UNGA THIRD COMMITTEE TAKES ACTION ON THE HUMAN

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 001112

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: UNGA PHUM
SUBJECT: UNGA THIRD COMMITTEE TAKES ACTION ON THE HUMAN
RIGHTS COUNCIL REPORT

REF: USUN NEW YORK 01010

USUN NEW Y 00001112 001.2 OF 002



1. (U) Summary: On Nov. 16 the Third Committee of the UN
General Assembly adopted by a vote of 165-7(U.S.)-3 a
resolution containing the so-called institution-building
package of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC),as amended by
Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. (The amendment
added to the package a resolution containing a code of
conduct for the HRC's special procedures mandate-holders.
The HRC had adopted both resolutions in June.) The United
States and Israel disassociated from consensus on the
adoption of the amendment, and Israel called for a recorded
vote on the package. Canada, Palau, Micronesia, the Marshall
Islands, and Australia joined the United States and Israel in
voting against the package. The U.S. Permanent
Representative to the UN, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad,
delivered an explanation of vote, expressing U.S. concerns
regarding the HRC, including its failure to address the
situation of human rights violations in Zimbabwe, DPRK, Iran,
Belarus and Cuba. (The full text is available at
www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press releases/
20071116 313.html.) Finally, the Committee took note of the
HRC's report (A/62/53) and once again the United States and
Israel, joined by Palau, disassociated from consensus. End
summary.


2. (U) As they had during the Nov. 5-6 general discussion of
the HRC report (reftel),several nations joined the United
States in criticizing the HRC for the unbalanced and
selective nature of its decisions. Ambassador Khalilzad
criticized the HRC's "relentless focus during the year on a
single country---Israel." Palau, Micronesia, Australia,
Canada, Poland, the Netherlands, Portugal on behalf of the
EU, the UK, and France also criticized the HRC for singling
out Israel as the only country with its own permanent item on
the HRC agenda. Many stated that this selectivity goes
against the principles upon which the HRC was created. But
Cuba, Syria, Palestine, Iran and Sudan all praised the
decision and stated that the special procedure should remain
in place until the end of the Israeli occupation.


3. (U) Ambassador Khalilzad also expressed disappointment
over the elimination of the mandates of the Special
Rapporteurs "on two of the world's most active perpetrators
of serious human rights violations, the Governments of Cuba
and Belarus." Joining the United States, Canada, Australia,
Portugal on behalf of the EU, the Netherlands, Poland, the
UK, France, and the Czech Republic also expressed regret
that the HRC had decided to terminate the UN country mandates
on human rights in Belarus and Cuba. Belarus, Cuba and Iran
welcomed the move. Belarus stressed the importance of the
HRC's new Universal Periodic Review as a means for reviewing
all member states' human rights records objectively and said
it hoped "the era of teachers and students in the area of
human rights will remain in the past." Cuba called the end
of the "unjust anti-Cuban mandate" a tribute to its long
resistance, but stated that the Council did not go far enough
and should have eliminated all country mandates.


4. (U) Both the United States and Canada were critical of the
manner in which the HRC package was adopted at the Human
Rights Council. Ambassador Khalilzad described the procedure
as "deeply unfair and un-transparent," noting that an
announcement was made in Geneva on July 19 that the Council
had adopted the package the previous night, when "the only
thing that really happened the night before was an
announcement that the Council would not act on the package
until the next day." He noted that if a national election
were carried out in this way, "the world would rightly regard
that election as unfree and unfair." Canada expressed regret
that "procedural manuvering took precedence over the
principles at stake" when the HRC adopted the package by
consensus, although Canada had made it clear that consensus
did not exist. The Canadian delegate argued that "Canada was
denied its sovereign right to call a vote on the substance of
the package," in a move that ignored the HRC and UN rules of
procedure and that set a "very dubious precedent."


5. (U) Several EU countries called the code of conduct for

USUN NEW Y 00001112 002.2 OF 002


the special procedures mandate-holders redundant and
unnecessary, but expressed hope that it would lead member
states to increase their cooperation with the
mandate-holders. Iran praised the code of conduct as a means
of guaranteeing the impartial performance of all
mandate-holders and also called for a review of all mandates.



6. (U) Responding to criticism of the HRC by the United
States, the Cuban delegate alleged that the United States, "a
major violator of human rights," had not even submitted its
candidacy to the Human Rights Council for fear that it would
not be elected. He also criticized Israel, Canada,
Australia, Portugal on behalf of the EU, the Netherlands,
Poland, the UK, France, and the Czech Republic for failing to
address arbitrary detentions in the "illegally occupied
territory" of Guantanamo. The Cuban delegate also criticized
the U.S. trade embargo, alleging that the United States wants
to "reconquer" Cuba by force.


7. (U) Sudan argued that the United States was acting as
judge and jury on human rights and expressed its desire for
the HRC to evaluate the Human Rights of the United States,
especially regarding "concentration camps" and other prisons.


8. (U) Ambassador Grover Joseph Rees responded to Cuba and
Sudan in a right of reply, thanking them for their
interventions and noting that the United States, Cuba and
Sudan did not disagree on as many things as previously
thought: although Cuba and Sudan often say that the UN fora
should not be used to "name and shame" human rights
violators, their anti-U.S. interventions demonstrate that in
fact they agree with the U.S. that, in some cases, "naming
and shaming" is permissible.


9. (U) The US right of reply led to responses by Cuba, Sudan
and the DPRK. Cuba stated that the Cuban government is
diametrically opposed to the US positions on human rights,
accusing the US of violating civil rights in other countries
and of being mainly responsible for the crimes against the
Palestinian people. Also responding to the US right of
reply, the Sudanese delegate called on the United States to
open the doors of the detention center in Guantanamo to the
UN's Special Rapporteurs, so that the international community
"could know the worst violations of human rights of this
'pioneer' of human rights."


11. (U) The North Korean delegate added to the criticism of
the United States, asking whether the United States as the
"worst human rights violator" should be viewed as a role
model and accusing the United States of "attacking, occupying
and killing innocent people" and discriminating against the
U.S. minority population. He called on the United States to
"mend its own house" before talking about the human rights
situation in other countries.


12. (U) Ambassador Rees delivered a statement disassociating
the United States from consensus on the HRC Report (Text
available at www.usunnewyork.
usmission.gov/press releases/20071116 315.html). Deputy U.S.
Representative to ECOSOC Robert S. Hagen delivered the U.S.
statement of disassociation from consensus on the Cuban
amendment (www.usunnewyork.
usmission.gov/press releases/20071116 318.html).
Khalilzad