HUMAN RIGHTS CONSULTATIONS WITH THE EU

C O N F I D E N T I A L USEU BRUSSELS 003178 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/16/2017 TAGS: PHUM EUN SUBJECT: HUMAN RIGHTS CONSULTATIONS WITH THE EU Classified By: Deputy Political Minister Counselor Alyce Tidball for re asons 1.4 (b) and (d) 1.(C) Summary: IO DAS Singh and DRL DAS Barks-Ruggles met with EU representatives for the semi-annual COHOM Troika September 19 and discussed priorities and strategies for the upcoming Third Committee meeting of the UNGA and cooperation in other international human rights fora. Additonal topics included the Human Rights Council with a look at its future and ongoing EU human rights consultations and dialogues. End Summary. 2.(C) Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organizations Manisha Singh and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Erica Barks-Ruggles, accompanied by Deputy Political Minister Counselor Alyce Tidball and PolOff (note taker),met with representatives of the Portuguese EU presidency Susana Vaz Patto, Head of the Human Rights Desk, Ana Brito Maneira, Human Rights Desk Officer, and Francisca Baptista Da Silva, Human Rights Desk Officer. The incoming presidency was represented by Smiljana Knez, Head of the Human Rights Unit, Slovenian MFA, and Nja-Marija Ciraj, Human Rights Desk Officer, Slovenian Rights Desk Officer. Special Representative to High Representative Solana Riina Kionka, and Human Rights desk officer Claudia Gintersdorfer represented the Council Secretariat. Human Rights and democratization officer represented the European Commission, Rolf Timans, Head of the Human Rights and Democratization Unit at the Commission, was scheduled to attend, but due to a scheduling conflict was able to join the Troika only during the working lunch. International Cooperation on Human Rights 3.(C) The US Delegation described how deeply disappointing the U.S. found the first year of the HRC, on both a procedural and substantive level. In response to its failings, the U.S. is looking at other international organizations and multilateral fora to advance human rights, including the UN General Assembly Third Committee, the Organization of American States, the African Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Community of Democracies, and the Broader Middle East and North Africa/Forum for the Future. The U.S. will also continue to support the important field work of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 4.(C) Vaz Patto responded by mentioning activities planned during the Portuguese presidency for each of the five EU guidelines on human rights: the death penalty, torture and other cruel and inhuman punishment, children and armed conflict, human rights defenders, and the promotion of children's rights. The EU, she said, is revising its guidelines regarding torture, and looking for ways to respond faster to individual cases. She listed 13 countries where the EU was working to protect children in situations of armed conflict. She noted that this December, Lisbon would host a human rights forum focused on individuals who defend economic, social and cultural rights. Lastly, she said that the EU was developing an integrated approach of defending children's rights, including demarches to promote effective follow-up of decisions taken by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. 5.(C) When discussing coordination of Human Rights policy, Vaz Patto acknowledged that internal discussions among EU Member States have focused on how to engage in better outreach. The Portuguese intend to adopt the British model of frequent informal meetings with the JUSCANZ members and other like-minded states, a move that was appreciated by the U.S. UNGA Third Committee Priorities ¶6. (C) BURMA: EU will introduce resolution. The U.S. supported this decision, given not only the oppression of the regime but the failure of UN Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari to make any progress. DAS Singh urged that in addition to the resolution, they think about other means to effect positive change in Burma, and that measures in the human rights arena not be used as an excuse by other countries to preclude action by the UN Security Council. The EU said it would have a draft of the resolution to the U.S. before the start of the UNGA Thrid Committee and would seek U.S. co sponsorship. U.S. noted that previous Burma-focused resolutions had defeated no-action motions in the past by healthy margins. ¶7. (C) IRAN: Canada undecided on resolution. The EU said because of Canadian change of government, Canadian ministers had not yet decided whether they will introduce a resolution on Iran. Vaz Patto noted that the EU delivered more statements and demarches on human rights cases than any other state. (NOTE: Canada has subsequently affirmed that they will run their Iran resolution at UNGA Third Committee.) ¶8. (C) CUBA: U.S. undecided: EU warns of potential consequences. DAS Singh and Barks-Ruggles asked for input from the Europeans on how to handle the issue of a Cuba resolution this year. On the one hand, with the loss of the special rapporteur for Cuba in the HRC, the HR community has lost a tool to address abuses in Cuba. In addition, it is likely that Cuba will run its annual UNGA Third Committee resolution condemning the U.S. embargo. On the other hand, it would be politically damaging to the U.S. to introduce a resolution and have it fail. Vaz Patto said she understood the U.S. difficult position, noted that the EU had not been able to come to a consensus on whether to support a Cuba resolution, and agreed with our assessment that it would be extremely difficult to get a resolution passed. She also warned of the potential damage to the WEOG group and to the standing of the Third Committee if multiple resolutions divided the group, especially country specific resolutions. Rather than addressing Cuba directly, Vaz Patto suggested the U.S. use thematic resolutions, public statements and other tools to condemn Cuba's abuses. DAS Barks-Ruggles said she could not see how the EU could vote for the embargo resolution if there were no UN actions condemning Cuba; Vaz Patto agreed to raise the issue with member states. Kionka cautioned that the opportunity cost of the U.S. introducing a resolution on Cuba would almost certainly be to inspire Cuba to introduce a counter resolution on Guantanamo on which the EU would be deeply divided. (Note: A decision has been reached that we are not going to run a Cuba resolution, but instead will be pursuing an alternate Cuba strategy which is currently being developed.) ¶9. (C) BELARUS: US asks EU to Co-table and Cosponsor Resolution DAS Barks-Ruggles asked for the EU opinion on a Belarus resolution. Vaz Patto restated the Presidency's view, previously communicated to DAS Barks-Ruggles and Singh in their visits to Lisbon, that the EU could support a country resolution on Belarus if it does not call for reinstatement of the special rapporteur. DAS Barks-Ruggles said that she and DAS Singh had taken that information back to Washington with them and presented the EU a draft resolution that met their requirements. She asked that the presidency present this resolution to EU Member States as quickly as possible, and asked the EU both to co-table and to cosponsor the resolution. Vaz Patto appreciated their efforts and said she would do as quickly as possible. ¶10. (C) UZBEKISTAN: US Seeks EU Input. The U.S. has a new Ambassador in Tashkent who is attempting to make progress on the human rights front and reform the relationship. The U.S. noted that the situation in Uzbekistan has deteriorated over the last year, especially regarding election reform. The U.S. sought EU input on whether to run a Third Committee resolution. Vaz Patto responded that the EU will discuss sanctions against Uzbekistan in October and November, saying the issue required a great deal of reflection. The U.S. and the EU must honestly consider the chances of succeeding, and what the cost will be of losing on such a motion. DAS Barks-Ruggles agreed that if an Uzbekistan resolution is run, it must be won, but that if fear of failure prevents the EU and U.S. from tabling a motion, that also sends the wrong message to Tashkent and the world, and encourages the use of no-action motions. Thematic Resolutions ¶11. (C) Rape as an Instrument of State Policy: DAS Singh asked for EU support for a new U.S. resolution on rape, indicating that this practice has historically been used and is currently being used in various parts of the world to target ethnic minorities. She stated that this violation of human rights is particularly egregious due to the fact that it is government sanctioned. She also asked for the EU's assistance in preventing the addition of language which is often attracted by resolutions on gender issues that the U.S. cannot support. It would be unfortunate if such language was added and the U.S. was unable to support this important resolution moving forward. Vaz Patto said she would pass the draft U.S. resolution on to the member states, and would respond to the U.S. request for co-sponsorship as quickly as possible. Timans pointed out that rebel groups also use rape in areas of conflict, and suggested that wording should reflect that this too is unacceptable. ¶12. (C) Death Penalty: Since opposition to the death penalty is a long standing EU priority, they will again introduce a resolution calling for its abolition. Vaz Patto said the EU will run a death penalty resolution at UNGA Third Committee which will include a call for a moratorium and abolition of the death penalty. DAS Barks-Ruggles responded to the request to abolish the death penalty by asserting that the U.S. meets or exceeds all international standards of protection for the accused. She added that if the EU had to sponsor another death penalty resolution at the UNGA, she hoped it would focus on ending abuses of the death penalty rather than calling for a moratorium and its eventual abolition. Vaz Patto said the EU would not lump the U.S. and Iran in the same basket, but that statements by the European Parliament and conclusions by the European Council obliged them to submit the resolution. There were requests from the presidency, the commission and the council for the U.S. not to call for a no-action vote or to lobby vigorously against this resolution. The U.S. delegation said it would be better for the EU, the transatlantic relationship and the international community if the EU would instead offer a resolution attacking abuses of capital punishment instead of all uses of the death penalty. DAS Barks-Ruggles defended US policy on capital punishment, including the procedures to protect the rights of the accused and the automatic appeals process. She also pointed out its infrequent use at the national level, and the constitutional issues that arise if the federal government were to prohibit states from applying it. ¶13. (C) Rights of the Child: EU will reintroduce omnibus resolution, drawing on the recent UN study regarding violence against children, in consultation with the Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC). Vaz Patto said she understood U.S. objection with the legal frameworks established by this bill. ¶14. (C) UN Elections: DAS Singh asked the EU to make sure this resolution was on their calendar. It has always passed with little or no opposition, and the U.S. again hopes for EU support. ¶15. (C) Religious Intolerance: The U.S. asked whether the EU would run this in Third Committee or only at the HRC. Vaz Patto said no decision has been made, but it was likely that if the resolution failed in the Human Rights Council, the EU would introduce it at Third Committee. Timans, noting that countries that support HR have begun using the Third committee as a sort of appeals body for the HRC, wonders how long it will be until HR abusers start doing the same thing. Human Rights Council - Level of US involvement, Reporting Structure ¶16. (C) Kionka noted that the U.S. has not taken the floor yet during this session, and asked if we had withdrawn completely from the body. DAS Singh acknowledged that we had lowered our profile, but that we are not withdrawing, and we remain committed to engagement on human rights in the multilateral context. All parties present for the EU encouraged the U.S. to get more, not less involved, stating that the EU and U.S. need to work together to make this body function. DAS Barks-Ruggles said that the U.S. and EU needed better cooperation. U.S. stressed the importance of the HRC reporting to the Third Committee as a matter of precedent and structural integrity for UN system, not to the UNGA plenary. While the EU did not seem to have a strong policy on this, Vaz Patto stressed their need to avoid opening up the institution building package again. DAS Barks-Ruggles stressed the U.S. need to ensure the critical examination by experts of the processes and products of the HRC, which will not happen at the plenary session. Regarding current activity at the HRC, the EU noted problems in particular in working with the South African delegation on religious intolerance, and delaying tactics employed by the Sri Lankans. Vaz Patto termed the current session a mess, and the U.S. agreed. Consultations and Dialogues ¶17. (C) CANADA: The U.S. said it is unclear how or if Canada will express its displeasure with the procedures and content of the HRC; EU again discouraged any move that would reopen the HRC package at UNGA. Canada is positively considering running its resolutions on Iran. ¶18. (C) RUSSIA: The EU described their May HR Dialogue in Berlin as friendly but unproductive. When the EU confronted them with Human Rights abuses, the Russian Delegation either flatly denied or tried to excuse their behavior. The EU stated that in particular they were concerned with the lack of freedom of expression and assembly, with barriers to election monitoring and with the situation in Chechnya. ¶19. (C) CHINA: The last Human Rights dialogue with the PRC took place in Berlin during the summer, and the next is scheduled to take place in Beijing. On the positive side, Timans said the Chinese delegation was prepared to substantively discuss some issues of human rights, criminal procedures and capital punishment. However, the EU was sharply rebuffed when it brought up Tibet, and China refused to participate in a seminar with EU, China and NGO participation because they objected to the participation of two human rights organizations. Further discussion on China and human rights took place separately as part of the Bern process on September 20th. Human Rights and Counter Terrorism ¶20. (C) The EU says they value the dialogue with Legal Adviser Bellinger on these issues. Kionka asked a series of questions regarding a recent executive order on counter terrorism, which the U.S. delegation agreed to pass on to DOS legal department. Other Business ¶21. (C) Committee Against Torture: The U.S. asked for the EU's support for Felice Gaer's reelection to the UN Committee against Torture. They agreed to look closely at her candidature. (Note: Felice Gaer won re-election on October 8). ¶22. (C) UNDEF: The U.S. encouraged all EU member states to contribute or increase their contributions to the UN Democracy Fund. They were specifically challenged to meet India's ten million dollar pledge. ¶23. (C) Detainees in Iraq: King asked for information regarding a detained Iraqi Turkmen named Yashir Mahmoud and the DASes agreed to look into the issue when they returned to DC. ¶24. (U) DAS Barks-Ruggles and Manisha Singh have both cleared this cable. .