This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 06 BRUSSELS 000585 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NOFORN 
 
DEPT FOR DRL KOZAK, DRL/MLA, IO/SHA AND EUR/ERA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/10/2015 
TAGS: PHUM UNHRC EUN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: US/EU HUMAN RIGHTS CONSULTATIONS: PREPPING FOR CHR 
 
 
Classified By: USEU/POL Harry O'Hara, reasons 1.4 b/d. 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: US and EU officials met in Brussels 
February 3 in regularly scheduled human rights consultations 
(COHOM) to prepare for the spring UN Commission on Human 
Rights (CHR), and to review the human rights situation in 
China and Iran. Also discussed were the Global War on 
Terrorism (GWOT) and promoting human rights, anti-Semitism in 
Europe, the UN high-level panel (HLP) report, EU support for 
Magen David membership in the ICRC and EU support for the UN 
Voluntary Funding for Victims of Torture.  The CHR discussion 
concentrated on Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus, 
Chechnya/Russia, Sudan (and the ICC), DRC, Burundi, Zimbabwe, 
Afghanistan, Israel, East Timor, Colombia, and Cuba.  End 
Summary 
 
COHOM Participants: 
 
¶2. (U) The EU side was led, in their EU presidency role, by 
Ambassador Julien Alex, Luxembourg Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs (MFA) and Anne Goedert, also from the Luxembourg MFA 
human rights division. Representing the European Commission 
was Rolf Timans, Head of the Human Rights Unit at DG-external 
relations (RELEX). From the Council Secretariat were the 
newly appointed Personal Representative to Hi-Rep Solana on 
Human Rights, Michael Matthiessen (a newly created position), 
Jim Cloos, Council Secretariat Director for Human Rights (and 
also for UN and Transatlantic Affairs), and Council human 
rights expert, Hadewych Hazelzet. Alex Hall Hall, the human 
rights director from the UK Foreign Office, represented the 
UK in its forthcoming Presidency role. On the US side were 
DRL Acting Assistant Secretary Ambassador Mike Kozak, IO/SHA 
Director Bill Lucas, DR/MLA Amy McKee and USEU/POL Harry 
OHara (note-taker). 
 
CHR prioritizing 
 
¶3. (C) Ambassador Alex stressed that Luxembourg as the EU 
President was concerned that EU could dissipate its efforts 
if it spread itself in too many directions with too many 
countries. He said the EU Presidency would seek to focus at 
CHR on doing what is feasible and would encourage EU 
member-states to prioritize their efforts. UK human rights 
director Hall-Hall, speaking as part of the EU troika, 
pledged that the EU would try to avoid surprises for the US 
at Geneva. Alex identified the EUs current understanding of 
its CHR priority countries as Belarus, Turkmenistan, 
Uzbekistan, DRC, Sudan, Afghanistan, Burma, North Korea, and 
East Timor.  He said that the EU is also considering adding 
Zimbabwe (if there is EU member-state consensus) to its 
priorities.  While the EU would be interested in considering 
Chechnya and, possibly, China, resolutions, Alex noted that 
the EU is concerned with the consequences of losing on these 
resolutions. Kozak also identified less one-sided and 
obsolete Israel resolutions, and Cuba as US CHR priorities. 
 
Turkmenistan 
 
¶4. (C) Alex said that since a resolution on Turkmenistan had 
been run at the fall UNGA 3rd Committee, the EU had decided 
not to run a CHR resolution this spring. Kozak said the US 
agreed with this but suggested that the US and the EU might 
delay sharing this with Turkmenistan in an effort to get 
something from them, e.g. Red Cross access to prisoners. EC 
Rep Timans asked if our two Embassies in the field could be 
asked to come up with something measurable that we might 
jointly ask for. After some discussion, US/EU participants 
suggested that ICRC access to prison, cooperation with UN 
mechanisms and increased NGO access could be three things to 
seek Turkmenistan concessions before informing them that a 
resolution would not be run against them this spring. In 
addition both sides agreed to ask our Embassies in the field 
to see what could be asked for and if the three items listed 
above might be feasible. 
 
Uzbekistan 
 
¶5. (C) Alex said that the EU was undecided between seeking an 
Item 9 resolution or Item 19 on Uzbekistan. The EU has been 
seeing recent human rights improvements in Uzbekistan but 
some member states were not sure how deep these improvements 
were.  After agreeing that the picture was mixed, Kozak noted 
recent progress in the treatment of detainees, greater police 
cooperation with human rights defenders and the government 
now permitting Freedom House to operate and examine prison 
deaths. On the other hand, Kozak said that political parties 
and individuals not associated with the regime had not been 
allowed to register in forthcoming elections. Kozak urged 
that the EU consider an Item 19 approach and that the US and 
the EU suggest to the Uzbek government that if they would 
make progress on habeas corpus, we would consider an Item 19 
vice an Item 9. Alex said that the current EU view is more 19 
but not ready to reject a 9.  After some discussion, the US 
and EU agreed to add the situation of NGOs into the bundle of 
things we would like from Uzbeks and then work together and 
to ask our respective heads of mission in the field to see 
what we could ask the Uzbeks to do.  Commission official 
Timans demurred from the Luxembourg offer and said that the 
EU member states are split on an Item 19 vs. an Item 9. He 
suggested that the EU could play the 9 card (as a hard cop) 
against the Uzbeks.  Kozak replied that the US would have a 
problem with supporting an Item 9 against Uzbekistan.  Alex 
indicated that in the case of an Item 19 resolution the EU 
and US would coordinate for drafting and tabling. 
 
Belarus 
 
¶6. (C) Alex opened by asking if the US is jumping off the 
train on a Belarus resolution at CHR this year.  He said that 
the EU wants to lead on Uzbekistan but wants the US to lead 
on Belarus. He noted that the EU is ready to help on Belarus 
including with joint lobbying. Kozak welcomed the chance to 
clear up EU confusion. He said Belarus, as an outpost of 
tyranny, was a must-win at the CHR.  He asked that the EU 
confirm their agreement to lobbying and their willingness to 
be tough on Belarus. Kozak said that the US would like the EU 
to be prepared to tell third countries, e.g. in Latin 
America, that Belarus is a must-win for the EU, just as the 
US will say on Cuba. Alex replied that co-tabling and 
co-drafting would be okay. EC rep Timans noted that the EU 
member states wanted the US to take the lead on Belarus and 
that member states already felt that the EU is taking on too 
much for Geneva this year.  He said that the EU would have to 
go back to the member states to review the entire list of 
initiatives before responding about leading on Belarus. 
Kozak urged that the EU do precisely that, namely go back to 
the member states. Kozak said that the US wants the EU to 
show its flag on this issue. If at the end of the day, the EU 
cannot lead on Belarus, the US will do it, Kozak said. The EU 
then agreed that they would get back to the US.  Later over 
lunch, Alex reiterated the EU strongly felt belief that the 
US lead on Belarus in Geneva. Kozak replied that if the EU 
would not do it, then the US will take the lead.  Kozak 
offered that, as an alternative, the US could draft if the EU 
will do the negotiations.  That way the Europeans might have 
a more public face on the resolution.  US would lobby for the 
draft, of course, in any event. 
 
Chechnya/Russia 
 
¶7. (C) UK rep Hall-Hall noted that the we have lost 4 times 
on a Chechnya resolution and the EU expects that Russia to be 
very tough on fighting this resolution this spring. Both the 
US and the EU agreed that Chechnya poses a dilemma. Kozak 
stressed that not only do we have ongoing concerns about 
Chechnya, but also our human rights concerns with Russia are 
growing. He wondered if the EU and the US, working together, 
might find alternative ways to signal unhappiness with Russia 
) perhaps in some language on elections in a thematic 
resolution where a Russian example would be cited without 
mentioning Russia by name. Timans noted public pressure in 
Europe to do something on Russia but suggested that if we 
push too hard on Russia, we might lose on Belarus. Timans 
said that perhaps we could consider using the OSCE more on 
our Russia concerns but added that this would be tricky.  UK 
rep Hall-Hall wondered if we want press Russia in the 
Community of Democracies where Russia is a member.  Alex 
noted that Russian and the EU will have human rights 
consultations on March 1 but added there was no agenda for 
the meeting.  Returning to Chechnya, Alex said that EU civil 
societies would expect the EU to try to do something on 
Chechnya in Geneva. After further discussion, both sides 
agreed to work together to see if something might be done 
jointly on using thematic resolutions to raise concerns about 
Russia. In addition, both sides agreed to look for 
opportunities to say similar things about Chechnya. 
 
Sudan/ICC 
 
¶8. (C) Despite losing last time on Sudan, Alex said that the 
EU and the US must do something on Sudan, as the situation is 
worse now than it was before. He told us that Luxembourg 
Presidency sees the UNSC discussion on Sudan and the 
recommendation of an ICC referral as complex. Kozak said that 
the US will press the UNSC for sanctions and the principle of 
accountability will guide our policies. He stressed to the EU 
that the US does not want Sudan to become a battleground over 
our ICC differences. We are not asking the EU to give up its 
position on ICC in order to get accountability in Sudan; the 
EU should not expect the US to prejudice its position on ICC 
either.  In addition, the US does not want to see any CHR 
resolution on Sudan that is weaker that what might emerge 
from the UNSC. Kozak also stressed that the US does not want 
to see a failed Sudan resolution. Alex replied that the EU 
was waiting for a political signal from their internal 
political and security committee on how much the EU should 
push the ICC at Geneva or New York. Timans said that the EU 
was aware of the US position on the ICC and does not want 
UNSC discussion on Sudan to get bogged down over the ICC. 
Speaking personally, Timans noted widespread European outrage 
over Sudan and strong pressure to go to the ICC as being 
faster than a special tribunal for ensuring accountability. 
Kozak noted that the US has no flexibility on the ICC and 
that we have to work around this.  We had put forward an 
alternative that would bring accountability in a timely way 
without prejudicing anyones position on the ICC.  Kozak 
stressed the need to see what happens at the UNSC before 
deciding what needs to be done in Geneva Council Secretariat 
rep Hazelzet replied that the EU view is they would like to 
see a special rapporteur on Sudan and for that they need a 
CHR resolution or decision. Kozak replied that let us agree 
that for whatever gets done at CHR, that it not be less than 
what comes from the UNSC. He further indicated that the US 
would seek to avoid either a weak text or a failed 
resolution.  The EU agreed. 
 
DRC, Burundi, Zimbabwe 
 
¶9. (C) Alex rep told us that the EU is working with the 
African Union on the DRC and Burundi. If talks with the AU 
are fruitless, or they are unable to decide upon strong texts 
in the short-term, the EU might go it alone with country 
resolutions. On Zimbabwe, the EU member states remain divided 
on what to do.  Alex wondered if there is any way that the EU 
could actually win if it ran a resolution against Zimbabwe or 
whether, in fact, the EU should run a resolution, knowing 
that it will lose.  Hazelzet wondered if the EU might 
consider something pointed against Zimbabwe in a thematic 
resolution rather than a country resolution. 
 
Afghanistan 
 
¶10. (C) Alex asked for US views on the Italian resolution on 
Afghanistan, Kozak emphasized that while we have no problem 
with the idea of an independent expert helping the Government 
of Afghanistan to develop its human rights program, the 
incumbent for Afghanistan has done everything but carry out 
his mandate. Kozak added that the US supported OHCHR 
assistance to Afghanistan in formulating a Human Rights 
program but with a different independent expert, someone who 
would focus on helping the government get assistance for 
addressing human rights problems in Afghanistan rather trying 
to go to Guantanamo. Kozak added that the US would open to a 
possible Chairman us statement on Afghanistan if it met these 
criteria. 
 
¶11. (C) Hall-Hall asked if the US could support raising the 
situation of women in Afghanistan at the CHR She said that if 
the US would be willing to consider this, then EU might drop 
raising this at the Special Commission on Women (where the US 
has opposed it). She asked that the US consider this option 
and noted that in order for the EU to be comfortable with 
dropping the CSW resolution gender issues and prison 
conditions must be addressed in the CHR text. 
 
Israel 
 
¶12. (C) Kozak asked that the EU work with the US to try to 
reduce the number of anti-Israel resolutions at the CHR. He 
said that piling on anti-Israeli resolutions does not help 
the peace process nor does it do anything to improve the 
human rights situation on the ground.  Alex said that the EUs 
mid-east experts are making a list of all the resolutions on 
Israel with an eye to prioritizing them. He said that the EU 
would be interested in reconsidering those resolutions that 
are obsolete and that the US concern on this would be shared 
with the EU mid-east experts. 
 
East Timor 
 
¶13. (C) The EU said that the EU had not yet decided how to 
proceed on East Timor this year especially since Indonesia 
would be the chair this year. 
 
Colombia 
14, (C) Kozak urged that the EU support the idea of working 
with the Colombian government on its human rights problems. 
He said that Colombian government is not opposed to 
criticism, but that sometimes the UN organs seemed to 
criticize it for not adopting a specific bureaucratic 
approach to dealing with a problem rather than assessing how 
well it was doing at achieving the objectives of a 
recommendation. The Luxembourg Presidency replied that the EU 
will seek an Item 3 chairman statement with updated language 
on the situation that reflects the progress Colombia has 
made, not just old text.  They would not be going for a 
country resolution under Item 9 nor 19. 
 
Cuba 
 
¶15. (C) Kozak said that the US was considering running the 
Cuban resolution this year itself to avoid the delays and 
drafting issues we witnessed last year. He asked if the EU 
thought that a US lead would be counterproductive. He 
emphasized that EU co-sponsorship and member-state support 
would be important. He asked that if EU can not come to a 
common position to support the US that they allow ) early on 
-- member-states to support it. Kozak said that the US is 
still discussing the text of a Cuba resolution and that the 
US would welcome EU thoughts might be included in the 
resolution. Alex asked when the US could share a text and 
Kozak replied that he hoped that some language could be ready 
in 1-2 weeks.  Council director Cloos said that he was quite 
sure that the US and the EU could find common ground on Cuba 
at CHR.  Hazelzet noted that the EU shares the US assessment 
of the bad human rights situation in Cuba and said that she 
would see if the EU could provide the US with some bullet 
points on Cuba. Kozak noted that EU support for a Cuba 
resolution would give the EU a chance to show that the EU has 
not softened its position on Cuba. (Comment: No one on the EU 
seemed uncomfortable with the idea of the US would run the 
Cuban resolution this year. End comment) 
 
Bad behavior in Geneva 
 
¶16. (C) Kozak said that he hoped that the new government in 
the Ukraine might more favorable to addressing human rights 
issues than Kuchma had been, but it was hard to see much 
improvement in the composition of the commission otherwise. 
He said that the Africa was a particular problem and wondered 
given the amount of assistance the EU provides to Africa, why 
the EU could not do more. Timans replied that the wording of 
the EU development agreements specifically precluded trying 
to seek such leverage.  Kozak said the US and the EU should 
also focus on Brazil, India, Jamaica and the South Africa to 
stop the drift towards increased resistance to country 
specific resolutions. He said that the US and the EU also 
need to be more rigorous about ensuring that country reps in 
Geneva actually vote their instructions from the capitals. 
 
Thematics 
 
¶17. (C) Alex said that the EU will continue to pursue 
thematic resolutions on the rights of the child, religious 
intolerance (that would also mention anti-Semitism and 
Islamaphobia) and the death penalty (with special attention 
on the juvenile death penalty). He said that the US and the 
EU are unlikely to resolve differences on the first and third 
items and the EU anticipates that the US will call for votes. 
Kozak noted that the legal doctrine of persistent objection 
requires that the US voice its objections, otherwise language 
from these resolutions can be improperly asserted in US 
courts as a US interpretation of customary international law. 
Kozak asked the EU to consider repackaging rights of the 
child resolutions so that US could support them. The UK rep 
said that the EU is considering the option of a more targeted 
resolution on children for the Third Committee at UNGA this 
fall (when the UK holds the EU Presidency).  The topic would 
likely be violence against children. 
 
China 
 
¶18. (C) Kozak updated the EU on the US DAS level human rights 
talks with the Chinese.  He said that the US goal was to make 
human rights a positive feature in our relationship with 
China. He said that the US has not decided on what to do 
about China at CHR, adding that this would be depend on 
Chinas human rights performance.  Kozak also reviewed in 
general terms the US three basket approach to the human 
rights dialogue with China. Alex said that the EU had just 
given the Chinese 80 cases of interest to prepare for the 
next round of the EU/China human rights dialogue, scheduled 
February 24-25 in Brussels. 
 
Iran 
 
¶19. (C) Alex said that the EU/Iran human rights dialogue 
remains stalled due to Iranian resistance. Regarding a CHR 
resolution on Iran, the EU is waiting to see what the 
Canadians do. Kozak said that Canada has been concerned that 
a resolution would lose in Geneva.  We needed to consider 
what we might do on Iran apart from resolutions. Hazelzet 
said that Iranian human rights groups were eager for a new 
round of human rights dialogue with the EU but the Iranian 
government was resistant. 
 
GWOT and Promoting Human Rights 
 
¶20. (C) UK rep Hall-Hall, at the request of the EU 
presidency, reviewed a long list of NGO and press accusations 
about various US actions in the GWOT. In that spirit, she 
noted concern in Europe about US double standards on 
promoting human rights and the GWOT as exemplified by 
Guantanamo. She said that US reservations on international 
human rights conventions had also raised questions. She also 
raised questions about US legal application of the Geneva 
conventions, renditions, ghost detainees, alleged omissions 
in defining cruel and degrading treatment etc. She said that 
the UK government was not perfect either and that therefore 
her points should not be seen as implying that the EU or its 
member-states were perfect.  Timans singled out alleged US 
denial of access to due legal processes as particularly 
troubling for the EU. In his reply to each of their points, 
Kozak stressed the difference between the law applicable to 
enemy combatants in wartime and that applicable to criminals 
in peacetime.  He also noted that it was not the US that had 
decided to exclude certain groups from coverage under the 
Geneva Conventions.  Rather, the conventions are legal 
instruments, which by their terms apply only to certain 
combatants and not others. The US. was applying customary 
international law and US policy to assure humane treatment of 
all whether or not they qualify for POW status under the 
Conventions.  The US. was not asserting a different standard 
for itself than for others.  Detainees had had recourse to 
our courts and much of the evolution in procedure was due to 
the decisions of the courts.  Kozak said that US will have a 
side event at CHR in which experts from US will brief several 
of the special procedures of the OHCHR, as well as a public 
discussion to discuss in more detail what we have done and 
are doing in Guantanamo.  Follow-up 
 
¶21. (C/NF) US participants were struck by the contrast in the 
EUs discussion of the GWOT and the rest of our consultations 
and indeed between this accusatory and emotional presentation 
and past EU discussions which have been more of the 
information gathering variety. On February 4, we reviewed 
with the Council Secretariat Hazelzet the rationale for the 
EUs approach to this topic especially since it had been so 
different from previous US/EU discussion of these issues. 
Hazelzet said that the EU human rights experts had decided 
February 2 that the EU should have an informal over lunch 
discussion of these concerns and had asked that Guantanamo 
and the use of the US as an excuse by Sudan and others to 
justify their misdeeds be raised with us. She also said that 
they had decided to ask the UK rep to raise these points on 
the grounds that a UK official could more easily talk to us 
about these sensitive topics. We replied that the problem 
with reciting a long list of press allegations about the US 
is that we found it hard to distinguish what the EUs concerns 
were. We noted that we had already publicly responded to 
these press allegations and accusations and wondered why they 
had been included.  We explained that the US was not 
objecting to discussing difficult and sensitive issues, 
rather we felt that the long recital of newspaper items was 
not conducive to the kind of dialogue that either side 
sought. She agreed that the EU ought to have better thought 
through how to structure this presentation.  She also 
acknowledged that this exchange had taken up too much time at 
the expense of other items on our agenda. 
 
Human rights aspect in High-Level Report 
 
¶22. (C) Timans noted that the EU had reports from NY that 
Brazil was working to weaken the language in the UNSYG 
high-level report calling for country human rights reports. 
 
Anti-Semitism 
 
¶23. (C) Kozak noted US concerns over anti-Semitism in Europe. 
He said that OSCE discussion had been very good.  Kozak noted 
that anti-Semitism in Europe seems to be growing among EU 
intellectuals ) something different than traditional forms 
of anti-Semitism among skinheads.  Timans said the Commission 
has proposed the creation of an Agency on Fundamental Rights 
as a way of upgrading the current Racism Monitoring Center in 
Vienna. He said that the Commission hopes to present the 
Council with a proposal in May 2005 with a target date for 
opening the new agency by January 2007. 
 
HLP Report, Magen David Adom and UN Voluntary Funding for 
Victims of Torture 
 
¶24. (C) IO/SHA Director Lucas presented USG views on the High 
Level Panel reports recommendations on CHR, stressing that 
universalization does not effectively address CHR problems 
and suggesting several procedural and structural measures 
designed to improve the quality of CHR membership and 
leadership.  Kozak urged the EU to weigh in with the Swiss 
government to call for a special meeting of the ICRC to 
discuss procedural steps for the entry of the Israeli Magen 
David Adom (MDA) society of Israel into the ICRC. Alex was 
not aware of this issue and said that the EU would have to 
get back to us. IO rep Lucas noted that the US funded about 
75 percent of the UN voluntary fund for victims of torture. 
Timans, speaking for the Commission, replied that he was 
unaware of this voluntary fund or the US contribution to it 
and asked for more information. 
 
¶25. (U) DRL Kozak and IO/SHA Lucas cleared this message. 
 
McKinley 
 
 
 
 
.