NETHERLANDS/DETAINEES: FM BOT DEFENDS ENGAGEMENT

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 002024

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/14/2016
TAGS: PREL PHUM EU NL
SUBJECT: NETHERLANDS/DETAINEES: FM BOT DEFENDS ENGAGEMENT
WITH U.S.

REF: THE HAGUE 1978

Classified By: Political Counselor Andrew Schofer; reasons 1.4 (b) and
(d).


1. (C) Summary: FM Bot told parliament September 13 that he
had spoken with Secretary Rice and made known Dutch concerns
over secret prisons and detainee policy. He defended his
acceptance of her assurances last year, and said that U.S.
arguments on the challenges of interrogating terror suspects
have some validity. He refused demands from the left to
raise the issue to the Human Rights Council (HRC). End
summary.


2. (C) In a rancorous parliamentary debate on September 13,
Dutch Foreign Minister Bot staved off attacks from Labor
(PvdA),the Greens, and Socialists accusing the GONL of
either lying to Parliament about U.S. "secret prisons" or
being misled by U.S. officials, including Secretary Rice.
Bot denied being "had" by Secretary Rice, and stressed that
he had vigorously conveyed Dutch unease with U.S. detainee
policy at every available opportunity. Bot also said he saw
opportunities emerging for finding consensus with the U.S.


3. (C) Bot argued that he was justified in accepting
Secretary Rice's December 2005 assurances on renditions and

SIPDIS
overflights, and forcefully rejected Socialist Party foreign
policy spokesman von Bommel's assertion that he was "Bush's
lap dog." Bot said Rice had assured him then, and again this
past week, that Dutch sovereignty had not been violated. That
did not mean that secret prisons did not exist, and she was
always clear that she was not prepared to discuss
intelligence operations.


4. (C) Bot added that U.S. concerns over the ability of
nations to adequately interrogate terror suspects are not
without merit. He said the GONL categorically rejects
arguments that secret prisons are justified, and stressed the
importance of adequate oversight and procedures to ensure due
process. He saw a willingness by the U.S. to engage on these
issues and suggested that the U.S. and the Netherlands might
find consensus on the meaning of Article 3, for example, by
looking to Article 75 of the First Additional Protocol. (MFA
Deputy European Correspondent Jeroen Boender, who helped
prepare Bot for the debate, subsequently assured poloff that
the GONL has no intention of trying to renew debate about
U.S. accession to the Protocol.) Bot reserved judgment on
legislation now being debated in the U.S. Congress.


5. (C) Bot promised to raise concerns over U.S. policy at the
September 15 monthly EU Foreign Ministers' meeting (GAERC)
and said he would consider raising it at the North Atlantic
Council (NAC). He rejected demands by some parliamentarians
that he raise the concerns at the Human Rights Council (HRC),
saying he would not take action that risked putting the U.S.
on a par with states such as North Korea or Zimbabwe.


6. (C) Comment: President Bush's September 6 speech continues
to play poorly here, despite vigorous PR efforts by Post and
visiting U.S. officials (i.e., USNATO Permrep Nuland and EUR
PDAS Volker). Elections are clearly part of the reason, but
there is also an underlying sense of unease throughout Dutch
society over what is viewed as a possible drifting apart on
essential values. On the other hand, Bot's statements during
the debate acknowledging the legitimacy of some U.S.
concerns, and his apparent willingness to engage with the
U.S. on finding long-term solutions to detainee-related
issues, present opportunities for us to move the discussion
forward productively. End comment.
ARNALL