Brazil: March HRC

UNCLAS BRASILIA 000204 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL PHUM UN BR GV IR BM CG IS SUBJECT: Brazil: March HRC REF: STATE 016231 ¶1. On February 24, poloff delivered the points reftel to Nathanael de Souza e Silva and Bruna Vieira de Paula of the Division of Human Rights, Ministry of External Relations (MRE). Religious and racial intolerance ¶2. Poloff handed Silva and de Paula a copy of the U.S.-proposed Action Plan to Combat Racial and Religious Discrimination and Intolerance, which they had already reviewed. De Paula said that there was no difference between the U.S. view and the Brazilian view on defamation of religion. For the GOB the concept violates international law and Brazilian domestic law. Brazil believes that Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adequately address the legitimate concerns of OIC and African Group countries. She said that Brazil could support the U.S. plan of action, though she questioned whether it was "too ambitious." ¶3. Poloff asked why Brazil has abstained on defamation resolutions if the GOB in fact opposes the concept on which they are based. De Paula responded that Brazil abstains and will continue to do so in recognition of the problem of persistent discrimination and hate crimes against religious minorities. These issues, she said, must be addressed somehow, and she reiterated that Brazil liked the U.S. proposal. Guinea and DRC ¶4. Silva said Brazil will almost always support human rights technical assistance in cases where the governments of the affected countries desire such assistance. As long as the governments of Guinea and DRC wish to be assisted, and especially if there is the support of the Africa Group, Brazil will support assistance to the two countries. Goldstone Report ¶5. Silva said he saw no reason for Goldstone-related resolutions to be brought up in the March HRC. Brazil supports the HRC's acting on its own competence with respect to the report but opposes the HRC's instructing the UNGA or any other UN organ to act on Goldstone. Silva said Brazil agreed that the HRC should not take any additional action until Israeli and Palestinian domestic investigations have run their course. (Note: Silva described the Goldstone Report as "impeccable from the legal and academic standpoint" but added that Goldstone, a judge, had not adequately taken into account political realities. End note.) ¶6. Silva agreed that there was a systemic bias in the HRC against Israel but noted that Brazil has tried to counter such a bias. He said that the Israeli representative in Geneva called his Brazilian counterpart on more than one occasion to thank him for Brazil's principled position against Israel-bashing. Silva said, however, that Israel was in part responsible for its weak position in the HRC because it had taken on the role of "persistent objector" and had not fulfilled its legal commitments. Iran, DPRK and Burma ¶7. Silva said that Brazil was open to all U.S. ideas on how to strengthen human rights monitoring and assistance functions, but disagreed with the USG about the utility of country-specific resolutions to "condemn" governments for their human rights records. Although Brazil in the past occasionally supported such resolutions, Silva said that the policy now is to abstain both in the HRC and the UNGA except in the most extraordinary circumstances. When poloff probed as to the reason for this change in Brazilian practice, Silva said it was a "question of coherence." Brazil recognized, for example, that Iran's human rights record and its record of non-cooperation with legitimate human rights monitors was far worse than Burma's record, yet Iran's importance to Brazil from a broader foreign policy standpoint made it impolitic for Brazil to vote against Iran in the HRC. Silva asked rhetorically, "How can we then support a resolution against Burma but not one against Iran?" The Brazilian solution is to abstain on ALL country-specific resolutions. In response to poloff's further questioning, Silva said that Brazil nevertheless will evaluate each country's human rights situation. SHANNON