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 02 BRUSSELS 004323 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/07/2015 
TAGS: KDEM PREL ECON EAID PINR XG XF EUN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: EU, OTHERS FRUSTRATED WITH IRAN HUMAN RIGHTS 
DIALOGUES 
 
CLASSIFIED BY USEU POL MINCOUNS LEE LITZENBERGER, FOR REASONS 
1.4 (B) AND (D) 
 
¶1.  (C) SUMMARY  EU, Swiss, and Australian participants took 
the lead at a Berne Process meeting on Iran on November 29 in 
Brussels, agreeing that Iran was stonewalling their bilateral 
human rights dialogues, but Norway was optimistic that its 
recent exchange might yield an invitation to Iran for further 
discussion on human rights issues.  Suggested strategies for 
2006 included continued Western public and government 
pressure on Tehran, responses such as joint and collective 
statements to human rights abuses, coordinated action in 
international organizations, and outreach to non-aligned 
countries to avoid no-action motions in the UN.  All agreed 
that while sanctions were becoming a an increasingly 
realistic option, third country "spoilers" -- like China -- 
could derail Western efforts by stepping in with political 
and economic support.  END SUMMARY 
 
-------------------------- 
EU:  Frustrated But Trying 
-------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (C) On November 29, the Swiss mission in Brussels hosted 
a dinner on the Berne Process on Iran.  Participants included 
representatives from Australia, Finland, Norway, Canada, the 
U.S., and the EU -- including the current UK presidency, the 
incoming Austrian presidency, and EU Commission members. 
They discussed the state of their bilateral human rights 
dialogues with Iran and brainstormed next steps.  The UK EU 
presidency representative, Alexandra Hall Hall, said the EU's 
human rights dialogue with Iran has been stalled for 18 
months, but the EU was funding the UNDP and other 
international organizations that are engaging civil society 
in Iran. 
 
¶3.  (C) Hall said Ireland in June 2004 was the last EU 
presidency to hold a human rights dialogue with Iran.  The 
next presidency-- the Netherlands --after reviewing the 
EU-Iran human rights dialogue, recommended that Brussels 
needed to register its displeasure with Tehran and identify 
concrete areas for progress.  During Luxembourg's presidency 
in the first half of 2005, EU troika representatives visited 
Iran in April and pushed for a resumption of the dialogue; 
they received some impractical suggestions and a polished 
response designed to stonewall the EU.  The UK presidency has 
since pushed for dates to meet with Iran, but to no avail. 
 
¶4.  (C) Nevertheless, Hall said a human rights dialogue was 
still valuable because it was a way to register concerns; it 
was worth pursuing if both sides were committed.  Hall said 
the EU would not give Iran the satisfaction of saying that 
"it was the EU that walked away" and emphasized that direct 
aid contributions from Western countries should complement, 
not replace, human rights dialogues. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
Switzerland:  The Ball's in Iran's Court 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶5.  (C) The Swiss representative, Guillaume Scheurer, said 
Switzerland's bilateral human rights dialogue with Iran, held 
in Berne in early June, took place in a "constructive 
atmosphere" but was short on substance.  The Swiss focused on 
torture, freedom of expression, corporal punishment -- 
including juvenile execution -- political prisoners, judicial 
reform, and gender issues --including violence against women. 
 Iran was not prepared to answer any of the questions raised, 
but only responded with condemnation of Switzerland's 
discrimination against Muslims.  The dialogue included a 
visit to a center in Basel that focused on issues concerning 
violence against women, and concluded in "a positive spirit" 
of follow-up and exploring the potential for reform. 
 
¶6.  (C) Following the June dialogue, Switzerland established 
a position in the Swiss mission in Tehran focusing 
exclusively on human rights issues and projects with Iran's 
civil society.  Switzerland also drafted a proposal for human 
rights cooperation with Iran's Ministry of Justice -- the key 
ministry for any substantive progress on human rights, 
according to the Swiss representative -- including projects 
on judicial reform and violence against women.  Calling the 
Iranian response to these project proposals a "benchmark" for 
Iran's willingness to follow through, the Swiss 
representative said there has been no response from Tehran 
since the proposal was delivered in early October. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
Australia:  Keeping a Foot in the Door 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶7.  (C) Sarah Storey, the Australian representative, said 
Australia has only had one human rights dialogue with Iran, 
in December 2002.  Since then, Canberra has fruitlessly been 
requesting follow-on meetings and has implemented a direct 
aid program -- mainly, funding for drug addiction 
rehabilitation -- to try to keep a foot in the door.  Storey 
observed that the new regime in Iran does not appear likely 
to be easily influenced by the international community. 
 
------------------------------- 
Norway:  Potential for Progress 
------------------------------- 
 
¶8.  (C) Inger-Marie Bjonness, the Norwegian representative, 
said that Iranian Vice Foreign Minister Jalili attended the 
November 22 bilateral human rights dialogue in Norway and 
expressed concern about democracy and human rights issues in 
Iran.  She said Jalili invited the Norwegian Foreign Ministry 
to visit Iran and suggested that should this happen, it would 
be an opportunity for coordinated effort. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
Strategies for 2006:  Demarches to Sanctions 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
¶9.  (C) The representatives discussed various means to 
cooperate on Iran's human rights situation, such as 
publicizing demarches and increasing public pressure on Iran, 
which the Swiss and the UK both praised as having been 
effective in some juvenile execution cases.  Other 
suggestions included support for Iranian civil society, human 
rights activists, and those university professors that have 
not yet been replaced with hardline ideologues.  Canadian 
representative Catherine Boucher said that Ottawa supported 
continued UN pressure and obtaining permission for UN human 
rights officials to evaluate the situation in Iran on the 
basis of international regulations -- "a far better 
alternative to journalists." 
 
¶10.  (C) Richard Lee-Smith from the UK Foreign and 
Commonwealth Office suggested that the deterioration of the 
nuclear track might call further engagement into question, 
and suggested sanctions don't seem "so far away" as they 
might have two years ago.  However, the Austrian 
representative pushed for an informed approach to further 
steps and cautioned against the threat of "third-country 
spoilers" -- like China -- that could derail Western efforts 
by stepping in with political and economic support. 
 
¶11.  (C) All agreed, however, on the need to "up the game" as 
Iran toughens its stance and consider initial, burden-sharing 
measures such as collective statements, joint or aligned 
demarches, coordinated action in the UN and other 
international organizations, and increasing outreach to 
developing countries in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin 
America to thwart Iranian attempts to foster voting blocs to 
support Iranian-led no-action motions.  Scheuer said 
Switzerland would be willing to use its human rights officer 
in Tehran as a coordinator for future efforts.  There was 
general agreement hold another round of the Berne Process on 
Iran in February or March 2006. 
 
MCKINLEY 
.