BRAZIL: RESPONSE TO DEMARCHE ON COUNTRY-SPECIFIC

C O N F I D E N T I A L BRASILIA 001314 SIPDIS STATE FOR DRL-MLGA AND IO-RHS E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/13/2014 TAGS: PHUM PREL UNGA BR SUBJECT: BRAZIL: RESPONSE TO DEMARCHE ON COUNTRY-SPECIFIC RESOLUTIONS AT THE UNGA REF: A. SECSTATE 116264 ¶B. BRAZIL 1280 Classified By: POL Counselor Stephen Liston, Reasons 1.4 (b,d) ¶1. (C) On November 13, Charge d'Affaires delivered reftel demarche to Carlos Abreu, minister responsible for the United States in the Ministry of External Affairs (MRE),and poloff simultaneously delivered the demarche to Nathanael Souza e Silva of the MRE's Human Rights Division. Charge gave Abreu copies of nonpapers on no-action motions, Iran, Burma and the DPRK taken from IO's Intranet site. (Comment: Abreu will be visiting Washington the week of November 16 with Brazilian U/S for Political Affairs Vera Machado, who is responsible for both the UN and human rights at the MRE, to consult on Brazil's upcoming rotation onto the UNSC. Post recommends raising these points with Machado when she meets with IO A/S Brimmer. End comment.) ¶2. (C) In poloff's conversation with Silva, he noted that Silva had previously told him that Brazil opposed no-action motions (ref B),yet Brazil abstained, rather than voting no, on the Iran and Burma no-action motions. Silva said that although Brazil was against such motions on principle, Brazil believed that discussion of human rights issues in the Third Committee and Plenary tended to politicize such issues and undermined the authority of the Human Rights Council (HRC). He said the HRC had the expertise and the appropriate mechanisms, specifically the universal periodic review, to deal with human rights cases in an even-handed way. He noted that universal periodic reviews had already been scheduled for the DPRK on December 7, Iran next February and Burma in ¶2011. Poloff asked how Brazil squared its abstention on the Burma no-action motion with its vote in favor of the substantive resolution on Burma. Silva answered that the international community was unanimous on Burma, in particular because of the case of high-profile political prisoner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. ¶3. (C) Poloff asked Silva why Brazil was willing to take a position on Burma, but not on Iran or the DPRK. Silva explained that Burma had taken a less cooperative stance with the HRC than had Iran or the DPRK. ¶4. (C) Comment: Silva's explanation notwithstanding, we believe that the discrepancy between Brazil's position on Burma, on the one hand, and the DPRK and Iran, on the other, has much to do with Brazil's efforts to deepen relations with the latter two countries over the last several months. In this regard, we note that Brazil opened a diplomatic mission in Pyongyang in July and that Iranian President Ahmadinehad is scheduled to make an official visit to Brazil November 23. KUBISKE