreted
Common Position (CP) 931 (para four) and Clearinghouse
standard procedures as requiring written submissions. Biggar
added that this technicality might lead Member States to rule
the U.S. submissions out of order in the Clearinghouse.
Biggar held to this view when Emboffs pointed out that CP 931
required "precise information," as opposed to written
submissions. He said that the GOI was accustomed during its
EU Presidency last year to receive written submissions
directly and to circulate them in advance among Member
States. Biggar and Dawson also noted distinctions among the
types of allegations made in the U.S. submission, as some
were legal in nature, while others appeared to be politically
or intelligence-related. They said that not having a written
record of these distinctions would make it harder for them to
deliberate among themselves and later with EU colleagues at
the Clearinghouse.


4. (S) Emboffs asked which direction the GOI was leaning in
terms of designating Hizballah. Biggar responded that since
procedural obstacles at the February Clearinghouse had
precluded substantive discussion of the designation, Ireland
was not in a position to say whether it was leaning toward a
yes or no vote. Dawson said that, at first glance, the
information provided in the demarche was not conclusive. For
follow-up discussions on the designation, Dawson also
recommended clarification of the USG sources cited in the
demarche, for example, whether the reference was to Embassy
reporting. The DFA representatives said they had no obstacle
in principle against voting for Hizballah's designation, but
they were determined to base their vote on concrete evidence
presented in a manner that was procedurally sound.


5. (S) Dawson asked why the United States was pushing for the
designation at this time. He noted some of the information
provided in the demarche was several years old. Moreover,
Lebanon had become politically fragile while the Middle East
Peace Process was entering a sensitive juncture. Emboffs
replied that it is not useful to frame the matter in a
political context; the issue at stake was Irish support for
the designation of Hizballah as a terrorist group. Dawson
conceded that politics were not the heart of the matter, but
again questioned the timing of the demarche in light of
recent political developments.


6. (C) Comment: Reftel was clear about not leaving any paper
during the demarche, but Post wishes to suggest consideration
of flexibility on this point. If it remains impossible to
deliver written information, Post would appreciate talking
points on meeting evidentiary standards, which we could
provide to DFA as follow-up. End Comment.
KENNY