NORWAY TORN ABOUT ANTI-ISRAEL RESOLUTIONS

C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 000622

SIPDIS

FOR IO/UNP ANDREW MORRISON

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/20/2018
TAGS: PREL UNGA IS PA LE SY NO
SUBJECT: NORWAY TORN ABOUT ANTI-ISRAEL RESOLUTIONS

REF: STATE 123081

Classified By: Political Counselor Kristen Bauer for reasons 1.4 (b) an
d (d)


1. (C) SUMMARY: While acknowledging that anti-Israel bias is
a symptom of the polarization that is "polluting everything"
in the UN, Norway nonetheless feels torn about many
anti-Israel resolutions, and will likely vote the same way
this session as it has in the past. While lamenting the
atmosphere in the UN, Norway feels it would pay a price for
the "no" votes that we are requesting, although could change
its mind if sufficiently "fed up." End Summary.

"EVERY YEAR, WE CONSIDER A NO VERSUS AN ABSTENTION"
-------------- --------------


2. (C) Poloff delivered reftel demarche to Lars Petter Henie,
MFA Assistant Director General of the UN section. Henie's
first words were, "I can't tell you how we will vote this
year; every year, we consider a no versus an abstention."
Henie went on to say, however, that barring something
unexpected, Norway was most likely to continue to abstain
from voting on the three UN bodies specified in reftel. What
prevents Norway from voting "no" is concern about its
perception as a neutral arbiter and its position within peace
negotiations.


3. (C) Speaking generally, Henie commented that the
polarization and group dynamics within the UN were "threats
to the functioning of the UN itself" and were "polluting
everything." As an example, he mentioned the Egyptian
candidate for Director General of UNESCO, who is in favor for
burning Israeli books. Henie said that Norway would oppose
his election, but this was a classic, even "audacious"
symptom of the results of polarization.

"A NO VOTE COULD BE USED AS A SIGNAL"
--------------


4. (C) When poloff asked directly what circumstances could
lead Norway to vote no on resolutions on which it had
previously abstained, Henie said that a "no" might be used as
a signal that Norway was "fed up" with a lack of progress on
the Palestinian or Arab side. However, Henie repeated that
Norway's candidacy for the Human Rights Council (HRC),as
well as its general role as a "neutral" participant in the
peace process, meant this was a high bar. Henie expressed
hope that Norway's could be a "moderating" influence in the
HRC, and said he hoped that the US would re-engage the HRC
under a new administration.


5. (C) COMMENT: Norway is one of the world's most ardent
defenders and supporters of the UN. Henie's frustration and,
at times, sympathy for our viewpoint was striking in that
regard. However, the reticence of the Norwegian government
to be confrontational on these issues was palpable, and
although it remained undiscussed, Norway's frustration over
the situation of the Palestinians certainly underlies that
reticence.
WHITNEY