US embassy cable - 04THEHAGUE2398

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 002398 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/20/2014 
TAGS: PREL, NL, UNSC, EUN 
SUBJECT: NETHERLANDS/EU/UNGA:  ICJ SEPARATION BARRIER ACTION 
 
REF: STATE 201935 
 
Classified By: DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION DANIEL R. RUSSEL FOR REASONS 1.4 
(B) AND (D). 
 
1. (C)  DCM discussed reftel talking points with Herman 
Schaper, the Dutch Deputy POLDIR, on September 20.  Schaper 
confirmed that Dutch UN Permrep Dirk van den Bergh, in his EU 
capacity, had discussed the issue of the security barrier 
with the Palestinian mission (al-Kidwa) in New York.  The 
Palestinians had raised several scenarios, ranging from a 
second UNGA resolution to "challenging Israel's credentials." 
 According to Schaper, referring the barrier issue to the 
UNSC was "not excluded" as one possible option by al-Kidwa. 
Van den Bergh reportedly cautioned the Palestinians not to 
"overreach" on this issue, noting that they could not count 
on EU consensus for an aggressive, non-constructive 
Palestinian strategy.  (Privately, Schaper said that he could 
imagine a two- or three-way split on the issue within the EU, 
and stressed that reaching consensus on the earlier UNGA 
resolution had been extremely difficult.)  DCM argued that 
the EU should make clear at the outset that it opposed 
referral to the UNSC.  He also noted that the EU had said, 
following its support for the earlier resolution, that it 
intended to work with the Palestinians to reduce the overall 
number of Middle East UNGA resolutions and asked whether the 
Palestinians were acting productively in this area; Schaper 
said there had been some discussion on this subject but 
indicated it had been inconclusive. 
 
2. (C) POLCOUNS separately followed up with Jaap Werner, head 
of the Dutch MFA's Political Affairs Department.  Although he 
was unaware of a specific Palestinian push to refer the issue 
to the UNSC, Werner observed that the EU "had it coming" 
after it supported the earlier resolution.  He noted that 
consensus on the earlier resolution had been predicated on 
two assumptions: 1) that that resolution represented "the 
maximum" the EU could support, and that 2) the Palestinians 
would work constructively to lower the tone and consolidate 
resolutions at UNGA.  He added that some EU members would 
nevertheless respond positively to a Palestinian push to 
raise the profile of the issue.  As EU president, the Dutch 
would prefer to reach a consensus position again, even though 
their national position was relatively close to that of the 
U.S.  Werner also noted that Israeli actions would play a 
role in how the EU responded to the Palestinian initiative, 
and stressed that it was critical that the Israelis were seen 
to be taking international concerns about the security 
barrier and settlements seriously.  POLCOUNS stressed that 
the EU had nothing to gain from encouraging the Palestinians 
to put forward a UNSC resolution certain to be vetoed, and 
argued that the EU could play a more productive role by 
pushing the Palestinians to make good on their earlier 
commitments. 
 
3. (C) In the absence of Karel van Kesteren (head of the 
MFA's International Organizations Department), POLOFF passed 
reftel points to van Kesteren's deputy, Giovanni van der 
Lugt.  Van der Lugt did not comment substantively on the 
points, but promised to forward them to van Kesteren in New 
York promptly. 
 
SOBEL