LUXEMBOURG ON MARCH GAERC: MOSTLY PREP FOR COUNCIL

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