Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07OSLO313
2007-03-30 11:43:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Oslo
how-toVZCZCXYZ0000 RR RUEHWEB DE RUEHNY #0313 0891143 ZNY CCCCC ZZH R 301143Z MAR 07 FM AMEMBASSY OSLO TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5430 INFO RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD 0444 RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 0436 RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV 1320
C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 000313
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/29/2017
TAGS: PREL NO
SUBJECT: THE UNLIKELY OSLO PEACE CONFERENCE
Classified By: DCM Kevin M. Johnson for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)
C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 000313
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/29/2017
TAGS: PREL NO
SUBJECT: THE UNLIKELY OSLO PEACE CONFERENCE
Classified By: DCM Kevin M. Johnson for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)
1. (C) Summary. A Norwegian NGO seeks to draw heads of state
of various governments to Oslo for an ill-defined peace
conference and concert. A recent organizational meeting
highlighted the challenges of bringing this to fruition. End
Summary.
2. (C) An Oslo NGO, Foundation Dialogue for Peace, has been
working for some months on the idea of bringing together
leaders from conflict areas, along with their British and US
counterparts, for a conference and concert. Although the
organizers claim the support of former Prime Minister
Bondevik and the GON, plans and participants have been very
unclear. The Foundation did issue invitations to various
leaders, including to the Israeli, Palestinian, Pakistani,
Indian, UK and US heads of state.
3. (C) On March 27, the Foundation Chair (and Conservative
MP) Inge Lonning and Foundation President Amir Sheikh called
a meeting with relevant embassies to review plans so far.
The meeting however largely served to highlight the lack of
planning. At the beginning of the meeting, the Israeli
Ambassador noted the proposed date of September 7 conflicts
with the Jewish New Year holidays and the Jewish Sabbath,
making Israeli participation nearly impossible. In a lengthy
discussion that followed, Lonning said he would work with his
committee to change the date to perhaps some time in October.
4. (C) The Indian Ambassador said that while they had
received the invitation, they did not as a matter of policy
have negotiations with Pakistan outside of a bilateral
process. In response, Lonning outlined his vision of the
conference as one with symbolic meaning only that would
demonstrate to the world that even leaders from conflict
areas could meet and talk. His presentation was however
undermined by Sheikh's comment that the issue of Kashmir
would not be a separate agenda item, implying however that
other substantive agenda items would be included. Lonning
agreed that in the next few weeks the Foundation would
develop a proposed agenda so the Embassies would have a
better sense of what the conference would be about.
5. (C) The UK explained that given PM Blair will be out of
office by the time of the proposed conference, it is
difficult to respond as to his interest. US emboff thanked
them for the meeting but explained that for the US to
consider the matter, we would require details such as a date,
participants and proposed agenda. The Pakistani Embassy did
not send a representative although Sheikh claimed that
Musharaff is likely to attend, if the Indians sent a similar
level representative. Only the Palestinian Ambassador firmly
supported the conference saying that Abbas was fully
committed to attending without conditions.
6. (C) The GON did not attend the meeting. MFA Peace and
Reconciliation Division Chief Tore Hattrem explained that the
MFA has rejected the Foundation's application for financial
support because the conference seems unrealistic. For
example, he questioned why India and Pakistan would discuss
border issues outside of their regular meetings. He noted
that the only acceptance is from Abbas who agrees to all
events and cancels at the last minute. MFA however left room
to take the matter up to the political level for a positive
decision should the Foundation ever be able to prove senior
leadership from the countries will attend.
7. (C) Comment: The Norwegian public genuinely believes they
can make a difference resolving conflicts worldwide and are
willing to commit substantial time and capital to the effort.
However, with a new NGO, no real support other than from the
Palestinians and poor coordination/communications with
involved Embassies, we doubt this conference will get off the
ground. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor it in the
unlikely event major invitees do agree to come and the timing
turns out to such that it could be useful to the peace
process. End Comment.
WHITNEY
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/29/2017
TAGS: PREL NO
SUBJECT: THE UNLIKELY OSLO PEACE CONFERENCE
Classified By: DCM Kevin M. Johnson for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)
1. (C) Summary. A Norwegian NGO seeks to draw heads of state
of various governments to Oslo for an ill-defined peace
conference and concert. A recent organizational meeting
highlighted the challenges of bringing this to fruition. End
Summary.
2. (C) An Oslo NGO, Foundation Dialogue for Peace, has been
working for some months on the idea of bringing together
leaders from conflict areas, along with their British and US
counterparts, for a conference and concert. Although the
organizers claim the support of former Prime Minister
Bondevik and the GON, plans and participants have been very
unclear. The Foundation did issue invitations to various
leaders, including to the Israeli, Palestinian, Pakistani,
Indian, UK and US heads of state.
3. (C) On March 27, the Foundation Chair (and Conservative
MP) Inge Lonning and Foundation President Amir Sheikh called
a meeting with relevant embassies to review plans so far.
The meeting however largely served to highlight the lack of
planning. At the beginning of the meeting, the Israeli
Ambassador noted the proposed date of September 7 conflicts
with the Jewish New Year holidays and the Jewish Sabbath,
making Israeli participation nearly impossible. In a lengthy
discussion that followed, Lonning said he would work with his
committee to change the date to perhaps some time in October.
4. (C) The Indian Ambassador said that while they had
received the invitation, they did not as a matter of policy
have negotiations with Pakistan outside of a bilateral
process. In response, Lonning outlined his vision of the
conference as one with symbolic meaning only that would
demonstrate to the world that even leaders from conflict
areas could meet and talk. His presentation was however
undermined by Sheikh's comment that the issue of Kashmir
would not be a separate agenda item, implying however that
other substantive agenda items would be included. Lonning
agreed that in the next few weeks the Foundation would
develop a proposed agenda so the Embassies would have a
better sense of what the conference would be about.
5. (C) The UK explained that given PM Blair will be out of
office by the time of the proposed conference, it is
difficult to respond as to his interest. US emboff thanked
them for the meeting but explained that for the US to
consider the matter, we would require details such as a date,
participants and proposed agenda. The Pakistani Embassy did
not send a representative although Sheikh claimed that
Musharaff is likely to attend, if the Indians sent a similar
level representative. Only the Palestinian Ambassador firmly
supported the conference saying that Abbas was fully
committed to attending without conditions.
6. (C) The GON did not attend the meeting. MFA Peace and
Reconciliation Division Chief Tore Hattrem explained that the
MFA has rejected the Foundation's application for financial
support because the conference seems unrealistic. For
example, he questioned why India and Pakistan would discuss
border issues outside of their regular meetings. He noted
that the only acceptance is from Abbas who agrees to all
events and cancels at the last minute. MFA however left room
to take the matter up to the political level for a positive
decision should the Foundation ever be able to prove senior
leadership from the countries will attend.
7. (C) Comment: The Norwegian public genuinely believes they
can make a difference resolving conflicts worldwide and are
willing to commit substantial time and capital to the effort.
However, with a new NGO, no real support other than from the
Palestinians and poor coordination/communications with
involved Embassies, we doubt this conference will get off the
ground. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor it in the
unlikely event major invitees do agree to come and the timing
turns out to such that it could be useful to the peace
process. End Comment.
WHITNEY