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