CANADA IN THE UNHRC: A CHAMPION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

C O N F I D E N T I A L OTTAWA 000610

SIPDIS

STATE FOR DRL/MLGA, IO/RHS, L/HRR, AND WHA/CAN

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/06/2019
TAGS: PHUM PREL PGOV KDEM UNHCR CA
SUBJECT: CANADA IN THE UNHRC: A CHAMPION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

REF: A. GENEVA 120

B. 08 OTTAWA 1123

C. 08 OTTAWA 793

D. 08 OTTAWA 758

E. OTTAWA 432

Classified By: PolMinCouns Scott Bellard, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)


1. (C) Summary. Canada closed its three year term on the UN
Human Rights Council (HRC) with an enhanced reputation as a
strong advocate for human rights protection and democracy
promotion worldwide. During its term, Canada was a spirited
advocate -- condemning human rights abuses, standing alone in
rejecting the HRC's "fixation" with Israel, and leading the
boycott of the Durban Review Conference. Canada also led in
defending freedom of expression against efforts to prohibit
"defamation of religion." Canada wants to work closely with
the U.S. on the HRC review in 2011 to restore HRC's
credibility. Canada plans again to sponsor an Iran
resolution in this year's UNGA Third Committee, as it has for
the past six years. End summary.


2. (C) A leader in human rights promotion since the
inception of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Canada
championed human rights protection during its three year term
(June 2006-June 2009) on the UN Human Rights Council (HRC).
Since taking office in 2006, Conservative Prime Minister
Stephen Harper's government has described its human rights
policy as "principle-based," with human rights a central
pillar of Canadian foreign policy. This "position of
principle" drove Canada's challenges to the HRC's
institution-building package, its rejection of HRC
resolutions on Israeli-Palestinian issues that singled out
one party, and its withdrawal from the Durban Review
Conference, according to Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade (DFAIT) contacts. While Canada was
disappointed that the HRC includes so many "serial human
rights abusers," it continued to fight for a credible and
effective HRC governed by impartiality, objectivity, and
non-selectivity.

Institution-Building Package and Country Mandates
-------------- --------------


3. (C) DFAIT contacts have acknowledged the HRC's mixed
record and have noted that many of HRC's non-democratic
members seek to render the HRC "a toothless talk-shop." At
the same time, Canada recognizes the HRC's unique place in
the international human rights architecture. Canada spent
its first year on the HRC engaged on institution-building,
and protested that no vote was held on the institutional
package in the HRC. Canada joined the U.S. in voting against
the institution-building package in both the UNGA Third
Committee (November 2007) and General Assembly (December
2007).


4. (C) Canadian officials publicly expressed disappointment
that the institution-building package retained a separate
agenda item specifically devoted to the human rights
situation in "Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories."
Canada's Permanent Representative in Geneva stated that this
would "single out one situation for highly politicized,
partial and subjective treatment." Canada argued that Middle
East issues should have been covered under the existing
agenda item for "Human Rights Situations that Require the
Council's Attention." According to DFAIT contacts,
expectations for the HRC may have been too high. While DFAIT
contacts have welcomed the HRC's increased ability to call
Qcontacts have welcomed the HRC's increased ability to call
special sessions and the level of civil society participation
(compared to the previous UN Human Rights Commission),
Canadian officials regret the degree to which Council members
have pursued political agendas rather than enforcing
universal human rights standards.


5. (SBU) Canada promoted the independence of the Special
Rapporteurs, advocating a more transparent nomination and
selection process. Canadian officials have expressed
disappointment with the failure to renew the country mandates
for Belarus, Cuba, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Canada advocated extending the mandate of the Special
Rapporteurs on Human Rights in Sudan and North Korea. Since
the completion of its term in June, Canada has remained
engaged as an observer on the HRC, and is looking forward to
the five-year UNGA review of the HRC in 2011.
Universal Periodic Review
--------------


6. (SBU) Canada was an early proponent of a system of
Universal Periodic Review (UPR) allowing the HRC to review
the human rights records of all countries, without exception,
and worked intensively to establish its procedures. Canada
supported the inclusion of a gender perspective in the UPR
principles and had advocated for a three year UPR cycle
rather than the current four year system. DFAIT and Canada's
Department of Heritage held consultations with civil society
organizations in six Canadian cities in January in
preparation for Canada's February 2009 UPR. However, DFAIT
Human Rights contacts acknowledged privately that the timing
of the October 2008 federal election delayed Canada's
consultative process and UPR submission. Several Canadian
NGOs, including Amnesty International-Canada, criticized the
government's civil society consultations as "too little too
late." Over fifty NGOs nonetheless submitted reports to the
HRC for Canada's UPR.


7. (SBU) On February 3, an 18-member Canadian government
delegation led by Deputy Minister of Justice John Sims
participated in the UPR Working Group's interactive dialogue
session, and presented Canada's actions to protect human
rights (ref a). On February 5, the Working Group released
its review of Canada, containing 68 specific recommendations.
To shape its response, the government held additional
stakeholder consultations with parliamentarians, provinces
and territories, and a range of aboriginal, human rights, and
women's NGOs. Canada also solicited Internet-based input.
In June, Canada responded to the UPR by rejecting 14 of the
68 recommendations, and partially rejecting another 22
recommendations. Rejections related to aboriginal rights,
anti-poverty programs, and decisions not to seek clemency for
some Canadians facing the death penalty abroad.

Block Voting and Dynamics
--------------


8. (SBU) In February 2008, DFAIT's then-Director General
for Human Rights Adele Dion testified to the Canadian
Senate's Standing Committee on Human Rights that Canada was
trying to "break down that instinct to vote as a block" in
the HRC by seeking co-sponsors from across regions and
reaching out, issue by issue, to moderate countries within
regional groups. Dion stated that Canada engages bilaterally
at senior levels in capitals throughout the world, leveraging
its Francophonie and Commonwealth connections. The Canadian
Senate's Standing Committee on Human Rights' June 2008 report
on Canada and the HRC commented that bloc politics were
destroying the HRC. Senators recommended that Canada
encourage regional groups to propose more candidates for HRC
nomination than seats available, to break the practice of a
pre-ordained candidate for the Asia and Africa groupings.
DFAIT officials cited the extension of the Sudan Special
Rapporteur mandate as an example where intense
Canadian/U.S./EU lobbying paid off, although acknowledging
that Sudan is a special case in intra-African politics.


9. (C) While DFAIT contacts have welcomed the HRC's more
frequent meetings (compared to the UN Human Rights
Commission),the June 2008 Senate report noted that this
frequency can pose challenges for smaller developing
Qfrequency can pose challenges for smaller developing
countries lacking a permanent HRC presence, who then defer to
their regional block for guidance. DFAIT contacts noted that
the transition from the UN Commission on Human Rights to the
HRC resulted in a net loss of seven seats for the Western
Europe and Others Group (WEOG) and Group of Latin American
and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC). Asia and Africa now
control 26 of 47 HRC seats, providing the Organization of the
Islamic Conference (OIC) with one third of the HRC's
membership. DFAIT human rights policy officers told poloff
that regional groups are led by "hard-liners," and that Egypt
controls 27 or 28 seats as chairman of the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM).


10. (C) With respect to the U.S. HRC term, DFAIT contacts
told poloffs that they recommend lobbying those smaller
countries that may not believe that they have a stake in a
particular issue in order to demonstrate how the topic does
relate to them. They also emphasized the importance of
lobbying the EU early in its HRC decision-making processes to
ensure that other WEOG views are taken into account. They
underscored that Canada looks forward to working closely with
the U.S. on the HRC review at the UNGA in 2011 to find ways
to restore the HRC's moral authority, credibility, and
effectiveness.

Israel
--------------


11. (SBU) Canadian officials have publicly noted that
around 80 pct of HRC resolutions are devoted to
Israel-Palestinian issues while many other pressing
international human rights issues are entirely ignored. They
have added that the number of HRC sessions and resolutions
devoted to Israel exceed those in the UN Human Rights
Commission. During its HRC term, Canada regularly stood
alone in rejecting one-sided resolutions. On January 12,
Canada alone voted against an HRC resolution condemning
Israel's Gaza offensive, noting that the resolution was
"deeply flawed" and "wholly failed" to acknowledge that Hamas
rocket attacks had triggered the crisis, and also "ignored a
state's legitimate right to self-defense." In March 2008,
Canada disassociated itself from a HRC resolution on the
right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, which
Canada said failed to contribute to an improvement of the
situation on the ground. In March 2008, Canada was also
alone in opposing two other resolutions introduced by
Pakistan on behalf of the OIC dealing with the Golan Heights
and Israeli settlements, noting that they were "neither
accurate nor balanced," and did not contribute to a peaceful
and fair resolution. Canada also disassociated itself from
the nomination of the mandate holder on the human rights
situation in Gaza and the West Bank, questioning his
impartiality and objectivity. DFAIT contacts noted that
"serial abusers" of human rights prefer to fixate on Israel
to deflect the focus from their own records.


12. (SBU) In January 2008, Canada was the sole vote against
a resolution condemning Israeli actions in Gaza. Canada
criticized the resolution for failing to acknowledge the
respective responsibilities of all parties and Israel's
security concerns. In September 2007, Canada was again
alone, this time in opposing a resolution introduced by the
OIC that called on Israel to provide unfettered access to
religious sites, without acknowledging Israel's security
concerns. In January 2008 (ref b),Canada was among the
first countries to announce that it would not attend the 2009
Durban Review Conference for the UN World Conference Against
Racism. Canada also disassociated itself from the final
Durban consensus document.


13. (SBU) UN Watch, a Geneva-based NGO, ranked Canada at
the top of its current HRC scorecard for its support of human
rights, impartiality, and non-selectivity. UN Watch praised
Canada for its leading, principled role on the HRC in
standing up to repressive regimes. Other NGO and opposition
critics of Canada's "principled approach," however, have
argued that this policy actually makes it harder for Canada
to be a bridge-builder and only encourages OIC retaliation
against other Canadian initiatives.

Freedom of Expression
--------------


14. (SBU) Canada is the traditional leader in sponsoring UN
resolutions on Freedom of Expression (FOE),and strongly
defended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the
Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion
and Expression. According to Canadian officials, freedom of
Qand Expression. According to Canadian officials, freedom of
religion is an individual right and not a right belonging to
a religion. At the HRC Seventh Session in March 2008, Canada
introduced a resolution to extend the mandate of the Special
Rapporteur on FOE, but two amendments changed the text by
instructing the Special Rapporteur to report on instances in
which the abuse of the right of FOE constitutes an act of
racial or religious discrimination. Canada voted against
both amendments, and then abstained on the overall text,
stating that religious and racial discrimination were not
part of the Special Rapporteur's mandate.

Iran and Other Developments
--------------


15. (C) DFAIT Human Rights Policy Officers Daniel Ulmer and
Cyndy Nelson confirmed to poloffs that Canada will this year
again sponsor an Iran resolution in the UNGA Third Committee,
as it has done for the past six years. They also predicted
that Canada will likely oppose Iran's HRC candidacy next year.


16. (SBU) During the HRC's sixth session in fall/winter
2007, Canada joined with like-minded states in opposing
several NAM-sponsored HRC motions, such as the "right to
international solidarity." The Senate's Standing Committee
on Human Rights in May 2007 and June 2008 had called on
Canada to appoint an Ottawa-based Canadian ambassador for
human rights to serve as Canada's permanent representative to
the HRC. The government responded by stating that Canada's
Permanent Representative to the Office of the UN in Geneva
(supported by DFAIT personnel in Ottawa and New York) already
met these needs.

Lessons Learned
--------------


17. (C) During its HRC term, Canada was the leading voice
for the universal applicability of human rights standards,
and for holding violators accountable for their actions.
Canada has been a consistent advocate of human rights and
individual freedom around the world and, as a HRC observer,
will continue to be a key global partner on these issues.
Canada's HRC and UPR experience points to several lessons for
the U.S.: serial abusers of human rights and those who
support them outnumber democracies on the HRC by a
consistently wide and predictable margin; the U.S. and Canada
must promote a more effective HRC by finding ways to break
down block voting by forming cross-regional issue-specific
coalitions with moderate developing countries on a case by
case basis; it is vital to shape EU policy at the outset of
the EU's internal deliberations; and, planning for the UPR
requires extensive preparation and a highly transparent
consultation process.

Visit Canada,s North American partnership community at
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap /

BREESE