NETHERLANDS: HUMAN RIGHTS RESOLUTIONS

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 001627 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/03/2017 TAGS: PREL PHUM NL UN SUBJECT: NETHERLANDS: HUMAN RIGHTS RESOLUTIONS REF: SECSTATE 122654 Classified By: Counselor for Political Affairs Andrew Schofer, for reasons 1.4(b) and (d) ¶1. (U) SUMMARY: On August 31, 2007, poloff delivered reftel points to Birgitta Tazelaar, Deputy Head of the MFA's Human Rights Division, and Joris Geeven, policy officer within at the MFA's Human Rights and Peacebuilding Department. The Dutch oppose sending the Human Rights Council (HRC) report to the Third Committee, assert that it's too late for the EU to pull back the resolution on the death penalty moratorium, but are willing to consider a second religious tolerance resolution in New York if the Geneva resolution is too weak or narrow. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (U) Before responding to the demarche, Tazelaar expressed continuing Dutch support for a U.S. candidacy for the Human Rights Council. She added her appreciation for the opportunity to have a frank discussions with an ally. Tazelaar and Geeven asked for information on U.S. plans at the Third Committee at the earliest possible date. ¶3. (U) On the Human Rights Council (HRC) report, Geeven and Tazelaar argued against sending it first to the Third Committee. Non-HRC members have the opportunity to intervene in Geneva. The HRC is a "step up" from the Commission on Human Rights, and its report should not be "rubber stamped" by the Third Committee. Tazelaar urged the United States to issue an "explanation of position" rather than re-opening the issue of institutional reform. Re-opening the matter could lead to the end of country mandates. The Netherlands is unhappy with some elements of the package, including those concerning Israel, but will live with it rather than risk losing the country mandates. China and the Organization of the Islamic Conference were just barely kept on board. ¶4. (U) On the moratorium for the death penalty, the Netherlands continues to support the effort as an element of EU policy. The idea of modifying the resolution to focus on due process is interesting, but "politically too late." Italy has backed the resolution as part of a two-year process, and cannot back down due to domestic politics. However, Tazelaar had no problem in principle sharing a copy of the draft after consulting with Portugal. She understood that the United States would lobby against the resolution, but urged Washington to permit a straight vote on the resolution, without amendments. ¶5. (U) On the Rights of the Child Resolution, Tazelaar offered to consult with Portugal about sharing a draft with the United States. She asked for more information on why the United States was not a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. ¶6. (C) On the religious intolerance resolution, the Dutch are not inclined to advocate a second resolution in New York if it duplicates the Geneva resolution. However, if the Geneva resolution is not strong enough, or is narrowly focused on a specific issue, the Dutch would advocate a second resolution in New York. Tazelaar emphasized that this was the Dutch approach which she would advocate during EU deliberations. Tazelaar cited the 2005 UN. human rights resolution as a "breakthrough" for its language supporting the "right to change religions." Without similar language in Geneva, the Dutch would urge the EU to push for a New York resolution. Gallagher