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