VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0113/01 0401937
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 091937Z FEB 07
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1306
INFO RUEHSW/AMEMBASSY BERN 0243
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 1448
RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID 6203
RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO 0708
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 0895
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 0783
RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV 1390
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 8274
RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON 2743
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2515

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000113 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM UNGA
SUBJECT: ISRAEL AND JUSCANZ DISCUSS UN HUMAN RIGHTS 
MECHANISMS 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
1.(U) USUN hosted a meeting January 30 to give Israel an 
opportunity to share views on the human rights mechanisms at 
the UN with members of JUSCANZ, a group from which they 
remain officially excluded. Representatives of ten countries 
joined the U.S. Mission Third Committee team for lunch to 
share thoughts on the recently-concluded Third Committee 
session.  List of participants follows in para 8.  Israel's 
low-keyed but informative participation was warmly welcomed, 
and participants urged that the same group meet again 
periodically to share human rights observations and 
strategies, particularly 2-3 months prior to the fall 
commencement of the UNGA Third Committee. 
 
¶2. (U) Discussion centered around attitudes toward 
country-specific resolutions, the relationship between the 
Third Committee and the Human Rights Council (HRC), the 
treatment of thematic issues, the participation of Special 
Rapporteurs in Third Committee, and ways to build coalitions 
with moderate states.  Following is a read-out of views 
expressed. 
 
Country-Specific Resolutions 
---------------------------- 
 
¶3. (U) The relatively late introduction of country-specific 
resolutions created difficulties for delegations this year. 
More widespread prior consultation about the introduction of 
country-specific resolutions, including prioritization of 
which country situations to address and whether they should 
be dealt with in Third Committee and/or in the Human Rights 
Council (HRC), would be useful and appreciated by partners. 
Several delegations questioned why JUSCANZ had declined to 
run a resolution on Sudan.  Others observed that prior 
consultations with moderates within the NAM regarding 
country-specific resolutions might have resulted in more 
support, especially in reducing the number of abstentions on 
no-action motions advocated by Cuba and Belarus.  In past 
years, consultations with the target country (such as Burma 
and DRCongo) had resulted in consensus resolutions and even 
some understanding/admission of conditions that needed to be 
changed by the country in question, albeit the texts were 
consequently weaker in their wording. 
 
Third Committee-HRC Relationship 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) Several delegations felt that the HRC had served to 
embolden hard-core NAM members to more militantly resist 
country-specific resolutions and to exacerbate in general the 
contentious atmosphere in Third Committee. If the institution 
matures, two delegates said there might be an improved 
likelihood of dealing with country situations in the HRC. 
Otherwise, the HRC will remain dysfunctional and indeed will 
continue to complicate the work of the Third Committee. The 
appearance of the President of the HRC before the GA Plenary 
had set a good precedent for future GA discussions of the 
responsibilities of the HRC, several delegations agreed. 
This year, the timing of holding HRC sessions immediately 
before and after the Third Committee session impinged on the 
ability of capitals to prepare their missions in New York. 
Delegations, as well as their human rights offices within 
foreign ministries, felt somewhat overwhelmed by the 
convergence of these almost back-to-back human rights events. 
 They saw no near-term relief in sight for this workload 
issue. 
 
Thematic Issues 
--------------- 
 
¶5. (U) Serious discussion of thematic issues was given short 
shrift in the Third Committee.  On the one hand, NAM members 
presented a greater number of contentious resolutions that 
came to a vote, often on thematic standards.  The proportion 
of voted resolutions in 2006 rose to 42 percent, over 34 
percent in 2005.  On the other hand, the opportunity for 
meaningful discussion of reports such as the 
Secretary-General's report on violence against women, or the 
 
SIPDIS 
Pinheiro report on violence against children, was minimal, 
given that most delegates were engaged in informal 
 
 
consultations when plenary debates occurred.  It was 
suggested that as a universal body, the Third Committee could 
better focus on norms and themes, while the HRC could 
potentially concentrate on country situations.  Several 
countries asserted that the role of the Third Committee in 
setting thematic standards far outweighed its value in other 
areas, including condemnation of specific countries.  Others 
countered, however, that because the HRC composition was not 
currently conducive to setting standards or to condemning 
human rights violators, the Third Committee needed to 
continue to focus on the political priority of country 
situations rather than standard-setting.  A plea was made for 
delegations to moderate their positions on "hobby-horse" 
issues that increased divisiveness in Third Committee (such 
as the death penalty and the ICC.) 
 
Special Rapporteurs 
------------------- 
 
¶6. (U) The participation of Special Rapporteurs in Third 
Committee this year came too closely on the heels of similar 
HRC discussions to be very useful.  This was exacerbated by 
the absence of expert delegates from the sessions with 
Special Rapporteurs, as they were usually engaged in informal 
consultations.  The Secretariat found it hard to predict 
which Rapporteurs would elicit the most questions and 
therefore needed more time for their inter-active dialogue. 
The Committee Bureau, after discussion, had decided against 
selectivity in inviting Rapporteurs.  As almost all 
Rapporteurs offended at least some Member States, giving the 
Bureau a role in vetting the Rapporteurs could lead to a 
sharp diminution in the number who were invited, and 
consequently, a less meaningful discussion of human rights 
norms and practices.  It was suggested that, in order to 
optimize the interaction with Rapporteurs and decide which 
ones needed more time, it could be helpful to create a 
speakers list beforehand. 
 
Coalition-building 
------------------ 
 
¶7. (U) Prior consultation with moderate/swing NAM states 
about priorities for Third Committee could lead to more 
support.  Such consultations would need to take place well in 
advance of the Third Committee, to give smaller delegations 
the opportunity to formulate policies that were not simply in 
lock-step with the NAM leadership, which Cuba will lead for 
the next three years.  A few JUSCANZ members mentioned that 
they had not been consulted prior to introduction of 
country-specific resolutions, and their support seemed to be 
taken for granted.  Several expressed appreciation for the US 
initiative to engage in this round of post-mortem 
brainstorming, and they thoroughly accepted the presence of 
Israel.  They urged that this group get together again on a 
regular basis and particularly some 2-3 months in advance of 
Third Committee. 
 
¶8. (U) Participants included delegates from Andorra, 
Australia, Canada (JUSCANZ Chair), Israel, Japan, 
Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, San 
Marino, and Switzerland.  All of these countries, except 
Israel, are members of the Third Committee JUSCANZ group that 
meets throughout the Committee session to share information. 
While Israel has long sought inclusion, this year New Zealand 
and Switzerland adamantly blocked Israel's entry on grounds 
that Israel's human rights situation was deficient. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶9. (U) Inclusion of an Israeli delegate at the USUN luncheon 
was constructive and accomplished without fanfare.  It may be 
useful to convene this group periodically, and particularly 
some two to three months prior to the next Third Committee 
(i.e., in June or July), to review US and others' priorities 
for country-specific and other human rights resolutions in 
the 62nd UNGA session.  Without encroaching on the JUSCANZ 
Chair's prerogatives, we will continue to try to enlist the 
support of JUSCANZ and Israel, together. 
 
 
 
 
WOLFF