(C) EU PRESIDENCY DOWNBEAT ON DURBAN

C O N F I D E N T I A L GENEVA 000126 DEPT FOR IO/RHS, DRL/MLGA, L/HRR E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/11/2019 TAGS: PHUM UNHRC SUBJECT: (C) EU PRESIDENCY DOWNBEAT ON DURBAN REF: A. GENEVA 8 ¶B. GENEVA 10 ¶C. GENEVA 77 ¶D. GENEVA 122 Classified By: A/DCM Larry Richter, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) Summary: In their role as current president of the European Union, the Czech Human Rights team (which negotiates the Durban process on behalf of the EU) today conveyed their deep suspicion of possible progress on Durban substantive discussions next week; said they would not propose an abridged document as an alternative solution due to concern about being labeled spoilers; and were skeptical that the draft "contribution" by the High Commissioner for Human Rights (HCHR) Navanethem Pillay could form the basis of a compromise. End Summary. ¶2. (C) The Czechs said they felt that in order to be seen as fair players they were obliged to work towards the completion of the first reading of the current compilation document during the Intersessional Working Group meetings February 16-19. However, given the remaining 22 pages out of 37 to be negotiated during three and a half days, they were doubtful that the reading could be completed. (Note: the first 15 pages required a full week just to place most language in brackets. End note.) They thought it unlikely that next week's talks could result in any real improvements to the current draft document. ¶3. (C) They expressed disappointment at the cagey response of the Russian chair to their blunt questions about a way forward after next week, and suspected that the current document would have to be left aside. The Czechs, however, said the EU could not propose a "one-page solution" in the form of an outcome declaration (as a way to bridge the impasse on the current draft text),out of the fear of appearing to be the spoiler of the whole process. Next week's COHOM meeting in Brussels will be the last chance for the EU collectively to consider its position unless it decides to call a special meeting specifically to discuss Durban; the March COHOM meeting would be entirely preoccupied by considerations of the HRC session and the April meeting falls during the Durban Review Conference itself. ¶4. (C) Regarding the "High Commissioner's text" being developed by OHCHR staffer Ibrahim Salama (please protect) as a possible solution, the Czechs felt it was too little too late. While trying to offer a way out of the current impasse over difficult language regarding defamation of religion, the Middle East, etc., the "contribution," they predict, will only succeed in offering something to which all sides would have strong objections. They stressed that EU consideration of any alternative text would still be examined on the basis of substance; they would refuse to support a one-page preface resolution that adopted the HCHR's contribution if that contribution remained in fact substantively objectionable. Ultimately, they said, the fact that attention to the problems of current process comes from the highest levels of the EU, means that a contribution from the High Commissioner may do very little to change the direction of the Durban preparatory work. Quoting the UK ambassador, the Czech delegation had stressed repeatedly to Salama that the time for urging EU full engagement was over and that if any convincing was needed, it is to be aimed at the supporters of the other side of the debate (i.e., the OIC, along with their pliant African Group allies) to be reasonable. STORELLA