VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0443/01 0680256
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 090256Z MAR 06
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8217
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 1965

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000443 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/08/2016 
TAGS: PHUM KUNR UNGA PREL
SUBJECT: ELIASSON SIGNALS INTENT TO ADOPT HRC RESOLUTION ON 
MARCH 10 
 
REF: ZACK-LAGON ET AL E-MAIL OF MARCH 8 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Alejandro Wolff, Deputy Permanent Representat 
ive to the United Nations, for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). 
 
¶1.  (C) SUMMARY.  GA President Eliasson's Chef de Cabinet 
Wide told Ambassador Wolff March 8 that Eliasson is taking 
the first steps to prepare for the adoption of the Human 
Rights Council (HRC) resolution this Friday (March 10).  Wide 
said the Fifth Committee will meet March 9 to approve the HRC 
budget, paving the way for a General Assembly plenary meeting 
Friday March 10, to take action on the HRC.  We do not yet 
know if Eliasson's move to schedule the Fifth Committee 
budget decision marks a firm decision to proceed to adopt the 
HRC text March 10, or if it is intended to prompt signs of 
flexibility from the U.S.  When Amb. Wolff asked Wide whether 
Eliasson was prepared to try to adopt the HRC in the face of 
a U.S. "no" vote, Wide said, "We'll cross that bridge later." 
 
¶2.  (C) Separately, HRC Co-Chair Arias told Ambassador Wolff 
he is prepared to recommend to President Eliasson that there 
be a brief postponement of action on the resolution, and said 
he felt that Eliasson will not want to move forward if the 
U.S. will definitely vote no.  Japanese Ambassador Ozawa told 
Ambassador Wolff Japan is prepared to accept Eliasson's HRC 
text, but believes the resolution will need U.S. support and 
thus has suggested a postponement of action on the resolution 
of a few weeks to find the means to allow the U.S. to join 
consensus.  If there is a vote, Ozawa said he expects "single 
digit" opposition to the text.  Israel's Ambassador told 
Ambassador Wolff that Israel would support whatever decision 
the USG takes on the HRC, including a decision to vote no. 
East Timor advised if it comes to a vote, it will abstain on 
the text.  Austrian PermRep Pfanzelter sent a letter to 
Ambassador Bolton to convey the European Union decision that 
"Member States of the EU are prepared to make a declaration 
not to vote for candidates for membership in the Human Rights 
Council that are under sanctions of the Security Council for 
human rights related reasons,"  but also to express his 
conviction that a decision on the HRC needs to be taken by 
consensus by the end of this week. END SUMMARY. 
 
GA PRESIDENT TAKES STEPS TOWARD GA ACTION ON HRC 
 
¶3.  (C) In a March 8 telcon, GA President Eliasson's Chef de 
Cabinet Wide told Ambassador Wolff that Eliasson is taking 
the first steps toward a decision on the HRC resolution text. 
 He said the Fifth Committee bureau will be meeting later in 
the day to agree to hold a formal Fifth Committee session 
Thursday March 9 to approve the PBI.  Wide said the 
President's office hopes the United States won't vote "no" on 
the PBI in the Fifth Committee, since it provides the funding 
for establishment of the HRC, and will be seen as a 
provocative move with clear consequences for reform 
discussions related to the budget.  (Note:  The Fifth 
Committee generally operates by consensus.  However, the G-77 
already set a precedent for voting in the Fifth Committee 
when they called for a vote on conference servicing in 
December.  End Note.) 
 
¶4.  (C) Wide further indicated that the way was clear for the 
General Assembly to be convened on Friday March 10 to take 
action.  (Note:  The UN Secretariat separately advised the 
Fifth Committee Wednesday morning that Fifth Committee action 
was being scheduled for Thursday on the understanding that 
there might be GA action on the resolution on Friday.  End 
Note.)  Wide said the GA President continues to receive 
indications of support for the text.  Ambassador Wolff asked 
Wide if President Eliasson will still bring the text forward 
for GA action if the U.S. will vote "no."  Wide responded, 
"Let's cross that bridge later." 
 
¶5.  (C) Separately, Panamanian PermRep Arias (Co-Chair of the 
HRC working group negotiating the HRC) called Ambassador 
Wolff on March 8 to ask again for the definitive U.S. 
position on the HRC text.  He said he wanted to be clear on 
this in preparation for a planned meeting with GA President 
Eliasson later in the day.  Ambassador Wolff reiterated U.S. 
positions on the two key elements of changing the voting 
majority for election and excluding those under Security 
Council sanctions for human rights violations from HRC 
membership. He also repeated the U.S. call for the text to be 
re-opened for negotiation or for action to be postponed to 
allow for further discussions, and said that if an unchanged 
text is brought to the UNGA for action, our instructions are 
to call for a vote and vote "no."  Arias expressed 
appreciation for the confirmation of the U.S. position as he 
understood it.  He said he is prepared to recommend to 
President Eliasson that there be a brief postponement of 
action on the resolution, and said he felt that Eliasson will 
not want to move forward if the U.S. will definitely vote no. 
 
 
JAPANESE PREDICT "SINGLE DIGIT" OPPOSITION IF VOTED; SUPPORT 
BRIEF POSTPONEMENT 
 
¶6.  (C) Ambassador Wolff also met March 8 with Japanese 
Ambassador Toshiro Ozawa to discuss the Human Rights Council. 
 Ozawa shared updated Japanese talking points on the HRC (Ref 
e-mail).  Japan is prepared to accept Eliasson's HRC text, 
but believes the resolution will need U.S. support and thus 
has suggested a brief postponement of action on the 
resolution -- of a few weeks but not several months -- to 
find an acceptable bridge to allow the U.S. to join in the 
agreement and to ensure effective functioning of the new 
body.  Japan hopes the USG and Eliasson will find a basis to 
address U.S. concerns "preferably outside the text" within 
the next few weeks.  He said Japan thinks that re-opening the 
text could lead to huge problems.  In addition, Ozawa said he 
does not see the possibility of majority support for U.S. 
proposed changes at this point.  Ozawa said, however, that a 
U.S. "no" vote would be very detrimental and "stain the 
birth" of the HRC and thus Japan hopes there will be 
consensus, suggesting that perhaps the U.S. could deliver an 
EOV explaining U.S. concerns.  Ozawa said the GA President is 
under strong pressure to move the resolution to action in the 
GA.  If there is a vote, he expects "single digit" opposition 
to the text.  (Note:  Israel's Ambassador told Ambassador 
Wolff that Israel would support whatever decision the USG 
takes on the HRC, including a decision to vote no.  End 
Note.)  Ozawa also said that China has pressured Cuba to 
accept the text, and that the Cubans will likely go along 
grudgingly if no vote takes place. 
 
¶7. (C) Responding to Ozawa's presentation, Ambassador Wolff 
reiterated the U.S. positions on the text.  Ozawa suggested 
several areas for possible discussion outside the text, 
including the HRC's Rules of Procedure, priority for review 
of certain members, or restrictions on the rights of certain 
members if violations occur, as well as the possibility of an 
"interim" review of the HRC in 2-3 years, before the 5 year 
review envisioned in the HRC resolution text.  Ozawa 
recognized that several of these would be for the HRC itself 
to decide.  He agreed that an important test of the new body 
will be what countries are elected to it and how it performs 
and functions.  Ambassador Wolff said none of these ideas 
directly address our core concerns.  Moreover, since we would 
lose our majority to the Asian and African Groups, most of 
the procedural improvements described by Ozawa would likely 
be voted down in the HRC. 
 
 
EU WILL DECLARE INTENTION NOT TO VOTE FOR THOSE UNDER UNSC 
SANCTIONS 
 
¶8. (C)  On March 8 Austrian PermRep Pfanzelter sent a letter 
to Ambassador Bolton to convey the European Union decision 
that "Member States of the EU are prepared to make a 
declaration not to vote for candidates for membership in the 
Human Rights Council that are under sanctions of the Security 
Council for human rights related reasons."  The letter 
continues, "The European Union has taken this decision in 
order to meet the concerns that the United States has raised. 
 We would make this pledge in an explanation after adoption 
of the resolution and expect that a significant number of 
countries will do likewise, not only from wider Europe, but 
also from other regional groups of the United Nations."  The 
letter concludes by saying, "I am convinced that a decision 
on the Human Rights Council needs to be taken by consensus, 
i.e. without a vote, by the end of this week.  It is our hope 
that the assurances of the EU and a large number of countries 
that uphold democracy will put the US in a position to 
support President Eliasson in our common efforts to 
strengthen human rights globally and to establish a Human 
Rights Council."  (Ref e-mail conveys full text of the 
letter.) 
 
POSSIBLE CD CONVENING GROUP STATEMENT ON HRC 
 
¶9. (C)  Mal PermRep Diarra (current chair of the Community of 
Democracies group in New York) met with Ambassador Wolff on 
March 8 to report on a meeting of the Convening Group of the 
Community of Democracies (CD) earlier in the day at which the 
HRC was also discussed.  (Note:  USUN received notice of the 
meeting too late to attend.  The planned agenda was a follow 
up to the outcome of the meeting of the Convening Group of 
the CD held in Bamako on March 1. We understand from another 
Convening Group member that the Czech Republic, Morocco and 
El Salvador also were not present.  End Note.)  Diarra told 
Ambassador Wolff that the Convening Group discussed what the 
CD could do to help the GA President, but said there was no 
consensus on this point.  The Convening Group also discussed 
what it could do to help the U.S. on this issue by helping 
raise confidence in the selection of HRC members.  Diarra 
said that Chilean PermRep Munoz had suggested the group adopt 
 
 
or issue a statement on behalf of the CD that would lay out 
criteria for elections, including not to support candidacies 
of countries under Security Council sanctions for human 
rights violations.  Diarra said the group agreed that such a 
statement could only be made after the decision to establish 
the HRC was taken in order to avoid prompting Cuba and others 
to re-open the text in reaction to an indirect effort to 
reintroduce the sanctions exclusion.  Diarra said the group 
asked Mali as CD Chair to sound out the U.S. on this idea, to 
see if it would help our approach to the HRC text, and 
requested the U.S. reaction and any further ideas be provided 
as soon as possible. 
 
¶10. (C) Ambassador Wolff explained the U.S. position to fix 
the election threshhold and UNSC sanctions exclusion in the 
text itself in order to make it binding; and that unless the 
text itself were changed the U.S. would vote no.  He asked 
Mali if the Convening Group would be able to speak on behalf 
of all members?  Diarra said the Convening Group can agree to 
issue a statement on behalf of the CD, but said if it were 
opened for all CD members to discuss then he expected there 
would be no consensus on this idea.  Ambassador Wolff asked 
how then could CD members be expected to adhere to such a 
declaration?  Diarra responded that many like-minded 
countries could be counted on to do so.  Diarra also admitted 
that in African Group discussions on regional candidacies, 
Mali would not try to block a candidate for the HRC, but he 
assured Ambassador Wolff that Mali would strategize with 
like-minded countries on how to vote if such a candidate were 
put forward.  Ambassador Wolff told Diarra he would report 
this to Washington and provide any further response. 
 
¶11.  (C) Note:  Portugal's Counselor also shared a readout of 
the Convening Group meeting with USUN human rights officer. 
She reported that Munoz' proposed declaration said members 
should not vote in favor of those under Security Council 
sanctions for human rights violations or those who do not 
comply with the pledges and commitments discussed in OP 8 and 
OP 9 of the draft resolution.  She shared that Portugal, 
Italy and Poland expressed support for this idea, but others 
raised questions about what the U.S. reaction would be and 
whether this would help before taking a decision on such a 
statement.  India's Ambassador said they could not agree with 
the declaration text as drafted.  She reported that the 
Convening Group (including India) agreed that the CD could 
make a statement after adoption of the resolution, but it was 
left unclear what such a statement would convey.  She also 
noted that the text could be either from the Convening Group 
or from the CD as a whole, in which case it would be more 
difficult to gain agreement on any detailed or firm text. 
She also expressed interest in the U.S. reaction and what 
language the U.S. might find helpful if such a statement were 
to be issued. 
 
BOLTON