VZCZCXRO5084
PP RUEHAT
DE RUCNDT #1010/01 3171734
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 131734Z NOV 07
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3078
INFO RUEHZJ/HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV PRIORITY 1678
RUEHUB/USINT HAVANA PRIORITY 0226

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 001010 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM UNGA
SUBJECT: UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY: REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS 
COUNCIL 
 
REF: STATE 128329 
 
¶1. SUMMARY: On Nov. 5-6, UNGA's Third Committee addressed the 
Human Rights Council's Report and particularly its 
institution-building package.  In introducing the Report, HRC 
president Costea (Romania) argued that the Council had made 
progress, faces major challenges, and should only be judged 
once it has begun fully functioning.  General discussion 
centered on the institution-building package, which many 
countries praised while some highlighted its shortcomings; 
the U.S. statement highlighted our serious concerns about the 
Council, while Israel gave an impassioned criticism of that 
body and of the UN more broadly.  Debate also centered on 
country-specific mandates and on the relationship between the 
Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human 
Rights.  END SUMMARY 
 
-------------------------------- 
The Institution-Building Package 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶2. The UNGA Third Committee focused Nov. 5-6 on the Report of 
the Human Rights Council, including its controversial 
institution-building package.  In his introduction of the 
Report, Council President Doru Costea argued that the council 
had made some achievements, including by focusing on a wide 
range of human rights issues (examples cited were primarily 
thematic).  He noted the challenges ahead, including breaking 
away from the mindset of the Council's predecessor body, the 
Commission on Human Rights, and posited that the Council 
should not be judged until it has begun fully functioning. 
 
¶3. Many countries (Portugal, Cuba, Colombia, Republic of 
Korea, China, Russia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Ukraine, Brazil, 
Argentina, Japan, Poland, the Netherlands, Iran, Egypt) urged 
the Committee to adopt the institution-building package by 
consensus, without reopening it. Several of those countries 
(Portugal, UK, Canada and the Netherlands) also criticized 
the Council for its selective approach and an excessive focus 
on Israel.  Some (UK, Poland and the Netherlands) also 
criticized the package for having eliminated special mandates 
on Belarus and Cuba.  The U.S. statement (discussed in 
greater detail in para 9) also included these criticisms. 
Canada, in addition to criticizing the Council's unbalanced 
approach, noted its objection to the manner in which the 
package had been pushed through the Council.  In an 
impassioned statement, Israel sharply criticized the Council, 
noting that an entire agenda item (Item 7) was devoted 
exclusively to the "Occupied Palestinian Territories" while 
all other human rights situations throughout the world were 
to be addressed within a single agenda item (Item 4). Israel 
announced it would call for a vote on the package. 
Responding, Palestine argued that the situation in the 
Occupied Territories is unique and must have its own agenda 
item. 
 
---------------------------- 
Allocation of the HRC Report 
---------------------------- 
 
¶4. On Nov. 2 the UNGA General Committee had decided without a 
vote to recommend to the UNGA plenary that, "for its 62d 
session" (i.e., the current one), the HRC report be allocated 
for discussion to the Third Committee.  Egypt, Sudan, DRC, 
Gambia, Jamaica, and the USA (per instructions in reftel) had 
supported this decision.  Uruguay, the UK, Finland, Iceland 
and Cyprus, who wanted the report allocated directly to the 
UNGA plenary, had said the decision should state explicitly 
that it constituted no precedent for future UNGA sessions. 
On Nov. 5 the UNGA plenary adopted without a vote the General 
Committee's allocation decision.  Liechtenstein, New Zealand, 
Switzerland and Mexico spoke up, saying the report should 
have been allocated to the plenary and the decision 
constituted no precedent for next year's 63d UNGA session. 
Egypt, however, spoke in support of the General Committee's 
decision. 
 
¶5.  During the Nov. 5-6 debate in the Third Committee, some 
countries reiterated their positions on the allocation 
question.  Colombia, Sudan, Malaysia, Bangladesh, India and 
Indonesia all expressed their support for the General 
Committee's decision to send the report to the Third 
Committee.  Others, including Switzerland, Portugal on behalf 
of the EU, Chile, New Zealand, the UK and the Netherlands 
argued that the report should have been sent directly to the 
General Assembly plenary or to both the plenary and the Third 
Committee.  Brazil, speaking also for Argentina, stated that 
it did not consider this year's decision by the General 
Committee to have set a precedent. 
 
 
USUN NEW Y 00001010  002 OF 002 
 
 
----------------------------------------- 
Country-Specific Resolutions and Mandates 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. Many statements during the Nov. 5-6 debate echoed prior 
discussions in the Council over whether to preserve 
country-specific resolutions and mandates.  Burma and Egypt 
argued against country-specific resolutions, calling instead 
for addressing these issues through the new Universal 
Periodic Review (UPR), which is to review all UN member 
states' human rights behavior under the Council's auspices. 
 
¶7. South Africa also called for the termination of country 
mandates, arguing they do not enhance human rights on the 
ground.  Malaysia and Iran called for the special mandates to 
focus on thematic, rather than country-specific issues.  The 
DRC argued that the special mandate holders criticize without 
providing specific recommendations for action and it 
suggested in strong terms its dissatisfaction with the 
mandate on the DRC.  China stated that it could not 
overemphasize the need for caution when proposing 
country-specific resolutions. 
 
¶8. France stressed the importance of the special procedures 
and stated that the mandate of the Council cannot be 
fulfilled through a thematic approach alone.  Portugal argued 
that the HRC must address specific situations and that the 
UPR is a complement to, not a substitute for, other 
mechanisms of the HRC, and called for expansion of the 
special procedures.  Chile agreed, noting that special 
procedures and country-specific resolutions saved lives in 
Chile in the 1970s. 
 
¶9. Cuba called the elimination of the special procedure on 
Cuba "a homage to the long resistance and the tireless fight 
of the Cuban people for their independence and is one less 
pretext for the continuation of the policy of hostility, 
genocidal blockade and aggressions against the Cuban people." 
Belarus stated (incorrectly) that in the HRC a minimum number 
of co-sponsors are required for country-specific resolutions 
and called for a similar requirement in the Third Committee. 
 
--------------------- 
The Role of the OHCHR 
--------------------- 
 
¶10. Egypt and Syria commented on the role of the Office of 
the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).  Egypt stated 
that all attempts by the HCHR to supersede the mandate of the 
HRC and the Third Committee should be confronted.  Syria 
argued that the OHCHR should be supervised by the HRC. 
 
------------ 
U.S. Statement 
------------ 
 
¶11. The U.S. delegate outlined concerns regarding the HRC, 
including its relentless focus on Israel, the elimination of 
the Special Mandates on Cuba and Belarus, and  the Council's 
ability to respond to emerging human rights violations.  The 
United States also noted that while the UPR could be a useful 
tool, it should not replace country-specific actions or 
mandates.  (The full text of the U.S. statement is available 
at: www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press releases 
/20071106 292.html.) 
 
-------------------------------- 
Cuba's Reply to the U.S. Statement 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶12. (U) In a right of reply to the U.S. statement, Cuba 
argued that the United States opposes the HRC to avoid 
addressing U.S. human rights problems.  Cuba alleged that the 
United States does not wish to stand up to the international 
scrutiny required when applying for membership in the 
Council.  The Cuban delegate argued that Israel is serving 
U.S. interests.  He also criticized those countries who 
expressed regret that the special procedure on Cuba was 
terminated, stating that they are the same countries that 
detain individuals in secret CIA-run prisons and oppose draft 
resolutions on secret prisons, enforced disappearances and 
torture in Guantanamo. He accused the United States of 
harboring terrorists and claimed the United States seeks to 
re-conquer Cuba by force. 
 
¶13. (U) The HRC report can be found at www.un.org/ga/third/ 
62/docslist.shtml. 
Khalilzad