GERMANY VIEWS CURRENT DRAFT GOLDSTONE RESOLUTION

C O N F I D E N T I A L BERLIN 001394 SIPDIS DEPARTMENT PLEASE PASS TO IO/HR - PAUL KRUCHOWSKI, IO/UNP - ANDREW MORRISON, NEA/IPA - JEFFREY GIAUQUE; USUN PLEASE PASS TO ELLEN GERMAIN E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/04/2019 TAGS: PREL PHUM IS KPAL GM SUBJECT: GERMANY VIEWS CURRENT DRAFT GOLDSTONE RESOLUTION AS OBJECTIONABLE REF: STATE 112828 Classified By: Political Minister-Counselor George Glass for reasons 1. 4 (b,d). ¶1. (C) Poloff met with MFA NEA Division Director Boris Ruge and MFA Desk Officer, Human Rights Division, Georg Klussmann November 3 to deliver reftel points. Ruge had argued to Poloff separately before the joint meeting with Klussmann that Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmud Abbas needs a strong resolution to strengthen his weakened position. Ruge reasoned that it is more important to strengthen Abbas with a strong resolution than for Germany to be able to vote on an acceptable, but watered down version. He said that Germany would likely abstain if a "strong" resolution were presented. ¶2. (C) Klussmann, on the other hand, who had a copy of the draft UNGA resolution, said that Germany would not be able to support most of the provisions as they now stand, but said that Germany was involved in negotiations to try to change the draft. He said that the MFA agrees with most of our redlines discussed in reftel. Specifically, Klussmann said that Germany could not support the current provisions endorsing the Goldstone Report and conveying the matter to the UNSC. Both Klussmann and Ruge asked for clarification on our opposition to the convocation of the parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. They asked whether we would still oppose this provision if the discussion were not Gaza-specific, but rather addressed whether gaps in the international humanitarian law regime exist. ¶3. (C) Klussmann and Ruge indicated that it is conceivable that a draft could be presented which Germany could support. Klussman noted that Germany's UN Mission is currently working to revise the current draft resolution to address the objectionable provisions, such as changing language endorsing the Goldstone Report to "taking note" of it. In response to Poloff's query as to whether they would oppose the resolution if it contained objectionable provisions, such as conveying the matter to the UNSC, Klussmann said that he could not say. He said that the final decision on voting would be made by the newly appointed State Secretary Wolf Born. He noted that Germany is seeking a unified EU position, but given the voting outcome in the UNHRC, where EU members did not have a unified position, he said that this may not be possible. He concluded that Germany could not support the draft as it now stands. ¶4. (C) Comment: The MFA does not appear to speak with one voice on this issue and perhaps competing interests are at play. On the one hand, Ruge argues that a "strong resolution" would have the political benefit of strengthening Abbas, although Germany could not support it. On the other hand, the MFA's Human Rights division notes that Germany's UN Mission is trying to negotiate changes in the draft resolution to remove or amend provisions it currently finds objectionable and to achieve a unified EU position. It is unclear what interests are driving the process. Post assesses that the German position is still malleable and close engagement with their UN mission as they address the draft resolution could be advantageous. MURPHY