FORWARD THINKING TO NEGATE "DEFAMATION OF

UNCLAS STATE 128320

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS, FOR THE AMBASSADOR FROM THE SECRETARY

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM PREL KISL KDEM PGOV OPDC
SUBJECT: FORWARD THINKING TO NEGATE "DEFAMATION OF
RELIGION" IN THE UN (S/ES: 200922459)

1.(U) This is an action message. See Paragraph 6.


2. (SBU) I am increasingly concerned by the
persistent efforts by members of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference (OIC) and members of the African Group
in the United Nations to adopt resolutions and promote UN
initiatives that would place unacceptable restrictions on
freedom of expression and religion in order to prevent and
punish the "defamation of religions." This push has
resulted in multiple resolutions at the UN General
Assembly, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC),and in a
working group of the HRC that grew out of the Durban
conference where some members have specifically set out to
create a new treaty that would codify "defamation of
religions," and therefore would ban free speech.
OIC countries cite post-9/11 discrimination against
Muslims in Europe and the United States, including such
episodes as the Danish cartoon controversy, as the primary
reason for their efforts to ban speech deemed offensive.
In addition to restricting speech, efforts to codify the
"defamation of religions" concept can undermine free exercise
of religion, as religious minorities or dissidents can be
targeted for "defaming" religion, if their interpretation
of religion varies from the one embraced by a majority or the
politically powerful.


3. (SBU) Such efforts, however, run contrary to the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, basic American
values, and rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. They also serve as a regrettable
distraction from the compelling need for more liberty and
freedom of expression in the very countries that are the
most vociferous proponents of such restrictions.
As such, the defamation of religions lobby in the UN has
posed a significant and growing threat to universally
enshrined human rights.


4. (SBU) As a result, I am determined to bring an
end to the escalation of this no-win debate and to
forestall a divisive battle over a proposed new treaty.
Building on the President's historic speech in Cairo and
the promise of a new direction in our foreign policy, the
recent joint Egypt-U.S. Freedom of Expression and Opinion
resolution adopted by broad consensus in September at the
HRC, and our recent submission of an Action Plan in Geneva
(see para 5),our strategy is to give governments that
sincerely care about the treatment of Muslims and other
religious minorities throughout the world a vehicle for
making real, concrete progress in combating racial and
religious discrimination and intolerance. In return, we
would expect them to cease supporting the efforts by a few
strong opponents in all UN fora to suppress the freedoms
of expression and religion for the purpose of prohibiting

"defamation of religions." By so doing, we would seek to
deprive those who promote restrictions on freedom of
expression and of religion of the critical mass of
international support needed to continue pressing their
case.


5. (SBU) We proposed, last month in Geneva, an
"Action Plan to Combat Racial and Religious Discrimination
and Intolerance," which provides concrete, serious steps
that UN Member States could adopt to fight racial and
religious intolerance without any new treaties or
compromise of freedom of expression and religion. Our aim
is to use this plan as a starting point for a resolution
at the upcoming March session of the HRC on countering
racial and religious discrimination. The draft Action
Plan is available at http://geneva.usmission.gov. Our
intention is to use our proposed Action Plan as a starting
point for discussions with countries that are serious
about taking concrete and practical steps to implement
measures to combat discrimination and intolerance.


6. (SBU) ACTION REQUEST: To help my "defamation of
Religion" working group finalize our diplomatic strategy, I
ask that you provide, by December 21, your personal
recommendation for a strategy to successfully engage your
country of assignment to cease supporting the "defamation
of religions" proposal and instead back a U.S. initiative
at the UN Human Rights Council along the lines of our
Action Plan.


7. (SBU) Some questions to consider in preparing
your response: Are there particular countries or blocs
that they are likely to follow in this debate? Are there areas
of leverage in the bilateral relationship that might help
sway them? Are there particular individuals, groups, or
bodies that hold heavy sway on government decision-making
in this area? Are there particular concerns your country
of assignment has in the context of these debates or
arguments that may resonate? Who within the Foreign
Ministry might be especially helpful? In suggesting
strategy, you should recommend how and at what level we
might engage your country of assignment on this issue --
whether by U.S. executive or legislative branch (members
of Congress have taken an interest in this issue)
interlocutors -- and what arguments, incentives or
linkages, within reason, would be necessary to achieve the
desired result. Do local human rights NGOs in your
country follow what is going at the UN? Could they
influence host country's behavior?


8. (U) Thank you in advance for your insights.
CLINTON