Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05BRUSSELS585
2005-02-10 13:04:00
CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN
Embassy Brussels
Cable title:  

US/EU HUMAN RIGHTS CONSULTATIONS: PREPPING FOR CHR

Tags:  PHUM UNHRC EUN USEU BRUSSELS 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 06 BRUSSELS 000585 

SIPDIS

NOFORN

DEPT FOR DRL KOZAK, DRL/MLA, IO/SHA AND EUR/ERA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/10/2015
TAGS: PHUM UNHRC EUN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: US/EU HUMAN RIGHTS CONSULTATIONS: PREPPING FOR CHR


Classified By: USEU/POL Harry O'Hara, reasons 1.4 b/d.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 06 BRUSSELS 000585

SIPDIS

NOFORN

DEPT FOR DRL KOZAK, DRL/MLA, IO/SHA AND EUR/ERA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/10/2015
TAGS: PHUM UNHRC EUN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: US/EU HUMAN RIGHTS CONSULTATIONS: PREPPING FOR CHR


Classified By: USEU/POL Harry O'Hara, reasons 1.4 b/d.


1. (SBU) Summary: US and EU officials met in Brussels
February 3 in regularly scheduled human rights consultations
(COHOM) to prepare for the spring UN Commission on Human
Rights (CHR),and to review the human rights situation in
China and Iran. Also discussed were the Global War on
Terrorism (GWOT) and promoting human rights, anti-Semitism in
Europe, the UN high-level panel (HLP) report, EU support for
Magen David membership in the ICRC and EU support for the UN
Voluntary Funding for Victims of Torture. The CHR discussion
concentrated on Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus,
Chechnya/Russia, Sudan (and the ICC),DRC, Burundi, Zimbabwe,
Afghanistan, Israel, East Timor, Colombia, and Cuba. End
Summary

COHOM Participants:


2. (U) The EU side was led, in their EU presidency role, by
Ambassador Julien Alex, Luxembourg Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (MFA) and Anne Goedert, also from the Luxembourg MFA
human rights division. Representing the European Commission
was Rolf Timans, Head of the Human Rights Unit at DG-external
relations (RELEX). From the Council Secretariat were the
newly appointed Personal Representative to Hi-Rep Solana on
Human Rights, Michael Matthiessen (a newly created position),
Jim Cloos, Council Secretariat Director for Human Rights (and
also for UN and Transatlantic Affairs),and Council human
rights expert, Hadewych Hazelzet. Alex Hall Hall, the human
rights director from the UK Foreign Office, represented the
UK in its forthcoming Presidency role. On the US side were
DRL Acting Assistant Secretary Ambassador Mike Kozak, IO/SHA
Director Bill Lucas, DR/MLA Amy McKee and USEU/POL Harry
OHara (note-taker).

CHR prioritizing


3. (C) Ambassador Alex stressed that Luxembourg as the EU
President was concerned that EU could dissipate its efforts
if it spread itself in too many directions with too many
countries. He said the EU Presidency would seek to focus at
CHR on doing what is feasible and would encourage EU
member-states to prioritize their efforts. UK human rights

director Hall-Hall, speaking as part of the EU troika,
pledged that the EU would try to avoid surprises for the US
at Geneva. Alex identified the EUs current understanding of
its CHR priority countries as Belarus, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, DRC, Sudan, Afghanistan, Burma, North Korea, and
East Timor. He said that the EU is also considering adding
Zimbabwe (if there is EU member-state consensus) to its
priorities. While the EU would be interested in considering
Chechnya and, possibly, China, resolutions, Alex noted that
the EU is concerned with the consequences of losing on these
resolutions. Kozak also identified less one-sided and
obsolete Israel resolutions, and Cuba as US CHR priorities.

Turkmenistan


4. (C) Alex said that since a resolution on Turkmenistan had
been run at the fall UNGA 3rd Committee, the EU had decided
not to run a CHR resolution this spring. Kozak said the US
agreed with this but suggested that the US and the EU might
delay sharing this with Turkmenistan in an effort to get
something from them, e.g. Red Cross access to prisoners. EC
Rep Timans asked if our two Embassies in the field could be
asked to come up with something measurable that we might
jointly ask for. After some discussion, US/EU participants
suggested that ICRC access to prison, cooperation with UN
mechanisms and increased NGO access could be three things to
seek Turkmenistan concessions before informing them that a
resolution would not be run against them this spring. In
addition both sides agreed to ask our Embassies in the field
to see what could be asked for and if the three items listed
above might be feasible.

Uzbekistan


5. (C) Alex said that the EU was undecided between seeking an
Item 9 resolution or Item 19 on Uzbekistan. The EU has been
seeing recent human rights improvements in Uzbekistan but
some member states were not sure how deep these improvements
were. After agreeing that the picture was mixed, Kozak noted
recent progress in the treatment of detainees, greater police
cooperation with human rights defenders and the government
now permitting Freedom House to operate and examine prison
deaths. On the other hand, Kozak said that political parties
and individuals not associated with the regime had not been
allowed to register in forthcoming elections. Kozak urged
that the EU consider an Item 19 approach and that the US and
the EU suggest to the Uzbek government that if they would
make progress on habeas corpus, we would consider an Item 19
vice an Item 9. Alex said that the current EU view is more 19
but not ready to reject a 9. After some discussion, the US
and EU agreed to add the situation of NGOs into the bundle of
things we would like from Uzbeks and then work together and
to ask our respective heads of mission in the field to see
what we could ask the Uzbeks to do. Commission official
Timans demurred from the Luxembourg offer and said that the
EU member states are split on an Item 19 vs. an Item 9. He
suggested that the EU could play the 9 card (as a hard cop)
against the Uzbeks. Kozak replied that the US would have a
problem with supporting an Item 9 against Uzbekistan. Alex
indicated that in the case of an Item 19 resolution the EU
and US would coordinate for drafting and tabling.

Belarus


6. (C) Alex opened by asking if the US is jumping off the
train on a Belarus resolution at CHR this year. He said that
the EU wants to lead on Uzbekistan but wants the US to lead
on Belarus. He noted that the EU is ready to help on Belarus
including with joint lobbying. Kozak welcomed the chance to
clear up EU confusion. He said Belarus, as an outpost of
tyranny, was a must-win at the CHR. He asked that the EU
confirm their agreement to lobbying and their willingness to
be tough on Belarus. Kozak said that the US would like the EU
to be prepared to tell third countries, e.g. in Latin
America, that Belarus is a must-win for the EU, just as the
US will say on Cuba. Alex replied that co-tabling and
co-drafting would be okay. EC rep Timans noted that the EU
member states wanted the US to take the lead on Belarus and
that member states already felt that the EU is taking on too
much for Geneva this year. He said that the EU would have to
go back to the member states to review the entire list of
initiatives before responding about leading on Belarus.
Kozak urged that the EU do precisely that, namely go back to
the member states. Kozak said that the US wants the EU to
show its flag on this issue. If at the end of the day, the EU
cannot lead on Belarus, the US will do it, Kozak said. The EU
then agreed that they would get back to the US. Later over
lunch, Alex reiterated the EU strongly felt belief that the
US lead on Belarus in Geneva. Kozak replied that if the EU
would not do it, then the US will take the lead. Kozak
offered that, as an alternative, the US could draft if the EU
will do the negotiations. That way the Europeans might have
a more public face on the resolution. US would lobby for the
draft, of course, in any event.

Chechnya/Russia


7. (C) UK rep Hall-Hall noted that the we have lost 4 times
on a Chechnya resolution and the EU expects that Russia to be
very tough on fighting this resolution this spring. Both the
US and the EU agreed that Chechnya poses a dilemma. Kozak
stressed that not only do we have ongoing concerns about
Chechnya, but also our human rights concerns with Russia are
growing. He wondered if the EU and the US, working together,
might find alternative ways to signal unhappiness with Russia
) perhaps in some language on elections in a thematic
resolution where a Russian example would be cited without
mentioning Russia by name. Timans noted public pressure in
Europe to do something on Russia but suggested that if we
push too hard on Russia, we might lose on Belarus. Timans
said that perhaps we could consider using the OSCE more on
our Russia concerns but added that this would be tricky. UK
rep Hall-Hall wondered if we want press Russia in the
Community of Democracies where Russia is a member. Alex
noted that Russian and the EU will have human rights
consultations on March 1 but added there was no agenda for
the meeting. Returning to Chechnya, Alex said that EU civil
societies would expect the EU to try to do something on
Chechnya in Geneva. After further discussion, both sides
agreed to work together to see if something might be done
jointly on using thematic resolutions to raise concerns about
Russia. In addition, both sides agreed to look for
opportunities to say similar things about Chechnya.

Sudan/ICC


8. (C) Despite losing last time on Sudan, Alex said that the
EU and the US must do something on Sudan, as the situation is
worse now than it was before. He told us that Luxembourg
Presidency sees the UNSC discussion on Sudan and the
recommendation of an ICC referral as complex. Kozak said that
the US will press the UNSC for sanctions and the principle of
accountability will guide our policies. He stressed to the EU
that the US does not want Sudan to become a battleground over
our ICC differences. We are not asking the EU to give up its
position on ICC in order to get accountability in Sudan; the
EU should not expect the US to prejudice its position on ICC
either. In addition, the US does not want to see any CHR
resolution on Sudan that is weaker that what might emerge
from the UNSC. Kozak also stressed that the US does not want
to see a failed Sudan resolution. Alex replied that the EU
was waiting for a political signal from their internal
political and security committee on how much the EU should
push the ICC at Geneva or New York. Timans said that the EU
was aware of the US position on the ICC and does not want
UNSC discussion on Sudan to get bogged down over the ICC.
Speaking personally, Timans noted widespread European outrage
over Sudan and strong pressure to go to the ICC as being
faster than a special tribunal for ensuring accountability.
Kozak noted that the US has no flexibility on the ICC and
that we have to work around this. We had put forward an
alternative that would bring accountability in a timely way
without prejudicing anyones position on the ICC. Kozak
stressed the need to see what happens at the UNSC before
deciding what needs to be done in Geneva Council Secretariat
rep Hazelzet replied that the EU view is they would like to
see a special rapporteur on Sudan and for that they need a
CHR resolution or decision. Kozak replied that let us agree
that for whatever gets done at CHR, that it not be less than
what comes from the UNSC. He further indicated that the US
would seek to avoid either a weak text or a failed
resolution. The EU agreed.

DRC, Burundi, Zimbabwe


9. (C) Alex rep told us that the EU is working with the
African Union on the DRC and Burundi. If talks with the AU
are fruitless, or they are unable to decide upon strong texts
in the short-term, the EU might go it alone with country
resolutions. On Zimbabwe, the EU member states remain divided
on what to do. Alex wondered if there is any way that the EU
could actually win if it ran a resolution against Zimbabwe or
whether, in fact, the EU should run a resolution, knowing
that it will lose. Hazelzet wondered if the EU might
consider something pointed against Zimbabwe in a thematic
resolution rather than a country resolution.

Afghanistan


10. (C) Alex asked for US views on the Italian resolution on
Afghanistan, Kozak emphasized that while we have no problem
with the idea of an independent expert helping the Government
of Afghanistan to develop its human rights program, the
incumbent for Afghanistan has done everything but carry out
his mandate. Kozak added that the US supported OHCHR
assistance to Afghanistan in formulating a Human Rights
program but with a different independent expert, someone who
would focus on helping the government get assistance for
addressing human rights problems in Afghanistan rather trying
to go to Guantanamo. Kozak added that the US would open to a
possible Chairman us statement on Afghanistan if it met these
criteria.


11. (C) Hall-Hall asked if the US could support raising the
situation of women in Afghanistan at the CHR She said that if
the US would be willing to consider this, then EU might drop
raising this at the Special Commission on Women (where the US
has opposed it). She asked that the US consider this option
and noted that in order for the EU to be comfortable with
dropping the CSW resolution gender issues and prison
conditions must be addressed in the CHR text.

Israel


12. (C) Kozak asked that the EU work with the US to try to
reduce the number of anti-Israel resolutions at the CHR. He
said that piling on anti-Israeli resolutions does not help
the peace process nor does it do anything to improve the
human rights situation on the ground. Alex said that the EUs
mid-east experts are making a list of all the resolutions on
Israel with an eye to prioritizing them. He said that the EU
would be interested in reconsidering those resolutions that
are obsolete and that the US concern on this would be shared
with the EU mid-east experts.

East Timor


13. (C) The EU said that the EU had not yet decided how to
proceed on East Timor this year especially since Indonesia
would be the chair this year.

Colombia
14, (C) Kozak urged that the EU support the idea of working
with the Colombian government on its human rights problems.
He said that Colombian government is not opposed to
criticism, but that sometimes the UN organs seemed to
criticize it for not adopting a specific bureaucratic
approach to dealing with a problem rather than assessing how
well it was doing at achieving the objectives of a
recommendation. The Luxembourg Presidency replied that the EU
will seek an Item 3 chairman statement with updated language
on the situation that reflects the progress Colombia has
made, not just old text. They would not be going for a
country resolution under Item 9 nor 19.

Cuba


15. (C) Kozak said that the US was considering running the
Cuban resolution this year itself to avoid the delays and
drafting issues we witnessed last year. He asked if the EU
thought that a US lead would be counterproductive. He
emphasized that EU co-sponsorship and member-state support
would be important. He asked that if EU can not come to a
common position to support the US that they allow ) early on
-- member-states to support it. Kozak said that the US is
still discussing the text of a Cuba resolution and that the
US would welcome EU thoughts might be included in the
resolution. Alex asked when the US could share a text and
Kozak replied that he hoped that some language could be ready
in 1-2 weeks. Council director Cloos said that he was quite
sure that the US and the EU could find common ground on Cuba
at CHR. Hazelzet noted that the EU shares the US assessment
of the bad human rights situation in Cuba and said that she
would see if the EU could provide the US with some bullet
points on Cuba. Kozak noted that EU support for a Cuba
resolution would give the EU a chance to show that the EU has
not softened its position on Cuba. (Comment: No one on the EU
seemed uncomfortable with the idea of the US would run the
Cuban resolution this year. End comment)

Bad behavior in Geneva


16. (C) Kozak said that he hoped that the new government in
the Ukraine might more favorable to addressing human rights
issues than Kuchma had been, but it was hard to see much
improvement in the composition of the commission otherwise.
He said that the Africa was a particular problem and wondered
given the amount of assistance the EU provides to Africa, why
the EU could not do more. Timans replied that the wording of
the EU development agreements specifically precluded trying
to seek such leverage. Kozak said the US and the EU should
also focus on Brazil, India, Jamaica and the South Africa to
stop the drift towards increased resistance to country
specific resolutions. He said that the US and the EU also
need to be more rigorous about ensuring that country reps in
Geneva actually vote their instructions from the capitals.

Thematics


17. (C) Alex said that the EU will continue to pursue
thematic resolutions on the rights of the child, religious
intolerance (that would also mention anti-Semitism and
Islamaphobia) and the death penalty (with special attention
on the juvenile death penalty). He said that the US and the
EU are unlikely to resolve differences on the first and third
items and the EU anticipates that the US will call for votes.
Kozak noted that the legal doctrine of persistent objection
requires that the US voice its objections, otherwise language
from these resolutions can be improperly asserted in US
courts as a US interpretation of customary international law.
Kozak asked the EU to consider repackaging rights of the
child resolutions so that US could support them. The UK rep
said that the EU is considering the option of a more targeted
resolution on children for the Third Committee at UNGA this
fall (when the UK holds the EU Presidency). The topic would
likely be violence against children.

China


18. (C) Kozak updated the EU on the US DAS level human rights
talks with the Chinese. He said that the US goal was to make
human rights a positive feature in our relationship with
China. He said that the US has not decided on what to do
about China at CHR, adding that this would be depend on
Chinas human rights performance. Kozak also reviewed in
general terms the US three basket approach to the human
rights dialogue with China. Alex said that the EU had just
given the Chinese 80 cases of interest to prepare for the
next round of the EU/China human rights dialogue, scheduled
February 24-25 in Brussels.

Iran


19. (C) Alex said that the EU/Iran human rights dialogue
remains stalled due to Iranian resistance. Regarding a CHR
resolution on Iran, the EU is waiting to see what the
Canadians do. Kozak said that Canada has been concerned that
a resolution would lose in Geneva. We needed to consider
what we might do on Iran apart from resolutions. Hazelzet
said that Iranian human rights groups were eager for a new
round of human rights dialogue with the EU but the Iranian
government was resistant.

GWOT and Promoting Human Rights


20. (C) UK rep Hall-Hall, at the request of the EU
presidency, reviewed a long list of NGO and press accusations
about various US actions in the GWOT. In that spirit, she
noted concern in Europe about US double standards on
promoting human rights and the GWOT as exemplified by
Guantanamo. She said that US reservations on international
human rights conventions had also raised questions. She also
raised questions about US legal application of the Geneva
conventions, renditions, ghost detainees, alleged omissions
in defining cruel and degrading treatment etc. She said that
the UK government was not perfect either and that therefore
her points should not be seen as implying that the EU or its
member-states were perfect. Timans singled out alleged US
denial of access to due legal processes as particularly
troubling for the EU. In his reply to each of their points,
Kozak stressed the difference between the law applicable to
enemy combatants in wartime and that applicable to criminals
in peacetime. He also noted that it was not the US that had
decided to exclude certain groups from coverage under the
Geneva Conventions. Rather, the conventions are legal
instruments, which by their terms apply only to certain
combatants and not others. The US. was applying customary
international law and US policy to assure humane treatment of
all whether or not they qualify for POW status under the
Conventions. The US. was not asserting a different standard
for itself than for others. Detainees had had recourse to
our courts and much of the evolution in procedure was due to
the decisions of the courts. Kozak said that US will have a
side event at CHR in which experts from US will brief several
of the special procedures of the OHCHR, as well as a public
discussion to discuss in more detail what we have done and
are doing in Guantanamo. Follow-up


21. (C/NF) US participants were struck by the contrast in the
EUs discussion of the GWOT and the rest of our consultations
and indeed between this accusatory and emotional presentation
and past EU discussions which have been more of the
information gathering variety. On February 4, we reviewed
with the Council Secretariat Hazelzet the rationale for the
EUs approach to this topic especially since it had been so
different from previous US/EU discussion of these issues.
Hazelzet said that the EU human rights experts had decided
February 2 that the EU should have an informal over lunch
discussion of these concerns and had asked that Guantanamo
and the use of the US as an excuse by Sudan and others to
justify their misdeeds be raised with us. She also said that
they had decided to ask the UK rep to raise these points on
the grounds that a UK official could more easily talk to us
about these sensitive topics. We replied that the problem
with reciting a long list of press allegations about the US
is that we found it hard to distinguish what the EUs concerns
were. We noted that we had already publicly responded to
these press allegations and accusations and wondered why they
had been included. We explained that the US was not
objecting to discussing difficult and sensitive issues,
rather we felt that the long recital of newspaper items was
not conducive to the kind of dialogue that either side
sought. She agreed that the EU ought to have better thought
through how to structure this presentation. She also
acknowledged that this exchange had taken up too much time at
the expense of other items on our agenda.

Human rights aspect in High-Level Report


22. (C) Timans noted that the EU had reports from NY that
Brazil was working to weaken the language in the UNSYG
high-level report calling for country human rights reports.

Anti-Semitism


23. (C) Kozak noted US concerns over anti-Semitism in Europe.
He said that OSCE discussion had been very good. Kozak noted
that anti-Semitism in Europe seems to be growing among EU
intellectuals ) something different than traditional forms
of anti-Semitism among skinheads. Timans said the Commission
has proposed the creation of an Agency on Fundamental Rights
as a way of upgrading the current Racism Monitoring Center in
Vienna. He said that the Commission hopes to present the
Council with a proposal in May 2005 with a target date for
opening the new agency by January 2007.

HLP Report, Magen David Adom and UN Voluntary Funding for
Victims of Torture


24. (C) IO/SHA Director Lucas presented USG views on the High
Level Panel reports recommendations on CHR, stressing that
universalization does not effectively address CHR problems
and suggesting several procedural and structural measures
designed to improve the quality of CHR membership and
leadership. Kozak urged the EU to weigh in with the Swiss
government to call for a special meeting of the ICRC to
discuss procedural steps for the entry of the Israeli Magen
David Adom (MDA) society of Israel into the ICRC. Alex was
not aware of this issue and said that the EU would have to
get back to us. IO rep Lucas noted that the US funded about
75 percent of the UN voluntary fund for victims of torture.
Timans, speaking for the Commission, replied that he was
unaware of this voluntary fund or the US contribution to it
and asked for more information.


25. (U) DRL Kozak and IO/SHA Lucas cleared this message.

McKinley




.