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