FRENCH RESPONSE TO UNCHR 61 DEMARCHE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 001721 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/14/2015 TAGS: PHUM PHUM PREL FR UNCHR SUBJECT: FRENCH RESPONSE TO UNCHR 61 DEMARCHE REF: A. STATE 42847 ¶B. PARIS 1713 Classified By: Political Minister-Counselor Josiah Rosenblatt, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (U) SUMMARY: Poloff delivered reftel A demarche to Francois Vandeville, responsible for human rights in the United Nations and International Organizations bureau at the MFA. Vandeville welcomed the U.S. intention to participate "vigorously" in the sixty-first session of the Commission on Human Rights and encouraged the U.S. to engage further and write more resolutions. End Summary Priorities -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Vandeville noted that France had several priorities, including three thematic resolutions on forced disappearances, arbitrary detention, and extreme poverty, as well as a declaration on Haiti, to be made with the Friends of Haiti. In addition, the EU's priorities would be thematic resolutions on the death penalty and religious intolerance, while working with the GRULAC for a resolution on child's rights. Anti-Semitism is indeed a cause for concern, Vandeville continued; however, it would be difficult to go beyond the strong language achieved in the General Assembly on religious intolerance. Vandeville clarified that although the Netherlands was doing much of the work for the religious intolerance resolution, it would in fact be introduced by the EU. Country Initiatives -------------- ¶3. (C) Vandeville stated that the EU currently had seven country initiatives, with the possibility for more. The EU would table resolutions on North Korea, Burma, Uzbekistan (Note: this is not yet public. End note.),Belarus (with the U.S., see reftel B),and Israeli settlements. The EU will seek consensus declarations by the chair on Colombia and Afghanistan. There is no decision yet on Sudan and the DRC. Vandeville understood that the African Group will put forth resolutions on both; engagement would depend on the texts. For Sudan, Vandeville noted that the recommendations of the International Commission of Inquiry should be included. The EU will not table a resolution on Zimbabwe. Vandeville's comments on the Cuba draft resolution will be reported septel. Israel and the Occupied Territories -------------- ¶4. (SBU) While France shares the U.S. position that there are too many resolutions on Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict, Vandeville stated that they have no control over initiatives made by the Arab groups. (Note: This acknowledgment and the pledge to urge consolidation are somewhat disingenuous, as the EU intends to introduce its own draft resolution on Israeli settlements. End note.) Vandeville thought that there were proposed Pakistani and Saudi Arabian resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict that could be merged, but that ultimately, the GOF wielded little influence over this outcome, noting, "We are not as powerful as you think." No-Action Motions -------------- ¶5. (SBU) France "fully shares" U.S. concerns on no-action motions. However, Vandeville questioned whether the U.S. was fully committed in its opposition to no-action motions. Vandeville pointed to the U.S. voiding a report motion last year and asked if we would refrain from a no-action motion -on arbitrary detention. Death Penalty -------------- ¶6. (SBU) In regard to multiple death penalty resolutions, Vandeville remarked that the GOF understood the U.S. point in principle; however, it felt that some country situations -- DRC, Sudan, etc. -- merited emphasis. In addition to the thematic resolution, there was a need to put specific situations on the table. Miscellaneous -------------- ¶7. (SBU) Vandeville stated that France supported in principle a Romanian democracy resolution, though it would have to see the text first. Finally, Vandeville asked for more information regarding the U.S. hope that there would be a resolution on elections at the CHR, asking if the resolution would be solely on such elections. Leach