Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08GENEVA96
2008-02-01 11:44:00
CONFIDENTIAL
US Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW: UN'S NEW HUMAN RIGHTS

Tags:  PHUM UNHRC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0005
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0096/01 0321144
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 011144Z FEB 08
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6013
INFO RUEHZJ/HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL COLLECTIVE
RUEHAD/AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI 0153
RUEHAH/AMEMBASSY ASHGABAT 0156
RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 0950
RUEHWN/AMEMBASSY BRIDGETOWN 0131
RUEHJB/AMEMBASSY BUJUMBURA 0020
RUEHCO/AMEMBASSY COTONOU 0162
RUEHOR/AMEMBASSY GABORONE 0155
RUEHBH/AMEMBASSY NASSAU 0038
RUEHOU/AMEMBASSY OUAGADOUGOU 0146
RUEHNT/AMEMBASSY TASHKENT 0231
RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV 4525
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 4980
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 2627
C O N F I D E N T I A L GENEVA 000096 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/01/2018
TAGS: PHUM UNHRC
SUBJECT: UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW: UN'S NEW HUMAN RIGHTS
MECHANISM UNDERGOING BIRTH PAINS

REF: 07 GENEVA 2541

Classified By: A/DCM David Gilmour. Reasons: 1.4 (b/d).

C O N F I D E N T I A L GENEVA 000096

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/01/2018
TAGS: PHUM UNHRC
SUBJECT: UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW: UN'S NEW HUMAN RIGHTS
MECHANISM UNDERGOING BIRTH PAINS

REF: 07 GENEVA 2541

Classified By: A/DCM David Gilmour. Reasons: 1.4 (b/d).


1. (C) SUMMARY: The Universal Periodic Review (UPR),the
UN's newest human rights mechanism, remains set to get
underway in April, but concerns are emerging that many
unresolved issues involving its modalities might lead to a
delay. Already, countries of the African Group and others
have blocked agreement over the selection and roles of
"troikas," which are to facilitate each review, and this has
resulted in a delay in troika selection. Other issues that
were left vague in planning for UPR, including what kind of
outcome the reviews will produce, could also become a subject
of dispute, producing delays in UPR start-up or shifting
attention from the substance of reviews to their procedures.
Word that reviews will be webcast, contrary to earlier
information, is good news. Hopes remain high that UPR will
start on time and prove at least moderately effective in
addressing human rights situations, but for the moment, much
attention centers on the mechanism's birthing pains. END
SUMMARY

A NEW MECHANISM, WITH MANY GROUND RULES NOT YET SET
-------------- --------------


2. (SBU) As we described previously, UPR was among the key
innovations of the recently formed UN Human Rights Council.
(Reftel offered an overview of the UPR process.) It provided
a mechanism by which every UN member state's overall human
rights performance would undergo a review once in a four-year
cycle, with 48 countries reviewed each year. The first
tranche of reviews for 2008 are scheduled to begin in April,
with a second tranche in May and a third in December.
(Embassies in countries scheduled for review in the first
three tranches are listed as info addressees on this and
reftel cable.)


3. (SBU) Although the original guidelines and "roadmap"
offered much information on modalities, they left many issues
unanswered. That fact was acknowledged but seen as
inevitable in a process being started from scratch. Thus, an
informal consensus formed to get the reviews underway, with
details of the procedures to be established as the process
unfolds.

THE "TROIKA" CONTROVERSY
--------------


4. (SBU) That consensus already has been disrupted over the

selection and role of the three troika members, each
representing a Council member state, who are to facilitate
each review. The immediate dispute centers on the selection
process, which is to be done by lottery. To give countries
flexibility, the roadmap established that the country under
review may request the substitution of one of the selected
troika members, and that a country eligible to become a
troika member may opt out of any troika. The dispute emerged
over how to carry this out in practice. The Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) insisted that the
selection process, including the substitution and opting out,
be conducted in public, in full view of the Council, to
ensure transparency; OHCHR officials told us they did not
want to be accused of manipulating troika selection to any
country's advantage or disadvantage. The African Group, by
contrast, put emphasis on confidentiality, saying that
forcing a country publicly to exercise its right either of
substitution or of opting out would be politically difficult;
a country chosen to serve on a troika, for instance, might
find it politically inexpedient to say publicly that it did
not want to take on that role. A practical way could
seemingly be found to resolve the differences, and Council
President Doru Costea has been working hard to do so.


5. (SBU) Although details about selection are the main
subject of negotiation, an underlying dispute centers on the
roles troikas should play. With the guidelines open to

interpretation, African Group countries argue that troikas'
roles should be clearly and narrowly defined for the sake of
fairness. According to those countries, it would be unfair
for one troika to play a pro-active and aggressive role,
generating its own difficult questions to the country under
review, while a troika in another review plays a more passive
role, merely collecting questions and input from others.
Similarly, they argue, one troika should not be allowed to
draw its own sweeping conclusions about a country at the end
of the review session, while another troika simply collates
the questions and recommendations of others. As one African
diplomat commented to us, troika members must not be allowed
to act with the independence of Special Rapporteurs.


6. (C) Negotiations have been ongoing, but have produced
little progress, a well-connected OHCHR staffer told us.
Many observers believed that the African Group and its allies
sought to delay troika selection to ensure that troika
members were not given enough time to perform more than a
limited role in the UPR process. That explanation still
seems likely. The OHCHR staffer noted, however, that the
African Group's position has become more intractable, raising
concerns that the real motivation is to postpone the April
and May tranches.

OTHER ISSUES FOR DEBATE
--------------


7. (SBU) Although attention currently centers on the
selection process, many other issues remain to be worked out.
Among the most important is the preparation of the report
that will emerge from each review. Although the roadmap laid
out general categories of information to be included in each
report, questions remain whether the report will contain a
pro forma presentation or be more selective, perhaps
highlighting or downplaying some conclusions or
recommendations. It remains unclear who will prepare the
report -- the troika, OHCHR staff, or perhaps the Council
President and his staff -- but whoever is given that task
would be placed be under huge pressure from both supporters
and critics of the concerned country, as well as NGOs and
others pressing for a focus on a particular issue.


8. (C) The assumption remains that the nature of the report
will be hashed out as UPR reviews take place, with debates
during review sessions no doubt having a major impact. Some
countries, however, may seek to work out at least some of the
key modalities ahead of time, possibly during the March
regular session of the Council.

GEARING UP FOR THE FIRST SET OF REVIEWS
--------------


9. (SBU) Meanwhile, the 16 countries to be reviewed in April
and May are working on the input they are to provide by their
February 28 deadline. Several have expressed uncertainty
about what is expected of them; a Zambian diplomat told us
her government had asked her to approach OHCHR with numerous
questions, to which she was getting limited responses. Many
delegations are hopeful that sessions on UPR preparation will
provide many answers; the first of these, for francophone
countries, is to take place in Rabat in early February.


10. (SBU) For its part, OHCHR is preparing the summaries of
information from treaty body reports, special procedures and
other official UN documents that it is to provide, by
February 24, on each of the countries in the first tranche.
The OHCHR staffer said that his organization was feeling the
strain as that deadline approaches, but that funding for
seventeen new positions devoted to UPR would make things far
more manageable, and ensure good quality reports, in the
future.

REVIEWS TO BE WEBCAST
--------------


11. (C) Among the issues debated as UPR took shape was

whether reviews should be conducted by working groups or in
Council plenary sessions. Because Council working groups are
not webcast, countries reluctant to give broad publicity to
reviews favored that option, which won out. OHCHR staffers
have told us, however, that though conducted by working
groups, reviews are to be webcast, with voluntary funding
already in hand to cover the first tranches. The staffers
were quick to add that they have not advertised the prospects
for webcasting since they hoped to avoid sparking new
controversy among those who may still believe it will not
take place.

COMMENT
--------------


12. (C) The stalemate over troika selection modalities is
discouraging and appears to signal, at minimum, an attempt by
some countries to limit the role of troikas. The argument,
that troikas should have clear ground rules to ensure equal
treatment for all countries under review, makes some sense
but also seems motivated by a desire to limit the focus of
reviews, thus making them less of a threat to human rights
violators. We can expect similar debate over other
unresolved issues, and the continued precedence of procedure
over the substance of human rights concerns could get the UPR
process off to a slow start. Delaying the April start date
for reviews, which may occur if the troika debate is not
resolved, would also be a setback to UPR, although it would
be far from fatal to the process.


13. (C) Indeed, hopes remain high that UPR will prove at
least moderately effective as a human rights mechanism. The
fact that reviews are to be webcast will allow the comments
of the international community to be quickly and widely
disseminated, and UPR will also provide a useful forum to
highlight human rights best practices. We believe, then,
that the USG will be able to use UPR to advance USG human
rights goals. Septel will offer some ideas on how to do so.
TICHENOR