HUMAN RIGHTS HIGH COMMISSIONER ARBOUR DISCUSSES

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 GENEVA 002184 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/19/2007 TAGS: PHUM PREL UNHRC IR CE SUBJECT: HUMAN RIGHTS HIGH COMMISSIONER ARBOUR DISCUSSES IRAN, AMICUS BRIEF, SRI LANKA AND HER OFFICE'S INDEPENDENCE GENEVA 00002184 001.6 OF 003 Classified By: Ambassador Warren W. Tichenor. Reasons: 1.4 (B/D). ¶1. (C) Summary: In a September 14 meeting with the Ambassador, High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said she had felt obliged to attend the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) conference in Tehran even though she would have preferred another venue, given Iran's poor human rights record. She had used her meetings with Iranian officials to foster "space" for civil society activists. Women's rights activists had told her that though they needed foreign support, they opened themselves up to attack and harassment from the government when they received it directly from some foreign governments, including the U.S., or from NGOs affiliated with those governments; the U.S. might consider providing funds through international organizations including her own office, she suggested. She acknowledged that, though she had given the USG a heads-up about her Supreme Court amicus brief, she could have done so earlier to avoid confusion. Discussing her upcoming trip to Sri Lanka, Arbour described the government's resistance to her plans to expand her human rights mechanism on the ground there. She voiced frustration with threats to her office's independence by the Organization of the Islamic Conference but pledged to resist such efforts vigorously. End Summary. Arbour's Trip to Iran -------------- ¶2. (C) The Ambassador underscored our concern that the Iranian Government was using Arbour's September 3-4 trip to Tehran to justify its recent human rights crackdown, noting that while her meeting with women activists was helpful, she might also have mentioned the cultural "exceptions" to universal rights that Iran has advocated in treating women, Bahai, and other minorities unequally. ¶3. (C) Acknowledging that the Iranian government's use of her visit for propaganda purposes was highly unfortunate, she stressed that she had gone to Tehran at the invitation of the NAM and had not regarded the trip as a bilateral visit. She had felt obliged to attend the NAM conference even if, given Iran's human rights record, she would have preferred that it have been held elsewhere. Some two-thirds of NAM members were helpful to her holistic view of human rights, making it essential that she attend, Arbour continued. ¶4. (C) Even if the visit was not bilateral, Arbour said she had viewed it as an opportunity to address human rights issues involving Iran. She had focused that aspect of her trip narrowly, in areas where she hoped to have the maximum impact. Thus, her key theme had been Iran's imposition of the death penalty against juveniles. Iran's behavior in this regard constituted a clear violation of international human rights law, Arbour stated. Iran had imposed a moratorium on juvenile executions, although some local officials disregarded it and were still carrying out such executions. She had also taken the occasion to meet with the women activists. In addition, she had used the visit to pursue some individual cases where she had been led to believe that she could gain results, Arbour reported without providing further details. She added that because of her busy schedule and the sensitive nature of her trip, she had not met with the press while in Tehran. ¶5. (C) Arbour spoke passionately about her meeting with the women activists, including Shirin Ebadi. The activists were mostly professional women, including a number of lawyers, and most were highly sophisticated. They did not need her to advocate their specific causes but rather to encourage the government to "expand their space" to pursue their work, Arbour argued. The activists had told her that, although they needed support from abroad, that support must be provided in ways that would not backfire on them. Financial and political support from many foreign governments, including the U.S., opened up the activists to attack by hard-liners, who would charge them with lack of patriotism. The same often applied to support from NGOs funded by or affiliated with those foreign governments. Arbour suggested that the USG consider providing support via international organizations, including her Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR). The Ambassador questioned whether this approach would significantly reduce the activists' vulnerability. Arbour conceded the problem would persist, but insisted it would be reduced. ¶6. (C) Asked about her meetings with Iranian government officials, Arbour said she had met with the Foreign Minister, DFM, the head of Iran's official human rights body, and some members of the judiciary. She made no mention of seeing President Ahmedinejad. (NOTE: The media provided photos of GENEVA 00002184 002.4 OF 003 Arbour sitting near Ahmedinejad at one event. END NOTE.) In her meetings, Arbour continued, she had found that the views of her official interlocutors were not monolithic. Some, particularly the mid-level judges with whom she had met, appeared open to international human rights standards. She intended to engage with those officials to the extent possible, including bringing them to Geneva to educate them on the importance of such standards. While making progress might be difficult, it was essential to work on all fronts where progress was possible, Arbour concluded. Amicus Brief -------------- ¶7. (C) The Ambassador expressed appreciation that Arbour had notified and shared with the Mission ahead of time the amicus brief she recently filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. He noted that because the matter involved pending litigation, it would not be appropriate to discuss it further at this time. Arbour said she had received consent to file from the Justice Department, which in itself constituted a form of USG notification. She had also notified the Mission, but did so only when the brief was fully completed albeit before its submission. She might have done so a bit earlier, Arbour said, to ensure the State Department had an even earlier heads-up. Sri Lanka -------------- ¶8. (C) Noting that Arbour planned to visit Sri Lanka in October, the Ambassador noted that the timing was important given the government's takeover of the East from the Tamil Tigers. He asked about her plans to travel to the East, expressed hope that she would do an assessment of needs there, and voiced support for expanding the OHCHR presence in Sri Lanka. ¶9. (C) Arbour said that while planning for the visit had not been as easy as she would have liked, she remained hopeful of going to Jaffna and meeting with the Tamil Tigers. The details of her trip were still under negotiation, but she had a huge list of issues to address, notably child soldiers. The Sri Lankan government was aware of her desire to expand the OHCHR office in Sri Lanka along the lines of what the OHCHR had developed in Colombia and Nepal. But while she hoped to have 20 to 30 people on the ground, Arbour reported, the government aimed to allow only a modest expansion to perhaps four people, and to steer her visit toward "human rights tourism." OHCHR Independence -------------- ¶10. (C) The Ambassador expressed concern at the vehemence with which the Africa Group and OIC were intervening in the Council to "clarify" the Council's relationship with OHCHR, and asked whether Arbour had sought a legal opinion from UN Headquarters. Dropping her head to the table with a visible sigh, Arbour said she was extremely worried by efforts to curtail her independence and that of her office. She stressed that by virtually all legal criteria, her office's independence was clear. Her budget came from New York and there was no basis for the Council to review it, in contrast, for instance, to the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, which is overseen by an executive board. Her only vulnerability resulted because some 60 percent of her funds came from extra-budgetary contributions, which could theoretically be subject to review by an executive board. Ironically, it was not the donors to OHCHR but rather the OIC, which made no such donations, who were pressing for an executive board and for greater Council review, Arbour said with obvious frustration. ¶11. (C) On her recent trip to Washington, Arbour said, she had repeatedly stressed her office's independence from the Council. The Council had been tasking her to do some things with which she was not comfortable, but most of what she did was beneficial to the cause of human rights. Noting that OHCHR Resource Mobilization Unit chief Charles Radcliffe would be in Washington shortly to seek additional funds for OHCHR, she said that getting more funds from the U.S. was essential to get other potential contributors to give more as well. ¶12. (C) While underscoring her support for Universal Periodic Review, Arbour expressed concern that that mechanism might paralyze her office by creating new requirements that would take away funds from her field operations. For this reason, she considered it important to create a dedicated UPR trust GENEVA 00002184 003.4 OF 003 fund in order to fence off her field operations. She concluded by stressing that as long as she served as High Commissioner, she would fight hard for the independence of her office, doing everything in her power to fend off attempts by the OIC and Africa Group to rein her in. TICHENOR