VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #0672 1241842
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 041836Z MAY 07
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 0000
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 0000
RUEHPG/AMEMBASSY PRAGUE PRIORITY 0000
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL PRIORITY 0000
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE PRIORITY 0000
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 0000
RUEHWR/AMEMBASSY WARSAW PRIORITY 0000
INFO RUEHSK/AMEMBASSY MINSK PRIORITY 0000
RUEHGO/AMEMBASSY RANGOON PRIORITY 0000
RUEHUB/USINT HAVANA PRIORITY 0000
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE PRIORITY 0000
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 0000
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 0000

UNCLAS STATE 060672 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: HUMAN PHUM PREL EUN
SUBJECT: DEMARCHE: HOLDING THE LINE ON UN COUNTRY-SPECIFIC 
SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS 
 
REF: GENEVA 975 
 
¶1.  (U) This is an action request.  Please see paragraph 3. 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) The sixth regular session of the UN Human Rights 
Council (HRC) in June will chiefly address the final 
outstanding institution-building and transitional issues left 
over from the now-defunct UN Commission on Human Rights 
(CHR).  The most contentious of these issues is what to do 
about the existing Special Rapporteur mandates, specifically 
those country mandates created under CHR agenda Item 9. 
Persistent rumors of a package deal whereby the Cuba and 
Belarus mandates would be eliminated to preserve Burma and 
North Korea mandates continue to circulate, but has not been 
formally proposed.  Though the U.S. is not a member of the 
HRC, the U.S. strongly believes that no Item 9 
country-specific mandate inherited by the HRC should be 
eliminated.  (Note: The risk of loss of the Cuba and Belarus 
mandates are particularly high, as Cuba is a current member 
of the HRC.  Belarus is running for a seat on the Council, 
and at present is likely to win on May 17.  Both have already 
lobbied extensively to end the manda 
tes for the country-specific Special Rapporteurs on Belarus 
and Cuba.  End Note.)  As no single HRC member is likely to 
successfully resist such a package, the U.S. will call upon a 
core group of HRC members to provide a center from which to 
fight the loss of any country-specific mandates.  This effort 
will require heavy lifting from both the Department and 
Posts.  End Summary. 
 
OBJECTIVES 
---------- 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Posts are instructed to pursue the following 
objectives: 
 
-- Urge host governments to resist strongly the loss of any 
Item 9 country-specific mandates inherited by the HRC from 
the CHR. 
 
-- Convey to governments deep concern that the acceptance of 
the rumored package deal to eliminate the mandates on Cuba 
and Belarus to save all other mandates rewards the repressive 
Castro and Lukashenko regimes, and would also send the 
message that continued human rights violations are of little 
concern to the world community. 
 
-- Remind host-governments that an institution-building phase 
that results in the loss of the Cuba and Belarus mandates 
would critically undermine the HRC "institutional gains" and 
would constitute a pyrrhic victory. 
 
-- Urge host governments to work with other like-minded HRC 
members to resist the erosion of one of the most significant 
protective mechanisms in the HRC's arsenal. 
 
-- Press host governments to lobby other HRC members to 
reject any package deal on country-specific or thematic 
mandates that compromises the ability of the HRC to monitor 
the human rights situation the world over. 
 
REPORTING DEADLINE 
------------------ 
 
¶4.  (U) Posts should report results of efforts by cable to 
DRL/MLGA - Laura Jordan and IO/RHS - Deepa Ghosh before May 
¶10. 
 
BACKGROUND 
---------- 
 
¶5.  (SBU) The Governments of Cuba and Belarus have demanded 
that both of their country mandates be eliminated, and they 
seem to have garnered the support in the Like-Minded Group, 
portions of the NAM, OIC, and African Groups.  We continue to 
hear in public statements that Western Group members remain 
united in asserting that all country mandates (vote (Item 9) 
and consensus (Item 19)) be retained.  Mission Geneva has 
heard, however, from Canada, Czech Republic, and a handful of 
others that they fear we may be fighting a losing battle. 
Japan has been very active in calling for the retention of 
all for the retention of all country mandates.  The latest 
version of the facilitator's paper contains the following 
formulation: "66.  Rationalized mandates could newly operate 
within unified cycle (e.g. two years for thematic and country 
mandates).  Mandates could be extended in four different 
groups, according to their original date of expiration.  The 
mandate-holders approaching or exceeding the maximum length 
of fu 
nction (i.e. 6 years) should be replaced, while reflecting on 
the administrative burden to establish new selection 
procedure.  Rationalized mandates could be reviewed again 
when up for renewal, in order to enable the stable 
surrounding of a system."  This leaves the Item 9 country 
mandates immediately vulnerable, since former practice under 
the Commission was to renew the mandates annually. 
 
POINT OF CONTACT 
---------------- 
 
¶6.  (U) Please contact DRL/MLGA - Laura Jordan at 
202-647-0293 or via email for further information or 
argumentation to meet our objectives.  Department appreciates 
Embassy assistance on this important issue. 
RICE