NORTH AMERICAN PARTNERS DISCUSS HUMAN RIGHTS

C O N F I D E N T I A L MEXICO 002947

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT PASS USOAS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/30/2017
TAGS: PHUM PREL UNHRC MX OAS HUMAN
SUBJECT: NORTH AMERICAN PARTNERS DISCUSS HUMAN RIGHTS
COUNCIL

REF: MEXICO 2886

Classified By: MCPA CHARLES V. BARCLAY, REASONS: 1.4(B/D).


1. (C) Summary: This is the second of two cables
summarizing trilateral talks on human rights cooperation with
Canada and Mexico held in Mexico City on May 29. This cable
focuses on issues relating to the UN system, with a
particular focus on those before the UN Human Rights Council
(HRC); reftel summarizes issues relating to the upcoming OAS
General Assembly. As detailed in reftel, the U.S. delegation
was headed by DRL DAS Erica Barks-Ruggles and included
representatives of IO, DRL and L bureaus, as well as Embassy
Mexico City.


2. (C) Summary continued: The talks covered a broad range
of subjects, including the draft Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (DRIP),women,s rights, the Durban review
process, the Community of Democracies, and issues relating to
the institutional development of the HRC. Although the U.S.
and Canada agreed on nearly all the issues raised, they both
found numerous points of disagreement with the Mexicans, most
significantly with respect to the DRIP and the
institution-building of the HRC. Notwithstanding these areas
of disagreement, all three delegations concurred that the
candid discussions were very useful. The delegations
tentatively agreed to meet again in early 2008 in Ottawa.
End Summary.

HRC Institution-Building: Consensus vs. Substance
-------------- --------------


3. (C) The Mexicans stressed their optimistic goal of
reaching consensus on as many institutional issues as
possible before their HRC presidency ends on June 18. The
Mexicans specifically want to see completed a Universal
Periodic Review mechanism (UPR),special procedures, and
reform of 1503. They are willing to put off the code of
conduct, and may let the agenda and working procedures slide,
as well as the advisory committee. Both the U.S. and Canada
strongly emphasized that in striving for consensus, the GOM
should not sacrifice substance or institutional quality.
Both stressed the need not to view the end of the Mexican HRC
presidency as what the Mexicans had called &an end game,8
as the HRC,s institutional development would inevitably
continue into subsequent presidencies. The GOC made clear it
would not vote for flawed procedures and that it would be
better to leave unresolved issues for the next presidency,
rather than to approve flawed procedures now, with the
expectation of fixing them later.

HRC Membership
--------------


4. (C) In discussing future HRC membership, all three
countries agreed the primary consideration should be a
country,s human rights record, as judged according to
objective criteria, and that regional &clean slates8 would
lead to the election of unqualified members and undermine the
HRC,s credibility. The Mexicans lamented that most regional
groups had not followed the agreed-upon instructions for
selecting candidates, proposing that in the future, the HRC
should hold a workshop explaining the credentials required of
those seeking membership. DAS Barks-Ruggles noted that
Belarus, candidacy presented an example of a country
seeking membership solely to block international scrutiny of
its human rights record. The Mexicans said they considered
U.S. membership vital to the success of the HRC and hoped
that a successful 2nd year of the HRC would convince the USG
to join in the future.

Funding for HRC vs. OHCHR
--------------


5. (C) Among the biggest points of contention between the
USG and GOC, on the one hand, and the GOM, on the other, was
the relationship between the HRC and the Office of the UN
High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The GOM opened
the discussion on HRC institution-building by complaining the
OHCHR had refused to provide all the financial and political
support requested by the HRC, which lacked adequate resources
of its own. Mexico argued that in 2005 the UNGA had doubled
the OHCHR budget in order to provide support to the HRC and
that such support was particularly necessary to carry out the

UPR process. Mexico also believed the OHCHR needed to
coordinate its work more closely with that of the HRC,
focusing much of its technical assistance on countries
identified by the HRC as having human rights problems.


6. (C) The USG and GOC both strongly rebutted Mexico,s
argument about OHCHR support for the HRC, noting that the
OHCHR budget had been doubled before the HRC,s creation.
DAS Barks-Ruggles explained that OHCHR,s budget had been
doubled to help that institution build its global field
presence, and its budget should not be seen as a &bank that
can be robbed by the HRC.8 If the HRC needed further
resources to carry out its mandate, it should approach the
Fifth Committee in New York, with a specific and well
justified request, as that is the appropriate venue. Both
the USG and GOC argued strongly that the OHCHR has a separate
mandate and that it was and should remain institutionally
independent of the HRC. Supporting the HRC is only one small
part of the OHCHR,s mandate. Canada argued that the HRC,s
fundamental problem was not a lack of resources but rather a
lack of political will amongst its members.

Universal Periodic Review
--------------


7. (C) Mexico,s vision of the role of UPR differed sharply
from that of Canada and the U.S. While the GOM saw UPR as
being the HRC,s key tool, and hoped to reach consensus about
its use at the June HRC session, the U.S. and Canada
reiterated that UPR was a process that will begin after the
HRC,s institution-building phase is completed, and that it
would inevitably be a work in progress, evolving over time.
In a private conversation on the sidelines of the talks, DAS
Barks-Ruggles and the Canadian delegation head laid down a
very hard marker to Mexican Ambassador Gomez Robledo that
even once agreement on UPR is reached, independent,
country-specific resolutions in both the HRC and the UNGA
Third Committee must be retained as an important tool in the
international community,s efforts to advance human rights.
Barks-Ruggles noted that while UPR had the possibility to
greatly change the HRC,s dynamic, it would do so only if it
were truly universal, treated all states equally, had results
that could be compared between countries and over time, and
included input from civil society.

Country Specific Resolutions
--------------


8. (C) Citing Cuba and Belarus as examples, DAS
Barks-Ruggles added the USG was &absolutely opposed8 to
retiring any of the country specific special procedures when
target countries had been uncooperative. She warned that the
two June sessions and the September session would set the
tone for future HRC sessions. She added the HRC had to prove
itself capable of clear follow-up on Sudan and begin
addressing the situations in such recalcitrant countries as
Burma, Zimbabwe, and the DPRK, in order to establish its
credibility.


9. (C) Mexico expressed doubt as to the effectiveness of
condemnatory resolutions, arguing that in closed societies
such as Burma, the population never learned of such
resolutions. DAS Barks-Ruggles rebutted the Mexican
argument, noting that news of a recent UNSC resolution on
Burma had reached detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi
within 48 hours of its passage, and that Belarusian
opposition leaders had quickly learned of resolutions against
their country. She argued that the international community
had a moral obligation to stand up for universal rights and
defend the victims of oppression.


10. (C) The Canadians argued that while country-specific
resolutions must be maintained, they should be used
sparingly. Nevertheless, country-specific resolutions must
not be relinquished in the hope that the as-yet undetermined
UPR process might one day take their place. They agreed with
the U.S. that the UPR will take time to evolve and that until
the HRC proves itself, both UNGA Third Committee resolutions
and further HRC country specific resolutions would remain
vital tools.

Country Specific Mandates
--------------


11. (C) The U.S. said it could not accept the elimination of
country-specific mandates at the HRC and that it also could
not accept &horse trading8 to eliminate some mandates while
preserving others. The U.S. further noted the high
likelihood of the loss of other mandates in the future after
the loss of even one mandate, as opponents such as Cuba and
Belarus would be emboldened to sharpen their attack on
mandates. While the GOC publicly agreed, in a U.S.-Canada
breakfast meeting prior to the formal talks, the Canadians
opined that the Cuba mandate stood little chance of renewal.
Canada is still debating on whether to call for a vote on the
Belarus mandate and appears to be balancing the support it
believes is coalescing for keeping the mandate with the fear
of exposing other mandates to a vote as well.

Permanent Agenda Items
--------------


12. (C) The U.S. and Canada took similar positions on the
issue of permanent agenda items, with both laying down a hard
marker that they could not accept a permanent agenda item on
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) or the
right to development (RTD),and insisting that a broad
&country issues8 type item could encompass OPT as well as
other country-specific issues. The Mexicans stated that
while they understood the U.S. and Canadian concerns, the
inclusion of an agenda item on Israel and the OPT reflected
&political realities8. The Canadians noted that if one
country,s pet issues were put on the agenda, such as OPT and
RTD, other issues -- as examples, they cited women's rights
and indigenous rights -- would need to be added to balance
the agenda.

1503 Procedures
--------------


13. (C) The Canadians expressed serious concern that the
1503 procedure was losing relevance, citing the loss of the
confidential Iran procedure. The Mexicans did not agree,

SIPDIS
saying they saw it, along with the UPR and countries,
internal legislation, as being one of the three key tools for
protecting human rights.

Election or Selection of Expert Advisors
--------------


14. (C) While all three countries agreed that experts,
selection should be depoliticized as much as possible, DAS
Barks-Ruggles pointed out that in crafting an acceptable
selection process, &the devil would be in the details,8 and
that considerable thought needed to go into this process.
The process must ensure that those selected truly are
experts, a point with which the Mexicans agreed. The U.S.
and Canada both emphasized that expert advisors should be
selected ) not elected ) in order to depoliticize the
process. The Canadians proposed that states and
stake-holders could present a list of qualified candidates
for advisor positions, with the HRC President choosing from
among this list of qualified candidates. They noted that
member states should not have the ability to filter out
candidates they deemed undesirable; candidates from any state
should be eligible for consideration, as long as they were
truly experts.


15. (C) The Mexicans agreed the process should be
depoliticized as much as possible, and that candidates should
in fact have substantive expertise. Nevertheless, the
Mexicans preferred that experts be elected by a simple
majority of HRC members from the slates of qualified
candidates, rather than selected.


16. (C) The three delegations agreed that the selection of
Special Rapporteurs should continue by the High Commissioner
and not be subjected to elections. All agreed that a
potential roster could be maintained of qualified and
independent experts for her to choose from. This contrasted
with opinion on independent experts for the expert advice
body, where Mexico was willing to allow elections. Canada
noted that elections would politicize the issues, but Mexico
thought that elections for the expert,s body would not be
harmful. DAS Barks-Ruggles emphasized that decisions on these
issues should not be rushed and could be reached after the
June HRC session.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
-------------- --------------


17. (C) The U.S. and Canada, on the one hand, and Mexico, on
the other, disagreed significantly with respect to the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP). As
discussed in detail reftel with respect to the draft OAS
DRIP, the GOM strongly supported the passage as is ) with
only a &covering resolution8 clarifying certain points in
the UN DRIP, notwithstanding its admitted flaws. The GOM
argued that given the large size and increased political
engagement of its indigenous population, it was under
considerable internal political pressure to support the DRIP.
The Mexicans said that 68 countries had signed a letter to
the UNGA President urging that the DRIP be approved as
drafted by the HRC and that specific concerns over its
content be addressed in the text of the UNGA resolution by
which the DRIP would be approved. (Note: The delegation and
subsequently the Embassy have repeatedly requested a copy of
the letter from the GOM, which has not yet provided it. End
note.)


18. (C) Both the U.S. and Canada laid down a hard marker
that problematic portions of the DRIP text had to be changed
before their two governments would be able to consider
support. Canada stressed that simply including
clarifications in the UNGA resolution approving the DRIP
would be absolutely unacceptable. Canada noted that the
DRIP, although not legally enforceable, had serious domestic
legal implications for it, which is why they could not
overlook potential problems in its text. The Canadians
asserted that while they supported the principle of a
declaration on indigenous rights, the GOC would only vote in
favor of the DRIP if the final text was amended and broadly
accepted. The Canadians specified six issues in the current
text about which they had particularly strong concerns,
including the issues of land ownership, free and informed
consent, intellectual property rights, self government, third
party rights, and military issues.


19. (C) DAS Barks-Ruggles firmly stressed the DRIP should
not/not permit exceptions on a regional or national basis, as
some African states were advocating, as such exceptions would
undermine the instrument,s impact. She noted the USG was
particularly concerned about how the DRIP dealt with such
issues as the right of self-determination of indigenous
peoples, restitution, reparations, and the possible creation
of a new set of rights not recognized under international
law. The U.S. delegation noted that the text as it stood was
not implementable and contradicts some existing U.S.
regulations and laws. The U.S. and Canada also expressed
concern about the inevitable inconsistencies between the DRIP
and the OAS declaration, which were being negotiated
simultaneously but separately. The Mexicans observed that
the current effort - asking the UNGA to consider revising an
instrument that had already been approved by the HRC ) is
unprecedented and expressed a strong preference for not
amending a UNHRC-passed text.

Women,s Rights
--------------


20. (C) The Mexicans highlighted some of their recent
domestic gender equality initiatives, including legislation
dealing with domestic violence and gender equality. They
said these laws reflected GOM efforts to bring national
legislation in compliance with Mexico,s international
commitments. The GOM strongly supports international
mechanisms designed to strengthen women,s rights and agrees
with the UNSYG,s proposal for a new UN &architecture8 to
deal with gender issues. At this fall,s UNGA, they plan to
submit a resolution on discrimination faced by rural women,
to give the problem greater visibility.


21. (C) The Canadians said they, too, supported a new
institutional architecture to deal with women,s rights at
the UN, including the creation of an A/SYG position to direct
these efforts. They were adamant that instruments supporting
women,s rights should not be subject to a cultural
specificity clause. The U.S. delegation expressed support
for the GOM and GOC positions, adding that two additional
topics that needed to be addressed internationally were the
issues of honor crimes and violence against women committed
by UN peacekeepers. The Mexicans referred to a

recommendation from the CEDAW committee following Mexico,s
recent periodic report to the committee about the need to
generate equality of opportunities for women within NAFTA.
Mexico said it would welcome information from the U.S. and
Canada about any programs undertaken to advance economic
opportunities for women in their NAFTA implementation
efforts.

Community of Democracies
--------------


22. (C) With respect to the Community of Democracies (CD),
the GOM expressed three areas of concern. First, the
Mexicans were concerned about the process for reviewing
invitations, as they were concerned about &redoing this
effort8 every time the CD meets. Second, they were
concerned that Mali had made declarations about HRC elections
in May without consulting all CD Convening Group members, a
tactic they did not want to see repeated. Finally, they
disagreed with the proposal to create a CD secretariat, which
they thought would only bureaucratize the CD and which
conflicted with the Calderon administration's emphasis on
austerity. DAS Barks-Ruggles responded that the trilateral
mechanism did not offer an appropriate mechanism in which to
discuss CD invitations, since Canada was not a CD Convening
Group member. She said that while the USG did not want to
see the CD become bureaucratic, it supported the creation of
a very small secretariat, which would help those CD members
like Mali which had small foreign ministries to better
support CD coordination and activities.

Human Rights and Terrorism
--------------


23. (C) DAS Barks-Ruggles said the USG was concerned that
some governments, such as Russia, were using the fight
against terrorism as a pretext for restricting human rights
and personal freedoms. Likewise, the HRC resolution dealing
with defamation of religion had been twisted by some
governments, including Egypt and Libya, into an excuse for
restricting freedom of religion and expression. (Note: The
Canadians pointedly added that some countries might see the
USG,s War on Terrorism as providing political cover enabling
them to restrict or violate human rights. End Note.)

Durban Follow-up
--------------


24. (C) DAS Barks-Ruggles expressed USG concern over the
potential politicization of the Durban review conference in
Geneva. She added that the review conference should stay
focused on racism and practical measures to address it, and
should not branch out into further declarations or
discussions of new and unrelated topics such as defamation of
religion, as some countries were urging. She said while the
USG would support efforts to move forward on practical steps
to combat racism, it could not support the Durban review
conference as it was currently formulated. She urged the GOM
to serve as a bridge to such developing countries as India
and South Africa, which could help steer the conference in a
more productive direction. The Mexicans were non-committal
about the Durban review conference, noting that fighting
discrimination was a domestic priority and that international
instruments often facilitated domestic action.


25. (U) DAS Barks-Ruggles has reviewed this cable.


Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity and the North American
Partnership Blog at http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap /
BASSETT