EU/COHOM: WORKING FOR EU SUPPORT FOR US HUMAN

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 THE HAGUE 002733

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/01/2014
TAGS: PHUM AORC PREL CH NL
SUBJECT: EU/COHOM: WORKING FOR EU SUPPORT FOR US HUMAN
RIGHTS GOALS


Classified By: Political Counselor Andrew Schofer for reasons 1.4 (b) a
nd (d).


1. (C) SUMMARY: The United States and EU Troika met
October 15 to discuss human rights issues in the context of
the semi-annual "COHOM" troika meeting. The EU confirmed
that they still value the human rights dialogue process with
China and want to coordinate with us on ways to refocus all
dialogues to push China beyond its current sour approach.
The dialogue with Iran is failing and the situation in the
country is bleak. On Iraq, the EU will try to support the
elections but without traditional election monitors due to
security concerns. We discussed UNGA Third Committee
resolutions on Burma, Sudan, and Congo, and a Russian
terrorism resolution; however, the EU had several objections
to US proposals for a package of agreed language designed to
overcome perennial negotiation disputes. On terrorism, the
USDel attempted to reassure the EU that the US international
supports humanitarian law. There were good discussions of
Guantanamo. The EU announced a fledgling program to help EU
embassies support human rights defenders. There was a
serious exchange of views on the death penalty. Finally, we
discussed ways to encourage democratic states to run for
seats on the Commission on Human Rights as a way to exclude
unsuitable countries. End Summary.

HUMAN RIGHTS WITH CHINA: ALL SOUR, NO SWEET


2. (C) De Klerk discussed the recent EU Dialogue and the
EU's review of the entire history of the EU's last 18
dialogues with China. De Klerk, who had led the EUDel to
China recently, reiterated most of the details already
reported in other channels.


3. (C) The EU's COHOM delegation has concluded that China's
human rights dialogues with the EU are at a crossroads. The
EU wants to continue them but an assertive China may become
unwilling. The EU sees the glass half full, pointing to the
fact that, while many problems remain, China seems to respond
to outside pressure in some ways, such as in reform of the
Re-education through Labor system, de Klerk noted. The
dialogues strengthen the hands of HR defenders inside the
country, he observed.


4. (C) On the other hand, USDel recalled serious
backsliding, such as when China punishes people who try to
take advantage of limited new freedoms. USDel cited whistle
blowers, political organizers, and Internet users. "At least
there is the Internet," EUDel countered.


5. (C) The EUDel recalled a sour atmosphere and confirmed
apparent Chinese "dialogue fatigue," but a newcomer to China
HR dialogues, Luxembourg's special ambassador for human
rights Julien Alex, argued that the "fatigue" was a ploy to
erode the dialogue. "With my fresh eyes," he said, he found
the Chinese "derogatory, dismissive" and "assertive." He
quoted one official as saying, "We are the country of the
future; the human rights dialogues are of minor interest to
such a country as we." He reported that they sarcastically
suggested the EU should just bring a tape recorder from the
last meeting since "you always repeat the same thing." He
noted that the Chinese revealed they are conducting their own
analysis of the EU dialogues, as they did earlier with the
U.S., before suspending them. Faced with an opportunity to
impress the EU delegation at a critical juncture, the Chinese
failed "to go the extra mile," Ambassador de Klerk concluded.
Turning the tables on the EU, the Chinese, for the first
time in his experience, criticized the EU for "the phenomenon
of racism and mistreatment of foreigners in Europe,"
particularly of Chinese immigrants, he said.


6. (C) USDel O'Sullivan (DRL) agreed that the HR Dialogues
are at a critical juncture. The USG hopes to restart them,
but no working level discussions have been possible, she
said. Amb. Kozak agreed with the EU's observation that "the
Chinese feel they do not need to do it with us anymore."


7. (C) COHOM Troika dels considered ways to engage China in
substantive HR discussions with concrete results and where
"failure would hurt." We agreed to seek ways to collaborate
and focus our efforts. USDel proposed engaging the Bern
process (of the several countries that have China HR
dialogues) to meet more frequently to review options and to
coordinate. De Klerk proposed setting limited dialogue
agendas, as well as encouraging more academic and
professional meetings such as those now on the margins of the
EU dialogues.


8. (C) As for the effect of the HR situation on the China
Arms Embargo, de Klerk said the EU delegation put their
conclusions to the ministers at the GAERC recently, where it
was an "integral" part of considerations on whether to lift
of not. The EUDel refused to be drawn on what percentage of
the EU's deliberation was comprised of human rights concerns,
though hard pressed by USDel to hazard a guess.

IRAQ ELECTIONS


9. (C) Dutch HR Ambassador De Klerk and Commission rep
Timans said that the security situation would prevent the EU
from sending election observers in the proper sense. It
remains difficult for the EU to gather valid, current
information because of the "considerable risks" involved in
being on the ground. Amb. Kozak countered that the number of
poll watchers is less important than ensuring that the media
coverage is fair and the counting process is correct.


10. (C) Amb. Kozak confirmed that we do not anticipate a
postponement of the elections. While we cannot defend every
voter everywhere, we would encourage Iraqi voters to work
themselves hard themselves to secure the elections. He cited
the example of El Salvador where citizens took matters into
their own hands at the local level to improve security when
elections were threatened by thugs.

IRAN DIALOGUE: A FAILURE SO FAR


11. (C) The EU's dialogue with Iran is "bleaker" than that
with China, EUDel reported, and it is the poor state of the
dialogue that prompted them to co-sponsor Canada's Iran
resolution this year. There have been only a handful of
positive results since the dialogue started. The EU plans to
seek renewed Iranian commitment to the promotion and
protection of HR and to explore ways to develop practical
means to improve the dialogue, but de Klerk expected the
resolution would prompt the Iranians to delay discussions.
As in the China dialogue process, the EU is asking what
effect, if any, the dialogue process has had or could have on
the country discussed, de Klerk said. Commission rep Timans
suggested the "jury is still out on whether there is more
impact with, or without, the dialogue."

THIRD COMMITTEE UNGA RESOLUTIONS: THIRD COUNTRY, THEMATIC,
TERRORISM, AND EU/US PACKAGE


12. (C) Dels discussed country specific resolutions on
Burma, Sudan, and Congo.

a) BURMA RESOLUTION

The EUDel said there is strong support for a focused,
political resolution dedicated to a discrete number of issues
and not an omnibus resolution, as the previous ones have
been. USDel countered that we would run the danger with a
shorter resolution of Burma taking it as watered down.
Moreover, we felt strongly that the new draft does not
capture our concerns. Both dels agreed to make references to
Aung San Suu Kyi much more prominent, as well as finding a
way to make key political demands more obvious. Action on
the resolution would move to New York now, both dels agreed.

b) SUDAN RESOLUTION

De Klerk recalled that the EU's "clear message to Sudan" a
few days ago was that it faced sanctions lest it cooperate,
referring to the visit of the Dutch FM Bot. Considering a UN
resolution in the Third Committee, he said that the EU still
prefers letting the Africans take the lead, yet there has
been no initiative from their side. While USDel recognized
the pitfall of a new Sudan resolution in the Third Committee
while the UNSC was seized with the matter, EUDel would not
accept silence from the Third Committee since it would send
the wrong message. The US bottom line for any Third
Committee resolution would be for it to be as strong as
Security Council resolution text. EUDel shared a draft
resolution. The only objections USDel raised on the spot
were to ICC and CEDAW references.

c) CONGO RESOLUTION

EUDel said that they produced a Congo resolution after the
Africans failed to do so. USDel noted that PP 7G already
presents a problem, since it mentions the ICC. As with the
Sudan resolution, USDel was disappointed that the EU had
included such language in the first draft, well knowing it
would be unacceptable to us and considering there might have
been acceptable alternatives.

d) RUSSIAN RESOLUTION ON TERRORISM

The U.S. and EUDel agreed to jointly approach the Russians
about holding off on running the resolution, in light of an
existing UNSC resolution and the Mexican resolution on the
same issue. The EU felt that, after the experience of
Beslan, it would be hard to avoid it if Russia insisted.
USDel noted that the Russians would at least have the UNSC
resolution. Amb. Kozak preferred awaiting the report of the
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights prepared with
assistance from the independent expert, due in Spring 2005,
otherwise the resolution was premature. UNHCHR Justice
Arbour may offer an interim report to the Third Committee
this fall. DAS Lagon noted Mexico's strong preference to
allow its CHR resolution, which provides for the independent
expert, to run its course, which is an argument to use with
Russia.

e) US/EU PACKAGE OF AGREED LANGUAGE

Only at the last minute after lunch could the EU produce its
largely status quo reply to the USG's new, broader set of
proposed compromise texts for Third Committee resolutions.
The package, as discussed last year, moved neither forward
nor back. USDel met the EU's objection to our package's
"asymmetric focus on EU initiatives" by pointing out that the
U.S. proposes few Third Committee resolutions at the behest
of allies who fear tainting good ideas with our imprimatur.
The EU rejected the US proposal that the package apply to
resolutions proposed by individual third countries or EU
member states, advising the US to speak directly with the
individual sponsors, such as Canada on references to CEDAW.
As expected, the EU rejected other initiatives, such as those
addressing the Rights of the Child Convention, as being those
where the USG would vote against the resolution no matter
what the EU might agree to. (Note: DAS Lagon explored the
possibility that the USG could sponsor a resolution on
discrete children's issues as a way to be creative and avoid
problem areas. EUDel had no comment. End note.) EUDel
concluded that the package exercise might be better suited to
the CHR than the UNGA. DAS Lagon cautioned the EUDel that
despite the asymmetry it was in their interest to work to get
our support on problem paragraphs, not only to permit US
co-sponsorship of EU resolutions but also to avoid divisive
and distracting paragraph votes that would otherwise surely
come. De Klerk proposed separate discussions among US and EU
New York negotiators to try to settle specific issues.
(Note: Amb. Kozak asked de Klerk what resolutions the EU
wanted the US to introduce. He noted Belarus. Kozak assured
de Klerk that the US was seriously considering it, pending
the outcome of the October 17 elections there. End Note.)

DEATH PENALTY


13. (C) EUDel reiterated EU concerns about the imposition of
the death penalty in the United States, focusing on minimum
standards to be followed particularly in cases involving
juveniles. Amb. Kozak acknowledged the EU's concern,
pointing out the issue of the juvenile death penalty is
currently before the US Supreme Court. Short of a
constitutional amendment, he added, there is little Federal
power over the states on this subject. Dutch and Commission
interlocutors told Poloffs after the meeting that they
appreciated the serious and substantive exchange of views on
this sensitive topic for the EU.


14. (C) The EU called attention to continuing problem of
failed consular notifications in the U.S. USDel replied that
the Federal Government had worked hard to educate State and
local police forces and judicial authorities on our
international obligations in his regard. Amb. Kozak noted
that, considering the size of the U.S., there are only a few
problem cases. In particular cases in the US where there has
been a failure to notify, USDel noted that the courts have
not held this to have affected due process, even if we were
in breach of an international obligation, since defendants
still had access to lawyers and the courts.

RESPECTING HUMAN RIGHTS WHILE FIGHTING TERRORISM


15. (C) In fighting terrorism, we need to maintain full
respect for HR, de Klerk warned. He acknowledged that the US
and EU disagree only on some details in this balancing
effort. Specifically, EUDel called for respect for the whole
suite of Geneva Conventions. They dismissed the need for any
special categories of combatants vis-a-vis the Geneva
Conventions. They raised concern about Guantanamo and Iraqi
prisons where the USG holds combatants, and they insisted
that all detainees receive due process. Amb. Kozak argued
why it was unlikely that Guantanamo methods bled into methods
used at Abu Ghraib. Finally, EUDel asked if the USG could be
more forthcoming on facilitating "UN mechanisms" looking into
questionable circumstances in the prisons.


16. (C) Amb. Kozak reassured the EUDel, which later
expressed appreciation for the substantive exchange, that we
all support international humanitarian law. "It is a
changing picture where we are trying to get it right," he
said, adding, "There is due process going on." The main
issue involved Article V tribunals; the US Supreme Court
spoke on this issue and now USG actions are controlled as a
matter of law by that decision, which the EU should welcome.
"Where people have committed abuses against prisoners, there
will be punishments," Kozak said. DoD DAS for Detainee
Policy Waxman had just briefed the OSCE conference in Warsaw,
Kozak added, and he was available to meet UN rapporteurs.
However, rapporteurs would not get access to Guantanamo or
coalition prisoners in Iraq due to security concerns. ICRC
reps have access, he added. Amb. Kozak concluded by
informing EUDel that many Guantanamo detainees have been
released, while about 200 cannot be released because they are
considered dangerous. Of the rest, some have requested
asylum for fear of reprisal at home, while others cannot
travel because their home countries have rejected them.

EU PROPOSAL TO SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS


17. (C) The EUDel announced that the EU would soon task its
embassies world wide to implement a new program to encourage
support for HR defenders. The program will include a
handbook designed to train field officers, who are often more
junior colleagues in remote posts. USDel welcomed the effort
and asked to be invited as Observer to the EU's conference
for this effort, scheduled to be organized before the end of
the Dutch Presidency.

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: ELECTIONS AND SUPPORT FOR BETTER
CANDIDATES


18. (C) The EU does not want the CHR to become a "community
of good guys," de Klerk noted, observing a meeting of
"angels" would not serve the purpose of the CHR to educate
and guide the world community. Kozak said that increasing to
40 over this year's 32 democracies among the CHR's 53 members
would improve its work. "We want to avoid the spoilers," he
agreed. The Democracy Caucus would be a good forum to
promote and encourage nations committed to the CHR's purposes
to run for election to it, DAS Lagon said. To encourage
smaller, nascent democracies to stand for election, it might
be useful to offer their missions administrative or
substantive support in Geneva, US and EUDels discussed on the
margins.
SOBEL