VZCZCXRO4968
PP RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV
DE RUEHC #2654/01 2422216
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 302203Z AUG 07
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 7666
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 8490

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 STATE 122654 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EUN PREL UNGA
SUBJECT: DEMARCHING EU ON HUMAN RIGHTS THEMATIC RESOLUTIONS 
 
¶1. This is an action request.  Please see paragraphs 4 
through 6. 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶2. (U) EU members will hold a human rights coordinating 
meeting on September 5.  They are expected to discuss plans 
for the UNGA Third Committee and the 6th session of the UN 
Human Rights Council (HRC).  Department seeks EU support in 
ensuring that the annual report of the HRC is considered by 
the Third Committee before it is sent to the General Assembly 
Plenary.  Department is also concerned about EU plans to 
submit a resolution calling for a moratorium on the death 
penalty and EU plans to submit a resolution on religious 
intolerance at the HRC but not at the Third Committee.  Posts 
are requested to reach out to host governments prior to the 5 
September COHOM to discuss the objectives below.  Posts are 
then requested to follow-up. 
 
OBJECTIVES 
---------- 
 
¶3. (U) Posts are instructed to pursue the following 
objectives described below. 
 
¶4.  HRC Report: 
 
--Express concern over suggestions that the HRC report might 
be transmitted directly to the UN General Assembly Plenary, 
without consideration by the Third Committee. 
 
-- Indicate that in our view, the HRC report should be only 
transmitted to the UNGA Plenary via the Third Committee where 
it can be examined in detail by those with human rights 
expertise. 
 
-- Explain that this is a solid precedent established by 
roughly 60 years of ECOSOC reports to the Third Committee 
(including the annual report of the now-defunct Commission on 
Human Rights) 
 
-- Indicate that for the 75 percent of UN member states that 
are not HRC members, the Third Committee is the only real 
opportunity to review, improve, or correct HRC actions. 
Fairness dictates that all member states have that 
opportunity. 
 
-- Note that setting a precedent for no Third Committee 
review now could endanger WEOG states, ability in the future 
to counter trends at the HRC that seek to roll back human 
rights.  Moreover, the Third Committee is often the forum of 
last resort for many victims of human rights.  The use of 
this venue should not be limited by sending HRC reports 
directly to UNGA plenary. 
 
¶5.  Capital Punishment: 
 
-- Express agreement with and appreciation for the recent EU 
statements to the USG about the importance it places on 
avoiding transatlantic squabbles in the UN Third Committee. 
 
-- Inform them that while we understand and respect the EU,s 
position on the death penalty, we hope EU member countries 
also understand and respect ours and that we can avoid 
conflict on this issue. 
 
-- Express concern that if the EU presses forward with a 
resolution calling for a universal moratorium on the death 
penalty and stating that the death penalty is in all 
circumstances unlawful and objectionable, the USG will have 
no choice but to actively lobby against it.  We cannot 
support a moratorium on the death penalty, as capital 
punishment is, for the most serious offenses, an available 
sanction under the laws of the United States and in many of 
50 States.  Explore if it is possible instead for the EU to 
use the resolution to insist on due process and safeguards 
and call on countries without such due process and safeguards 
to consider a moratorium.  This 
would address actual violations of international law and the 
most significant human rights problems associated with 
capital punishment (for example, capital punishment in 
China). 
 
-- Indicate to EU that if there must be a resolution, we 
would certainly support one that does not inaccurately 
suggest that the death penalty is always unlawful or 
 
STATE 00122654  002 OF 002 
 
 
objectionable (i.e., it could criticize such imposition of 
such punishment where it is not carried out pursuant to due 
process of law and the standard safeguards under a 
responsible criminal justice system in connection with 
imposition of the death penalty. 
 
-- However the EU ultimately decides to proceed, the USG 
appreciates the EU,s commitment to a collegial approach  and 
would hope that it would give the US an opportunity to 
informally comment on an EU text before it is tabled to other 
potential non-EU co-sponsors. 
 
¶6.  Other issues: 
 
-- Inform EU interlocutors of our appreciation for the EU,s 
willingness to work in the Human Rights Council (HRC) on 
language 
acceptable to all parties on the Rights of the Child 
resolution.  Note that the USG understands that the EU will 
propose the creation of a new Special Representative on 
Violence Against Children.  Request that they share the text 
of a proposal on this subject before tabling it so we can 
help them fashion an appropriate mandate.  Note, however, 
that if the usual "omnibus" Rights of the Child 
resolution text is tabled at the Third Committee, the U.S. 
will very likely call for a vote and vote against it as we 
have done for years. 
 
-- Express unease about the EU planning to introduce the 
religious intolerance resolution only at HRC.  The USG is 
concerned that presentation of this significant resolution 
only at the HRC will create a void in New York which the OIC 
will fill with a resolution on defamation of religion.  Note 
that we understand the EU might consider a resolution in New 
York under those circumstances, and 
press the EU to rethink its decision to introduce this text 
only in Geneva. 
 
REPORTING DEADLINE 
------------------ 
 
¶7. (U) Posts should report results of efforts by cable to 
DRL/MLGA Gianni Paz and IO/RHS Amy Ostermeier by September 10. 
RICE