HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL VOTE ON BEIT HANOUN

C O N F I D E N T I A L GENEVA 000816 E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/02/2018 TAGS: PHUM PREL UNHRC SUBJECT: HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL VOTE ON BEIT HANOUN RESOLUTION: AN ENCOURAGING "NO" VOTE FROM THE EU Classified By: Ambassador Warren W. Tichenor. Reasons: 1.4 (B/D). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: In a departure from their past practice, all seven of the EU's Council members voted "no" on the latest resolution on Israeli actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) during the recently completed session of the HRC. Several EU ambassadors told Ambassador Tichenor that this came after much dissension within their grouping. The "no" vote demonstrated the EU's unhappiness that the Palestinian delegation, which sponsored the resolution, refused to negotiate on it at all, but also resulted from a sense by the seven EU dels that a firm stand was essential to demonstrate -- including to the U.S. -- that the EU sometimes needs to stand up against the anti-Israel imbalance in the Council. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) In the past, the EU has often negotiated extensively with the OIC or its individual member states on a number of resolutions, including the many on the OPT that have featured in the Council. This has frequently resulted in EU consensus around abstention rather than a "no" vote. ¶3. (C) In the current session, the EU broke that pattern. Prior to this HRC session, the OIC had indicated it would not introduce an OPT resolution, but then late in the game, tabled a follow-up resolution on Desmund Tutu's fact-finding mission to investigate "Human Rights violations emanating from Israeli military incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the shelling of Beit Hanoun." The new resolution edorsed Tutu's one-sided recommendations and called on the UNGA and the SYG to follow up on their implementation. The UK Ambassador informed us that the Palestinian delegation, the chief sponsor, rebuffed the EU's attempts to negotiate, saying that the OIC "had the numbers" and did not need to negotiate. Several EU delegations were displeased with Palestine's obstinacy and unsatisfied with the resolution's substance because they disagreed with the recommendations in the report, which the resolution welcomed. ¶4. (C) While this angered a number of EU dels, others continued to press for a consensus around abstention. Two issues arose. First, the Danish ambassador told us, a few dels favored a "yes" vote, while several others supported abstention. Six of the seven EU Council members, by contrast, favored a "no" vote, which swayed the majority of the EU member states to support that position. Second, as the vote approached, one EU delegation held out in its opposition to calling a vote. With Canada's del refusing to do so (Note: Because of the election environment in Canada, their instructions made them refuse to call any votes this session. End note.),no one would have called a vote had an EU Member not done so. ¶5. (C) The Dutch Ambassador told Ambassador Tichenor that given the standoff inside the EU, he put forth the idea of calling a vote nationally, to be supported by the other six EU Council members. This broke the standoff, and put the seventh EU Council member -- whom the UK Ambassador broadly hinted to us was the French -- into a situation in which it would have been difficult to abstain. We were told that the EU's internal deliberations included arguments that the EU needed to stand firm not only because it felt strongly about the issue (both on the substance and the lack of negotiation),but also as a way to demonstrate, including to the United States, that the EU was capable of standing up to imbalance and unfairness in the Council. ¶6. (U) In the end, the HRC adopted the resolution by a vote of 32-9-5. Canada and Japan joined the seven EU Council members in opposing the resolution. Bosnia, Cameroon, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the Republic of Korea abstained. Comment -------------- ¶7. (C) The EU's decision to call for and lose the vote on the Beit Hanoun resolution is a positive development. Although a rare occurrence and the Council numbers are stacked against them, the vote demonstrated that the EU has limits to being pushed around by Palestine and the OIC. It also showed that the EU is willing to object to imbalances within the Council. Moreover, if our EU colleagues' explanations are accurate, the EU may also have stiffened its spine on this occasion as a way to indicate to the U.S. that the EU could still be a good partner in fighting against the worst tendencies of the HRC. TICHENOR