U.S.-EU TROIKA ON HUMAN RIGHTS, FEBRUARY 16, 2006

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 05 BRUSSELS 000800

SIPDIS

DRL FOR DAS BARKS-RUGGLES AND DIR/MLA NOYES, ERA FOR
ROBINSON, IO FOR ROHN, L FOR BELLINGER
GENEVA FOR DEPIRRO

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/28/2016
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL CH IR CU BL VE XR EUN UN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: U.S.-EU TROIKA ON HUMAN RIGHTS, FEBRUARY 16, 2006

REF: BRUSSELS 00524

Classified By: USEU POLITICAL COUNSELOR ALYCE TIDBALL, FOR REASONS 1.4
(B) AND (D)


1. (C) SUMMARY. The U.S.-EU Troika on Human Rights
(COHOM),held February 16 in Brussels, provided an important
forum for in-depth discussions, but no agreement on what kind
of Commission on Human Rights (CHR) meeting might take place
should UN agreement on the Human Rights Council (HRC) not be
reached by end-February. The EU insisted the window of
opportunity to form the Council was now or never, while the
U.S. affirmed achieving a credible Council was more important
than meeting an artificial deadline. European Council
Transatlantic Director Jim Cloos discussed the recent visit
of State's Legal Adviser John Bellinger (reftel),noting the
dialogue was helpful and urging it continue. Delegations
compared notes on promoting human rights in China, Iran,
Russia, Cuba, Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela and Guatemala.
The U.S. reiterated commitment to past positions regarding
the International Criminal Court (ICC). END SUMMARY.

--------------
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: TIMELINE AND ISSUES
--------------

2. (C) DEADLINE FOR A TEXT? EU head of delegation Bert
Theuermann insisted the window of opportunity for
establishing the Human Rights Council (HRC) is now and if we
miss this moment, the window may close completely. He said
Eliasson would make every effort to table a strong text, but
would take care not to trigger a revolt. Here, he said,
lobbying would be critical. DRL DAS Barks-Ruggles agreed on
importance of keeping the momentum going, but asserted there
is no firm deadline to get a good text. A good text on March
12 is certainly better than an agreement in late February
that does not address the problems that have made the
Commission on Human Rights a discredited body. She
emphasized that the U.S. will not make compromises on
identified red lines. Both sides agreed it was critical to
move forward on the HRC, but not at any cost. Barks-Ruggles
opined that while consensus is important we must not settle
until we achieve creation of a stronger body in the interest
of the U.S., the EU, and the UN.


3. (C) PREPARATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.
Theuermann insisted that if agreement on a new HRC is not
reached by end-February preparations must begin for the
annual CHR meeting in Geneva. The EU does not want to leave
critical human rights issues victim to a vacuum that would
also damage the UN's credibility on these issues. U.S. del,
by contrast, consistently maintained that we are focused on
creation of an effective HRC and not on preparations for what
the Secretary General has acknowledged is a discredited body.
Participation in a fully discredited CHR, U.S. del insisted,
would be even more damaging to the integrity of the UN.


4. (C) TRUNCATED, TECHNICAL AND TRANSITIONAL CHR MEETING.
EU del repeatedly maintained that even if an acceptable HRC
text is agreed before the March 13 meeting of the CHR, a
short meeting of the CHR would still be necessary to renew
the annual mandates until the HRC meets in June.
Barks-Ruggles said the U.S. would consider participating in a
truncated, technical, and transitional meeting of days, not
weeks, where the mandates could be rolled over to the new
HRC. Any such meeting should be non-substantive; e.g., no
country-specific resolutions or other new business. She
clearly emphasized that this is not about blocking criticism,
but rather avoiding yet another long meeting of the
discredited CHR.


5. (C) MEMBERSHIP NUMBERS FOR THE HRC. The EU favors 45-53
seats linked to equitable geographic distribution, with 51
being the preferred number. The U.S. favors 30 seats, but
could perhaps increase to 40, or even 45. A reduction from
53 to 51 would be insupportable as it would imply no
significant change and the reduction would impact only on the
Western European and Others Group (WEOG). This would be
unacceptable, and could further erode Congressional support
for the UN.


6. (C) HRC ELECTORAL REQUIREMENTS. Theuermann explained
that 2/3 voting for members of the new HRC, which the EU had
supported up to this point, was cast in the draft as "2/3
majority of members present and voting." In the current
practice of the UN, if a member abstains he is not
participating in the vote. Only those countries voting for a
measure are considered "present and voting". According to
Theuermann, Eliasson reports much resistance to the "2/3
majority of present and voting" and says twenty-plus
countries would undoubtedly call for a vote on the issue.
Theuermann suggested we compromise on absolute majority
voting, in which abstentions would count toward the vote
total. Barks-Ruggles said the U.S. was looking into
procedural voting issues, but opined personally that perhaps
the "and voting" part of the formula be removed so that if a
country abstains it is still counted as "present." She
asserted that the U.S. believes a high threshold - with the
2/3 majority strongly preferred - is important to assuring
the credibility and integrity Council membership.


7. (C) HRC TERM LIMITS. A key issue for the EU is term
limits. Barks-Ruggles said the U.S. does not like term
limits, but might be willing to explore supporting something
like past proposals involving two terms and one year off.


8. (C) KEEPING HR OFFENDERS OFF THE HRC. U.S. Del raised
throughout the meeting the importance of a tangible mechanism
for excluding the worst HR offenders from the HRC. U.S.
proposal was to exclude states with UNSC resolutions against
them for egregious human rights violations or support for
terrorism. This is a very low bar, Barks-Ruggles asserted,
as it currently would only disqualify two states. EU
Commission Head for Human Rights Rolf Timans questioned why
the U.S. cares so deeply about this when it only affects so
few states and may decrease support for the HRC overall. He
pointed to OP 8, which Barks-Ruggles quickly noted was only a
statement advising states to take the human rights situation
in candidate states into consideration when voting at the
HRC. This advisory statement, she asserted, could not be
considered a tangible mechanism to ensure the integrity of
the HRC. While she recognized Timan's assertion that the
UNSC sanctions exclusion mechanism could draw widespread
opposition, she insisted there must be a way to keep the
worst human rights offenders off the HRC. DRL/MLA Director
Noyes noted this is also an issue of importance for the U.S.
Congress.


9. (C) HRC MEETING FREQUENCY. Barks-Ruggles said the U.S.
likes the EU proposal of four to six sessions a year as a way
to detract from the circus atmosphere produced by the less
frequent meetings of the Commission. EU raised concerns
about NGOs from poorer southern nations being unable to
attend more frequent sessions, but said northern NGOs are
discussing ways to help in this respect.


10. (C) TRIGGERING HRC EMERGENCY SESSIONS. Noyes noted U.S.
concerns about the General Assembly trigger for Special
Sessions of the HRC, as this could result in repeated
anti-Israel and anti-U.S. sessions. EU del emphasized that
triggers should be low so that important situations can
easily make it to the Council, unlike past inaction of the
Commission during the Rwanda and Andijan crises.
Barks-Ruggles added that we support multiple trigger
mechanisms through the Security Council, High Commissioner,
and so forth to the General Assembly mechanism.


11. (C) OTHER HRC TEXT ISSUES. Theuermann and Finnish
delegation leader Suurpaa appealed to the U.S. to accept OP-4
language on the "right to development" as a way to gain
concessions in other areas. Barks-Ruggles said the United
States opposes creating a hierarchy of human rights in the UN
by highlighting one right over others. Noyes noted our
similar opposition to the "religious intolerance" insertions
proposed by Pakistan. U.S. del suggested we could drop the
issue of Universal Periodic Review in exchange for
concessions in other areas, as we have noted a distinct lack
of enthusiasm for this issue. Theuermann said Mexico,
Switzerland and Canada are big proponents of the provision,
while Cuba and Pakistan are among those opposed.

-------------- --
REFLECTIONS ON BELLINGER'S VISIT AND GUANTANAMO
-------------- --

12. (C) In his brief appearance, Jim Cloos highlighted
initial reactions to the recent Bellinger visit. He saw the
meeting as extremely useful, and said the EU would like
follow up discussions in the context of our joint fight
against terrorism. He noted the important distinction
Bellinger made between the War on Terror as a political term
and the War on Al Qaeda as a legal distinction. The
Secretary's statement and the Detainee Treatment Act ("McCain

SIPDIS
Amendment") were important in clarifying the U.S. absolute
condemnation of torture. The EU initially agreed that
Afghanistan was an international armed conflict, he said, but
questions remain in EU minds whether it still is. Cloos
asked why the U.S. opened itself to criticism on the UN
Special Rapporteurs' effort to visit Guantanamo, cautioning
that we should not underestimate the problems their report
will bring not just to the U.S., but also to U.S. allies and
EU member states. He asserted his belief that the detainees
deserve a minimum standard of due process rights, embodied in
Article 3 of the Third Geneva Conventions and Article 75 of
the 1st Protocol. He noted that the International Committee
of the Red Cross had commented, behind closed doors, that
from what they had observed at Guantanamo it would be better
for the U.S. to let the Special Rapporteurs in. Cloos
continued that the EU had understood at Geneva last year that
the Special Rapporteurs would be permitted to visit under the
terms of their mandate (i.e., including private interviews
with detainees),a fact disputed by the U.S. delegation.
Finally, he warned that it would be difficult for the EU to
respond if this report resulted in a U.S. attack on the
Special Rapporteurs and the system they have championed.


14. (C) U.S. del responded that Bellinger's reaction to his
visit was equally positive, and that he would welcome a
follow-up and EU suggestions. Barks-Ruggles noted with
regret that U.S. examination of the preliminary draft of the
Rapporteurs' report led the USG to conclude that the
Rapporteurs did not use the substantial information provided
to them. In addition, they did not accept an invitation to
visit Guantanamo that would have given them the same access
received by our Congressional leaders. Because they had not
seen the situation for themselves and had largely ignored the
information provided to them, the USG reserves the right to
respond in full to the Special Rapporteur's report.


15. (C) Theuermann said the failure of the Special
Rapporteurs to visit Guantanamo under their mandate is a
problem for EU credibility with third countries and said we
must be able to refute charges of double standards. He said
how the U.S. responds and engages will be very important. EU
Council High Representative for Human Rights Matthiessen
asked if the Special Rapporteurs would still be allowed to
visit Guantanamo; Barks-Ruggles reiterated that her
understanding was that the offer was still on the table.

--------------
COUNTRY DIALOGUES
--------------
17, (C) CHINA. Timans informed that the next EU-China
dialogue will be held in Vienna in May. The main theme will
be freedom of expression, with particular emphasis on
internet censorship. Other issues will include fair trial
rights and the death penalty as well as International
Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) ratification
and release of Tiananmen prisoners. Barks-Ruggles informed
that DRL A/S Lowenkron was in China until February 19 to
begin discussing the possible resumption of a results-based
dialogue after the trip of UN Special Rapporteur Manfred
Novak to China fulfilled the conditions previously set for
resumption. She agreed with the importance of the internet
censorship issue, noting that Iran was now starting to copy
the Chinese model for dealing with its own dissidents.
Theuermann requested a briefing on Lowenkron's trip upon his
return. Timans noted the Chinese government had rejected
some of the programs selected to receive EU civil society
grants this year, thus the EU had scrapped the entire program.


18. (C) IRAN. Although the EU officially has a human rights
dialogue with Iran, Theuermann said there have been no
serious proposals from Iran demonstrating interest in a real
dialogue. Lofty ideas about exchange of intellectuals would
do little to ease EU concerns. Barks-Ruggles concurred with
the EU's skepticism and its insistence on a results-oriented
approach to Iran and urged greater U.S.-EU cooperation and
discussion on human rights and democracy issues in Iran -
including how to support civil society, a free press, and
human rights activists. Theuermann said the EU routed much
of its assistance through UN programs like the UN Juvenile
Agency and UNODCP.


19. (C) RUSSIA. The EU's second human rights dialogue with
Russia will be held March 3 in Vienna. Suurpaa said they
would raise Chechnya; rule of law issues, particularly as it
relates to the Russian armed forces; NGO issues, particularly
the recent legislation to limit their activities. A Council
of Europe opinion on the NGO issue will soon be released.
Barks-Ruggles noted U.S. shared concerns on these issues, and
encouraged close coordination to better press the GOR.
Matthiessen emphasized that the U.S. and EU should coordinate
efforts to hold Russia to the highest standards.

--------------
OTHER COUNTRY SITUATIONS AND THE HR TOOLBOX
--------------

20. (U) Introducing this topic, Theuermann suggested we must
find a way to better integrate HR into the political dialogue
of desk officers in geographic units. U.S. del also pointed
to efforts to support the Malian Chair of the Community for
Democracies (CD) and the UN Democracy Fund (DF) as new tools
to promote human rights. Theuermann noted that the DF is
supported by the EU, but not the CD as the EU is not a
member. EU member states involved in the CD could be helpful
in that work, in their national capacities. Overall,
Barks-Ruggles suggested the U.S. would like to build a
"Democracy Caucus" in UN and World Bodies.


21. (U) CUBA. Noyes reiterated U.S. desire to work together
to prevent abuses and to gain the release of political
prisoners. It is important, she emphasized, to bolster these
efforts by inviting dissidents to events to show U.S. and EU
support. Timans agreed, assuring the EU commitment in these
areas has not slipped.


22. (U) BOLIVIA. Highlighting U.S. interest in working with
the government for more democracy, rule of law, and
counter-narcotics efforts, Noyes noted that we are focusing
on Bolivian President Morales' actions, not his political
comments. Timans said EU was impressed with U.S. restraint.
He said the EU works closely through member states on
democracy, development, and stability for Bolivia, but is
less aggressive on anti-drug efforts because it is less of an
issue for Europe.


23. (C) COLOMBIA. Noyes suggested more support be given to
demobilization and reintegration of paramilitary forces. She
commended the EU on its support for these programs, and,
noting our own increased request to the Congress, asked if
the EU could consider giving more. Timans countered that the
EU is not always encouraged by the progress, but wishes to
see it continue. The EU delegation was also concerned that
Colombia may try to reduce the role of the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights in Bogota. DePirro suggested
the Commissioner would buy some goodwill by noting
improvements where they exist, rather than being so uniformly
negative.


24. (C) VENEZUELA. Noting U.S. concern about Venezuela's
race for the UN Security Council, Noyes asserted the behavior
of the Venezuelan perm rep has been outright disruptive.
Guatemala, by contrast, has troops currently committed to six
different UN peacekeeping efforts. Guatemala has never been
on the Security Council, compared to Venezuela's four terms.
Theuermann, while not challenging the assertion that
Guatemala has been more active in UN peacekeeping, pointed
out that it is still going through some serious problems and
that "human rights is very out of fashion in Guatemala." He
asserted the U.S. and EU should engage Guatemala so it does
not slip back.

--------------
THE ICC AND THE NETHERCUTT AMENDMENT
--------------
25, (U) Timans acknowledged the well-known U.S. position on
the International Criminal Court (ICC),but hoped that, over
time, the behavior of the court would allay U.S. concerns,
pointing out that the ICC has declined to hear Iraq cases.
He urged the Administration to use its authorization to waive
the application of the Nethercutt Amendment rather than cut
assistance to young democracies supporting the ICC. Noyes
reiterated the U.S. position that countries that wished to
continue receiving U.S. assistance could enter into article
98 agreements with the U.S., as contemplated in the Rome
Statute.

--------------
MEETING PARTICIPANTS
--------------

26. (U) EU participants included:

Bert Theuermann, Director of Human Rights, Austrian MFA
Thomas Unger, Human Rights Desk Officer, Austria MFA
Johanna Surpaa, Director for Human Rights Policy, Finnish MFA
Janina Hasenson, Legal Officer for Human Rights Policy,
Finnish MFA
Jim Cloos, Director of the Directorate General on the
Americas, UN and Human Rights, and Counter-Terrorism, EU
Council Secretariat
Michael Matthiessen, Personal Representative to the High
Representative/Secretary General for Human Rights, EU Council
Secretariat

SIPDIS
Dr. Hadewych Hazelzet, Human Rights Desk Officer, EU Council
Secretariat

SIPDIS
Didier Cosse, Human Rights Desk Officer, EU Council
Secretariat

SIPDIS
Rolf Timans, Head of Human Rights and Democratization,
European Commission
Christiane Hohmann, U.S. Unit, DG RELEX, European Commission
Tobias King, Human Rights Unit, DG RELEX, European Commission


27. (U) U.S. participants included:

Erica Barks-Ruggles, Deputy Assistant Secretary, DRL
Julieta Noyes, Director of Multilateral Affairs, DRL
Doug Rohn, Director of Social and Humanitarian Affairs, IO
Velia DePirro, Counselor for Political Affairs and
Specialized Agencies, USUN Geneva
Alyce Tidball, Counselor for Political Affairs, USEU
Dennis Schmelzer, Intern, Political Section, USEU


28. (U) This was cleared by delegation.



GRAY
.
#