DURBAN INTERSESSIONAL WORKING GROUP - DAY 1

C O N F I D E N T I A L GENEVA 000133 E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/16/2019 TAGS: PHUM PREL UNHRC SUBJECT: DURBAN INTERSESSIONAL WORKING GROUP - DAY 1 Classified By: CDA Mark C. Storella, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (U) This is an action request. See para 3. ¶2. (U) This cable reviews interactions that the USDel to the Durban Inter-Sessional Working Group (ISWG) had on February ¶16. ¶3. (U) As discussed on the evening teleconference with Washington, post requests the following actions: -- updated press guidance that can be used in Geneva and approval to release USDel statement; and -- fully cleared line-in line out guidance for USDel's use. ¶4. (SBU) USDel's participation in the informal session of the Durban Inter-Sessional Working Group (ISWG) was warmly welcomed by other delegations. The negotiations proceeded slowly and, as in previous sessions, African and OIC delegations added paragraphs and objected to EU and other dels' efforts to change language. ¶5. (SBU) Ambassador King, Felice Gaer, Jennifer Simon, Atul Keshap, and Charge Mark Storella attended separate meetings with High Commissioner Navi Pillay, and the Ambassador's of Egypt, Chile, Israel and Nigeria. ¶6. (C) Israeli Ambassador Aharon Leshno-Yaar urged the U.S. to use its entry into the process as a bargaining chip for which we should set a high price. He advised us not to participate in a crooked, lose-lose process that suits the OIC and the Cubans. He suggested we prepare and work towards a one-page aspirational outcome document and steal momentum and initiative from Egypt, Pakistan, Cuban and Iran. He was highly critical of the culture in Geneva. He suggested we build a second circle of Africans who are secretly with the U.S.: Ghana, Zambia, Angola, Uganda, Cameroon, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Senegal. He eflt that GRULAC countries were upset about defamation language and furious that Pillay had endorsed the concept of complementary standards. He argued that Pillay did not understand her job, was too passive, too diplomatic, and did not use enough of a moral voice. In the end, Yaar kept open the possibility that Israel could participate in the process if the Middle East/Israel language were excised. ¶7. (C) Pillay painted a very positive picture of the Durban process and contended that the remaining 60 percent of the document to be reviewed this week was "non-contentious." She urged the U.S. not/not to seek a delay in the Durban Conference, saying this could encourage other countries that would like to kill the process. She argued that the current review conference "should not go higher or lower than the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action." On defamation, she posited that Pakistan was the source, but other countries supported it since Islamophobia had created sympathy for defamation arguments. She said that Iran and Syria were behind the problematic Middle East language and that after the HRC Special Session on Gaza, Egyp and the Palestinian Observer said they would not push for such language in Durban. She did not address other countries' support for the current Middle East language. On complementary standards, she said that the DDPA provided a mandate to develop them. She said there would be a Chair's statement that the ad hoc committee shalldevelop complementary standards in May. Deputy High Commissioner Kang explained that Pillay's "contribution" to the Durban process, to be issued February 20, would propose the creation of an Observatory that would address many of the difficult issues outlined above. Pillay said her office would provide the U.S. with an advanced copy on Tuesday. USDel members stressed the importance of showing that text with the U.S. in a timely fashion to permit considered U.S. comments before it was made public. ¶8. (C) Chilean Ambassador Carlos Portales suggested that the U.S. work with Brazil on Durban, as Brazil was out of sync with the rest of the GRULAC countries. He posited that Brazil was cooperating closely with the Africans in the hopes of building support fro a Brazilian seat on the UN Security Council. ¶9. (C) Egyptian Ambassador Hisham Badr told the USDel that many delegations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) were supportive of the Egyptian mantra, "Durban, no more, no less," which meant that language on the Middle East and other prickly issues that were part of the DDPA must remain part of the dialogue in this review conference. He said it would neither be possible to eliminate the Middle East language, nor bring the document to a short, one- to three-page declaration. On defamation, he said it was a tougher issue because the "big players" in the OIC wanted to know what they would get concretely on this topic, which they felt strongly about. He said he had not spoken with Iran or Syria about Durban, because he needed to build consensus with others before approaching these hardliners. ¶10. (C) Nigerian Ambassador Martin Uhomoibhi told USDel that he felt the conference should be a review of the DDPA and should maintain a focus on racism. The language on the Middle East did not belong in the document and should be taken out, as the Palestinian issue is "more important that racism." At the same time, he subscribed to the argument of "Durban, no more, no less." STORELLA