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