UNGA THIRD COMMITTEE DROPS TWO COUNTRY-SPECIFIC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 USUN NEW YORK 000834 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PHUM AORC UNGA UG NP SUBJECT: UNGA THIRD COMMITTEE DROPS TWO COUNTRY-SPECIFIC HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTS ¶1. (U) Summary: At the Oct. 8 opening session of the UNGA Third Committee, Benin, on behalf of the African group, called unexpectedly for the deletion from the draft agenda of two reports of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (HCHR) on the human rights situation in Nepal and Uganda. Portugal, on behalf of the EU, requested time out for consultations with other delegations and with capitals. However, the chairman pushed the issue toward a vote. The US called for a suspension of the meeting, which was narrowly defeated. The US then called for a recorded vote on deletion of the reports, and 34 delegations took the floor to express disappointment over being forced to vote without time for consultation or hearing the HCHR's reasoning for presenting these reports. Despite repeated calls for more time, the chairman forced a vote. The motion to delete the two reports from the draft agenda was approved 76-54(US)-20. The US, along with several other countries, gave an explanation of vote supporting the HCHR's mandate to present reports to the Third Committee and expressing concern over the precipitous nature of the vote. The contentious opening day of the Third Committee sets an unfortunate and confrontational tone that bodes ill for the rest of the session. End Summary ¶2. (U) The meeting began by discussing administrative matters of the committee. When the chairman (Jamaican Perm Rep Raymond Wolfe) asked if the committee wished to approve the program of work, Benin, speaking for the African group, responded that hearing the reports of the OHCHR on Nepal and Uganda was an encroachment on the terms of the Human Rights Council, which Benin described as the only organ that can submit reports to the Third Committee. He also argued that consideration of the reports could have a negative impact on the on-going peace process between Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army. ¶3. (U) Cuba then argued that the Third Committee considers reports based on decisions of inter-governmental agencies, such as the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, and that there are no provisions that allow the HCHR to present reports to the Third Committee. He argued that the High Commissioner should report to the Human Rights Council or through ECOSOC. The Uganda representative hinted that the OHCHR had a hidden agenda. ; ¶4. (U) Portugal, on behalf of the EU, spoke in support of the mandate of the HCHR. The representative cited the precedent set last year when the committee considered the HCHR report on the human rights situation in Nepal. The Portuguese representative disagreed with the interpretation that only the Human Rights Council can consider country specific resolutions. The Portuguese representative asked the Secretary to clarify if the HCHR has a mandate to present SIPDIS reports and if reports have been introduced in the past. ¶5. (U) The US representative stated that as a universal body, it is appropriate for the Third Committee to receive reports from the HCHR. She argued that the HCHR should work with the Human Rights Council when possible, but must also use the Third Committee to ensure universal oversight. The US expressed its opposition to deleting the two reports. ¶6. (U) The Secretary then clarified that inclusion of the documents by the Secretariat indicates that the Secretariat believes the HCHR has a mandate to present them to the Third Committee. ¶7. (U) Uganda disagreed with the Secretariat's interpretation of the resolution outlining HCHR's mandate and called for action on their proposal to delete the two reports. Benin stated that the African Group did not concur with the interpretation either. He stated that the Secretary General could draw the world's attention to urgent matters that arise and questioned the added value of discussing the reports in the Third Committee. Cuba reiterated its stance that reports must come to the Third Committee from intergovernmental bodies. Sudan also questioned the Secretariat's determination of HCHR's mandate. Sudan stated that the OHCHR does not represent all groups and focuses on political rights. Nepal called for the reports to be considered by the Human Rights Council. ¶8. (U) Portugal asked for a deferment to allow time for consultations. The US, Norway and Canada also requested a deferment. Russia supported taking immediate action on deletion of the reports. Benin's representative called for suspension of proceedings so he could consult with the African group. A five-minute suspension was granted. USUN NEW Y 00000834 002 OF 003 ¶9. (U) After the consultation period, Benin stated it would maintain its position to request withdrawal of the reports. Portugal and Switzerland stated that under rule 120 of the General Assembly's Rules of Procedure, delegations should have 24 hours to consider new proposals and to build consensus. ¶10. (U) Cuba made a point of order, arguing that the document that contains the reports being discussed was circulated on October 4. Portugal responded that the new proposal was the deletion of the two reports, not the report itself. The chairman stated that there was no agreement on what Portugal was proposing and again put the proposal to delete the reports to the committee. ¶11. (U) Again, Portugal invoked rule 120, requesting time for consultation and the opportunity to hear the reasoning of the HCHR for submitting the reports. Switzerland, Republic of Korea, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, San Marino, Uruguay, the US, Norway, Canada, and Chile all joined the EU in calling for more time to consider, to hear from the OHCHR and to consult with capitals before making a decision on a complex, precedent-setting issue. ¶12. (U) Syria and Benin spoke in favor of deleting the reports. The Syrian representative called for the report to be submitted to the Secretary General or the HRC for a mandate in order not to undermine the HRC as it beings its work. Both Benin and Syria pushed for a decision to be made immediately. ¶13. (U) The Chairman once again put the issue to the Committee. This time the US made a point of order under Rule 118, requesting suspension of the meeting to allow time for consultations since the Chairman was moving toward a vote. The Committee, in accordance with the Rules, immediately voted on the US motion to suspend the meeting. The motion was rejected in a 65(US)-71-13 vote. ¶14. (U) As the chair again attempted to pass the Benin proposal, the US called for a recorded vote on the motion to delete the reports. In general statements, 34 nations (US, European nations, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Uruguay) spoke against the motion to delete, reiterating the need for more time for consultations with other nations and capitals and for the need to hear the views of the HCHR. Most nations expressed their regret and disappointment that the issue was being forced so quickly to a vote without giving delegations a fair opportunity to study the issue or allowing the Bureau a chance to develop consensus. France went so far as to express "disappointment in the nefarious first decision of the committee." The chair, departing from normal procedure, did not close the meeting at the usual 1 pm closing time for the morning session, pressing on into overtime for the interpretation. ¶15. (U) Cuba, Russian and Syria spoke in favor of the motion to delete the reports. Cuba and Syria reiterated claims that the HCHR has no mandate to present reports to the committee. Russia argued that the report was presented under different circumstances last year and should not be considered precedent. The Russian representative also stated that considering the reports opened up an issue for two states that were not on the agenda of the Third Committee. ¶16. (U) After the general statements, the Chairman called for a vote, despite earlier statements by the Secretary explaining that there would be both general statements and explanations of vote prior to voting. ¶17. (U) Turkey made a point of order, noting that there was no request for explanations of vote. Pakistan responded with another point of order stating that there was no rule allowing 2 statements by members before a vote. Germany made a point of order recalling that the Secretary previously noted that there would be both a general statement and an explanation of vote. ¶18. (U) The Secretary stated that according to rules, voting processes should not be interrupted, but interpretation services would not be available beyond 1:30 pm. He stated that if members wished to continue debate, voting must be interrupted, infringing on rules of procedure. He went on to state that although it was a longstanding practice to divide general debate and explanation of vote, it was not exclusively done in that manner. USUN NEW Y 00000834 003 OF 003 ¶19. (U) The Chairman called for a vote. The US made a point of order requesting the right to make both a general statement and explanation of vote and that it was possible to do this in the afternoon session. The Gambia called for the voting to proceed if there were no objections based on the conduct of voting. Once again, the chairman called for a vote on the deletion of the HCHR Reports on the Human Rights Situation in Nepal and Uganda. The motion passed 76-54(US)-20, and the reports will be deleted from the documentation of the Committee. ¶20. (SBU) USUN followed up with OHCHR's New York office to clarify the substance of the two reports. OHCHR expressed deep disappointment over the deletion of the reports from the Third Committee program of work. OHCHR also clarified that the reports on the human rights situations in Nepal and Northern Uganda were within the mandate of the HCHR and furthermore, both countries had signed memoranda of understanding that allowed the HCHR to report on the situation in their countries. ¶21. (U) At the beginning of the afternoon session, following Explanations of Vote by Turkey, Mexico, and Jordan expressing dismay at the hasty manner in which the decision on the OHCHR reports had been taken in the morning session (all three had voted in favor of the U.S. motion to suspend the meeting), the US made the following EOV: The United States voted against the deletion of reports from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situations in northern Uganda and in Nepal from the documentation from the 3rd Committee. The United States notes that resolution 48/141 reaffirms "the necessity for a continued adaptation of the UN human rights machinery to the current and future needs in the promotion and protection of human rights." We believe that the High Commissioner not only should be allowed to bring human rights situations to the attention of the Third Committee, but should be encouraged to do so, whether or not a specific report has been requested. We believe strongly that this would be in keeping with the principles enunciated in the Vienna Declaration of Programme of Action, namely that "the promotion and protection of all human rights is a legitimate concern of the international community." USDEL went on to point out that both the governments of Uganda and Nepal had signed MOU's with the OHCHR covering the Office's work in those two countries. The US also joined with previous speakers in expressing disappointment with the precipitous manner in which the morning's proceedings had been conducted. ¶22. (SBU) Comment: The contentious opening day of the Third Committee set an unfortunate and confrontational tone that bodes ill for the rest of the session. The lack of any attempt at evenhandedness by the Jamaican chair, who bypassed several opportunities to accommodate EU and JUSCANZ procedural objections, was particularly galling. A damaging precedent has now been set limiting the opportunities for the High Commissioner to bring concerns on human rights situations to the attention of the Third Committee unless specifically asked to do so. The overwhelming numbers in favor of the African proposal will likely embolden the G77 in their efforts to push for no-action motions, or defeats on substantive grounds, on country-specific resolutions in Third Committee. KHALILZAD