POSSIBLE UN CONVENTION ENDANGERING FREEDOM OF

C O N F I D E N T I A L PRETORIA 002207 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/29/2019 TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL SF SUBJECT: POSSIBLE UN CONVENTION ENDANGERING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, RELIGION: SOUTH AFRICAN RESPONSE REF: A. STATE 111466 ¶B. PRETORIA 1860 ¶C. PRETORIA 2168 Classified By: Political Counselor Walter N.S. Pflaumer for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY. On October 29 Poloffs met with Pitso Montwedi, Chief Director for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs at the South African Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO),to deliver the demarche (ref A) urging support for a U.S. "draft action plan" of proposals (in lieu of any form of international instrument that would support or require criminal bans on offensive speech, such as in some of the "defamation of religion" proposals),to be presented at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC)'s Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards now meeting in Geneva. Montwedi doubted that the U.S. plan would have any effect on bridging the current divide, and the SAG would not support it. Meanwhile the SAG will continue to support resolutions calling for "international standards" to fight racism and intolerance, including the concept of "defamation of religion." Montwedi responded positively, however, to U.S. desire to work together to bridge gaps at the UNHRC, and he suggested an initiative to do so. End Summary. ¶2. (C) Montwedi made clear that South Africa disagrees with the USG and supports the idea of a resolution calling for criminal bans on offensive speech, such as in the "defamation of religion" proposals, a position unchanged by this demarche. In a long-running dialogue on the Durban Conference process between Montwedi and post, including prior demarches (ref B) and a visit this month by a delegation from DRL, IO, and L (ref C),both sides have outlined their differing positions. In this latest conversation, Montwedi explained that the Durban Resolution called for development of further standards and norms, expanding the notion of "racism" to new and varied manifestations of discrimination, and said the Ad Hoc Committee was working under that mandate. Montwedi was aggrieved by what the SAG sees as double standards: when the West wants elaboration of existing frameworks (as on torture: from ICCPR to CAT to OPCAT) they have their way, but when the developing world asks for the same on an issue of concern to them, they are told that existing tools are sufficient. ¶3. (C) Montwedi emphatically agreed with the U.S. view that implementation (i.e. lack thereof) of existing agreements is a serious problem for the U.N., and he suggested the USG and SAG work together to propose a review mechanism. He agreed with Mary Robinson that the "treaty system was on the verge of collapse" due to state-specific reservations, accumulated reporting obligations, and above all lack of compliance. Taking issue with the U.S. action plan, he said the SAG's view is that better implementation of existing instruments is not a trade-off for development of new ones, saying it is a question of "and," not "either/or." Hence the SAG would not support the U.S. plan in this narrow context; but he hoped that, on a broader comprehensive review mechanism, applied to all treaties in a uniform matter, perhaps the USG and SAG could work together. GIPS