US embassy cable - 05THEHAGUE2157

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 002157 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/03/2015 
TAGS: PREL, PHUM, PGOV, KISL, KPAO, NL 
SUBJECT: NETHERLANDS/GUANTANAMO:  DUTCH REMAIN TROUBLED BY 
LACK OF ACCESS FOR UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS 
 
REF: A. STATE 142348 
     B. STATE 139288 
     C. BLAKEMAN-PROSPER E-MAILS 
 
Classified By: DCM CHAT BLAKEMAN FOR REASONS 1.4(B) AND (D). 
 
1. (C) SUMMARY:  The Dutch remain concerned about the lack of 
access by UN special rapporteurs to Guantanamo.  According to 
the senior Dutch MFA official dealing with Human Rights, the 
issue has become a "political problem" in the Netherlands and 
could complicate efforts to cooperate with the EU on human 
rights issues during the upcoming UNGA.  The special 
rapporteurs' issue is a more immediate concern for the Dutch 
than their "philosophical difference" with the U.S. over the 
interpretation of the Geneva protocols.  END SUMMARY. 
 
2. (C) On August 3, DCM and POLCOUNS passed a non-paper 
containing ref A points on Guantanamo to Piet de Klerk 
(Special Ambassador for Human Rights), Anneka Adema (Director 
of the MFA's Human Rights Office) and Guillaume Teerling 
(Desk Officer in the Human Rights Office).  Separately, 
Ambassador Sobel delivered the same points to Rob Swartbol, 
Prime Minister Balkenende's Chief Foreign Affairs advisor, on 
August 2.  DAO and PD are similarly making these points 
available to key contacts in positions to influence debate 
and decision-making. 
 
3. In discussing Guantanamo with his MFA interlocutors, DCM 
noted that ref a text provided the most up-to-date 
information and official USG language on Guantanamo, and 
suggested that the MFA might find it useful in addressing 
concerns raised in Parliament and elsewhere.  De Klerk agreed 
that having the latest USG information was helpful in terms 
of demonstrating "transparency."  He stressed, however, that 
the Dutch remain troubled by the lack of access to Guantanamo 
by UN special rapporteurs.  This specific issue had become a 
"political problem" domestically.  Opposition figures in 
Parliament (most notably PvdA Foreign Policy Spokesman Bert 
Koenders) continued to raise the issue at every opportunity, 
and to cite it in questioning the basis of Dutch-U.S. 
military cooperation in Afghanistan.  In response, DCM said 
that he had been in touch with S/WCI Prosper directly (ref c) 
and assured de Klerk that Dutch concerns were well understood 
and appreciated in Washington. 
 
4. (C) Adema volunteered that the issue of access for special 
rapporteurs was not only a domestic Dutch concern, but also a 
difficult issue for the EU.  De Klerk added that, while he 
understood there had been no "hard promises" to admit the 
rapporteurs, he had personally received assurances last April 
that the USG would make a good-faith effort to address the 
EU's concerns in this area.  If there is no obvious progress 
before the UNGA begins, he added, it would put the EU in a 
difficult position if some other party chose to force the 
issue in the Third Committee. 
 
5. (C) Noting that ref a points referred to visits to 
Guantanamo by the ICRC and others, including journalists, de 
Klerk asked rhetorically why the UN special rapporteurs 
should be excluded.  In addition, many of the "abuses" 
reported by human rights organizations apparently occurred in 
the first year of Guantanamo's operation; if the situation 
had now improved (as it clearly has), then the rapporteurs 
would be able to document and report this fact.  On balance, 
he concluded, providing access to the special rapporteurs 
could benefit the U.S. by enhancing its credibility on human 
rights issues, in addition to removing a sticky issue from 
Dutch and EU agendas. 
 
6. (C) Although of less immediate concern, de Klerk 
reiterated that the Dutch continue to have a "philosophical 
difference" with the U.S. over the interpretation of the 
Geneva protocols.  In that regard, he asked whether recent 
press reports stating that the USG no longer considered the 
struggle against terrorism a "war" were accurate.  Given the 
importance of the laws of war to the USG's legal arguments, 
he added, such a change in our public positions should not be 
taken lightly.  DCM responded that we had received no 
official notification of any change in the U.S. position and 
cautioned against taking press speculation at face value. 
(Note:  POL subsequently provided de Klerk's office with 
excerpts of the President's August 2 remarks referring 
explicitly to the "war on terror.") 
BLAKEMAN