ENGAGING WITH AUSTRIA ON THE PRESIDENT'S

C O N F I D E N T I A L VIENNA 002996

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR L AND EUR/AGS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/06/2016
TAGS: PHUM PREL AU
SUBJECT: ENGAGING WITH AUSTRIA ON THE PRESIDENT'S
INITIATIVES ON TERRORIST DETAINEES

REF: STATE 146996

Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Scott F. Kilner. Reasons: 1.4
(b) and (d).


1. (U) In response to reftel, Ambassador has engaged in a
public affairs initiative to publicize and promote the
President's policy on detainees. At the same time,
Ambassador and DCM have discussed the issue with key Austrian
government contacts.


2. (U) Ambassador incorporated reftel public diplomacy
themes in a major speech to mark the anniversary of the
September 11 attacks. She also conveyed these themes in
multiple speeches to university groups and in a background
discussion with the editors of Austria's major newspapers.


3. (C) DCM discussed reftel points on September 13 with
Austrian MFA Legal Advisor Ferdinand Trauttmansdorff, a
leading player in the U.S.-EU dialogue on detainees that
began under the Austrian EU Presidency early this year.
Trauttmansdorff noted that the development of new frameworks
for detention standards, interrogation methods and trials of
suspects would help promote rational discussion, even if they
drew criticism. He said he would do his best to present the
U.S. initiatives in a positive way.


4. (C) Trauttmansdorff said a key question was whether the
war against al-Qaeda could win international acceptance as a
war in the legal sense. EU views on this point, he reported,
were "mixed and divergent." Generally, EU experts accept
certain elements of the situation as constituting an "armed
conflict." However, Trauttmansdorff said, no officials
within the EU -- including the UK and Denmark -- see the
situation as a general armed conflict. The majority of EU
countries further see the ongoing struggle as requiring the
application of humanitarian law as a part of international
human rights law. The problem is that there is divergence in
the details.


5. (C) Trauttmansdorff further argued that, if one accepts
the situation as a conflict in a legal sense, the concept of
"unlawful combatants" does not find recognition because it is
not part of the Geneva Conventions. According to the Geneva
Conventions, he said, it is lawful to kill the enemy in a
war. However, the enemy must be recognizable as such, and
not just "suspects" who may (or may not) be part of enemy
forces.


6. (C) Trauttmansdorff stressed that credibility is a big
issue in the fight against terrorism. The Western nations
represent a community of values which must not be tarnished
in the fight against terrorism. Europeans face the same
problems as the U.S. regarding terrorism, and in fact, have
long faced terrorism on their own territory. If one
considers democracy as our guiding principle, he argued, we
could not ignore the requirements of human rights and
humanitarian law. It is not cowardice on the part of
Europeans, he said, to focus on these points.


7. (C) Concerning Common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions, Trauttmansdorff claimed that there is a body of
precedent that represents a clear requirement to provide the
same "minimum standards" to detainees as we give our own
worst criminals. These standards are quite specific, he
argued, and embodied in the U.S. Uniform Code of Military
Justice.


8. (C) Trauttmansdorff said the EU wanted to be supportive
of U.S. initiatives in this area. He said it is important
that we minimize differences in transatlantic attitudes.
Kilner