VZCZCXRO4864
PP RUEHAT
DE RUCNDT #0834/01 2821937
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 091937Z OCT 07
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2725
INFO RUEHZJ/HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHKM/AMEMBASSY KAMPALA PRIORITY 0306
RUEHKT/AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU PRIORITY 0357
RUEHKG/AMEMBASSY KINGSTON PRIORITY 0205
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 2880

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 USUN NEW YORK 000834 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM AORC UNGA UG NP
SUBJECT: UNGA THIRD COMMITTEE DROPS TWO COUNTRY-SPECIFIC 
HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTS 
 
 
¶1. (U) Summary:  At the Oct. 8 opening session of the UNGA 
Third Committee, Benin, on behalf of the African group, 
called unexpectedly for the deletion from the draft agenda of 
two reports of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (HCHR) 
on the human rights situation in Nepal and Uganda.  Portugal, 
on behalf of the EU, requested time out for consultations 
with other delegations and with capitals. However, the 
chairman pushed the issue toward a vote.  The US called for a 
suspension of the meeting, which was narrowly defeated.  The 
US then called for a recorded vote on deletion of the 
reports, and 34 delegations took the floor to express 
disappointment over being forced to vote without time for 
consultation or hearing the HCHR's reasoning for presenting 
these reports.  Despite repeated calls for more time, the 
chairman forced a vote.  The motion to delete the two reports 
from the draft agenda was approved 76-54(US)-20.  The US, 
along with several other countries, gave an explanation of 
vote supporting the HCHR's mandate to present reports to the 
Third Committee and expressing concern over the precipitous 
nature of the vote.  The contentious opening day of the Third 
Committee sets an unfortunate and confrontational tone that 
bodes ill for the rest of the session.  End Summary 
 
¶2. (U) The meeting began by discussing administrative matters 
of the committee.  When the chairman (Jamaican Perm Rep 
Raymond Wolfe) asked if the committee wished to approve the 
program of work, Benin, speaking for the African group, 
responded that hearing the reports of the OHCHR on Nepal and 
Uganda was an encroachment on the terms of the Human Rights 
Council, which Benin described as the only organ that can 
submit reports to the Third Committee.  He also argued that 
consideration of the reports could have a negative impact on 
the on-going peace process between Uganda and the Lord's 
Resistance Army. 
 
¶3. (U) Cuba then argued that the Third Committee considers 
reports based on decisions of inter-governmental agencies, 
such as the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, 
and that there are no provisions that allow the HCHR to 
present reports to the Third Committee.  He argued that the 
High Commissioner should report to the Human Rights Council 
or through ECOSOC.   The Uganda representative hinted that 
the OHCHR had a hidden agenda. 
 
¶4. (U) Portugal, on behalf of the EU, spoke in support of the 
mandate of the HCHR.  The representative cited the precedent 
set last year when the committee considered the HCHR report 
on the human rights situation in Nepal.  The Portuguese 
representative disagreed with the interpretation that only 
the Human Rights Council can consider country specific 
resolutions.  The Portuguese representative asked the 
Secretary to clarify if the HCHR has a mandate to present 
 
SIPDIS 
reports and if reports have been introduced in the past. 
 
¶5. (U) The US representative stated that as a universal body, 
it is appropriate for the Third Committee to receive reports 
from the HCHR.  She argued that the HCHR should work with the 
Human Rights Council when possible, but must also use the 
Third Committee to ensure universal oversight.  The US 
expressed its opposition to deleting the two reports. 
 
¶6. (U) The Secretary then clarified that inclusion of the 
documents by the Secretariat indicates that the Secretariat 
believes the HCHR has a mandate to present them to the Third 
Committee. 
 
¶7. (U) Uganda disagreed with the Secretariat's interpretation 
of the resolution outlining HCHR's mandate and called for 
action on their proposal to delete the two reports.  Benin 
stated that the African Group did not concur with the 
interpretation either.  He stated that the Secretary General 
could draw the world's attention to urgent matters that arise 
and questioned the added value of discussing the reports in 
the Third Committee.  Cuba reiterated its stance that reports 
must come to the Third Committee from intergovernmental 
bodies.  Sudan also questioned the Secretariat's 
determination of HCHR's mandate.  Sudan stated that the OHCHR 
does not represent all groups and focuses on political 
rights.  Nepal called for the reports to be considered by the 
Human Rights Council. 
 
¶8. (U) Portugal asked for a deferment to allow time for 
consultations.  The US, Norway and Canada also requested a 
deferment.  Russia supported taking immediate action on 
deletion of the reports.  Benin's representative called for 
suspension of proceedings so he could consult with the 
African group.  A five-minute suspension was granted. 
 
USUN NEW Y 00000834  002 OF 003 
 
 
 
¶9. (U) After the consultation period, Benin stated it would 
maintain its position to request withdrawal of the reports. 
Portugal and Switzerland stated that under rule 120 of the 
General Assembly's Rules of Procedure, delegations should 
have 24 hours to consider new proposals and to build 
consensus. 
 
¶10. (U) Cuba made a point of order, arguing that the document 
that contains the reports being discussed was circulated on 
October 4.  Portugal responded that the new proposal was the 
deletion of the two reports, not the report itself.  The 
chairman stated that there was no agreement on what Portugal 
was proposing and again put the proposal to delete the 
reports to the committee. 
 
¶11. (U) Again, Portugal invoked rule 120, requesting time for 
consultation and the opportunity to hear the reasoning of the 
HCHR for submitting the reports.  Switzerland, Republic of 
Korea, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, San Marino, Uruguay, the 
US, Norway, Canada, and Chile all joined the EU in calling 
for more time to consider, to hear from the OHCHR and to 
consult with capitals before making a decision on a complex, 
precedent-setting issue. 
 
¶12. (U) Syria and Benin spoke in favor of deleting the 
reports. The Syrian representative called for the report to 
be submitted to the Secretary General or the HRC for a 
mandate in order not to undermine the HRC as it beings its 
work.  Both Benin and Syria pushed for a decision to be made 
immediately. 
 
¶13. (U) The Chairman once again put the issue to the 
Committee.  This time the US made a point of order under Rule 
118, requesting suspension of the meeting to allow time for 
consultations since the Chairman was moving toward a vote. 
The Committee, in accordance with the Rules, immediately 
voted on the US motion to suspend the meeting.  The motion 
was rejected in a 65(US)-71-13 vote. 
 
¶14. (U) As the chair again attempted to pass the Benin 
proposal, the US called for a recorded vote on the motion to 
delete the reports.  In general statements, 34 nations (US, 
European nations, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Uruguay) spoke 
against the motion to delete, reiterating the need for more 
time for consultations with other nations and capitals and 
for the need to hear the views of the HCHR.  Most nations 
expressed their regret and disappointment that the issue was 
being forced so quickly to a vote without giving delegations 
a fair opportunity to study the issue or allowing the Bureau 
a chance to develop consensus.  France went so far as to 
express "disappointment in the nefarious first decision of 
the committee."  The chair, departing from normal procedure, 
did not close the meeting at the usual 1 pm closing time for 
the morning session, pressing on into overtime for the 
interpretation. 
 
¶15. (U) Cuba, Russian and Syria spoke in favor of the motion 
to delete the reports.  Cuba and Syria reiterated claims that 
the HCHR has no mandate to present reports to the committee. 
Russia argued that the report was presented under different 
circumstances last year and should not be considered 
precedent.  The Russian representative also stated that 
considering the reports opened up an issue for two states 
that were not on the agenda of the Third Committee. 
 
¶16. (U) After the general statements, the Chairman called for 
a vote, despite earlier statements by the Secretary 
explaining that there would be both general statements and 
explanations of vote prior to voting. 
 
¶17. (U) Turkey made a point of order, noting that there was 
no request for explanations of vote.  Pakistan responded with 
another point of order stating that there was no rule 
allowing 2 statements by members before a vote.  Germany made 
a point of order recalling that the Secretary previously 
noted that there would be both a general statement and an 
explanation of vote. 
 
¶18. (U) The Secretary stated that according to rules, voting 
processes should not be interrupted, but interpretation 
services would not be available beyond 1:30 pm.  He stated 
that if members wished to continue debate, voting must be 
interrupted, infringing on rules of procedure.  He went on to 
state that although it was a longstanding practice to divide 
general debate and explanation of vote, it was not 
exclusively done in that manner. 
 
USUN NEW Y 00000834  003 OF 003 
 
 
 
¶19. (U) The Chairman called for a vote.  The US made a point 
of order requesting the right to make both a general 
statement and explanation of vote and that it was possible to 
do this in the afternoon session.  The Gambia called for the 
voting to proceed if there were no objections based on the 
conduct of voting.  Once again, the chairman called for a 
vote on the deletion of the HCHR Reports on the Human Rights 
Situation in Nepal and Uganda.  The motion passed 
76-54(US)-20, and the reports will be deleted from the 
documentation of the Committee. 
 
¶20. (SBU) USUN followed up with OHCHR's New York office to 
clarify the substance of the two reports.  OHCHR expressed 
deep disappointment over the deletion of the reports from the 
Third Committee program of work.  OHCHR also clarified that 
the reports on the human rights situations in Nepal and 
Northern Uganda were within the mandate of the HCHR and 
furthermore, both countries had signed memoranda of 
understanding that allowed the HCHR to report on the 
situation in their countries. 
 
¶21. (U) At the beginning of the afternoon session, following 
Explanations of Vote by Turkey, Mexico, and Jordan expressing 
dismay at the hasty manner in which the decision on the OHCHR 
reports had been taken in the morning session (all three had 
voted in favor of the U.S. motion to suspend the meeting), 
the US made the following EOV:  The United States voted 
against the deletion of reports from the Office of the High 
Commissioner for Human Rights on the situations in northern 
Uganda and in Nepal from the documentation from the 3rd 
Committee.  The United States notes that resolution 48/141 
reaffirms "the necessity for a continued adaptation of the UN 
human rights machinery to the current and future needs in the 
promotion and protection of human rights."  We believe that 
the High Commissioner not only should be allowed to bring 
human rights situations to the attention of the Third 
Committee, but should be encouraged to do so, whether or not 
a specific report has been requested.  We believe strongly 
that this would be in keeping with the principles enunciated 
in the Vienna Declaration of Programme of Action, namely that 
"the promotion and protection of all human rights is a 
legitimate concern of the international community."  USDEL 
went on to point out that both the governments of Uganda and 
Nepal had signed MOU's with the OHCHR covering the Office's 
work in those two countries.  The US also joined with 
previous speakers in expressing disappointment with the 
precipitous manner in which the morning's proceedings had 
been conducted. 
 
¶22. (SBU) Comment:  The contentious opening day of the Third 
Committee set an unfortunate and confrontational tone that 
bodes ill for the rest of the session.  The lack of any 
attempt at evenhandedness by the Jamaican chair, who bypassed 
several opportunities to accommodate EU and JUSCANZ 
procedural objections, was particularly galling.  A damaging 
precedent has now been set limiting the opportunities for the 
High Commissioner to bring concerns on human rights 
situations to the attention of the Third Committee unless 
specifically asked to do so.  The overwhelming numbers in 
favor of the African proposal will likely embolden the G77 in 
their efforts to push for no-action motions, or defeats on 
substantive grounds, on country-specific resolutions in Third 
Committee. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
KHALILZAD