VZCZCXYZ0003
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0718/01 2432221
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 312221Z AUG 07
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 2531

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000718 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR IO:KSILVERBERG, MSINGH, GJREES, IO/RHS, DRL/MLA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/30/2017 
TAGS: PHUM SOCI UNGA KFEM
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RAPE RESOLUTION AT UNGA 3RD COMMITTEE 
 
REF: A. REES-HAGEN TELECON 8/27/07 
     ¶B. LUM-SHESTACK 8/9/07 E-MAIL 
     ¶C. SHESTACK-LUM 8/14/07 E-MAIL 
 
Classified By: Amb. Alejandro D. Wolff, for reasons 1.4(B) and (D) 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
1.(SBU) Summary: Mission recommends introducing the draft 
rape resolution under the committee agenda item on women's 
issues rather than human rights, in order to maximize the 
chances of attaining consensus.  We also foresee a need to 
expand the scope of the resolution and to ensure co-sponsors. 
 End Summary. 
 
ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN OR HUMAN RIGHTS? 
 
 
¶2. (C) In deciding whether to run the draft UNGA Third 
Committee resolution entitled "Condemning the Use of Rape as 
an Instrument of State Policy" (ref B) under Agenda Item 65 
("Advancement of Women") or Agenda Item 72 ("Human Rights"), 
Department should bear in mind the tactical and substantive 
consequences of such a decision.  Tactically, running the 
rape resolution under the Women's agenda item would be 
consistent with the 3rd Committee's recent emphasis on 
violence against women (VAW) under this item.  Last year the 
Netherlands and France ran an omnibus consensus resolution on 
"Intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of 
violence against women" (A/RES/61/143) in response to the 
Secretary-General's study on "Ending violence against women." 
 
SIPDIS 
 Other delegations will find it reasonable to address the 
question of rape under this agenda item, as one of the many 
aspects of VAW.  The norm under this agenda item is to adopt 
resolutions by consensus.  The most contentious issues in 
negotiations are usually 
raised by Egypt, Syria and Pakistan, without, however, much 
support from other developing countries. 
 
¶3. (C) Under the Human Rights agenda item, most of the 
resolutions are contentious and are put to a vote.  Cuba 
plays a leading and active role on many issues under this 
item, and enlists a large number of the developing countries 
in support of its positions.  Anything which is seen as a 
U.S. initiative, regardless of its merits, stands a good 
chance of being put to a vote, or eliciting killer amendments 
from the floor.  If killer amendments passed which alleged 
violence against women by troops in Iraq (as in a recent UN 
report on VAW in conflict situations), it is possible to 
envision the U.S. being forced to vote against its own draft 
resolution. 
 
¶4. (C) Moreover, mission would question the wisdom of 
treating violence against women, which we treat as criminal 
behavior, in a human rights context.  Indeed, to advocate a 
human rights approach to issues of violence against women may 
be contrary to larger U.S. foreign policy aims in the sphere 
of human rights law.  The SYG's study on "Ending violence 
against women" states that perceiving VAW as a human rights 
issue would enhance the stature of the Convention on the 
Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the 
Beijing Platform for Action -- two documents which the U.S. 
refuses to reaffirm.  The study also says that addressing VAW 
as a human rights concern will provide a "unifying set of 
norms that can be used to hold States accountable for 
adhering to their obligations."  Including a women's issue in 
3rd Committee as a human rights concern may serve to undercut 
the overarching U.S. cautious approach to the enhancement of 
customary international law. 
 
CEDAW AND ICC 
 
 
¶5. (C) Whether taken up under a.i.65 or a.i.72, other 
delegations are almost certain to propose amendments which 
would reaffirm CEDAW and the Rome Statute of the 
International Criminal Court (ICC), both of which will be 
seen by the Europeans, Latin Americans and others as directly 
relevant to the question of rape in situations of conflict. 
The U.S. was maneuvered into withdrawing its sponsorship of a 
draft resolution on early forced marriage at the Commission 
on the Status of Women (CSW) when the EU successfully put 
forward an amendment reaffirming CEDAW and the Beijing 
Declaration. 
 
EXPANDED SCOPE 
 
 
¶6. (C) Regardless of which agenda item we choose, we 
anticipate that other delegations will want to amend the 
title of the resolution and add references to other instances 
of rape during armed conflict, not just those committed as 
 
state policy.  In previous resolutions, all delegations have 
condemned rape by soldiers, militia, police authorities, 
etc., and have called for an end to impunity for 
perpetrators.  USDel would find it very difficult to argue 
against calls for such an expansion of the scope of the 
resolution to cover such reprehensible actions.  We may 
encounter attempts to bring sexual exploitation by 
peacekeepers into the resolution, as well. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 
¶7. (C) We see little to be gained in opening a topic under 
the human rights agenda item which could be fraught with 
killer amendments from the Cubans or others,  putting us into 
a potentially embarrassing position of voting against or 
abstaining on a condemnation of rape.  On the other hand, we 
foresee a reasonable chance of building a consensus around a 
draft resolution under the Women's agenda item, provided that 
it is expansive enough to cover rape by government forces, 
acting under orders or on their own, as well as by rebels or 
others.  Finally, the U.S. will need to find co-sponsors for 
this resolution, since the final product will surely contain 
objectionable references to CEDAW, Beijing and the ICC, which 
will require us ultimately to withdraw our own 
co-sponsorship. 
WOLFF