UNCHR 61: INDIAN OBJECTIVES

C O N F I D E N T I A L NEW DELHI 002138

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/20/2015
TAGS: PHUM PREL IN
SUBJECT: UNCHR 61: INDIAN OBJECTIVES

REF: STATE 42847

Classified By: PolCouns Geoffrey Pyatt. Reasons 1.4(b,d)


1. (C) Summary: Poloff delivered the UNCHR 61 demarche
(Reftel) to MEA Deputy Secretary (UN Economic and Social)
Gopal Baglay on March 17, and PolCouns double-tracked with
Joint Secretary (UN) Hamid Ali Rao. Baglay reiterated that
the GOI neither supports country-specific resolutions nor
opposes no-action motions in principle. Noting that the GOI
will back a resolution on the right to development again this
year, he added that India disagrees with the proposal to
universalize the membership of the CHR as recommended by the
High Level Panel Report. We will follow-up on these issues
at more senior levels before the GOI's Geneva delegation
departs Delhi approximately March 26. End Summary.

Polite Disagreement on US Goals
--------------


2. (C) Baglay reiterated GOI opposition to Item 9
country-specific resolutions, including proposed resolutions
on Cuba and Belarus, alleging that they are
counterproductive. India's support for country-specific
resolutions against apartheid was a unique case. The GOI
prefers Item 19 actions first. Baglay listened to our
position that Cuba represents a special case and promised to
pass that message to his superiors.


3. (C) Baglay similarly demurred from supporting the USG
position against no-action motions, arguing that they do not
limit debate, but only indicate that the resolution in
question was unacceptable to the majority. He admitted,
however, that allowing such votes permits each country to
take a clear stand on the issues.

Indian Goals for UNCHR 61
--------------


4. (C) Asked about India's broader goals for the session,
Baglay replied that the GOI did not plan to sponsor any
resolutions, but would support several that it traditionally
championed, including one on religious intolerance. He
added, however, that the GOI does not support enumerating
examples of religious intolerance in this resolution, which
distracts from the general principle.


5. (C) Baglay noted that India would again support a
thematic resolution on the right to development,
traditionally sponsored by Malaysia and the Non-Aligned
Movement. Observing that over time this resolution has
garnered more and more "yes" votes than abstentions from
Western nations, he stated that India would like to find
common ground with the US on this question. Advised that the
USG prefers to use the CHR to focus on fundamental civil and
political rights, Baglay responded that India believes that
economic and social rights can be discussed concurrently.

Nepal and Cuba
--------------


6. (C) Informed of the proposed US resolution on Cuba,
Baglay promised to draw his superior's attention to the
minimalist USG position. On Nepal, the GOI had not decided
on what course to take regarding the CHR, he said, but its
response to a Swiss/European proposal would depend on the
exact text.


7. (C) Baglay welcomed the establishment of a democracy
caucus, commenting that this would advance common goals of
democratic nations. Universalization of the membership of
the CHR would be counterproductive, he stated, and India
therefore opposed such a move.
MULFORD