ELIASSON SIGNALS INTENT TO ADOPT HRC RESOLUTION ON

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000443 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/08/2016 TAGS: PHUM KUNR UNGA PREL SUBJECT: ELIASSON SIGNALS INTENT TO ADOPT HRC RESOLUTION ON MARCH 10 REF: ZACK-LAGON ET AL E-MAIL OF MARCH 8 Classified By: Ambassador Alejandro Wolff, Deputy Permanent Representat ive to the United Nations, for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY. GA President Eliasson's Chef de Cabinet Wide told Ambassador Wolff March 8 that Eliasson is taking the first steps to prepare for the adoption of the Human Rights Council (HRC) resolution this Friday (March 10). Wide said the Fifth Committee will meet March 9 to approve the HRC budget, paving the way for a General Assembly plenary meeting Friday March 10, to take action on the HRC. We do not yet know if Eliasson's move to schedule the Fifth Committee budget decision marks a firm decision to proceed to adopt the HRC text March 10, or if it is intended to prompt signs of flexibility from the U.S. When Amb. Wolff asked Wide whether Eliasson was prepared to try to adopt the HRC in the face of a U.S. "no" vote, Wide said, "We'll cross that bridge later." ¶2. (C) Separately, HRC Co-Chair Arias told Ambassador Wolff he is prepared to recommend to President Eliasson that there be a brief postponement of action on the resolution, and said he felt that Eliasson will not want to move forward if the U.S. will definitely vote no. Japanese Ambassador Ozawa told Ambassador Wolff Japan is prepared to accept Eliasson's HRC text, but believes the resolution will need U.S. support and thus has suggested a postponement of action on the resolution of a few weeks to find the means to allow the U.S. to join consensus. If there is a vote, Ozawa said he expects "single digit" opposition to the text. Israel's Ambassador told Ambassador Wolff that Israel would support whatever decision the USG takes on the HRC, including a decision to vote no. East Timor advised if it comes to a vote, it will abstain on the text. Austrian PermRep Pfanzelter sent a letter to Ambassador Bolton to convey the European Union decision that "Member States of the EU are prepared to make a declaration not to vote for candidates for membership in the Human Rights Council that are under sanctions of the Security Council for human rights related reasons," but also to express his conviction that a decision on the HRC needs to be taken by consensus by the end of this week. END SUMMARY. GA PRESIDENT TAKES STEPS TOWARD GA ACTION ON HRC ¶3. (C) In a March 8 telcon, GA President Eliasson's Chef de Cabinet Wide told Ambassador Wolff that Eliasson is taking the first steps toward a decision on the HRC resolution text. He said the Fifth Committee bureau will be meeting later in the day to agree to hold a formal Fifth Committee session Thursday March 9 to approve the PBI. Wide said the President's office hopes the United States won't vote "no" on the PBI in the Fifth Committee, since it provides the funding for establishment of the HRC, and will be seen as a provocative move with clear consequences for reform discussions related to the budget. (Note: The Fifth Committee generally operates by consensus. However, the G-77 already set a precedent for voting in the Fifth Committee when they called for a vote on conference servicing in December. End Note.) ¶4. (C) Wide further indicated that the way was clear for the General Assembly to be convened on Friday March 10 to take action. (Note: The UN Secretariat separately advised the Fifth Committee Wednesday morning that Fifth Committee action was being scheduled for Thursday on the understanding that there might be GA action on the resolution on Friday. End Note.) Wide said the GA President continues to receive indications of support for the text. Ambassador Wolff asked Wide if President Eliasson will still bring the text forward for GA action if the U.S. will vote "no." Wide responded, "Let's cross that bridge later." ¶5. (C) Separately, Panamanian PermRep Arias (Co-Chair of the HRC working group negotiating the HRC) called Ambassador Wolff on March 8 to ask again for the definitive U.S. position on the HRC text. He said he wanted to be clear on this in preparation for a planned meeting with GA President Eliasson later in the day. Ambassador Wolff reiterated U.S. positions on the two key elements of changing the voting majority for election and excluding those under Security Council sanctions for human rights violations from HRC membership. He also repeated the U.S. call for the text to be re-opened for negotiation or for action to be postponed to allow for further discussions, and said that if an unchanged text is brought to the UNGA for action, our instructions are to call for a vote and vote "no." Arias expressed appreciation for the confirmation of the U.S. position as he understood it. He said he is prepared to recommend to President Eliasson that there be a brief postponement of action on the resolution, and said he felt that Eliasson will not want to move forward if the U.S. will definitely vote no. JAPANESE PREDICT "SINGLE DIGIT" OPPOSITION IF VOTED; SUPPORT BRIEF POSTPONEMENT ¶6. (C) Ambassador Wolff also met March 8 with Japanese Ambassador Toshiro Ozawa to discuss the Human Rights Council. Ozawa shared updated Japanese talking points on the HRC (Ref e-mail). Japan is prepared to accept Eliasson's HRC text, but believes the resolution will need U.S. support and thus has suggested a brief postponement of action on the resolution -- of a few weeks but not several months -- to find an acceptable bridge to allow the U.S. to join in the agreement and to ensure effective functioning of the new body. Japan hopes the USG and Eliasson will find a basis to address U.S. concerns "preferably outside the text" within the next few weeks. He said Japan thinks that re-opening the text could lead to huge problems. In addition, Ozawa said he does not see the possibility of majority support for U.S. proposed changes at this point. Ozawa said, however, that a U.S. "no" vote would be very detrimental and "stain the birth" of the HRC and thus Japan hopes there will be consensus, suggesting that perhaps the U.S. could deliver an EOV explaining U.S. concerns. Ozawa said the GA President is under strong pressure to move the resolution to action in the GA. If there is a vote, he expects "single digit" opposition to the text. (Note: Israel's Ambassador told Ambassador Wolff that Israel would support whatever decision the USG takes on the HRC, including a decision to vote no. End Note.) Ozawa also said that China has pressured Cuba to accept the text, and that the Cubans will likely go along grudgingly if no vote takes place. ¶7. (C) Responding to Ozawa's presentation, Ambassador Wolff reiterated the U.S. positions on the text. Ozawa suggested several areas for possible discussion outside the text, including the HRC's Rules of Procedure, priority for review of certain members, or restrictions on the rights of certain members if violations occur, as well as the possibility of an "interim" review of the HRC in 2-3 years, before the 5 year review envisioned in the HRC resolution text. Ozawa recognized that several of these would be for the HRC itself to decide. He agreed that an important test of the new body will be what countries are elected to it and how it performs and functions. Ambassador Wolff said none of these ideas directly address our core concerns. Moreover, since we would lose our majority to the Asian and African Groups, most of the procedural improvements described by Ozawa would likely be voted down in the HRC. EU WILL DECLARE INTENTION NOT TO VOTE FOR THOSE UNDER UNSC SANCTIONS ¶8. (C) On March 8 Austrian PermRep Pfanzelter sent a letter to Ambassador Bolton to convey the European Union decision that "Member States of the EU are prepared to make a declaration not to vote for candidates for membership in the Human Rights Council that are under sanctions of the Security Council for human rights related reasons." The letter continues, "The European Union has taken this decision in order to meet the concerns that the United States has raised. We would make this pledge in an explanation after adoption of the resolution and expect that a significant number of countries will do likewise, not only from wider Europe, but also from other regional groups of the United Nations." The letter concludes by saying, "I am convinced that a decision on the Human Rights Council needs to be taken by consensus, i.e. without a vote, by the end of this week. It is our hope that the assurances of the EU and a large number of countries that uphold democracy will put the US in a position to support President Eliasson in our common efforts to strengthen human rights globally and to establish a Human Rights Council." (Ref e-mail conveys full text of the letter.) POSSIBLE CD CONVENING GROUP STATEMENT ON HRC ¶9. (C) Mal PermRep Diarra (current chair of the Community of Democracies group in New York) met with Ambassador Wolff on March 8 to report on a meeting of the Convening Group of the Community of Democracies (CD) earlier in the day at which the HRC was also discussed. (Note: USUN received notice of the meeting too late to attend. The planned agenda was a follow up to the outcome of the meeting of the Convening Group of the CD held in Bamako on March 1. We understand from another Convening Group member that the Czech Republic, Morocco and El Salvador also were not present. End Note.) Diarra told Ambassador Wolff that the Convening Group discussed what the CD could do to help the GA President, but said there was no consensus on this point. The Convening Group also discussed what it could do to help the U.S. on this issue by helping raise confidence in the selection of HRC members. Diarra said that Chilean PermRep Munoz had suggested the group adopt or issue a statement on behalf of the CD that would lay out criteria for elections, including not to support candidacies of countries under Security Council sanctions for human rights violations. Diarra said the group agreed that such a statement could only be made after the decision to establish the HRC was taken in order to avoid prompting Cuba and others to re-open the text in reaction to an indirect effort to reintroduce the sanctions exclusion. Diarra said the group asked Mali as CD Chair to sound out the U.S. on this idea, to see if it would help our approach to the HRC text, and requested the U.S. reaction and any further ideas be provided as soon as possible. ¶10. (C) Ambassador Wolff explained the U.S. position to fix the election threshhold and UNSC sanctions exclusion in the text itself in order to make it binding; and that unless the text itself were changed the U.S. would vote no. He asked Mali if the Convening Group would be able to speak on behalf of all members? Diarra said the Convening Group can agree to issue a statement on behalf of the CD, but said if it were opened for all CD members to discuss then he expected there would be no consensus on this idea. Ambassador Wolff asked how then could CD members be expected to adhere to such a declaration? Diarra responded that many like-minded countries could be counted on to do so. Diarra also admitted that in African Group discussions on regional candidacies, Mali would not try to block a candidate for the HRC, but he assured Ambassador Wolff that Mali would strategize with like-minded countries on how to vote if such a candidate were put forward. Ambassador Wolff told Diarra he would report this to Washington and provide any further response. ¶11. (C) Note: Portugal's Counselor also shared a readout of the Convening Group meeting with USUN human rights officer. She reported that Munoz' proposed declaration said members should not vote in favor of those under Security Council sanctions for human rights violations or those who do not comply with the pledges and commitments discussed in OP 8 and OP 9 of the draft resolution. She shared that Portugal, Italy and Poland expressed support for this idea, but others raised questions about what the U.S. reaction would be and whether this would help before taking a decision on such a statement. India's Ambassador said they could not agree with the declaration text as drafted. She reported that the Convening Group (including India) agreed that the CD could make a statement after adoption of the resolution, but it was left unclear what such a statement would convey. She also noted that the text could be either from the Convening Group or from the CD as a whole, in which case it would be more difficult to gain agreement on any detailed or firm text. She also expressed interest in the U.S. reaction and what language the U.S. might find helpful if such a statement were to be issued. BOLTON