INDIA IN COMMUNITY OF DEMOCRACIES: NOT SATISFIED

C O N F I D E N T I A L NEW DELHI 001726 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/23/2018 TAGS: KDEM PGOV PREL PHUM UNGA ZI SF PO CA IN SUBJECT: INDIA IN COMMUNITY OF DEMOCRACIES: NOT SATISFIED WITH HANDBOOK, MULLING ZIMBABWE STATEMENT REF: A. STATE 62767 ¶B. EHRENDREICH - JORDAN EMAIL 6/13/08 AND SUBSEQUENT Classified By: A/DCM John Davison for Reasons 1.4 (B, D) ¶1. (SBU) In response to Ref A, A/PolCouns delivered reftel demarche on India's role in the Community of Democracies (CD) to Joint Secretary (UN Political) Sanjiv Arora. On June 20 Arora contacted A/PolCouns to provide India's position on the withdrawal of Indian support for the Diplomat's Handbook and the statement on Zimbabwe. ¶2. (SBU) Generally cryptic in discussing India's reasoning on withdrawing support for the Diplomat's Handbook, Arora started by stating that objections to the Handbook shouldn't be seen as a reflection of India's support for the CD in general. He then said that when Foreign Secretary Menon gave India's support in principal to Under Secretary Dobriansky at the Global Issues Forum in April, he (Menon) also said India wanted to see the specific text before co-signing. However, Arora maintained, India never got to see the text until just recently, when it started to give its objections at Convening Group (CG) meetings. As A/PolCouns tried to zero in on the objections, Arora repeatedly said "if you look at the handbook, you won't be surprised at what our objections are." After a lot of pressing, an evasive Arora referred to the passage on Burma, which he said isn't the official name of the country and not what India refers to it as; he hinted that there were other similar references in the handbook which India finds objectionable, but would not specify, claiming they were "obvious." A/PolCouns stressed that in fact India's objections were not obvious to us, and we were frustrated by the Indian delegate to the Convening Group's unwillingness to explain India's position. Arora disagreed, saying he had been in consultation with the Indian Convening Group delegation and that India's position was clear. ¶3. (SBU) With regard to the statement on Zimbabwe, Arora confirmed the External Affairs Ministry had received the latest version of the text and would now consult internally. The Indian Embassy in Washington had told Arora that they have until June 23 to respond, so Arora planned to convey India's position to the Indian Mission around opening of business, June 23, Washington time. Arora would not say would not say whether the new text looked acceptable to him or not. ¶4. (C) Comment. Post believes India's lack of support for the Zimbabwe statement likely stems from India's close relations with South Africa. It is unlikely that India, as a member of IBSA (India-Brazil-South Africa dialogue) and the G4 (seeking permanent UN Security Council membership, again with South Africa),will part with Pretoria on this issue, however disappointing that may be from a supposed leader of the CD. Recent events may provide an opportunity for us to put more pressure on India for the need for a statement on Zimbabwe, however, we see the key to India's support stemming from the South African position (as described in Ref A, paragraph seven). MULFORD