GAZA BOARD OF INQUIRY: GUIDANCE FOR UNSC

UNCLAS STATE 048881 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: IS KPAL KWBG LY PREL UNSC SUBJECT: GAZA BOARD OF INQUIRY: GUIDANCE FOR UNSC CONSULTATIONS, MAY 13, 2009 REF: USUN NEW YORK 0489 ¶1. (SBU) This is an action message. USUN is authorized to draw from the points in para 2 below as a basis for its participation in the discussion of the Gaza Board of Inquiry during Security Council consultations on May 13, 2009. USUN is also authorized at its discretion, either in the consultation session or in separate discussions with individual Council members, to note the potential for a U.S. veto of the draft Libyan resolution and our opposition to raising the Board of Inquiry in the General Assembly. Based on the results of the consultation, Mission should advise the Department if demarches in capitals would be helpful. ¶2. (U) Talking points: -- The United States appreciates the work of the Board of Inquiry into incidents involving UN personnel and facilities in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009. The process initiated by the Secretary-General and carried forward by the Board has proceeded effectively and continues to do so without any outside intervention. -- The United States strongly opposes any action on these incidents by either the Security Council or the General Assembly for two equally important reasons. -- First, the matters in question are clearly serious and as such are being addressed soberly and diligently by the Secretary-General and Israeli government. It is not realistic to think that Council adoption of the resolution before it would in fact contribute to international peace and security. -- The rationale for the Board of Inquiry process is to safeguard UN personnel. To that end, the Government of Israel cooperated extensively with the Board, and is continuing to work with the Secretary General to address the Board,s recommendations. The Council should not be used as a device to exploit this process as a platform to castigate one party to a conflict. -- In his cover letter to UN members, the Secretary-General stated that he did not intend to pursue further investigation into this matter. Nor has he asked the Council to take action. -- We need to avoid politicizing the UN presence in conflict zones, and to facilitate the Secretary General in his efforts to gain the cooperation of the parties involved. This is true not only for this Board of Inquiry, but also to ensure the cooperation of member states with future Boards in a professional and non-political atmosphere. -- Second, the unnecessary request for the Council to insert itself into the Board of Inquiry process flies directly in the face of the positive message we sent just two days ago. In our May 11 Presidential Statement we reached out to the parties, calling them to serious negotiations. The sudden consideration of an entirely one-sided resolution does not conceivably fit into that positive message. -- We called for &vigorous diplomatic action8 not to blame one party, but rather to help both parties embrace a lasting peace based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement and terror, and the two-state solution. -- To achieve progress in these difficult peace negotiations there must be mutual trust and a recognition of mutual responsibility. The resolution we are considering would only serve to drive one party away from negotiations, and would only sow distrust. End talking points. CLINTON