wikileaks ico  Home papers ico  Cables mirror and Afghan War Diary privacy policy  Privacy
IdentifierCreatedClassificationOrigin
07LUXEMBOURG91 2007-03-03 08:38:00 CONFIDENTIAL Embassy Luxembourg
Cable title:  

LUXEMBOURG ON MARCH GAERC: MOSTLY PREP FOR COUNCIL

Tags:   PREL PGOV PHUM EUN ENRG LU SU UZ 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0004
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHLE #0091 0620838
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 030838Z MAR 07
FM AMEMBASSY LUXEMBOURG
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5808
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES
					  C O N F I D E N T I A L LUXEMBOURG 000091 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/02/2016
TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM EUN ENRG LU SU UZ
SUBJECT: LUXEMBOURG ON MARCH GAERC: MOSTLY PREP FOR COUNCIL
MEETING

REF: STATE 23592

Classified By: DCM Steven H. Kraft for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)



1. (C) SUMMARY. According to Deputy MFA Political Director
Stephan Muller, Luxembourg does not have high expectations
for the 5-6 March GAERC meetings in terms of outcomes.
Rather, Luxembourg expects the focus of the meeting to be
preparing for the European Council meetings on 8-9 March.
Luxembourg does expect substantive discussions on energy,
Sudan, Uzbekistan, and Iran, however. Muller noted
Luxembourg's agreement with the U.S. positions contained
reftel vis-a-vis Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, the Middle East
Peace Process, and Iran. On the subject of the EU's
sanctions against Uzbekistan, Muller said that he believed
the German presidency would take the lead in advocating for
the lifting of the sanctions, but speculated that opposition
by other member states would force a postponement of any
decision regarding the sanctions until the May GAERC meeting.
END SUMMARY.



--------------------------


Sudan


--------------------------





2. (C) Luxembourg welcomed the International Criminal Court's
recent indictments of two Sudanese as a demonstration to the
world that international law cannot be impugned, but openly
wondered if this development would only serve to harden the
position of Sudanese President al-Bashir and lead him to
continue opposing the deployment of a joint AU-UN force out
of a fear that it would seek to arrest him. Muller said that
the main focus of this GAERC's deliberations on Sudan would
be on the funding of the African Mission in Sudan (AMIS). He
reiterated the efforts of the German Presidency to fund AMIS
via both the EU Community budget as well as encouraging
member states to contribute on a bilateral basis. In this
regard, Muller noted that Luxembourg had contributed to the
funding of AMIS in 2004, 2005, 2006, and said that it
expected to do so again in 2007. However, it had not yet
been internally decided how to fund Luxembourg's contribution
and depending on the source of the funding (i.e. human rights
budget, cooperation budget, etc), the amount could vary
substantially.



--------------------------


Uzbekistan


--------------------------





3. (C) Muller stated that like the U.S., Luxembourg believed
that Uzbekistan had not done enough to warrant the lifting of
the EU sanctions. He said that while all member states
agreed that not much had improved in Uzbekistan's human
rights record since the May 2005 imposition of sanctions, not
all members agreed that continuing the sanctions was the most
productive way to move forward. He said that there were
members such as Germany who felt that engagement was a more
constructive alternative. Muller was clear that while
Luxembourg opposed the lifting of the sanctions at this time,
it did not feel that it could oppose the views of the country
holding the presidency and so believed Luxembourg would not
speak out on the issue. He did conclude by saying that he
believed that there would be enough opposition from other
members states so as to postpone any decision on the topic
until the May GAERC meeting.



--------------------------


UN Human Rights Council


--------------------------





4. (C) On the subject of the Human Rights Council (HRC),
Muller said that Luxembourg shared our disappointment at what
a "disgrace" the HRC had become. Muller made a note of
pointing out that the U.S.'idea that each EU member state on
the HRC speak out during council debates was an excellent one
as it would have two positive effects. First, it would limit
the debate time available to less constructive countries such
as Cuba and Venezuela to hijack HRC proceedings. And second,
it would rob these countries of the ability to claim a public
diplomacy "victory" since it would force multiple countries
"on the record" not just the country representing the EU's
Common Position.
WAGNER