Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07USUNNEWYORK1010
2007-11-13 17:34:00
UNCLASSIFIED
USUN New York
Cable title:
UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY: REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS
how-toVZCZCXRO5084 PP RUEHAT DE RUCNDT #1010/01 3171734 ZNR UUUUU ZZH P 131734Z NOV 07 FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3078 INFO RUEHZJ/HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV PRIORITY 1678 RUEHUB/USINT HAVANA PRIORITY 0226
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 001010
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM UNGA
SUBJECT: UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY: REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS
COUNCIL
REF: STATE 128329
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 001010
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM UNGA
SUBJECT: UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY: REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS
COUNCIL
REF: STATE 128329
1. SUMMARY: On Nov. 5-6, UNGA's Third Committee addressed the
Human Rights Council's Report and particularly its
institution-building package. In introducing the Report, HRC
president Costea (Romania) argued that the Council had made
progress, faces major challenges, and should only be judged
once it has begun fully functioning. General discussion
centered on the institution-building package, which many
countries praised while some highlighted its shortcomings;
the U.S. statement highlighted our serious concerns about the
Council, while Israel gave an impassioned criticism of that
body and of the UN more broadly. Debate also centered on
country-specific mandates and on the relationship between the
Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights. END SUMMARY
--------------
The Institution-Building Package
--------------
2. The UNGA Third Committee focused Nov. 5-6 on the Report of
the Human Rights Council, including its controversial
institution-building package. In his introduction of the
Report, Council President Doru Costea argued that the council
had made some achievements, including by focusing on a wide
range of human rights issues (examples cited were primarily
thematic). He noted the challenges ahead, including breaking
away from the mindset of the Council's predecessor body, the
Commission on Human Rights, and posited that the Council
should not be judged until it has begun fully functioning.
3. Many countries (Portugal, Cuba, Colombia, Republic of
Korea, China, Russia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Ukraine, Brazil,
Argentina, Japan, Poland, the Netherlands, Iran, Egypt) urged
the Committee to adopt the institution-building package by
consensus, without reopening it. Several of those countries
(Portugal, UK, Canada and the Netherlands) also criticized
the Council for its selective approach and an excessive focus
on Israel. Some (UK, Poland and the Netherlands) also
criticized the package for having eliminated special mandates
on Belarus and Cuba. The U.S. statement (discussed in
greater detail in para 9) also included these criticisms.
Canada, in addition to criticizing the Council's unbalanced
approach, noted its objection to the manner in which the
package had been pushed through the Council. In an
impassioned statement, Israel sharply criticized the Council,
noting that an entire agenda item (Item 7) was devoted
exclusively to the "Occupied Palestinian Territories" while
all other human rights situations throughout the world were
to be addressed within a single agenda item (Item 4). Israel
announced it would call for a vote on the package.
Responding, Palestine argued that the situation in the
Occupied Territories is unique and must have its own agenda
item.
--------------
Allocation of the HRC Report
--------------
4. On Nov. 2 the UNGA General Committee had decided without a
vote to recommend to the UNGA plenary that, "for its 62d
session" (i.e., the current one),the HRC report be allocated
for discussion to the Third Committee. Egypt, Sudan, DRC,
Gambia, Jamaica, and the USA (per instructions in reftel) had
supported this decision. Uruguay, the UK, Finland, Iceland
and Cyprus, who wanted the report allocated directly to the
UNGA plenary, had said the decision should state explicitly
that it constituted no precedent for future UNGA sessions.
On Nov. 5 the UNGA plenary adopted without a vote the General
Committee's allocation decision. Liechtenstein, New Zealand,
Switzerland and Mexico spoke up, saying the report should
have been allocated to the plenary and the decision
constituted no precedent for next year's 63d UNGA session.
Egypt, however, spoke in support of the General Committee's
decision.
5. During the Nov. 5-6 debate in the Third Committee, some
countries reiterated their positions on the allocation
question. Colombia, Sudan, Malaysia, Bangladesh, India and
Indonesia all expressed their support for the General
Committee's decision to send the report to the Third
Committee. Others, including Switzerland, Portugal on behalf
of the EU, Chile, New Zealand, the UK and the Netherlands
argued that the report should have been sent directly to the
General Assembly plenary or to both the plenary and the Third
Committee. Brazil, speaking also for Argentina, stated that
it did not consider this year's decision by the General
Committee to have set a precedent.
USUN NEW Y 00001010 002 OF 002
--------------
Country-Specific Resolutions and Mandates
--------------
6. Many statements during the Nov. 5-6 debate echoed prior
discussions in the Council over whether to preserve
country-specific resolutions and mandates. Burma and Egypt
argued against country-specific resolutions, calling instead
for addressing these issues through the new Universal
Periodic Review (UPR),which is to review all UN member
states' human rights behavior under the Council's auspices.
7. South Africa also called for the termination of country
mandates, arguing they do not enhance human rights on the
ground. Malaysia and Iran called for the special mandates to
focus on thematic, rather than country-specific issues. The
DRC argued that the special mandate holders criticize without
providing specific recommendations for action and it
suggested in strong terms its dissatisfaction with the
mandate on the DRC. China stated that it could not
overemphasize the need for caution when proposing
country-specific resolutions.
8. France stressed the importance of the special procedures
and stated that the mandate of the Council cannot be
fulfilled through a thematic approach alone. Portugal argued
that the HRC must address specific situations and that the
UPR is a complement to, not a substitute for, other
mechanisms of the HRC, and called for expansion of the
special procedures. Chile agreed, noting that special
procedures and country-specific resolutions saved lives in
Chile in the 1970s.
9. Cuba called the elimination of the special procedure on
Cuba "a homage to the long resistance and the tireless fight
of the Cuban people for their independence and is one less
pretext for the continuation of the policy of hostility,
genocidal blockade and aggressions against the Cuban people."
Belarus stated (incorrectly) that in the HRC a minimum number
of co-sponsors are required for country-specific resolutions
and called for a similar requirement in the Third Committee.
--------------
The Role of the OHCHR
--------------
10. Egypt and Syria commented on the role of the Office of
the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Egypt stated
that all attempts by the HCHR to supersede the mandate of the
HRC and the Third Committee should be confronted. Syria
argued that the OHCHR should be supervised by the HRC.
--------------
U.S. Statement
--------------
11. The U.S. delegate outlined concerns regarding the HRC,
including its relentless focus on Israel, the elimination of
the Special Mandates on Cuba and Belarus, and the Council's
ability to respond to emerging human rights violations. The
United States also noted that while the UPR could be a useful
tool, it should not replace country-specific actions or
mandates. (The full text of the U.S. statement is available
at: www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press releases
/20071106 292.html.)
--------------
Cuba's Reply to the U.S. Statement
--------------
12. (U) In a right of reply to the U.S. statement, Cuba
argued that the United States opposes the HRC to avoid
addressing U.S. human rights problems. Cuba alleged that the
United States does not wish to stand up to the international
scrutiny required when applying for membership in the
Council. The Cuban delegate argued that Israel is serving
U.S. interests. He also criticized those countries who
expressed regret that the special procedure on Cuba was
terminated, stating that they are the same countries that
detain individuals in secret CIA-run prisons and oppose draft
resolutions on secret prisons, enforced disappearances and
torture in Guantanamo. He accused the United States of
harboring terrorists and claimed the United States seeks to
re-conquer Cuba by force.
13. (U) The HRC report can be found at www.un.org/ga/third/
62/docslist.shtml.
Khalilzad
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM UNGA
SUBJECT: UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY: REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS
COUNCIL
REF: STATE 128329
1. SUMMARY: On Nov. 5-6, UNGA's Third Committee addressed the
Human Rights Council's Report and particularly its
institution-building package. In introducing the Report, HRC
president Costea (Romania) argued that the Council had made
progress, faces major challenges, and should only be judged
once it has begun fully functioning. General discussion
centered on the institution-building package, which many
countries praised while some highlighted its shortcomings;
the U.S. statement highlighted our serious concerns about the
Council, while Israel gave an impassioned criticism of that
body and of the UN more broadly. Debate also centered on
country-specific mandates and on the relationship between the
Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights. END SUMMARY
--------------
The Institution-Building Package
--------------
2. The UNGA Third Committee focused Nov. 5-6 on the Report of
the Human Rights Council, including its controversial
institution-building package. In his introduction of the
Report, Council President Doru Costea argued that the council
had made some achievements, including by focusing on a wide
range of human rights issues (examples cited were primarily
thematic). He noted the challenges ahead, including breaking
away from the mindset of the Council's predecessor body, the
Commission on Human Rights, and posited that the Council
should not be judged until it has begun fully functioning.
3. Many countries (Portugal, Cuba, Colombia, Republic of
Korea, China, Russia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Ukraine, Brazil,
Argentina, Japan, Poland, the Netherlands, Iran, Egypt) urged
the Committee to adopt the institution-building package by
consensus, without reopening it. Several of those countries
(Portugal, UK, Canada and the Netherlands) also criticized
the Council for its selective approach and an excessive focus
on Israel. Some (UK, Poland and the Netherlands) also
criticized the package for having eliminated special mandates
on Belarus and Cuba. The U.S. statement (discussed in
greater detail in para 9) also included these criticisms.
Canada, in addition to criticizing the Council's unbalanced
approach, noted its objection to the manner in which the
package had been pushed through the Council. In an
impassioned statement, Israel sharply criticized the Council,
noting that an entire agenda item (Item 7) was devoted
exclusively to the "Occupied Palestinian Territories" while
all other human rights situations throughout the world were
to be addressed within a single agenda item (Item 4). Israel
announced it would call for a vote on the package.
Responding, Palestine argued that the situation in the
Occupied Territories is unique and must have its own agenda
item.
--------------
Allocation of the HRC Report
--------------
4. On Nov. 2 the UNGA General Committee had decided without a
vote to recommend to the UNGA plenary that, "for its 62d
session" (i.e., the current one),the HRC report be allocated
for discussion to the Third Committee. Egypt, Sudan, DRC,
Gambia, Jamaica, and the USA (per instructions in reftel) had
supported this decision. Uruguay, the UK, Finland, Iceland
and Cyprus, who wanted the report allocated directly to the
UNGA plenary, had said the decision should state explicitly
that it constituted no precedent for future UNGA sessions.
On Nov. 5 the UNGA plenary adopted without a vote the General
Committee's allocation decision. Liechtenstein, New Zealand,
Switzerland and Mexico spoke up, saying the report should
have been allocated to the plenary and the decision
constituted no precedent for next year's 63d UNGA session.
Egypt, however, spoke in support of the General Committee's
decision.
5. During the Nov. 5-6 debate in the Third Committee, some
countries reiterated their positions on the allocation
question. Colombia, Sudan, Malaysia, Bangladesh, India and
Indonesia all expressed their support for the General
Committee's decision to send the report to the Third
Committee. Others, including Switzerland, Portugal on behalf
of the EU, Chile, New Zealand, the UK and the Netherlands
argued that the report should have been sent directly to the
General Assembly plenary or to both the plenary and the Third
Committee. Brazil, speaking also for Argentina, stated that
it did not consider this year's decision by the General
Committee to have set a precedent.
USUN NEW Y 00001010 002 OF 002
--------------
Country-Specific Resolutions and Mandates
--------------
6. Many statements during the Nov. 5-6 debate echoed prior
discussions in the Council over whether to preserve
country-specific resolutions and mandates. Burma and Egypt
argued against country-specific resolutions, calling instead
for addressing these issues through the new Universal
Periodic Review (UPR),which is to review all UN member
states' human rights behavior under the Council's auspices.
7. South Africa also called for the termination of country
mandates, arguing they do not enhance human rights on the
ground. Malaysia and Iran called for the special mandates to
focus on thematic, rather than country-specific issues. The
DRC argued that the special mandate holders criticize without
providing specific recommendations for action and it
suggested in strong terms its dissatisfaction with the
mandate on the DRC. China stated that it could not
overemphasize the need for caution when proposing
country-specific resolutions.
8. France stressed the importance of the special procedures
and stated that the mandate of the Council cannot be
fulfilled through a thematic approach alone. Portugal argued
that the HRC must address specific situations and that the
UPR is a complement to, not a substitute for, other
mechanisms of the HRC, and called for expansion of the
special procedures. Chile agreed, noting that special
procedures and country-specific resolutions saved lives in
Chile in the 1970s.
9. Cuba called the elimination of the special procedure on
Cuba "a homage to the long resistance and the tireless fight
of the Cuban people for their independence and is one less
pretext for the continuation of the policy of hostility,
genocidal blockade and aggressions against the Cuban people."
Belarus stated (incorrectly) that in the HRC a minimum number
of co-sponsors are required for country-specific resolutions
and called for a similar requirement in the Third Committee.
--------------
The Role of the OHCHR
--------------
10. Egypt and Syria commented on the role of the Office of
the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Egypt stated
that all attempts by the HCHR to supersede the mandate of the
HRC and the Third Committee should be confronted. Syria
argued that the OHCHR should be supervised by the HRC.
--------------
U.S. Statement
--------------
11. The U.S. delegate outlined concerns regarding the HRC,
including its relentless focus on Israel, the elimination of
the Special Mandates on Cuba and Belarus, and the Council's
ability to respond to emerging human rights violations. The
United States also noted that while the UPR could be a useful
tool, it should not replace country-specific actions or
mandates. (The full text of the U.S. statement is available
at: www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press releases
/20071106 292.html.)
--------------
Cuba's Reply to the U.S. Statement
--------------
12. (U) In a right of reply to the U.S. statement, Cuba
argued that the United States opposes the HRC to avoid
addressing U.S. human rights problems. Cuba alleged that the
United States does not wish to stand up to the international
scrutiny required when applying for membership in the
Council. The Cuban delegate argued that Israel is serving
U.S. interests. He also criticized those countries who
expressed regret that the special procedure on Cuba was
terminated, stating that they are the same countries that
detain individuals in secret CIA-run prisons and oppose draft
resolutions on secret prisons, enforced disappearances and
torture in Guantanamo. He accused the United States of
harboring terrorists and claimed the United States seeks to
re-conquer Cuba by force.
13. (U) The HRC report can be found at www.un.org/ga/third/
62/docslist.shtml.
Khalilzad