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

011913Z Mar 05

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 OTTAWA 000641 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR DRL, IO, WHA/CAN 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/17/2015 
TAGS: PHUM PREL PGOV CA CHR
SUBJECT: U.S.-CANADA CONSULTATIONS IN PREPARATION FOR THE 
UPCOMING CHR SESSION 
 
REF: STATE 022969 
 
Classified By: Political M/C Brian Flora, reason: 1.4(B/D) 
 
¶1. (C) SUMMARY.  The U.S. and Canada held consultations on 
February 14 in Ottawa in preparation for the upcoming session 
of the CHR.  Both sides agreed that engaging Mexico before 
the CHR in a tri-lateral meeting would be important, 
particularly if Mexico goes forward with an initiative that 
could serve to undermine country-specific resolutions at the 
CHR. DRL Acting A/S Kozak noted in particular that country 
resolutions on Cuba and Belarus would be our priority for 
this year's session, and emphasized that any resolution on 
the Sudan that might be introduced at the CHR can not 
prejudice the work of the Security Council.  Canada concurred 
with the U.S. approach for introducing a Cuba resolution and 
gave a tentative commitment.  Kozak noted that the U.S. had 
not yet decided on a possible resolution on China.  Canada 
suggested that a group of experts from the U.S, Canada and 
the EU work with the Swiss on a resolution text on Nepal 
prior to the CHR.   Kozak reiterated the U.S. position that 
the work on the Indigenous Peoples resolution needs to be 
completed, after 10 years of effort.  Canada agreed, although 
they are concerned about the possible adverse effects if the 
U.S. should pull out of the negotiations.  IO DAS Mark Lagon 
outlined U.S. concerns on resolutions concerning Impunity and 
Violence Against Women, and noted that the U.S. still needs 
to complete an interagency review on a Restitution 
resolution.  Lagon outlined several concerns that the U.S. 
has with Beijing  10, including language on abortion rights, 
reference to different forms of family, and the use of 
quotas.  A luncheon discussion focused on CHR reform and on 
efforts to foster cooperation among democracies as a means of 
achieving human-rights aims.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) In preparation for the 61st session of the UN 
Commission on Human Rights (CHR), scheduled to convene in 
Geneva later this month, DRL Acting A/S Michael Kozak, IO DAS 
Mark Lagon, and DRL A/DAS Michael Butler met on February 14 
with counterparts from Foreign Affairs Canada (FAC).  Canada, 
which rejoins the CHR after a one-year absence, was led in 
the discussions by Marie Gervais-Vidricaire, Director General 
of FAC's Global Issues Branch.  A variety of country specific 
and thematic issues were covered, including possible 
resolutions on Cuba, Belarus, Sudan and China, as well as 
reviewing strategy for concluding the Draft Declaration on 
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  David Malone, newly 
appointed Assistant Deputy Minister for Africa and the Middle 
East, later joined the group for a working lunch, where 
discussion focused on the recent UN High Level Panel reform 
recommendations and cooperation among democracies at the CHR 
and elsewhere. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Gervais-Vidricaire opened the meeting by reviewing 
some of the changes that had recently taken place at FAC, 
noting that the Canadian Government had proposed to split the 
international trade component of Foreign Affairs into a 
separate ministry, and citing the recent reorganization of 
the geographic and functional bureaus within FAC (which she 
said hadn't yet had an impact on her bureau).  She then 
reviewed the recent 3-day consultations that they had held 
with Canadian NGOs as part of FAC's preparation for the CHR. 
She characterized these meetings as somewhat disappointing, 
commenting that NGO participation was lower than in previous 
years, and that many of the issues raised by the NGOs were 
not germane to the CHR. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Kozak noted that DRL/IO had recently held CHR 
consultations with the EU, which had gone well.  The U.S. and 
Canada agreed that it would be important to hold a 
tri-lateral meeting with Mexico prior to the CHR, 
particularly given a recent initiative by Mexico (reftel) 
that might serve to undermine country-specific resolutions at 
the CHR.  While Canada suggested a tri-lateral meeting in the 
first week of CHR in Geneva, given time and travel 
constraints, there was discussion of a video teleconference 
as the practical solution for engaging the Mexicans before 
the CHR. 
 
COUNTRY-SPECIFIC ISSUES 
----------------------- 
 
¶5.  (C)  Cuba: Kozak stated that the U.S. is likely to 
sponsor this year's resolution, given past difficulties (text 
and timing) encountered when relying on other countries to 
carry the resolution, particularly as the U.S. is seen as its 
source anyway.  Our goal is for a short resolution that has a 
good chance of winning, in lieu of putting forward a long 
laundry list of complaints that has a more limited chance of 
passage.  Kozak reported that Congress and U.S.-based  NGOs 
were in agreement with this strategy, and that winning the 
resolution is the bottom line.  The resolution itself, we 
noted, would focus on extending the mandate of the Special 
Rapporteur and requesting that she report on Cuban compliance 
with the 15 previous resolutions passed by the CHR. 
Gervais-Vidricaire concurred in our approach, commenting on 
reports she had seen that Havana was already gearing up 
anti-U.S. rhetoric in anticipation of a CHR resolution.  She 
gave tentative commitment, however, when asked if Canada 
would support the resolution, advising that FAC would need 
more time to study since a more forthright text might be 
optimal. 
 
¶6.  (C) Belarus: Kozak noted that this was our other priority 
for this year's CHR, particularly since the Belarus 
resolution had failed in the 2004 UNGA 3rd Committee.  Both 
sides agreed that EU commitment in carrying the resolution is 
critical, but suspected that the EU may have some reluctance 
to do so.  If the EU does not run the resolution, the U.S. 
will do it.  Gervais-Vidricaire agreed with our assessment. 
 
¶7.  (C) Sudan: Kozak emphasized that any resolution on Sudan 
introduced at the CHR cannot prejudice the work of the 
Security Council, and that our preference is for no 
resolution at all.  If there is to be one, we will try to 
amend and bring it in line with the Security Council 
position.  Gervais-Vidricaire agreed and pledged Canada's 
cooperation, noting that a strong text is important, and if 
the EU passes this resolution off to the African Union to 
carry, that may not be the case.  Both sides agreed that a 
possible strategy in amending a weak resolution might be to 
use previous EU/AU language on Sudan in crafting an amendment. 
 
¶8.  (C) China: Gervais-Vidricaire reviewed Canada's recent 
human rights dialogue with China, including working with 
Beijing on their new HIV/AIDS strategy (which the Chinese 
previously refused to even acknowledge the presence of the 
disease in China), and success in engaging China via 
multi-lateral regional forums.  Kozak noted that our 
bilateral discussions with Beijing have slightly improved 
during the course of the year, with Beijing making the 
overture to recommence low-level talks late last year.  Kozak 
reviewed our approach with Beijing on a possible resolution 
at the CHR; we have not made a decision at this point, and 
whether we go forward with one depends strictly on China's 
year-to-year performance in human rights.  Gervais-Vidricaire 
agreed that it was important to keep pressure on China, and 
she commented that Prime Minister Martin had raised human 
rights during his recent visit to Beijing. 
 
¶9.  (C) Nepal: Both sides agree that a credible resolution is 
required, given recent events and the deteriorating situation 
in the country.  Kozak registered concerns that the language 
of the resolution not establish equivalence between the 
Maoist rebels and the actions of the GON.  Gervais-Vidricaire 
suggested that a group of experts from the U.S., Canada and 
the EU work with the Swiss on the resolution text prior to 
the CHR, and discuss whether it will be an Item 9 or Item 19 
action. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) Iran: Gervais-Vidricaire indicated that Canada 
would not proceed with a CHR resolution, since it was able to 
secure passage of an UNGA resolution. 
 
¶11. (C) Uzbekistan: Kozak noted that the U.S. prefers an Item 
19 resolution building on the progress in Uzbekistan's 
human-rights performance over the past year, while the EU was 
split with some favoring an Item 19 and other an Item 9. 
 
¶12. (C) Israel: Canada agreed with the U.S. position that the 
number of anti-Israel resolutions should be reduced. 
 
Thematic Issues 
--------------- 
 
¶13. (C) Indigenous Peoples: Kozak stressed that the UN 
negotiations have to come to an end, after 10 years of work. 
Canada, which chairs the Working Group on the Draft 
Declaration, is seeking a one-year extension for the Working 
Group, but agrees about the need for closure, and will look 
to have a series of benchmarks available to preclude an 
open-ended mandate.  The issue of drafting a declaration, 
using previously approved language, was discussed, with 
Canada insisting that this would not be acceptable to its 
aboriginal community, although it might be forced to embrace 
it.  The role of Cuba in the process is of concern to both 
sides, particularly Havana's efforts to influence other Latin 
countries.  Canada remains concerned about the worst-case 
scenario, in which the U.S. pulls out of negotiations, and a 
"bad" declaration is adopted, one that Cuba (and other 
countries) can exploit for their own purposes. 
 
¶14. (C) Impunity: ICC language in the resolution is a 
sticking point for the U.S., Lagon emphasized; neutral, 
factual language is required for our support.  The U.S. will 
use amendments, vice paragraphs votes, if we have problems 
with the text.  Canada believes ICC language is important and 
seeks a positive reference in this resolution. 
 
¶15. (C) Restitution: Chile may put forward a resolution at 
the CHR.  Kozak and Lagon advised that we still need to 
complete an interagency review before establishing a 
position, but a key point from our perspective is to not 
finally merge two bodies of law -- law of war vs peacetime 
human rights law, despite some overlap.  Canada agrees that 
differentiation is important to maintain. 
 
¶16. (C) ESCR: Kozak provided a copy of a draft amendment to 
the CHR resolutions on economic, social and cultural rights 
focusing on each nation's own governance and implementation. 
The U.S. may seek to add it to the housing resolution. 
Canada's assessed that discussions are similar to the 
previous year, with some countries, including Canada, UK and 
Japan, looking at alternative protocols, but nothing has been 
put forward yet. 
 
¶17. (C) Violence Against Women: Canada has run this 
resolution for the past 10 years, and hopes to achieve 
consensus, increase co-sponsorship.  Lagon reviewed several 
concerns that we have, particularly language that references 
the ICC. 
¶18. (C) Beijing  10: Lagon noted several issues that may be 
problematic, including language on abortion rights, reference 
to different forms of family that could be construed as gay 
marriage, and use of quotas.  He expressed the U.S. desire 
for broad constructive agreement on implementing steps to 
promote Women's Rights at the Commission on the Status of 
Women at Beijing  10. 
 
¶19. (C) Corporate Social Responsibility: Lagon noted that the 
U.S. has serious problems with this item, since our focus is 
on voluntary initiatives by corporations.  Canada shares our 
concerns, but believes that corporations do have a role in 
promoting human rights.  Both sides question whether the 
Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human 
Rights is the best forum to address this issue. 
 
UN High Level Reform Recommendations 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶20.  (SBU) During an informal luncheon discussion, both sides 
agreed that the recommendation to have universal membership 
at the CHR had set back Canada's long-running effort (in 
cooperation with the Dutch) to establish a WEOG rotational 
scheme.  The U.S. side reiterated its opposition to universal 
membership, while the Canadians leaned in support of it. 
Kozak described U.S. efforts to enlist the Community of 
Democracies, and the Democracy Caucus within the UN system, 
as allies in support of our human-rights diplomacy. 
 
¶21.  (U)  This cable has been cleared by A-A/S Kozak. 
 
Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa 
 
CELLUCCI