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 05 BRUSSELS 000800 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DRL FOR DAS BARKS-RUGGLES AND DIR/MLA NOYES, ERA FOR 
ROBINSON, IO FOR ROHN, L FOR BELLINGER 
GENEVA FOR DEPIRRO 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/28/2016 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL CH IR CU BL VE XR EUN UN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: U.S.-EU TROIKA ON HUMAN RIGHTS, FEBRUARY 16, 2006 
 
REF: BRUSSELS 00524 
 
Classified By: USEU POLITICAL COUNSELOR ALYCE TIDBALL, FOR REASONS 1.4 
(B) AND (D) 
 
 ¶1.  (C) SUMMARY.  The U.S.-EU Troika on Human Rights 
(COHOM), held February 16 in Brussels, provided an important 
forum for in-depth discussions, but no agreement on what kind 
of Commission on Human Rights (CHR) meeting might take place 
should UN agreement on the Human Rights Council (HRC) not be 
reached by end-February.  The EU insisted the window of 
opportunity to form the Council was now or never, while the 
U.S. affirmed achieving a credible Council was more important 
than meeting an artificial deadline.  European Council 
Transatlantic Director Jim Cloos discussed the recent visit 
of State's Legal Adviser John Bellinger (reftel), noting the 
dialogue was helpful and urging it continue.  Delegations 
compared notes on promoting human rights in China, Iran, 
Russia, Cuba, Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela and Guatemala. 
The U.S. reiterated commitment to past positions regarding 
the International Criminal Court (ICC).  END SUMMARY. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: TIMELINE AND ISSUES 
------------------------------------------ 
¶2.  (C) DEADLINE FOR A TEXT?  EU head of delegation Bert 
Theuermann insisted the window of opportunity for 
establishing the Human Rights Council (HRC) is now and if we 
miss this moment, the window may close completely.  He said 
Eliasson would make every effort to table a strong text, but 
would take care not to trigger a revolt.  Here, he said, 
lobbying would be critical. DRL DAS Barks-Ruggles agreed on 
importance of keeping the momentum going, but asserted there 
is no firm deadline to get a good text.  A good text on March 
12 is certainly better than an agreement in late February 
that does not address the problems that have made the 
Commission on Human Rights a discredited body.  She 
emphasized that the U.S. will not make compromises on 
identified red lines.  Both sides agreed it was critical to 
move forward on the HRC, but not at any cost.  Barks-Ruggles 
opined that while consensus is important we must not settle 
until we achieve creation of a stronger body in the interest 
of  the U.S., the EU, and the UN. 
 
¶3.  (C) PREPARATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS. 
Theuermann insisted that if agreement on a new HRC is not 
reached by end-February preparations must begin for the 
annual CHR meeting in Geneva.  The EU does not want to leave 
critical human rights issues victim to a vacuum that would 
also damage the UN's credibility on these issues.  U.S. del, 
by contrast, consistently maintained that we are focused on 
creation of an effective HRC and not on preparations for what 
the Secretary General has acknowledged is a discredited body. 
Participation in a fully discredited CHR, U.S. del insisted, 
would be even more damaging to the integrity of the UN. 
 
¶4.  (C) TRUNCATED, TECHNICAL AND TRANSITIONAL CHR MEETING. 
EU del repeatedly maintained that even if an acceptable HRC 
text is agreed before the March 13 meeting of the CHR, a 
short meeting of the CHR would still be necessary to renew 
the annual mandates until the HRC meets in June. 
Barks-Ruggles said the U.S. would consider participating in a 
truncated, technical, and transitional meeting of days, not 
weeks, where the mandates could be rolled over to the new 
HRC.  Any such meeting should be non-substantive; e.g., no 
country-specific resolutions or other new business.  She 
clearly emphasized that this is not about blocking criticism, 
but rather avoiding yet another long meeting of the 
discredited CHR. 
 
¶5.  (C) MEMBERSHIP NUMBERS FOR THE HRC.  The EU favors 45-53 
seats linked to equitable geographic distribution, with 51 
being the preferred number.  The U.S. favors 30 seats, but 
could perhaps increase to 40, or even 45.  A reduction from 
53 to 51 would be insupportable as it would imply no 
significant change and the reduction would impact only on the 
Western European and Others Group (WEOG).  This would be 
unacceptable, and could further erode Congressional support 
for the UN. 
 
¶6.  (C) HRC ELECTORAL REQUIREMENTS.  Theuermann explained 
that 2/3 voting for members of the new HRC, which the EU had 
supported up to this point, was cast in the draft as "2/3 
majority of members present and voting."  In the current 
practice of the UN, if a member abstains he is not 
participating in the vote.  Only those countries voting for a 
measure are considered "present and voting".  According to 
Theuermann, Eliasson reports much resistance to the "2/3 
majority of present and voting" and says twenty-plus 
countries would undoubtedly call for a vote on the issue. 
Theuermann suggested we compromise on absolute majority 
voting, in which abstentions would count toward the vote 
total. Barks-Ruggles said the U.S. was looking into 
procedural voting issues, but opined personally that perhaps 
the "and voting" part of the formula be removed so that if a 
country abstains it is still counted as "present."  She 
asserted that the U.S. believes a high threshold - with the 
2/3 majority strongly preferred - is important to assuring 
the credibility and integrity Council membership. 
 
¶7.  (C) HRC TERM LIMITS.  A key issue for the EU is term 
limits.  Barks-Ruggles said the U.S. does not like term 
limits, but might be willing to explore supporting something 
like past proposals involving two terms and one year off. 
 
¶8.  (C) KEEPING HR OFFENDERS OFF THE HRC.  U.S. Del raised 
throughout the meeting the importance of a tangible mechanism 
for excluding the worst HR offenders from the HRC.  U.S. 
proposal was to exclude states with UNSC resolutions against 
them for egregious human rights violations or support for 
terrorism.  This is a very low bar, Barks-Ruggles asserted, 
as it currently would only disqualify two states.  EU 
Commission Head for Human Rights Rolf Timans questioned why 
the U.S. cares so deeply about this when it only affects so 
few states and may decrease support for the HRC overall.  He 
pointed to OP 8, which Barks-Ruggles quickly noted was only a 
statement advising states to take the human rights situation 
in candidate states into consideration when voting at the 
HRC.  This advisory statement, she asserted, could not be 
considered a tangible mechanism to ensure the integrity of 
the HRC.  While she recognized Timan's assertion that the 
UNSC sanctions exclusion mechanism could draw widespread 
opposition, she insisted there must be a way to keep the 
worst human rights offenders off the HRC.  DRL/MLA Director 
Noyes noted this is also an issue of importance for the U.S. 
Congress. 
 
¶9.  (C) HRC MEETING FREQUENCY.  Barks-Ruggles said the U.S. 
likes the EU proposal of four to six sessions a year as a way 
to detract from the circus atmosphere produced by the less 
frequent meetings of the Commission.  EU raised concerns 
about NGOs from poorer southern nations being unable to 
attend more frequent sessions, but said northern NGOs are 
discussing ways to help in this respect. 
 
¶10.  (C) TRIGGERING HRC EMERGENCY SESSIONS.  Noyes noted U.S. 
concerns about the General Assembly trigger for Special 
Sessions of the HRC, as this could result in repeated 
anti-Israel and anti-U.S. sessions.  EU del emphasized that 
triggers should be low so that important situations can 
easily make it to the Council, unlike past inaction of the 
Commission during the Rwanda and Andijan crises. 
Barks-Ruggles added that we support multiple trigger 
mechanisms through the Security Council, High Commissioner, 
and so forth to the General Assembly mechanism. 
 
¶11.  (C) OTHER HRC TEXT ISSUES.  Theuermann and Finnish 
delegation leader Suurpaa appealed to the U.S. to accept OP-4 
language on the "right to development" as a way to gain 
concessions in other areas. Barks-Ruggles said the United 
States opposes creating a hierarchy of human rights in the UN 
by highlighting one right over others.  Noyes noted our 
similar opposition to the "religious intolerance" insertions 
proposed by Pakistan.  U.S. del suggested we could drop the 
issue of Universal Periodic Review in exchange for 
concessions in other areas, as we have noted a distinct lack 
of enthusiasm for this issue.  Theuermann said Mexico, 
Switzerland and Canada are big proponents of the provision, 
while Cuba and Pakistan are among those opposed. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
REFLECTIONS ON BELLINGER'S VISIT AND GUANTANAMO 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
¶12.  (C)  In his brief appearance, Jim Cloos highlighted 
initial reactions to the recent Bellinger visit.  He saw the 
meeting as extremely useful, and said the EU would like 
follow up discussions in the context of our joint fight 
against terrorism.  He noted the important distinction 
Bellinger made between the War on Terror as a political term 
and the War on Al Qaeda as a legal distinction.  The 
Secretary's statement and the Detainee Treatment Act ("McCain 
 
SIPDIS 
Amendment") were important in clarifying the U.S. absolute 
condemnation of torture.  The EU initially agreed that 
Afghanistan was an international armed conflict, he said, but 
questions remain in EU minds whether it still is.  Cloos 
asked why the U.S. opened itself to criticism on the UN 
Special Rapporteurs' effort to visit Guantanamo, cautioning 
that we should not underestimate the problems their report 
will bring not just to the U.S., but also to U.S. allies and 
EU member states.  He asserted his belief that the detainees 
deserve a minimum standard of due process rights, embodied in 
Article 3 of the Third Geneva Conventions and Article 75 of 
the 1st Protocol.  He noted that the International Committee 
of the Red Cross had commented, behind closed doors, that 
from what they had observed at Guantanamo it would be better 
for the U.S. to let the Special Rapporteurs in. Cloos 
continued that the EU had understood at Geneva last year that 
the Special Rapporteurs would be permitted to visit under the 
terms of their mandate (i.e., including private interviews 
with detainees), a fact disputed by the U.S. delegation. 
Finally, he warned that it would be difficult for the EU to 
respond if this report resulted in a U.S. attack on the 
Special Rapporteurs and the system they have championed. 
 
¶14.  (C) U.S. del responded that Bellinger's reaction to his 
visit was equally positive, and that he would welcome a 
follow-up and EU suggestions.  Barks-Ruggles noted with 
regret that U.S. examination of the preliminary draft of the 
Rapporteurs' report led the USG to conclude that the 
Rapporteurs did not use the substantial information provided 
to them.  In addition, they did not accept an invitation to 
visit Guantanamo that would have given them the same access 
received by our Congressional leaders.  Because they had not 
seen the situation for themselves and had largely ignored the 
information provided to them, the USG reserves the right to 
respond in full to the Special Rapporteur's report. 
 
¶15.  (C) Theuermann said the failure of the Special 
Rapporteurs to visit Guantanamo under their mandate is a 
problem for EU credibility with third countries and said we 
must be able to refute charges of double standards. He said 
how the U.S. responds and engages will be very important.  EU 
Council High Representative for Human Rights Matthiessen 
asked if the Special Rapporteurs would still be allowed to 
visit Guantanamo; Barks-Ruggles reiterated that her 
understanding was that the offer was still on the table. 
 
----------------- 
COUNTRY DIALOGUES 
----------------- 
17,  (C) CHINA.  Timans informed that the next EU-China 
dialogue will be held in Vienna in May.  The main theme will 
be freedom of expression, with particular emphasis on 
internet censorship.  Other issues will include fair trial 
rights and the death penalty as well as International 
Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) ratification 
and release of Tiananmen prisoners.  Barks-Ruggles informed 
that DRL A/S Lowenkron was in China until February 19 to 
begin discussing the possible resumption of a results-based 
dialogue after the trip of UN Special Rapporteur Manfred 
Novak to China fulfilled the conditions previously set for 
resumption.  She agreed with the importance of the internet 
censorship issue, noting that Iran was now starting to copy 
the Chinese model for dealing with its own dissidents. 
Theuermann requested a briefing on Lowenkron's trip upon his 
return.  Timans noted the Chinese government had rejected 
some of the programs selected to receive EU civil society 
grants this year, thus the EU had scrapped the entire program. 
 
¶18.  (C) IRAN.  Although the EU officially has a human rights 
dialogue with Iran, Theuermann said there have been no 
serious proposals from Iran demonstrating interest in a real 
dialogue.  Lofty ideas about exchange of intellectuals would 
do little to ease EU concerns.  Barks-Ruggles concurred with 
the EU's skepticism and its insistence on a results-oriented 
approach to Iran and urged greater U.S.-EU cooperation and 
discussion on human rights and democracy issues in Iran - 
including how to support civil society, a free press, and 
human rights activists.  Theuermann said the EU routed much 
of its assistance through UN programs like the UN Juvenile 
Agency and UNODCP. 
 
¶19.  (C) RUSSIA.  The EU's second human rights dialogue with 
Russia will be held March 3 in Vienna.  Suurpaa said they 
would raise Chechnya; rule of law issues, particularly as it 
relates to the Russian armed forces; NGO issues, particularly 
the recent legislation to limit their activities.  A Council 
of Europe opinion on the NGO issue will soon be released. 
Barks-Ruggles noted U.S. shared concerns on these issues, and 
encouraged close coordination to better press the GOR. 
Matthiessen emphasized that the U.S. and EU should coordinate 
efforts to hold Russia to the highest standards. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
OTHER COUNTRY SITUATIONS AND THE HR TOOLBOX 
-------------------------------------------- 
¶20.  (U) Introducing this topic, Theuermann suggested we must 
find a way to better integrate HR into the political dialogue 
of desk officers in geographic units.  U.S. del also pointed 
to efforts to support the Malian Chair of the Community for 
Democracies (CD) and the UN Democracy Fund (DF) as new tools 
to promote human rights.  Theuermann noted that the DF is 
supported by the EU, but not the CD as the EU is not a 
member.  EU member states involved in the CD could be helpful 
in that work, in their national capacities.  Overall, 
Barks-Ruggles suggested the U.S. would like to build a 
"Democracy Caucus" in UN and World Bodies. 
 
¶21.  (U) CUBA.  Noyes reiterated U.S. desire to work together 
to prevent abuses and to gain the release of political 
prisoners.  It is important, she emphasized, to bolster these 
efforts by inviting dissidents to events to show U.S. and EU 
support.  Timans agreed, assuring the EU commitment in these 
areas has not slipped. 
 
¶22.  (U) BOLIVIA.  Highlighting U.S. interest in working with 
the government for more democracy, rule of law, and 
counter-narcotics efforts, Noyes noted that we are focusing 
on Bolivian President Morales' actions, not his political 
comments.  Timans said EU was impressed with U.S. restraint. 
He said the EU works closely through member states on 
democracy, development, and stability for Bolivia, but is 
less aggressive on anti-drug efforts because it is less of an 
issue for Europe. 
 
¶23.  (C) COLOMBIA. Noyes suggested more support be given to 
demobilization and reintegration of paramilitary forces.  She 
commended the EU on its support for these programs, and, 
noting our own increased request to the Congress, asked if 
the EU could consider giving more.  Timans countered that the 
EU is not always encouraged by the progress, but wishes to 
see it continue.  The EU delegation was also concerned that 
Colombia may try to reduce the role of the Office of the High 
Commissioner for Human Rights in Bogota.  DePirro suggested 
the Commissioner would buy some goodwill by noting 
improvements where they exist, rather than being so uniformly 
negative. 
 
¶24.  (C) VENEZUELA.  Noting U.S. concern about Venezuela's 
race for the UN Security Council, Noyes asserted the behavior 
of the Venezuelan perm rep has been outright disruptive. 
Guatemala, by contrast, has troops currently committed to six 
different UN peacekeeping efforts.  Guatemala has never been 
on the Security Council, compared to Venezuela's four terms. 
Theuermann, while not challenging the assertion that 
Guatemala has been more active in UN peacekeeping, pointed 
out that it is still going through some serious problems and 
that "human rights is very out of fashion in Guatemala."  He 
asserted the U.S. and EU should engage Guatemala so it does 
not slip back. 
 
------------------------------------ 
THE ICC AND THE NETHERCUTT AMENDMENT 
------------------------------------ 
25,  (U) Timans acknowledged the well-known U.S. position on 
the International Criminal Court (ICC), but hoped that, over 
time, the behavior of the court would allay U.S. concerns, 
pointing out that the ICC has declined to hear Iraq cases. 
He urged the Administration to use its authorization to waive 
the application of the Nethercutt Amendment rather than cut 
assistance to young democracies supporting the ICC.  Noyes 
reiterated the U.S. position that countries that wished to 
continue receiving U.S. assistance could enter into article 
98 agreements with the U.S., as contemplated in the Rome 
Statute. 
 
--------------------- 
MEETING PARTICIPANTS 
--------------------- 
¶26. (U) EU participants included: 
 
Bert Theuermann, Director of Human Rights, Austrian MFA 
Thomas Unger, Human Rights Desk Officer, Austria MFA 
Johanna Surpaa, Director for Human Rights Policy, Finnish MFA 
Janina Hasenson, Legal Officer for Human Rights Policy, 
Finnish MFA 
Jim Cloos, Director of the Directorate General on the 
Americas, UN and Human Rights, and Counter-Terrorism, EU 
Council Secretariat 
Michael Matthiessen, Personal Representative to the High 
Representative/Secretary General for Human Rights, EU Council 
Secretariat 
 
SIPDIS 
Dr. Hadewych Hazelzet, Human Rights Desk Officer, EU Council 
Secretariat 
 
SIPDIS 
Didier Cosse, Human Rights Desk Officer, EU Council 
Secretariat 
 
SIPDIS 
Rolf Timans, Head of Human Rights and Democratization, 
European Commission 
Christiane Hohmann, U.S. Unit, DG RELEX, European Commission 
Tobias King, Human Rights Unit, DG RELEX, European Commission 
 
¶27. (U) U.S. participants included: 
 
Erica Barks-Ruggles, Deputy Assistant Secretary, DRL 
Julieta Noyes, Director of Multilateral Affairs, DRL 
Doug Rohn, Director of Social and Humanitarian Affairs, IO 
Velia DePirro, Counselor for Political Affairs and 
Specialized Agencies, USUN Geneva 
Alyce Tidball, Counselor for Political Affairs, USEU 
Dennis Schmelzer, Intern, Political Section, USEU 
 
¶28. (U) This was cleared by delegation. 
 
 
 
GRAY 
. 
#