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