VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0538/01 0791415
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 201415Z MAR 06
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8368
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 1984

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000538 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM KUNR PREL UNGA
SUBJECT: HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: ADDITIONAL REPORTING ON 
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TEXT 
 
REF: USUN 515 
 
¶1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY:  As reported reftel, the UN 
General Assembly adopted the resolution on establishment of 
the Human Rights Council (HRC) by a vote of 170-4(U.S.) with 
3 abstentions.  Reftel reported on the presentation of the 
resolution text and Explanations of Vote (EOVs) delivered in 
the morning session; this cable provides reporting on the 
afternoon session.  In its EOV, CANZ countries expressed 
support for the resolution while noting that it was not 
possible to reach agreement on all their hopes for the 
Council, and pledged they "will not vote on to the Council 
countries where there is objective evidence of gross and 
systematic violations of human rights, including those that 
are under sanctions of the Security Council for human rights 
related reasons."  Liechtenstein also agreed that States that 
are under Security Council enforcement measures for their 
human rights record should not serve on the new Council for 
as long as those measures are in place, and expressed the 
hope that all States committed to the promotion and 
protection of human rights will engage with the newly created 
body.  Japan, Timor-Leste and Iceland also said their 
countries will not vote for countries under sanctions for 
human rights reasons.  Brazil, speaking also on behalf of 
Paraguay, Uruguay, Panama, Colombia, and Guatemala, expressed 
regret that the representation of GRULAC in the Council as 
compared to the Commission was decreased by 27 percent. 
 
¶2.  SUMMARY, CONTINUED:  Sudan's statement criticized the 
United States and expressed its opposition to any attempt to 
politicize the HRC or link it to the Security Council, while 
Iran expressed concern that the two-thirds provision to 
suspend membership would be used by "certain states" to 
pursue a "politically-motivated" policy.  Egypt, Syria and 
Algeria said the HRC should address the issues of 
self-determination and foreign occupation.  Pakistan said the 
CHR had been discredited not by the worst violators, but by 
the tendency of some states to condemn rather than to help 
each other, and complained about selective targeting of 
developing countries, especially Islamic ones.  Pakistan also 
called for a review and rationalization of all of the UN's 
human rights machinery, and called the election provisions in 
OP 8 "unprecedented" but suggested that with the HRC 
precedent, 0.7 percent ODA should become a benchmark for 
election to ECOSOC.  Closing the afternoon session UNGA 
President Eliasson expressed hope that Member States would 
work in a positive spirit to make the HRC a strong UN 
mechanism, and said that now Member States can move ahead 
with other reform issues.  END SUMMARY. 
 
SUPPORT FOR HRC TEXT, THOUGH NOT PERFECT 
 
¶3.  New Zealand's PermRep, also speaking on behalf of Canada 
and Australia, expressed CANZ support for the resolution. 
The CANZ EOV said they "believe that its key elements provide 
for a more effective international human rights body" than 
the CHR, while noting that it was not possible to reach 
agreement on all their hopes for the Council, including 
stronger thresholds for membership through a 2/3 majority 
vote and tougher provisions for preventing gross and 
systematic abusers of human rights from being elected.  The 
three countries pledged they "will not vote on to the Council 
countries where there is objective evidence of gross and 
systematic violations of human rights, including those that 
are under sanctions of the Security Council for human rights 
related reasons." 
 
¶4.  Liechtenstein's PermRep stated that while Liechtenstein 
shares the dissatisfaction of others with some of the HRC's 
features, it firmly believes that "the adopted text 
constitutes a significant improvement over the Commission on 
Human Rights."  He noted their preference for a more flexible 
convening mechanism (e.g. to allow for a case-specific 
dialogue with the special procedures, treaty bodies and HCHR) 
and a clear division of work between the HRC and the UNGA 
Third Committee, but said that this concern could be 
accommodated when the HRC is set up, and more generally, that 
the Council "will be what we all allow it to be and make it 
to be, through our collective political will."  Liechtenstein 
also agreed that States that are under Security Council 
enforcement measures for their human rights record should not 
serve on the HRC for as long as those measures are in place. 
Finally, Liechtenstein noted its preference for a consensual 
adoption of the resolution, but said "More importantly, 
though, we firmly believe that it is crucial that all States 
committed to the promotion and protection of human rights to 
engage with the newly created body and make sure it truly 
reflects the new approach our Heads of State and Governments 
decided on at the Summit meeting in September." 
 
¶5.  Japan welcomed the HRC as an improvement to the UN's 
human rights machinery, despite its preference that the HRC 
be a principal organ with a two-thirds majority required for 
election. Saying that the task now is for Member States to 
ensure the HRC is credible, Japan expressed support for 
written pledges by candidate countries and said Japan will 
not vote for countries under sanctions for human rights 
reasons.  Japan also expressed a desire for the planned 
5-year review to occur earlier.  Iceland's PermRep said "I 
feel obliged to register disappointment that the final 
outcome does not match the ambitions in the clear and 
principled approach proposed by the Secretary General in his 
original report" but said it supported the resolution 
"because the alternative of falling back on the Commission is 
unacceptable and not in the interests of human rights," and 
noted several positive aspects of the resolution.  Iceland 
also said it will not vote for any candidate country that is 
under sanctions imposed by the Security Council for human 
rights related reasons or any country that is considered to 
be committing gross and systematic violations of human rights. 
 
¶6.  Argentina supported passage of the resolution, saying 
that even though the text does not contain some of the 
elements that were important to Argentina, such as making the 
HRC a principal organ of the UN or having elections by 2/3 
majority, the resolution provides an appropriate basis for 
the creation of the HRC.  It continued: "Argentina will 
strive for a Human Rights Council that will foremost be a 
sensitive forum to the claims of victims of repressive acts, 
all those who were denied the rights that the Universal 
Declaration guarantees them, no matter where they may occur. 
Cooperation among states must be in favor of these victims 
and not to their detriment." 
 
¶7.  Brazil, speaking also on behalf of Paraguay, Uruguay, 
Panama, Colombia, and Guatemala, firmly supported the 
President's text, calling it a step forward toward the 
strengthening and improvement of the human rights machinery, 
and saying that it hopes imperfections will be fixed through 
the day-to-day practice of the new body.  Brazil noted three 
particular concerns:  that the text could have included more 
comprehensively the concepts of dialogue and cooperation; 
regret that the proposal for a global report was not included 
in the final draft; and regret that the representation of 
GRULAC in the Council as compared to the Commission was 
decreased by 27 percent.  It continued: "We understand that 
regions with increased number of countries should expand 
their presence.  But there was no decrease in the number of 
countries in our region.  So we fail to see why its 
representation has been reduced so drastically."   Peru 
welcomed the creation of the HRC, but endorsed Brazil's 
statement expressing regret for the decreased presence of 
Latin America and the Caribbean on the HRC. 
 
¶8.  Speaking for the Community of Portuguese-Speaking 
Countries (Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, 
Mozambique, Timor-Leste, Sao-Tome and Principe, and 
Portugal,) Sao-Tome and Principe welcomed the resolution as 
an important step in the implementation of the decisions at 
the 2005 summit. Timor-Leste, though associating with this 
statement went further and said it would have preferred 
extended negotiations, supported US and EU statements, and 
pledged not to vote for sanctioned countries. Monaco, 
speaking also for Andorra and San Marino, endorsed the EU 
statement and stated its belief that the text could and 
should have gone farther to ensure the HRC's credibility, but 
said it marks significant progress over the past.  Kenya 
praised the spirit of accommodation and the improvements 
made, but stated their disappointment that a vote took place 
at all.  It also stressed the need for dialogue in the HRC, 
as opposed to confrontation, which it said is often the means 
of interaction in the CHR. 
 
SUDAN CRITICIZES U.S., IRAN EXPLAINS ABSTENTION 
 
¶9.  After reaffirming the statements made on behalf of the 
African Group and OIC, Sudan said the HRC is one part of the 
reform process that must "revitalize" the UN. Sudan's EOV 
continued by stating that, as opposed to past actions by 
"great powers" that acted "beyond the law," it hoped the HRC 
is based on "international cooperation" without selectivity, 
and is respectful of cultures and religions. Sudan said it 
did not wish to reply to the US statement because previous 
efforts made to remind the US of "lessons" from history were 
made in vain. Instead of receiving "lessons" from the US, 
Sudan wanted guarantees that Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and 
other places of detention were like "5-star tourist resorts." 
Sudan also expressed its opposition to any attempt to 
politicize the HRC or link it to the Security Council, as 
doing so would "violate" the reform process and weaken the 
General Assembly. 
 
¶10.  Iran said it preferred consensus, but attributed Iran's 
abstention to certain provisions in the resolution. Iran said 
it attaches great importance to dialogue and the elimination 
of double standards, and hopes the HRC will promote cultural 
and religious understanding. Though it hopes that 
politicization will be eliminated, Iran expressed concern 
that the two-thirds provision to suspend membership would be 
used by "certain states" to pursue a "politically-motivated" 
policy.  Iran continued by stating that the resolution did 
not duly take into consideration the OIC's concerns about 
religious tolerance. 
 
EGYPT, SYRIA AND ALGERIA - HRC SHOULD ADDRESS FOREIGN 
OCCUPATION 
 
¶11.  Egypt explained its understanding of certain provisions 
of the resolution, including that the HRC should work to 
promote the principle of the right of self-determination of 
peoples under "colonial domination and foreign occupation," 
that the HRC should present all its recommendations and 
resolutions to the GA for consideration, that "highest 
standards" in OP 9 refers to those standards that have been 
internationally recognized and agreed upon by all states 
collectively, and that the suspension of rights of membership 
as stated in OP8 should be an exceptional application to the 
HRC only and should not represent a precedent for other UN 
bodies. Egypt also said that PP7 entails the responsibility 
of states and international organizations in ensuring respect 
for religions and prophets, and the responsibility of the HRC 
and the GA "in ensuring that all states abide by their 
responsibilities in this regard." 
 
¶12.  Egypt and Syria also associated themselves with the OIC, 
with Syria commenting that OIC language had not been fully 
considered during consultations. In its EOV, Syria said it 
voted yes because it hoped "some others" would show 
flexibility. It continued by saying the HRC must only deal 
with a state's internal affairs when it is under foreign 
occupation; this was followed by a statement recalling 
"Israel's practices" in the "occupied territories," which 
Syria called a "gross violation of human rights."  Syria also 
called for the CHR's Agenda Item 8 to be transferred to the 
HRC.  Algeria said the text is balanced while mentioning the 
importance of "dialogue and cooperation," and also stated 
that it would have liked to see other elements in the text, 
especially the right to self-determination and freedom from 
"foreign occupation." 
 
PAKISTAN ON NEXT STEPS 
 
¶13.  Pakistan's PermRep Munir Akram pointed to a "long UN 
tradition" that texts of the President of the GA are for 
adoption by consensus, and stated Pakistan's view that 
decisions on reform should be adopted without a vote, hoping 
the HRC vote would not have a negative impact on other reform 
issues.  He said the CHR had been discredited not by the 
worst violators, but by the tendency of some states to 
condemn rather than to help each other, and complained about 
selective targeting of developing countries, especially 
Islamic ones.  He also said that while the resolution focused 
only on replacing the CHR, there should be a review and 
rationalization of the rest of the UN's human rights 
machinery, including the special procedures, SubCommission, 
1503 procedure, civil society participation, and the 
composition and operation of the Office of the High 
Commissioner.  Pakistan called the election provisions in OP 
8 "unprecedented," but suggested it could now be used as a 
precedent for other bodies, further suggesting that 0.7 
percent ODA should become a benchmark for election to ECOSOC. 
Pakistan concluded by stating that the 2005 Summit was to be 
a development summit and expressed concerns with delays on 
the development and ECOSOC reform resolutions, saying that 
now that the HRC resolution is "out of the way," Pakistan 
trusts the PGA would make these his first priority. 
 
OTHER VOICES 
 
¶14.  Morocco accepted the text and associated itself with the 
OIC and African statements, reminding the floor that the HRC 
was a "fragile balance" of diverse views. Indonesia called 
the text a fair, but not a fully satisfactory, compromise, 
while saying it should provide for better human rights 
machinery than the CHR. In addition, Indonesia said the HRC 
must be faithful to universality and non-selectivity and the 
elimination of double standards and politicization. 
Indonesia also associated with the OIC statement, and in 
reference to the recent Danish cartoons, said that freedom of 
expression must be "exercised with responsibility." 
 
¶15.  Russia stated that though far from perfect, the 
resolution is a starting point for the future of the new 
human rights body. It expressed concerns about the term 
limits in OP7 and said the paragraph contradicts the 
universal membership contained in the preambular section. In 
addition, Russia stated that the criteria that will be used 
to judge member states are still not clear. 
 
¶16.  India stated that the decision on the HRC showed that 
the GA "could deliver" and congratulated all members on what 
they had done. India stated that the text contained an 
implicit reference to the right to development, calling it an 
"inalienable human right." China also called the decision 
historic and praised Eliasson, but stated that there was no 
guarantee that the HRC would avoid political confrontation. 
In line with India, China stated the text failed to fully 
address the main concerns of developing countries.  China 
noted that it will make further comments on its concerns 
during discussions on the rules of procedure for the HRC. 
St. Vincent and the Grenadines, on behalf of CARICOM, 
accepted the HRC in the spirit of compromise and said it 
hopes the HRC will avoid double standards and selectivity. 
 
ISRAEL'S EOV FOR ITS "NO" VOTE 
 
¶17.  Israel was the only other state that voted "no" (besides 
the US) to deliver an EOV. Israel expressed profound regret 
that the resolution fell short of its expectations (and 
noting that there is no benchmark for membership ensuring the 
improvement of membership), and gave Israel no other choice 
but to vote against it, as "radical failure calls for radical 
change." 
 
CUBA'S RIGHT OF REPLY 
 
¶18.  At the end of the afternoon session, Cuba delivered a 
right of reply to the earlier U.S. statement.  It criticized 
the USG, saying imperialism persists and accusing the United 
States of making a "self declaration of moral superiority." 
Cuba asked how the United States can demand conditions for 
entry into the HRC, alleging U.S. troops were mistreating 
prisoners in GTMO and Abu Ghraib and attacking Muslim 
sentiments.  Cuba also said it was unacceptable that some 
countries were taking on a right to interpret the HRC text, 
"especially if to satisfy US interests," asking whether CANZ 
and the EU will stand against a U.S. presence on the HRC 
"since the US violates human rights"? 
 
ELIASSON CLOSES THE SESSION 
 
¶19.  Closing the afternoon session with a quote from Eleanor 
Roosevelt, Eliasson said the session provided an important 
opportunity for delegations to listen to each other, 
including regarding their interpretations of text and 
aspirations for the HRC, etc.  He expressed hope that Member 
States would work in a positive spirit to make this a strong 
UN mechanism, including through cooperation and dialogue, and 
especially tolerance and respect for cultures and religions, 
which he said should be worked on in different UN bodies.  He 
called adoption of the resolution an achievement, and praised 
delegations for taking an international and long-term 
perspective to strengthen the HR machinery and the United 
Nations.  Eliasson said he sees this action also from the 
perspective of GA role and authority, and its capacity to 
take decisions where needed, saying the GA can deliver and is 
capable of taking such decisions.  He concluded by saying 
that now Member States can move ahead, with work to do on 
ECOSOC reform and development and management and secretariat 
reform.  (Note:  He listed these reform activities in this 
order in his statement. End Note.) 
BOLTON