AMBASSADOR RICE'S MEETING WITH HIGH COMMISSIONER

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000170

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/24/2014
TAGS: PHUM PREL
SUBJECT: AMBASSADOR RICE'S MEETING WITH HIGH COMMISSIONER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PILLAY ON DURBAN, HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

REF: STATE 015159

Classified By: Ambassador Susan Rice for Reasons 1.4 B/D


1. (C) Summary: In a February 23 meeting with Ambassador
Rice, High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay
said of the Durban Review Conference, that although she was
disappointed with the addition of unhelpful text in the draft
outcome document and the politicized language used by some
delegations during the February 16-19 intersessional working
group (IWG) meeting in Geneva, this was only a temporary
dynamic which would lead to negotiated concessions and a
potentially positive outcome based on a shorter draft -
presented perhaps by the U.S. or other delegations. Pillay
said she is stressing with all delegations that we should not
go "higher or lower" than the Durban Declaration and Program
of Action (DDPA) and that no one issue should dominate the
agenda. She asked the U.S. to stay involved in Durban and
encourage Israel and Canada to re-engage, and she also urged
the U.S. to run for the Human Rights Council this year. End
summary.


2. (C) High Commissioner Pillay was accompanied by Jessica
Neuwirth, who heads the OHCHR office in New York, and Ibrahim
Salama, to whom Pillay has delegated primary responsibility
for the Durban Review Conference. The High Commissioner
started the meeting by offering her impressions of the status
of negotiations for the World Conference Against Racism
(Durban Review Conference). She said that U.S. engagement
during the IWG had served to revitalize the working group and
energize members across the board, including the Australians.
Although she expressed "astonishment" over the addition last
week of 100 new paragraphs to the draft outcome text and
acknowledged that some countries were continuing to posture
in unhelpful ways, she believed the conference remained on
track to achieve a positive outcome. In meetings with each
of the regional groups, Pillay said she has found a
willingness to work through the three key problematic issues
identified by the U.S.: anti-Semitism and a focus on Israel;
defamation of religions; and reparations. Her approach is to
have delegations reaffirm the 2001 DDPA and use her so-called
contribution document, publicly made available on February
20, to guide the way forward. In response to Ambassador
Rice's assertion that we would not likely be in the position
of reaffirming the entire DDPA, Pillay said the DDPA had been
a consensus document and we should not try to re-open it for
negotiation, but that we could reserve with caveats to
support our own positions.


3. (C) Regarding Israel-specific language, Ambassador Rice
emphasized that the focus of the conference should be racism
and that it's inappropriate to focus on Israel or any one
country or conflict. Pillay said that she had deliberately
left out any mention of a specific country or conflict in her
contribution document and that during her meeting with
members of the OIC, chaired by Pakistan and including the
hardliners, she learned the Palestinians were chosen to lead
this issue. Salama said that although OHCHR hasn't seen the
actual language, the Palestinian Ambassador said in
confidence that he's worked out two passages that he feels
everyone will be able to accept, which are consistent with
the Durban "no more, no less" theme. Neuwirth suggested that
we could offer a one-line disassociation from any language
focused on one conflict or country.


4. (C) Turning to U.S. concerns about the inclusion of
"defamation of religions" in the draft outcome document,
Pillay explained that her contribution offers to deal with
this concept as an issue of incitement to religious hatred,
and then use regional workshops to further develop the
concept. Most OIC members reacted positively to this shift,
Pillay said.


5. (C) With regard to reparations, Pillay said "there's no
new troublesome language" and believed this has become a
non-issue. She said that the Africa Group, with whom SYG Ban
will soon meet, seems to support the "no more no less
approach" to the Durban Review Conference and is comfortable
with language that emphasizes the right to seek rather than
require reparations. Pillay added that she had been more
concerned by inputs from the Asia Group than the Africa
Group, but that these concerns had been largely mitigated.


6. (C) Pillay assessed that the Europeans are in favor of her
contribution document, but have a concern with its apparent
endorsement of an optional protocol to the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the
controversial issue of complementary standards.


7. (C) In response to Ambassador Rice's question regarding
how OHCHR envisioned Durban playing out, Pillay deferred to


Salama, who said about the draft outcome document, "The worse
it gets, the better." Salama offered the view that the
Russian Chair would be more easily able to build support for
a greatly shortened document as the March informals proceed
and delegations exhaust their political posturing and move in
favor of a more realistic approach. He imagined that by the
end of March or early April another document would emerge
(either from the Chair or a specific country),and suggested
that if the U.S. decides to offer a streamlined document, it
should wait at least a week from now before doing so. (Note:
the first plenary reading of the draft outcome text will
conclude on February 26.) Both Pillay and Salama believed
the essence of a successful outcome document rested in a
combination of Section V of the new draft outcome document
and the High Commissioner's contribution, adding that a
shortened document might be 10 pages or less. Both also
cautioned against moving too quickly and instead letting the
negotiating and political process play out in order to
establish the legitimacy for the Chair to introduce a
streamlined document. States need to feel the threat of
others withdrawing, Pillay said. She lamented the fact that
the Chair has so far been unable to confirm five facilitators
to help the Chair during the March informals - the Europeans
had been particularly unhelpful on this point - and that
Russia itself had been under pressure not to chair the
process. (Note: Pillay said she intervened with the Russian
Ambassador in Geneva on this issue.) Salama said the outcome
document should do two things in his view: reaffirm the DDPA
and endorse the High Commissioner's contribution.


8. (C) Pillay appealed to the U.S. to encourage Israel and
Canada to re-engage in the Durban Review Conference, noting
that the Israeli Ambassador had told her Israel would be
willing to participate if objectionable language were
removed. Pillay asked Ambassador Rice to convey to Canada
the positive changes that have been made. Rice did not reply
to either request.


9. (C) On the Human Rights Council, Pillay urged the U.S. to
run, which she said would encourage greater support "from the
majority who are silent." Pillay did not offer a direct
response to Ambassador Rice's question regarding how a U.S.
candidacy would be viewed, but said she would actively
support our candidacy and the silent majority would support
us.


10. (C) Ambassador Rice underscored the U.S. commitment to
human rights under President Obama and our support for the
Office of the High Commissioner. She cautioned that the U.S.
had not made a decision about whether to participate in
Durban and had watched the draft outcome document "go from
bad to worse" during the week we sent a delegation to the
IWG. Unfortunately, some of the most important states are
not rolling up their sleeves and working toward a productive
outcome. The bottom line is this needs to be a conference
about racism and not about Israel or defamation of religions,
and that can only be accomplished in a final outcome document
of no more than a few pages. Ambassador Wolff commented that
we've been sounding out delegations here and in capitals and
that they don't seem prepared to do the heavy lifting needed
for a successful outcome. He added we face a "highly unknown
outcome" that is dangerous for the UN. Pillay expressed
frustration with the political posturing of certain
delegations, said there's only so much she can do, and
regretted that her office had neglected working on the Durban
issue until recently. "But if you leave, who will state your
case?" she asked. Ambassador Rice emphasized that we are
working toward common goals, want a solid partnership with
OHCHR, and agreed to stay in contact with Pillay as we move
forward.
Rice