ENGAGING INDIA ON UN DEBATE: FIGHTING

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 NEW DELHI 002548 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/22/2019 TAGS: PHUM PREL KISL KDEM PGOV OPDC UNGA IN SUBJECT: ENGAGING INDIA ON UN DEBATE: FIGHTING DISCRIMINATION WHILE PROTECTING FREE SPEECH REF: A. A: SECSTATE 128320 ¶B. B: SECSTATE 128322 ¶C. C: NEW DELHI 02451 ¶D. D: NEW DELHI 01947 Classified By: Acting POLCOUNS Les Viguerie for Reasons 1.4 (B, D) ¶1. (C) Summary: Post is pleased to offer our recommendations for a strategy to engage India on the "defamation of religions" proposal and to back the U.S. "Action Plan" at the upcoming March session of the UN Human Rights Council on countering racial and religious discrimination. While India may welcome a team from the U.S. to discuss this matter, it may be difficult to gain assurances of support for our Action Plan to Combat Racial and Religious Discrimination and Intolerance because of internal sensitivities over equating race and caste. In addition, India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) seems committed to distancing itself from this issue. This strategy was likely formulated to avoid losing favor with Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) members whom India is counting on for support when it runs for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2011-2012. When engaging GOI officials on our alternate plan, Post recommends framing arguments in the context of our bilateral relationship. Highlighting the shared values of our open, democratic, and free societies will provide a strong basis for the argument that India and the U.S. should partner together to defeat resolutions that strike at the heart of democracy. End Summary. An Argument that Does Not Resonate -------------- ¶2. (C) The Secretary's message on building a partnership to tackle difficult issues such as this one at the UN was delivered to External Affairs Minister Krishna on December ¶17. PolOff discussed its contents with Ministry of External Affairs UN Economic and Social Division (UNES) Under Secretary Abhishek Verma. PolOff explained the need for India's cooperation on an alternative to the "Defamation of Religions" resolution, and Verma welcomed the idea of a visiting US team. He promised to share the Secretary's message with UNES Joint Secretary Rajiv Misra as soon as the Joint Secretary returned from Copenhagen on December 31. ¶3. (C) As home to the second largest Muslim community in the world, India seeks to maintain friendly ties with the Arab and Muslim worlds. For this reason, and because of India's own delicate and complex social and religious balance, the GOI usually does not take strong stances on social issues on the global stage. Taking measures to protect free speech at the expense of respect toward religion (as India or others may perceive it) could potentially alienate key international allies and important sections of India's diverse society. Given India's incredible religious diversity, many Indians believe that one should not hurt the religious sentiments of others. Most Indian officials and politicians are unlikely to see the connection between the UN defamation of religion matter and freedom of expression. (Note: The Indian Penal Code includes explicit provisions that punish those who promote tension between different groups on the ground of religion, and those who commit acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of others by insulting their religion or religious beliefs. End Note.) ¶4. (C) Very few local NGOs and religious organizations have followed this UN issue, and based on anecdotal evidence, those that are asked about the matter are likely to support general measures to prevent defamation of religions and are unlikely to connect it with limiting freedom of expression. India is a religiously diverse nation -- with Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and many more groups -- and the overwhelming majority of its people respect different religious traditions and eschew criticism of other religions. Regardless of their particular position on this UN matter, NGOs or other groups would not be able to influence the GOI's position. India has a vibrant civil society and countless NGOs, but on sensitive social issues, particularly in the international arena, the government is unlikely to be influenced by NGOs, particularly those the NEW DELHI 00002548 002 OF 003 government believes promote a hidden agenda designed to disrupt the social and political balance or that appear to be promoting "western" views. India's Strategy: Remain "Neutral" -------------- ¶5. (C) Over numerous discussions with MEA over the "defamation of religions" resolution, it has become apparent that the GOI's concerns about the OIC-sponsored resolution differ from ours. MEA officials have told us India is opposed to the resolution on principle but continues to abstain as long as a consensus is lacking. "India's position on this issue has evolved after careful consideration by the Ministry, and I do not foresee anything other than India abstaining with an explanation of vote in Geneva," Verma explained recently to PolOff, pointing out that India's concern is over the linking of race with religion as well as linking race with caste. Verma reaffirmed that even though India opposes the resolution because of its focus on Islam, the GOI would be unlikely to change its policy of abstaining on such a resolution rather than voting against it. ¶6. (C) India tends to follow the Non-Aligned Movement position on similar resolutions. The Indian Government's aim in keeping in line with a NAM consensus is to stay in good favor with a bloc which presumably would support India's candidacy for a non-permanent seat during October 2010 UN Security Council elections and India's continuing campaign for a permanent UNSC seat. However, in trying to balance its opposition to the substance of the "Defamation of Religions" resolution with its desire for continued support from NAM, India will try to appear neutral in this debate. Unless either a clearer consensus on the issue is formed or a significant proportion of NAM members begin to voice opposition, India is likely to continue abstaining on the OIC-sponsored resolution. MEA Agrees with U.S. Action Plan, for the Most Part... -------------- ¶7. (C) In going through the Action Plan to Combat Racial and Religious Discrimination and Intolerance, Verma commented that there was nothing with which India would disagree in principle; any reservations which the GOI may have would be due to "capacity constraints," he remarked. Specifically, he pointed to the Reporting Requirements in Section VI of the Action Plan as examples for areas which the GOI may be hesitant to accept, given staffing limitations. ¶8. (C) In the past, Verma has said that India would have no reservations about voting in favor of a freedom of expression resolution given a broad consensus (Ref D). That said -- and despite Verma's initial approval of the Action Plan -- the USG Action Plan to Combat Racial and Religious Discrimination and Intolerance may reopen the debate in human rights organizations about whether caste-based discrimination is equivalent to racial discrimination. The GOI adamantly believes that caste is different from race and has fought back international efforts to equate the two. Using the U.S.-India Global Partnership to Sway India's Position -------------- ¶9. (C) As the decision-making authority on UN social issues, the Joint Secretary for UNES Division -- Rajiv Misra, the functional equivalent of our Assistant Secretary -- is a key interlocutor to persuade. MEA Minister of State Shashi Tharoor may also be helpful since he would understand the issue and recognize how the "defamation of religion" lever could be misused to affect freedom of expression. However, his portfolio does not include UN issues and he has limited influence in MEA's bureaucracy. ¶10. (C) Post judges that the best approach in trying to sway the Indian Government to take a more proactive role in fighting racial and religious intolerance without compromising freedom of expression and religion is to stress this issue within the framework of the U.S.-India global NEW DELHI 00002548 003 OF 003 partnership for the 21st century. As part of the bilateral U.S.-India Global Issues Forum (GIF),the two nations are seeking ways to strengthen cooperation on a range of global issues, including support for rule of law and human rights. U/S Otero and Indian Foreign Secretary Rao conducted the last Global Issues Forum in New Delhi on November 5 and developed a good rapport. Arguments why India should support a resolution based on our Action Plan (and in turn, oppose the "defamation of religions" resolution) should aim to highlight India's position as the world's largest democracy and its commitment to and history of religious tolerance, robust civil society, free press, independent democratic institutions, and an open vibrant society. ROEMER