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