VZCZCXYZ0005
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNY #0077 0541234
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 231234Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY OSLO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0062
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA
RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO

C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 000077 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/02/23 
TAGS: PHUM UNGA NO
SUBJECT: NORWAY CONSIDERS SUPPORTING GOLDSTONE UNGA RESOLUTION 
 
REF: 10 STATE 15722 
 
DERIVED FROM: DSCG 05-1 (B), (D) 
 
¶1. (C) SUMMARY: The GON seems to want to support the new Goldstone 
resolution being considered at the UN General Assembly (UNGA), but 
cannot until problematic language on a conference of the High 
Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention is removed.  No final 
decision has yet been taken.  Our GON interlocutors called the 
resolution being considered "more balanced than the former 
resolution," from which Norway abstained.  End Summary. 
 
 
 
¶2. (C) On February 22, Poloff was met by Torunn Viste, Assistant 
Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Middle 
East section, and Vebjorn Heines, Coordinator of Human Rights 
Council (HRC) issues in the MFA Section for Human Rights and 
Democracy. 
 
 
 
¶3. (C) Viste said that it was too early to say what Norway's 
position was on the resolution, as they had just received the text, 
but in general the text was "more balanced than the former 
resolution."   Heines said that Norway had been vocal and clear 
that the problem with the previous resolutions in both the HRC and 
UNGA was that they endorsed the Goldstone report in its entirety. 
Norway's abstentions, said Heines, never meant that Norway was not 
concerned about the issues described in the report.  Heines said 
that Norway came openly with suggestions for amendments to the 
previous resolutions, and was merely unsuccessful on those 
occasions in changing them sufficiently to avoid an abstention. 
 
 
 
¶4. (C) Heines characterized the resolution now being considered in 
the UNGA as "benign," with one exception: the call for a conference 
of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention in 
Switzerland.  Heines characterized this as the one "sharpening" 
vis-a-vis the former resolution, and said it probably was necessary 
to keep the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on board. 
Heines said that he was surprised that the OIC was on board with 
such a gentle resolution as it is.  Nevertheless, according to 
Heines, Norway probably will not be able to accept the Geneva 
Convention paragraph (paragraph 4).  Heines and Viste agreed that 
setting up such a conference would be practically impossible within 
the stated five-month time frame, and in any case such a meeting 
was unwarranted and would not have concrete results.  Heines said 
that Switzerland would likely be reluctant because it would be 
doubtful that the conference would strengthen International 
Humanitarian Law. 
 
 
 
¶5. (C) Early on in the conversation, and in response to one of 
reftel talking points, Heines pointedly asked poloff, "Is it the 
position of the U.S. Government that this issue should be kept in 
the HRC, and action should be taken there?"  Heines intimated that 
the UNGA resolution was significantly more benign than what could 
be expected from a vote in the HRC.  Poloff responded, in part, 
that the USG did believe UN action should be confined to the HRC, 
and the USG did not believe it was likely that a resolution in the 
HRC could be staved off given that there would be two reports on 
Goldstone presented  there in March.  Heines, while not disagreeing 
with the latter point, suggested that the USG put forward, or work 
with other countries to put forward, an alternative resolution in 
the HRC that would be less harsh than what would otherwise result. 
WHITE