DEMARCHE DELIVERED: UNHRC FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

C O N F I D E N T I A L CAIRO 000397 SIPDIS DRL/MLGA FOR GRUNDER, IO/RHS FOR OSTERMEIER GENEVA FOR CASSAYRE E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/05/2029 TAGS: PHUM PREL UN EG SUBJECT: DEMARCHE DELIVERED: UNHRC FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION RESOLUTION REF: A. STATE 20375 ¶B. CAIRO 380 ¶C. CAIRO 321 ¶D. GENEVA 133 Classified By: ECPO Mincouns William R. Stewart for reason 1.4 (b). ¶1. (C) On March 5, we demarched MFA Deputy Director for Human Rights Omar Shalaby on Egyptian plans to sponsor a freedom of expression resolution at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) March session, urging Egypt not to pre-empt Canada (ref A). Shalaby responded that Egypt's position is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Africa Group became the main sponsors of the resolution "procedurally speaking" following the decision by the U.S., Canada and others to withdraw their co-sponsorship in March ¶2008. Shalaby said Egypt wants to defer the freedom of expression resolution, as well as resolutions on defamation of religion and religious intolerance, until the UNHRC June session as a "gesture of good will." He noted that the Egyptian PermRep in Geneva had conveyed that message to his Canadian counterpart. ¶2. (C) According to Shalaby, Egypt believes such a deferral could advance discussions on the Durban Review Conference (refs B, C, D). Shalaby said Egypt wants to reach consensus on a freedom of expression resolution, but believes the 2008 amendment calling on the Special Rapporteur to focus on freedom of expression must remain. He asserted that the amendment does not "deviate much" from article 20, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and does not restrict free speech. Shalaby said that Egypt's aim regarding the resolution is to prevent attacks, discrimination and insults against Muslims in Europe, not merely to make a political statement. We responded that U.S. will not be able to accept resolution language undermining free speech, and that the U.S. believes Canada should be allowed to continue sponsoring the resolution. ¶3. (C) Separately, Canadian Emboff told us March 5 that he delivered a similar demarche to Shalaby the week of February 22 on instructions from Ottawa. Canadian Emboff told us Shalaby made the same argument that because of the 2008 developments, Egypt does not consider Canada to have a claim to sponsoring the resolution. Also on March 5, EU Delegation Political Counselor told us he had not received instructions to demarche the GOE on the freedom of expression resolution, but that he would check with his headquarters. He said the EU is "not amused by Egyptian antics at the UN Human Rights Council." We briefed Canadian Emboff on the Egyptian response to our demarche, and will apprise the EU Delegation. SCOBEY