NETHERLANDS: CAUTIOUS ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000180 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE FOR PM/WRA, EUR/UBI E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/31/2017 TAGS: MOPS PARM PREL NATO NL SUBJECT: NETHERLANDS: CAUTIOUS ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS CONFERENCE REF: STATE 6667 Classified By: Political Counselor Andrew Schofer, reasons 1.4 (b,d) ¶1. (C) Summary: Although not initially invited, the Dutch plan to attend the February 21-22 Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions, and are wary of any resulting restrictive framework. The GONL policy on restricting cluster munitions use is evolving, although current formulations focus on a potential ban of cluster munitions that have "disproportionate humanitarian consequences." The Dutch acknowledge reaching agreement on a definition for even a limited ban would be difficult, and are in no hurry to pursue it. To the contrary, the GONL views such a ban as having no affect on Dutch cluster munitions, especially as the Dutch military will fight to preserve its right to use the munitions currently in its arsenal. The Dutch welcome any military-to-military discussions on cluster munitions, but suggest an informal meeting of like-minded countries following the Montreux experts meeting in April might have more added-value. MFA Deputy Head of the Arms Control and Arms Export Policy Division Vincent van Zeijst discussed reftel issues on January 31. End summary. Oslo Conference -------------- ¶2. (C) Van Zeijst said the Dutch initially had not been invited to the February 21-22 Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions (CMs),but requested an invitation and plan to attend. He said FM Bot has not yet decided if he will attend as the Dutch representative. Van Zeijst said the Dutch have yet to develop a concrete policy and will be "in listening mode" at Oslo. He expressed concern that the conference might generate momentum leading to an Ottawa-type framework restricting CM use, and acknowledged Bot's opinion that it might be "difficult not to join" should the Oslo conference "pick up steam." ¶3. (C) That said, van Zeijst personally doubted the conference would lead to much -- explosive remnants of war (ERWs) resulting from CMs are isolated to specific regions, and therefore not a global problem. Moreover, CM users tended to be rich, developed countries, or those with large militaries, and therefore not inclined to join any restrictive framework. Van Zeijst recommended the USG at least attend the Oslo conference as an observer to "see first hand" the level of interest in restricting CM use. ¶4. (C) Van Zeijst also commented it was not clear what the Norwegians intended to achieve at the conference. He noted that the conference agenda was vague, focusing on "discussion instead of negotiation," and seemingly did not allow time or opportunities to formulate a communique. Van Zeijst commented that a vague communique would be all that was possible, given some of the countries that might attend. On the other hand, he said, a vague communique would be considered a "complete failure" to some of the NGOs planning to attend -- better to have no communique at all, he suggested. Dutch Policy "In The Works" -------------- ¶5. (C) Van Zeijst said the Dutch did see value in a limited ban on CM use. He noted that Dutch policy was "still in the works," but the current formulation focused on a potential ban of cluster munitions that have "disproportionate humanitarian consequences." The challenge was determining a definition for "disproportionate" -- this "could take years," van Zeijst acknowledged. He said the Dutch would argue that certain antiquated CM stocks would fit this definition best, and certainly not/not any CMs currently in the Dutch arsenal. Van Zeijst commented that the Dutch MOD was extremely reluctant to approve even this limited ban, and would oppose any effort to restrict CMs currently used by the Dutch military. ¶6. (C) Van Zeijst said Protocol V of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) does nothing to restrict CM use. He acknowledged that Protocol V helps focus on ERWs, but the language of the protocol is riddled with "inter alias" and "when feasible," thereby voiding any hard obligations. For example, he said if Israel had signed up to Protocol V prior to the war with Hezbollah, it would be under no hard obligations to report to Lebanon its use of CMs. Mil-Mil Discussions? -------------- ¶7. (C) Van Zeijst welcomed any military-to-military discussions focusing on CM use, humanitarian impact, and potential effects of a ban on Allied operations. However, he noted that the Dutch military is already convinced of the need for CMs -- discussion along these lines would be "preaching to the choir." He acknowledged the Dutch parliament is increasingly becoming critical of cluster munitions, but suggested this was typical for European publics. ¶8. (C) Van Zeijst said the Dutch would plan to attend both the ICRC Montreux experts meeting in April and the ERW experts meeting in June. He suggested a meeting of "like-minded" countries in Geneva following the Montreux experts meeting and prior to the landmines meeting the following week to informally discuss a common approach on cluster munitions. He argued that from a timing perspective, these countries will be better able to determine any effects resulting from the Oslo conference and coordinate in advance of the ERW meeting in June. Israel -------------- ¶9. (C) Van Zeijst asked for any further details regarding the report sent to Congress on Israel's alleged violation of rule of engagement pertaining to cluster munitions. Polmiloff stressed that the report was preliminary, that Israel was cooperating fully, and that Congress will determine next steps. ARNALL