ACTION REQUEST: UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY THIRD

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 05 STATE 093981 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/29/2018 TAGS: PHUM PREL UN SUBJECT: ACTION REQUEST: UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY THIRD COMMITTEE 2008 HUMAN RIGHTS PRIORITIES REF: A. STATE 61034 B. PARIS 1446 CLASSIFIED BY IO ACTING DAS GROVER JOSEPH REES FOR REASONS 1.4(b) AND (d). ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: The United States has an ambitious agenda for the upcoming UN General Assembly (UNGA) Third Committee session and will need the support of capitals to win key votes, which include resolutions on the HUMAN RIGHTS situations in Iran, Burma, and DPRK, as well as possible initiatives on Zimbabwe and certain thematic HUMAN RIGHTS issues. At this year's UNGA, the USG is making it a priority to more effectively influence other countries to improve UN voting coincidence between the United States and our bilateral partners and to chip away at the historically strong tendency for G-77 and Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) members to vote on resolutions based on bloc positions, often irrespective of resolution merits or individual countries' policy. We face a number of tough votes on human RIGHTS issues again this year that will require a concerted effort to be successful. Department anticipates that many important actions (such as the annual resolution on HUMAN RIGHTS in Iran) are likely to pass by only slim margins, as has been the case in previous years. This cable requests Posts to demarche at the highest appropriate level to solicit support for U.S. priority resolutions that will be offered, and to seek host government views on other important resolutions that may be offered, in the upcoming fall session of the UNGA Third Committee. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (SBU) ACTION REQUEST: Posts are requested to respond by September 5 via front channel cable, using SIPDIS caption. Please see para 3 for key objectives. When delivering 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 io.state.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.disp lay&shortc ut=4Y5P. Department has posted further background information on specific priority issues for 2008 UNGA Third Committee on the IO/RHS Intellipedia site at http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/UNGA_3rd_Co mmittee_Pr eparation. Posts are requested not to deliver this demarche if they determine that it would be counterproductive to do so. In such cases, posts are requested to inform Department (IO-RHS and DRL-MLGA) of the rationale for refraining from demarching officials in host country. ¶3. (SBU) OBJECTIVES FOR ALL POSTS: Posts should demarche at the highest appropriate level in both host country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Office of the President/Prime Minister (or equivalent). Drawing on host country's past voting record and on the background and key priorities outlined in paragraphs 7 through 11, action addressees are requested to pursue the following objectives: -- Express U.S. commitment to multilateral efforts to protect and promote HUMAN rights, note the heightened importance of UNGA Third Committee given the deterioration of the United Nations HUMAN RIGHTS Council, and urge close cooperation during the upcoming Third Committee session. Make clear that we are consulting with host government in advance of the session not just because we hope to work closely with them on key HUMAN RIGHTS initiatives, but also because we want to know their views as we shape our own positions. -- Urge host government to take a principled stand against all no-action motions and to permit full and open debate of the serious HUMAN RIGHTS issues that are raised in the Third Committee. [See para 4 and IO/RHS Intellipedia page for background] -- Ask host government to support the planned country- specific resolutions on Iran, Burma, and DPRK. [See para 5 and IO/RHS Intellipedia page for background] -- Advise of the serious consequences of the continued STATE 00093981 002 OF 005 promotion of the concept of "defamation of religions" and urge host country to vote against or abstain on any such resolution. [See para 6 and IO/RHS Intellipedia page for background.] -- Seek host government's views on a possible resolution on Zimbabwe and on how to deal with assaults on freedom of expression. If host government expresses support or enthusiasm for one or more of these initiatives, assess whether host government would be willing to be part of a cross-regional coalition to draft and co-sponsor such a resolution and to oppose hostile amendments. We would also be interested in using the Third Committee proceedings or its margins to call further attention to prisoners of conscience. [See paras 5-6 and IO/RHS Intellipedia page for background] BACKGROUND - U.S. HUMAN RIGHTS PRIORITES FOR UNGA THIRD COMMITTEE -------------- -------------- - NO-ACTION MOTIONS -------------- ¶4. (U) Some UN member states have repeatedly used so- called "no-action motions" in the Third Committee to halt debate and voting on certain HUMAN RIGHTS resolutions. The use of such motions is a serious problem for the UNGA that we must continue to fight. The U.S. and numerous other countries strongly oppose use of such motions to prevent discussion of and action on the very HUMAN RIGHTS issues that the Third Committee is supposed to address. No-action motions, which encourage the UN to turn a blind eye to the most egregious violations of HUMAN rights, undermine the effectiveness and reputation of the General Assembly. We were particularly troubled by last year's no-action motion on Iran, which failed by only a single vote. [For further background, visit RHS Intellipedia site at http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/UNGA_3rd_Co mmittee_Pr eparation] COUNTRY-SPECIFIC RESOLUTIONS -------------- ¶5. (C) Each year, the UNGA Third Committee draws attention through country-specific resolutions to a handful of countries that systematically violate the human RIGHTS of their populations. Such action is of particular importance in light of the HUMAN Right Council's failure to address HUMAN RIGHTS violations in many countries including Iran, North Korea, and Zimbabwe. Countries with a strong interest in protecting and promoting HUMAN RIGHTS and the universality of those RIGHTS must work together to ensure that the upcoming session of UNGA Third Committee continues to take a stand against egregious human RIGHTS violations. In 2007, resolutions on the human RIGHTS situation in Iran, Belarus, Burma, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) were successfully passed in the UNGA Third Committee and subsequently in the plenary session of the General Assembly, though only after no-action motions on Iran, Belarus, and Burma were defeated. -- Iran: As in previous years, the U.S. will strongly support a resolution, to be offered by Canada, on the situation of HUMAN RIGHTS in Iran and will work with other countries to win its passage. The Iranian government continues to commit serious HUMAN RIGHTS violations including summary executions, torture, and arbitrary detention. Despite a prohibition, judicially sanctioned death by stoning has occurred in at least one instance in the past year. The government of Iran severely limits freedoms of expression and assembly and has shut down scores of news outlets and arrested many journalists. -- Burma: We understand the EU intends to introduce its annual resolution on HUMAN RIGHTS in Burma. HUMAN rights in Burma continue to spiral downward with the junta's obstruction of relief efforts in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, its sham referendum on its draft constitution, its extension of Aung San Suu Kyi's detention, and its continued imprisonment of thousands of prisoners of conscience, including many imprisoned after peaceful protests in October 2007. We strongly encourage and support a Third Committee resolution on Burma. STATE 00093981 003 OF 005 -- DPRK: We also understand the EU plans to offer its annual resolution on DPRK. The situation of HUMAN rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea continues to be abysmal. The regime controls almost all aspects of citizens' lives, denying freedom of expression, assembly, and association, and restricts freedom of movement and worker rights. The country's continued failure to permit visits by the UN Special Rapporteur and its unwillingness to engage on HUMAN rights issues with the international community cannot be ignored. The UN must address the situation in the DPRK to reinforce that this is a matter of international concern. -- Zimbabwe and Sudan: The HUMAN RIGHTS situations in Sudan and Zimbabwe both merit Third Committee attention, but action on African countries has been prevented in previous UNGA sessions by concerns that the Africa Group would block resolutions, as they have successfully done in the past. Resolutions on Zimbabwe and/or Sudan failed in 2004 and 2005 as a result of no- action motions, strongly supported by Africa Group members. In the recent past, however, African countries and organizations have taken more critical stances against the governments of Zimbabwe and Sudan. Per reftel B, there is interest within both the U.S. and the EU to consider a resolution on Zimbabwe at the 2008 UNGA Third Committee. Unless current negotiations produce a result that respects the results of the March 29 election and brings real change to the HUMAN RIGHTS situation, the U.S. believes a resolution on Zimbabwe would be a useful spur towards a resolution of the crisis. We judge that a passage of a resolution would be possible, but only if it had significant African support. -- The perspective on a Sudan resolution remains somewhat more skeptical within the EU, which has backed the thus far deplorably weak action of the HUMAN RIGHTS Council on Sudan, while noting its shortcomings. The Council will consider the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of HUMAN RIGHTS in Sudan at its September session. It would of course be outrageous if the mandate were eliminated, though not out of the question at all, given the HRC's action on Sudan to date. Recognizing that the Sudan HUMAN rights situation remains dire, the Department believes offering resolutions on both Zimbabwe and Sudan in the 2008 Third Committee could be problematic and potentially counterproductive. We would appreciate host government's views. [For further background, visit IO/RHS Intellipedia site at http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/UNGA_3rd_Co mmittee_Pr eparation] -- Belarus: The U.S. welcomes the recent release by the Government of Belarus of the last of Belarus' political prisoners in August. The government's overall HUMAN RIGHTS record remains very poor, but we believe that it would be counterproductive to offer a human RIGHTS resolution on Belarus this fall if the positive trend continues. THEMATIC RESOLUTIONS -------------- ¶6. (C) The HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL this year continued to justify infringement of freedom of expression and opinion. We anticipate serious challenges during the upcoming Third Committee from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and other countries seeking to undermine these freedoms through initiatives such as a resolution on defamation of religions. -- Freedom of Expression: Freedom of expression and belief are under threat at the United Nations. The March 2008 renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression and opinion at the Human RIGHTS COUNCIL included a requirement that the Rapporteur report on "abuses" of these freedoms by individuals -- a development the U.S. strongly opposes. Similarly, Defamation of Religion resolutions proposed by the OIC in both the HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL and at the Third Committee have been used by some countries to justify undermining the freedoms of expression, religion and belief, including the freedom to change beliefs. Earlier efforts to collaborate with like minded countries on resolutions related to freedom of expression have been hampered by the fact that many STATE 00093981 004 OF 005 legal systems in Europe and elsewhere do allow limitations on freedom of expression (e.g. hate speech) which the U.S. cannot accept. But we should be able to agree that the recent efforts to limit freedom of expression are unacceptable and require a strong and coordinated response that does not again highlight the differences among our own systems. A strong defense of freedom of expression and opinion supported by a strong cross-regional group of countries particularly including Africans, Latin Americans and Asians could help to regain some of the ground that has been lost in recent years on this important freedom. A resolution condemning or negating these recent infringements would be one possibility. Other possibilities and tactics would include voting against resolutions that infringe freedom of expression RIGHTS when they come up or proposing amendments to resolutions that would strengthen such rights. The U.S. is interested in hearing host government's views on how best to restore the UN's traditional support for the fundamental freedoms of expression and opinion. -- Defamation of Religions: We also seek to persuade host governments to vote against the Defamation of Religions resolution, and we seek like-minded governments' views on how to best mount a successful campaign against the resolution, which traditionally contains language on limitations to freedom of speech and singles out Islam as a target of defamation. We note that even in the HRC, "no" votes and abstentions outnumbered the "yes" votes. (The March 2008 vote was 21-10-14.) We have also been encouraging the EU to offer its Religious Intolerance resolution in the Third Committee rather than only in the HRC as a helpful counterweight to the OIC's defamation resolution. [For further information, posts may also refer to IO/RHS Intellipedia site at http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/UNGA_3rd_Co mmittee_Pr eparation and to the July 11 USG response to the Office of the High Commissioner for HUMAN RIGHTS concerning Combating Defamation of Religions on Mission Geneva's unclassified website at: http://geneva.usmission.gov/Press2008/July/07 15Defamati onReligions.html.] -- Prisoners of Conscience: Sixty-four countries, including the U.S. and the 27 countries of the EU, recently co-signed a Declaration at the UN on Prisoners of Conscience. The Declaration deplores the practice of imprisoning people for exercising their RIGHTS to freedom of expression, opinion, and assembly. The Declaration's signatories further commit themselves to working towards the freedom of prisoners of conscience worldwide and making the release of such prisoners a priority in their relations with other countries. Following the signature of the Declaration, the U.S. sponsored a successful public affairs event on July 24 in New York on the margins of the ECOSOC session. We are interested in host governments' thoughts on follow- up action to the June Declaration and July event. One possibility would be to re-open the Declaration for further signatures, in order to build on the support achieved already. The Declaration could be highlighted at events commemorating the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration on HUMAN Rights, including on Human RIGHTS Day. [For further background, visit IO/RHS Intellipedia site at http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/UNGA_3rd_Co mmittee_Pr eparation] NOTE ON SEPTEL GUIDANCE -------------- ¶7. (SBU) As the UNGA session approaches, separate omnibus guidance on broad Departmental priorities for the entirety of the upcoming UNGA session will follow via septel. Department will also instruct select posts to deliver targeted septel guidance at the highest possible level to discuss host countries' voting records and encourage closer cooperation on key USG priority resolutions at the United Nations General Assembly. These septels will be in addition to the instructions in this message, which request all posts to engage immediately at the highest appropriate level on Third Committee HUMAN RIGHTS priorities. POINTS OF CONTACT AND REPORTING DEADLINE -------------- ¶8. (U) Posts are requested to report outcome of STATE 00093981 005 OF 005 demarche via front channel cable by no later than September 12, 2008. Posts should use SIPDIS caption in responses. For questions, please contact IO/RHS Rebecca Jovin and DRL/MLGA Lynn Sicade. ¶9. (U) MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. RICE