U/S DOBRIANSKY DISCUSSES DEMOCRACY PROMOTION IN

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 11 NEW DELHI 000759 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/02/2016 TAGS: PREL PGOV KDEM UNSC PHUM PTER AF HU JP IZ IN SUBJECT: U/S DOBRIANSKY DISCUSSES DEMOCRACY PROMOTION IN THE GLOBAL ISSUES FORUM REF: A. NEW DELHI 0512 ¶B. 05 NEW DELHI 8682 NEW DELHI 00000759 001.2 OF 011 Classified By: Ambassador David Mulford for Reasons 1.4 (B, D) ¶1. (C) As part of the February 1 Global Issues Forum, U/S Dobriansky met with Foreign Secretary Saran to discuss initiatives to promote democracy and human rights with India, including presidential deliverables, the UN Deeocracy Fund and UN Human Rights Commission reform. U/S Dobriansky opened the discussion by commenting that India and the US have deepened bilateral relations since the last Global Issues Forum, and the fourth round of discussions provides an opportunity to further solidify ties ahead of President Bush's upcoming visit. Responding to the US proposal to create an Indian democracy institute similar to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED),the GOI proposed to establish an institution that could serve as the implementation arm of the UN Democracy Fund. Saran also raised alternative ways for India to get more involved with the Community of Democracies, and was open to cooperating with the International Center for Democratic Transitions (ICDT) and expanding the Virtual Democracy Center. For the time being, the GOI will only lead training programs for Iraqis in India, and does not yet have an answer on the joint US-India-Japan 21st Century Leadership Alliance in Afghanistan. While agreeing to collaborate bilaterally in Kyrgyzstan on practical projects, FS Saran expressed reluctance on working to implement OSCE election recommendations since India is not an OSCE member. India has come closer to some US positions on the Human Rights Council, but there are still several areas of disagreement. U/S Dobriansky's visit provided an opportunity for greater clarification of India's ideas for the President's visit, but we still need to push the democracy related deliverables to have a clearly operational element. Indian UN Democracy Fund Institution -------------- ¶2. (C) U/S Dobriansky and Indian Foreign Secretary Saran began the Fourth Global Issues Forum on February 1 by discussing initiatives to promote democracy. Saran commented that the GOI's founding participation in the UN Democracy Fund (UNDF) makes that a natural conduit for India to share its expertise in this area. Noting that India has completed its commitment to donate USD ten million, Saran said that India is gratified that 29 countries have contributed to the success of the fund with a total of USD 42 million. He recommended that India and the US move quickly to operationalize the fund and take on democracy promotion activities. Once the fund is operational, India hopes to contribute in the key areas of institution and capacity building, awareness creation, and leadership development. He looked forward to the first Advisory Board meeting in February, suggested that the US and India collaborate on the NEW DELHI 00000759 002.2 OF 011 agenda, and passed along a GOI paper on Indian contributions under the UN Development Fund (text in paragraph 22). ¶3. (C) While cool on the idea of an Indian NED-like institute (Ref A),FS Saran presented a proposal to create an institution in India to serve as the implementation arm of the UN Democracy Fund. This institute could be funded by the UNDF and based in India with the goal of promoting democracy all over the world. Saran made substantive suggestions on the focus areas of an institute and how India could lend expertise in a variety of areas including: training and exchange programs on democratic governance, electoral administration, accountability, treatment of women and minorities, political party administration, local governance, promotion of secularism and pluralism, diversity management and the creation of transparent institutions. Emphasizing that this institution would be hosted "under the UN Democracy Fund framework," Saran noted that the UN umbrella would boost the acceptability of such an idea domestically. In a follow-up conversation with PolCouns, MEA Additional Secretary K.C. Singh emphasized that this institution should SIPDIS not be part of the UN office in India -- but would need the UN umbrella to be politically feasible. ¶4. (C) U/S Dobriansky thanked the GOI for its support for the UNDF, and expressed her hope that some type of Indian center for democracy could be a major outcome of Bush's upcoming visit. In light of the enormous Indian accomplishments in democracy, U/S Dobriansky suggested that India consider building an independent institution that would develop links to the UNDF in addition to democratic institutions such as the Community of Democracies and Hungary's International Center for Democratic Transitions. She acknowledged that the GOI knows what works best for India, but asked whether building the institution under the UNDF framework might limit India's contributions. By giving the proposed institution a UN lead rather than an Indian lead, she worried that India's contribution might be overshadowed by the UN, and it could deny much deserved Indian recognition for taking a leadership position in democracy promotion. ¶5. (C) FS Saran responded that the GOI believes that the UNDF provides the best framework for building an Indian institution for democracy. Although India has in-country democracy institutions such as the Institution for Parliamentary Studies and the Election Commission, "local problems" prevented the GOI from finding an endowment, NGO or foundation from which to base a new promotional institution. Rather than building a new institution, India would prefer to use UNDF resources to build a coordinating office from which to base democracy promotion activities. This idea would also provide a solution to quickly operationalize the fund, Saran noted. He also suggested that putting a UN label on the office would make it "easier for other countries to access the assistance." U/S Dobriansky agreed to get back to the NEW DELHI 00000759 003.2 OF 011 GOI on this new concept. GOI interested in CD through the UNDF -------------- ¶6. (C) In response to a US proposal for India to hold a Community of Democracies (CD) conference or roundtable in Asia, Saran asked whether the UNDF could be the vehicle to carry out any CD recommendations. Since India has put so much effort into the UNDF, Saran stressed that the GOI would like to carry out its capacity building activities through this mechanism. ¶7. (C) Given India's interest in capacity building with the UN, U/S Dobriansky pressed the GOI to think about a Community of Democracies regional training initiative. She raised the recent example of East Timor, where the US helped lead a multi-national mission with the UNDP to strengthen and consolidate democratic institutions. She welcomed India's assistance in this type of joint initiative within Asia. U/S Dobriansky also referred to another regional model known as the Democratic Choice initiative. Ukraine has launched a Democratic Choice initiative along with Lithuania, Georgia and Romania and other regional countries to bring together in one forum members of government, Parliamentarians and NGOs to discuss regional democracy issues. ¶8. (C) Saran suggested that rather than convening an Asian Community of Democracies conference without any invitation from an Asian country, India might be able to include Asian countries in a workshop or seminar on a topic like federalism or diversity. Due to "sensitivities in the region," he predicted that such an Indian sponsored event would be "easier to manage" than an Asian conference. Indian ICDT expert in Budapest -------------- ¶9. (C) U/S Dobriansky recalled her discussion with MEA Joint Secretary (Americas) S. Jaishankar about Hungary's SIPDIS International Center for Democratic Transition, and passed on a Hungarian invitation for an Indian expert in residence at the center. She noted that we had been told by officials at the center that the Hungarian Foreign Minister had sent a letter to the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, and such an invitation was extended. The USG is supportive of this initiative and plans to inform the Center that the American Ambassador to Hungary will be part of the center's Government Advisory Board. Saran reported that the MEA had not received this letter, but would be happy to work with this institution when invited. Expanding Virtual Democracy Centers -------------- ¶10. (C) U/S Dobriansky raised the idea of expanding the NEW DELHI 00000759 004.2 OF 011 Virtual Democracy Center websites that both countries created around the time of the US-India hosted launch of the UN Democracy Fund to make them more operationally useful. Saran responded that India was proud of its web site, which offered comprehensive and practical aid," and was happy to extend the scope of these websites. MEA Joint Secretary (Americas) S. Jaishankar added that it might be helpful to have a US expert look through and offer concrete advice on "how to spread the message" and derive more use from the existing site. Jaishankar volunteered to be the point of contact for this project, and suggested that other UNDF donors could set up Virtual Democracy Centers so that the sites could all mutually reinforce each other. Iraq Democracy Cooperation Only in India -------------- ¶11. (C) Saran commented that India was "happy to look at" country-specific democracy activities when any country requests Indian assistance, but the GOI would take a "case by case approach" to the proposed initiatives. Since India has already agreed to assist with democratic institution building in Iraq, Saran clarified that there is "no hesitation" with US proposals to support training of the civil service or assistance with the constitution as long as the work can be carried out in India. He reiterated GOI concerns over the security situation arising out of the "traumatic" experience with Indian hostages in Iraq, which make the GOI reluctant to expose Indian personnel to these security risks. Saran offered the expertise of the Indian Bureau of Parliamentary Studies to arrange training for Iraqi civil servants, along with an existing offer to train petroleum workers and civil aviation experts at India's dedicated academies. Commenting that India was already offering democracy training in other developing countries on a bilateral basis, he listed Bhutan as an example of a country that has requested Indian assistance in drafting a constitution and building independent election institutions and a judicial system. ¶12. (C) U/S Dobriansky welcomed Indian involvement, and pressed for assistance in Iraq. She noted that FS Saran had agreed to consider a hybrid training course with the first half of the training in India and the second half in a secure location such as the Green Zone in Iraq (Ref A). Saran replied that Indian uneasiness about sending personnel to Iraq is too high to consider the hybrid proposal at this time. He concluded that the GOI would continue to monitor the security situation there, and as soon as the security improves, India could reconsider sending trainers to Iraq. In the meantime, the GOI offer to train in India awaits a reply. US-India Engagement in Afghanistan -------------- ¶13. (C) Saran reviewed India's substantial cooperation in NEW DELHI 00000759 005.2 OF 011 Afghanistan and suggested using the UNDF to create a structured program for joint capacity building there. The GOI is already assisting with human resources work through the Institute for Public Administration's customized training capsules for civil servants and diplomats in India. New Delhi has committed to building the Afghan Parliament, and PM Singh laid the foundation stone during his latest visit to Kabul. In addition, India has agreed to fund 500 university slots and 500 technical scholarships in areas such as information technology, agriculture and entrepreneurial development. ¶14. (C) Thanking India for its initiative and meaningful programs, U/S Dobriansky observed that it also sends a strong message of US-India joint commitment in Afghanistan. She asked for feedback on the US proposal for the joint US-India-Japanese 21st Century Leadership Alliance to train Afghan leaders and civil servants in public administration through short and long term workshops and programs (Ref A). She noted that the initiative would require approximately USD five million, of which Japan and the US would give USD 2 million each, and proposed that India could contribute USD one million. U/S Dobriansky asked whether there was any further progress since MEA told U/S Burns during January 20 meetings in India that the GOI was discussing this proposal with its Embassy in Kabul. Saran replied that India is still examining this proposal to see how it would fit in with its current training programs and whether it might be attached to India's established program for training civil servants. GOI Open to Bilateral Cooperation in Kyrgyzstan -------------- -- ¶15. (C) U/S Dobriansky raised a US proposal for Indian technical or financial assistance in implementing the OSCE electoral recommendations made after the July presidential election in Kyrgyzstan. She suggested that India could also assist in a US program to provide small grants to NGOs supporting democracy, advocacy and electoral reform in Kyrgyzstan. FS Saran responded that "practically, India is happy to provide assistance," but there is sensitivity to getting involved in an OSCE project. Since India is not a member of the organization, he commented that it would be "awkward" to be carrying out OSCE recommendations. However, the GOI is open to finding a way to contribute bilaterally in Central Asia. India Budges on UN Human Rights Council -------------- ¶16. (C) FS Saran opened discussions on reform of the Human Rights Council by commenting that the GOI believes that comprehensive UN reform should also involve changes to the Security Council, and was therefore concerned about the lack of progress in this direction. India fears that other reform will be piecemeal, but he emphasized that New Delhi is NEW DELHI 00000759 006.2 OF 011 engaged in these reform discussions and will not stand in the way. As a democratic country with strong institutions of justice, India has an interest in promoting human rights, Saran noted. He underlined that India has "made a major effort to be flexible and move towards US positions" on the Human Rights Council (Ref B). He relayed that the GOI has agreed to "raise the bar for membership" by accepting a two-thirds requirement and to support 38 members on the council if other countries are in consensus with this number. Saran agreed with the US position of a one year gap before reelection to the Human Rights Council and the need for a declaration of human rights norms. He observed that the GOI does want an overall cap on the frequency of sessions for budgetary reasons, but will agree to emergency sessions with vote of one-third of all members. India is also willing to accept a universal periodic review of any country's human rights record, but wants the new HRC to be reviewed after five years. But Some Disagreements Remain -------------- ¶17. (C) However, the GOI maintains several of its positions on the HRC's punitive role, country specific resolutions, and linkages to the Security Council. The GOI believes that the Human Rights Council needs to balance the punitive and promotional measures, and Saran asked the US to look at additional ways to promote a culture that respects human rights, as this is more effective than "finger pointing." Because of India's "reservations on HRC criticisms and country specific resolutions, India is not in favor of any linkage between the Security Council and the Human Rights Council. Instead, the GOI would like the HRC and any other links to other subsidiaries of the UN to be accountable to the UN General Assembly. India believes that council membership should be open to any country which agrees to state its commitment to human rights, and membership should not require a regional endorsement provision (he alluded to likely Pakistani and Chinese objections to India's role). Due to India's ideological opposition to country specific resolutions, Saran indicated that the GOI would only support these resolutions if required to pass with a two-thirds majority. ¶18. (C) U/S Dobriansky noted that India and the US have moved forward together over the last few months, and hoped that we will continue to move closer as we try to push through UN reform during a tight window of opportunity. Commenting that democracies should oppose membership for those countries who seek membership on the Human Rights Council in order to avoid scrutiny by the international community, she urged agreement on disqualification for any country currently under sanctions for human rights violations or terrorism concerns. These countries would only undermine the council, U/S Dobriansky observed, so the window of opportunity to join will be crucial. Since most NEW DELHI 00000759 007.2 OF 011 country-specific resolutions pass with only a simple majority, she worried that requiring a two-thirds majority vote would eliminate any chance of passing these resolutions, which are a crucial mechanism for the international community to respond to violations. ¶19. (C) In a private pull aside, U/S Dobriansky pressed for closer cooperation in New York to achieve our shared objectives for reform of the UN Human Rights Commission. Saran reported that new instructions had been sent to the Indian PR in New York, and added that "on several of the issues we're pretty close." "Our whole approach," he added, "will be very forthcoming and constructive." "We need to carry others along," Saran noted, but India will help. U/S Dobriansky noted that India carries real weight on democracy issues, and hoped that the GOI would take a leadership position in New York. Saran again committed to being "as flexible as possible." "We feel strongly about the principle of universality," he noted, but even here India is prepared to "raise the bar" for membership. Management Reform -------------- ¶20. (C) On management reform, Saran noted concern that the creation of a new oversight mechanism would create a bureaucracy that is too top heavy. Instead, the GOI prefers to look at ways to strengthen the UN General Assembly to fulfill this oversight role. In response to the proposal to create a Chief Operations Officer to keep a check on UN administration, he pointed out that this was the purpose of appointing a Deputy Secretary General in 1998. He suggested reviewing the effectiveness of this position before creating a new one. US-India Collaboration on CCIT -------------- ¶21. (C) Saran also stressed the importance of working together on the Convention on Terrorism (CCIT). Noting a potential US-India disagreement on the recent compromise language with the Organization of Islamic Conference, he requested greater collaboration to come to a consensus before meetings resume in late February in New York. GOI UN Democracy Fund Paper -------------- ¶22. (SBU) The following text is the GOI paper on specific ideas for Indian contributions to the UN Democracy Fund: India, with its billion plus population, is the world's largest democracy. As a developing country with a diverse and heterogeneous polity, India is in the unique position of not only understanding the problems that a developing country taking its first steps towards democracy may face, but also NEW DELHI 00000759 008.2 OF 011 suggesting a whole range of approaches and solutions based on its own experience. This distinctive expertise could be utilized to great advantage by the UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF) in assisting new and restored democracies to draw up programmes tailored to their specific requirements. India could be of particular help in capacity building in this context. India has been deeply committed to the idea and establishment of the Democratic Fund from the very beginning. It was one of the first countries to support the initiative. On 15 June 2005, India had, along with 25 other countries, cosponsored a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General, requesting early operationalization of the Fund, preferably before the forthcoming High Level Event in September. During the PM's State visit to the United States in July this year, both the countries, while welcoming the establishment of the UNDEF, affirmed their intention to contribute US$ 10 million each to the Fund during the course of the current year. On 14 September 2005, PM addressed an event organised on the margins of The High Level Plenary Meeting of the UN General Assembly to launch the UN Democracy Fund. The contributions from Member countries have been made to a voluntary Trust Fund set up under the UN rules and regulations. India has contributed USD 10 million to the fund and along with US, shares the first position among contributors. India's possible contribution towards the proposed activities of the UNDEF India could meaningfully contribute in achieving the Fund's objectives in several ways, as illustrated in the paragraphs below. Institution Building India, as the world's largest functioning democracy, which is also familiar with the constraints and special needs of a developing economy, is in the unique position of being able to offer a comprehensive package of assistance in the field of institution-building to countries seeking such support. To enumerate just a few examples - -- Our Central Election Commission (CEC) has already signed an MOU with the UN, on the basis of which it deputes officials to observe elections and receives officials from other democracies to share the Indian experience. The CEC's contribution of expertise in the field of holding elections in other countries could be explored; -- Material support for elections in the form of voting paper, ink and electronic voting machines could be considered. -- A panel of experts to contribute ideas towards constitution drafting could be set up and their services made NEW DELHI 00000759 009.2 OF 011 available on request. -- The working of statutory bodies that underpin our democratic polity could provide insights for the building and restructuring of similar institutions in other countries in transition. Relevant bodies can be broadly categorized into three groups: watchdogs of democracy and democratic governance; bodies and institutions providing economic governance; and institutions selecting, training and developing the personnel required for executing the decisions and policies of the government. The first category includes the Judiciary, the National Human Rights Commission, the Central Vigilance Commission, the Minorities Commission, the National Commission for Women, and the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes Commissions. The Reserve Bank of India and the Finance Commission would fall under the second category, while the Union Public Service Commission and the various institutions for the training and development of civil and military services could provide guidance and assistance to new democracies in human resource development. It may also be emphasized that post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation would be an overlapping area that would impact on the overall process of institution-building in an emergent democracy and, in some cases (e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq),may need to be addressed before any other areas can be focused on. In Afghanistan, for example, India is one of the principal donors in the areas of reconstruction, food assistance, road construction and power generation projects, among other things. India will also construct the Afghan Parliament building - a symbol of friendship and cooperation between the two nations. We could likewise offer support to other countries in a similar situation. Capacity Building While it is important to evolve a system whereby people can exercise their right to participate in the governance of their country by choosing their representatives through the process of regular, free and fair elections, it is also essential to foster grass-root democracy that pervades all sections of society, so that democratic institutions become self-sustaining and self-perpetuating. India's experiences could serve as a base on which to model capacity building initiatives in a fledgling democracy. Some specific areas are mentioned below. -- Evolution of institutions such as India's Panchayati Raj system would be useful in democracies in transition, so that even the basic units of society participate fully in the democratic process and thus help sustain it at the national level. Women and youth would need to be drawn into the process, through grass-root empowerment. For this purpose, suitable provisions would need to be made in the constitution when it is being written, coupled with changes in legislation, to grant more empowerment. This is where the expertise of Indian institutions such as the Bureau of NEW DELHI 00000759 010.2 OF 011 Parliamentary Studies & Training (BPST) could come in handy: it could undertake programmes on drafting of legislation for foreign parliamentary officials in the overall context of training/internship facilities extended to them. For example, as part of India's contribution to the UNDP project on "Support to the Establishment of the Afghan Legislature (SEAL) to build capacities", 30 Afghan Parliamentary officials have undergone training at the BPST. -- Exposure to our intra-party elections and innovative developments in management and administration of party cadres could be organized for office holders of political parties in other countries. The objective would be to promote internal democracy within political parties. -- It is essential that the law enforcement personnel in a democracy clearly understand that while no one is above the law, and that they would be required to carry out their responsibilities within the parameters of the rule of law and in conformity with human rights. India could offer training courses for enforcement personnel from aspiring democracies at the National Police Academy. -- Community development is fundamental to the structured growth of the weaker sections of society and, therefore, to the strengthening of democratic traditions. India is already actively exploring the possibility of initiating a pilot project on community development to wean away Afghan farmers from poppy cultivation. We could support similar projects in other countries under post-war reconstruction and democratization. -- India, with its strong and well-rooted civil services traditions, could offer training facilities for civil servants at various centers such as the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA),the Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI),and the Foreign Service Institute (FSI). India's assistance in capacity building could also focus on the distinctive advantages of defense forces working in harmony and coordination with, and under the control of the civilian leadership and administration. -- Keeping in mind the increasingly important role being played by civil society in the consolidation of democracy, India is in a position to offer wide-spectrum interaction to new democracies to help them create and nurture an effective and focused network of NGOs, think tanks and other interest groups. Awareness Creation Citizens living in a democracy must be aware of their rights and obligations to be able to maintain constant vigilance so as to ensure that democratic traditions are not threatened or subverted. India could contribute substantially on this front. -- With its robust traditions of the freedom of the media and a highly articulate press, as well as the audio-visual media, both at the national and regional levels, India could support other countries in building capacities in this area. NEW DELHI 00000759 011.2 OF 011 Institutions like the Indian Institute of Mass Communications can play a meaningful role in this direction. -- We could help in the creation of an NGO network dedicated to the promotion of ethnic, religious and linguistic harmony in countries that may, until recently, have been torn by internal conflicts. -- It is important to create awareness among children and young people to help them become effective and interactive citizens. India could play a part in the preparation and dissemination of educational material for civic studies in schools and, where possible, offer exchange programmes for students so as to provide first-hand experience through direct interaction. Leadership Development To ensure that democracy takes strong roots, it is essential to develop leadership qualities at the local as well as national levels. India could offer exchanges/study tours for young political leaders. There could also be a special focus on women as community and national leaders. ¶23. (U) U/S Dobriansky cleared this cable. ¶24. (U) Visit New Delhi's Classified Website: (http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/sa/newdelhi/) MULFORD