YOUR HELP IS NEEDED TO ENSURE PASSAGE OF THE

C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 117889 FOR THE AMBASSADOR OR CHARGE FROM ASSISTANT SECRETARIES HILL HOOK AND KRAMER E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/04/2018 TAGS: PHUM PREL SUBJECT: YOUR HELP IS NEEDED TO ENSURE PASSAGE OF THE RESOLUTIONS ON IRAN, BURMA, DPRK REF: STATE 93981 Classified By: David Kramer per E.O. 12948 1.4 (b) and (d) ¶1. (C) This is an action request. See paras 3, 9-12. SUMMARY -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Department requests that posts encourage host governments to vote against no-action and for the resolutions on Iran, Burma, and the DPRK (North Korea). Ambassador or Charge is requested to engage at the highest appropriate level drawing on host country's past voting record and on the background and key priorities outlined in below. End Summary. Objectives -------------- ¶3. (U) Department requests that posts pursue the following objectives. If post believes this demarche would be counterproductive, Post is requested to so advise Department and not demarche. -- For Embassies Canberra and Wellington: Express gratitude for host government,s stalwart support of and lobbying for country-specific resolutions. Encourage them to lobby actively and to continue coordinating with the USG, Canada and France in New York. -- For Embassy Tokyo: Express gratitude for Japan,s consistent support for country resolutions. Encourage Japan to actively lobby for passage of these resolutions. -- For Embassy Seoul: Express gratitude for principled opposition to no-action motions and for support on the Burma resolution. Encourage host government to vote in favor of the Iran and DPRK resolutions. -- For Embassies Ulaanbaatar, Apia, Port Moresby (for Vanuatu),Koror, Dili, Kolonia, Majuro, Suva (for Fiji, Nauru, and Tonga): Express gratitude for their opposition to no-action motions and (except for Ulaanbaatar and Papua New Guinea) for the underlying substantive resolutions. -- For Embassies Ulaanbaatar and Port Moresby: Encourage host governments to vote in favor of the Iran, Burma, and DPRK resolutions or if host government cannot to abstain as it did last year. -- For all other EAP Embassies: Your host government has a mixed record. Please see para 9 below. Where possible encourage host governments to abstain or be absent on both Iran votes. Where possible encourage host governments to vote against or abstain on no-action on Burma and to support or abstain on the substantive resolution. -- For all posts: Emphasize that the use of such motions is a serious problem for the UNGA that all countries must continue to fight. The U.S. and numerous other countries strongly oppose the use of such motions to prevent discussion of and action on the very human rights issues that the Third Committee is supposed to address. Host governments should be encouraged to vote in favor of the resolution on DPRK and to oppose no-action in the unlikely event such a motion is offered. REPORTING DEADLINE -------------- ¶4. (U) The Department requests a response via front channel cable by Friday, November 7. Please copy USUN on all responses. Ambassador or Charge is asked to include any thoughts on necessary next steps, such as a call from an Assistant Secretary or a Seventh Floor principal. Posts, thoughts on how to best frame the US argument are welcomed. Ideas on other incentives Post may think useful are also welcomed. BACKGROUND -------------- ¶5. (U) The United States agenda for the UN General Assembly,s (UNGA) Third Committee necessitates concerted, high-level lobbying for every potential vote in order to achieve success. Votes from countries in your region were crucial last year and will be even more important this year. ¶6. (U) The top USG priority is the adoption of a Canadian-led resolution condemning the deteriorating situation of human rights in Iran. Other important initiatives include the EU-led resolutions on the human rights situations in Burma and DPRK. ¶7. (U) Both the Iran and Burma resolutions face certain no-action motions ) a procedural maneuver used to stifle debate and voting. It is the firm U.S. position that countries voting in favor of no-action on country resolutions are voting to support the violation of human rights in those countries. The U.S. opposes no-action motions in the third committee as a matter of principle. ¶8. (U) The 2007 no-action motion on Iran failed by only one vote; we have every reason to believe this will be a more difficult fight this year. Every vote counts. Therefore, we must praise and thank countries that have stood firm and voted &no8 against no action motions, appeal to those who have abstained to vote no, and encourage those who have voted &yes8 in support of the no action motions to at least abstain or be absent. ¶9. (C) In EAP those critical swing votes are the Pacific Island nations and Mongolia. A non-inclusive background summary of country voting histories from the 2007 Iran resolution and no action motion is as follows: -- Australia and New Zealand oppose no action and lobby against no-action motions. Japan and the ROK take an active interest in the DPRK draft resolution. There is a lobbying effort in New York in which these countries participate. -- Mongolia, Samoa, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, Micronesia, Nauru, Timor Leste, Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Fiji, and Tonga - all opposed no-action motions last year. On substance Mongolia and Papua New GUINEA abstained while the rest supported the resolution. -- Kiribati should be encouraged to give its proxy to New Zealand for a no vote on the no-action motion and a &yes8 vote on the Iran draft human rights resolution and for the other two resolutions, if possible, in time for the Third Committee vote. Last year they did not do so for Third Committee, but did vote &no8 on the Iran no-action motion and &yes8 on the Iran and DPRK resolutions in the Plenary. We would like them to vote on Burma too this year. -- The Solomon Islands and Tuvalu abstained on the no-action motion in the Third Committee and then switched to voting yes for the no action motion in the Plenary. The Solomon,s also abstained on substance while Tuvalu voted for the Iran resolution in the Third Committee. Both switched to no votes in the Plenary. These are very significant voting shifts that we will want to try to overturn. -- The Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand ) all voted. in support of the Iran no-action motion. On the Burma resolution, the Philippines and Singapore abstained on no-action and on substance and Indonesia voted &no8 on no-action and abstained on the substance in the Third Committee. At a minimum we need to ensure they continue to abstain or vote no on the Burma no-action motion. We should try to get Southeast Asian countries to be not present for the Iran no action motion, if it is too difficult for them to openly abstain, pointing out that one vote could make the difference. -- On DPRK: China, DPRK, Indonesia, Laos, Burma and Viet Nam voted no. Mongolia was absent. Brunei Darussalam, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand abstained. All other EAP countries supported the DPRK resolution. ¶10. (U) Countries should also be encouraged to support the substantive resolutions for which no-action motions are called. Votes will likely be the week of November 24, but could come as early as November 18. (Note: The UNGA Third Committee, which meets for seven weeks each October and November, is comprised of all 192 UN member states.) ¶11. (C) When delivering the demarche, posts are urged to consult UN and/or Bureau of International Organization Affairs (IO) records on past voting practices of host countries. UN voting sheets for all Third Committee resolutions for 2006 and 2007 are available on the IO/RHS unclass intranet website at Http://www. io.state.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.disp lay&shortc ut=4Y5P. ¶12. (C) Posts may also use the non-papers on Iran, Burma, and the DPRK found at the Bureau of International Organization,s SBU intranet site as background and if useful as a handout. This is found at the same site as the voting material. Posts may also find additional information on the SIPRANet Intellpedia Wiki site at the International Organizations page at http://www. io.state.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction= public.display&shortcut=4Y5P. ¶13. (C) Posts may also use the non-papers on Iran, Burma and the DPRK found at the Bureau of International Organization,s SBU intranet site as background and if useful as a handout. These are found at the same site as the voting material. Posts may also find additional information on the SIPRANet Intellpedia Wiki site at the International Organizations page at http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/ International Organizations Team. ¶14. (U) POINTS OF CONTACT: Please contact DRL/MLGA Lynn Sicade (sicadelm@state.gov, 647-2362 or Alyson Grunder grunderal@state.gov, 647-4380) with any questions or further information or justification for additional argumentation. RICE