HMG WELCOMES U.S. ENGAGEMENT ON DURBAN II, HOPES

C O N F I D E N T I A L LONDON 000440


NOFORN

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/18/2019
TAGS: PHUM PREL UNHRC EZ DA IR NL SZ UK
SUBJECT: HMG WELCOMES U.S. ENGAGEMENT ON DURBAN II, HOPES
THIS SIGNALS GREATER USG INVOLVEMENT

REF: A. STATE 14204

B. LONDON DAILY REPORT 2-17-09

Classified By: Political Minister Counselor Greg Berry for reasons 1.4
(b) and (d).


1. (C/NF) SUMMARY. Susan Hyland, Head of the Human Rights,
Democracy and Governance Group at HMG's Foreign and
Commonwealth Office told Poloffs that HMG "agrees broadly"
with the USG's position and reservations regarding the Durban
Review Conference. She especially emphasized that HMG
considers the anti-Israeli bias of the current draft an
unacceptable "red line." Hyland offered HMG's support in
Geneva, and described some problem areas. Hyland said that
HMG has been "fighting the good fight" in the international
arena and welcomes the new administration's decision to
"re-engage." In particular she said that HMG hoped that the
current administration would reconsider USG's decision to
quit the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). End Summary.

HMG and USG Have Same Concerns
--------------


2. (C/NF) Minister Political Counselor delivered reftel
demarche to Susan Hyland and her deputy Stuart Adam on
February 18. Hyland indicated that HMG agreed broadly with
the USG position, and noted that HMG's tripwires for not
endorsing the Review Document or participating in the
Conference in April were:

-- Singling out of Israel for undue and disproportionate
condemnation;
-- Anti-Semitism, especially attempts to downgrade it's
status as a form of racism;
-- Holocaust denial;
-- The assault on freedom of expression involved in the
concept of "Defamation of Religion;"
-- Reparations for colonialism and slavery.

Poloff clarified that the USG's decision to participate in
the Review Conference was not to be taken as an affirmation
of the language or as an indication of the USG's decision to
participate in the Durban II conference in April. Hyland
stated that it is HMG's position that the text is nowhere
near being final, and that the UK had also not taken a
decision on attending the April Conference in Geneva.

Defamation, Holocaust Denial
--------------


3. (C/NF) Adam said that several weeks ago he attended the
previous Review Conference in which he made HMG's case
against the concept of "Defamation of Religion" only to be
"shot down" by several member states of the Organization of
the Islamic Conference (OIC). Similarly, he said HMG's fear
is that Iran will try to add additional language on Holocaust
denial and base it on freedom of expression. Hyland said that
Iran will reserve the right to amend the final language to
change the "H" Holocaust to a plural "h" holocausts and
include references to the "Palestinian Holocaust, etc."

Human Rights Council
--------------


4. (C/NF) Hyland welcomed what she described as the USG's
decision to re-engage internationally on human rights issues
after "the previous administration's decision to disengage."
She said that the UK had been "fighting the good fight"
during this period, and welcomed the addition of an ally.
HMG had particularly noted the USG's re-engagement in the UN
on human rights, and hoped that this would lead to a decision
to rejoin the UNHRC. Hyland said that despite the UNHRC's
flaws, it is the "only group we have" and urged the USG to
rejoin in order to work to improve it.

EU Common Position Vague
--------------


5. (C/NF) Poloff asked if the UK position in the Conference
reflected an EU position. Hyland responded that the EU's
"common position" was "skeptical" and that, "generally the
red lines are the same as the USG's." The EU was, however,
committed to engage on this issue. Adam noted that several
EU partners were looking to the UK for leadership. Hyland
reiterated that HMG would withdraw from the Conference if
their redlines were crossed "even if the EU did not." She
said that at least the Dutch and Danes have indicated they
have the same position. (Comment. Per Ref B, Italy's FM
Frattini said his government would take a similar stand. End
comment.) Adam added that the Czech Presidency has quietly
told member states that it is not opposed to them making a
"national decision" on the Review Conference and Durban II
participation/withdrawal.

Problems
--------------


6. (C/NF) Adam indicated that the "opposing nations" would
make it very difficult to roll back the draft language and
noted that the language worsened after the last prepcon
meetings. He also noted a possible legal problem for the
USG. Because the USG walked out of the 2001 Durban Conference
and did not "sign on to" the 2001 agreement, could the USG
participate in the Review Conference legally, without signing
on beforehand? How would the USG approach this issue?

Praise for USG Delegation
--------------


7. (C/NF) Hyland welcomed the USG's engagement in Geneva at
the Review Conference, and praised the U.S. delegation, which
she described as "very" engaged and a "tough" team. She
offered HMG's full support to the U.S. delegation and the
benefit of HMG's experience.

Final Thoughts
--------------


8. (C/NF) Hyland said that these negotiations had been
"ghastly" so far and would continue to be challenging. She
said that "at worst" HMG could accept a document with
"neutral language." This outcome, however, "appears not
achievable." Hyland said that, unlike the U.S., HMG signed
Durban with skepticism and is now very concerned with the
added language, much of which crosses HMG's redlines. She
confided that the stakes are high domestically in the UK, and
without the USG's involvement, keeping the language within
acceptable parameters would be very difficult, but with the
U.S. engaged, the HMG's "hard-line" position is less lonely.

Visit London's Classified Website:
http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/Portal:Unit ed_Kingdom

LEBARON