VZCZCXRO3563
PP RUEHAT
DE RUCNDT #1112/01 3382014
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 042014Z DEC 07
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3249
INFO RUEHZJ/HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 1763
RUEHDM/AMEMBASSY DAMASCUS PRIORITY 0389
RUEHKH/AMEMBASSY KHARTOUM PRIORITY 0988
RUEHKN/AMEMBASSY KOLONIA PRIORITY 0018
RUEHKR/AMEMBASSY KOROR PRIORITY 0105
RUEHLI/AMEMBASSY LISBON PRIORITY 0547
RUEHMJ/AMEMBASSY MAJURO PRIORITY 0063
RUEHSK/AMEMBASSY MINSK PRIORITY 0194
RUEHPG/AMEMBASSY PRAGUE PRIORITY 0398
RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV PRIORITY 1694
RUEHWR/AMEMBASSY WARSAW PRIORITY 3246
RUEHUB/USINT HAVANA PRIORITY 0231

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 001112 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: UNGA PHUM
SUBJECT: UNGA THIRD COMMITTEE TAKES ACTION ON THE HUMAN 
RIGHTS COUNCIL REPORT 
 
REF: USUN NEW YORK 01010 
 
USUN NEW Y 00001112  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
¶1. (U) Summary: On Nov. 16 the Third Committee of the UN 
General Assembly adopted by a vote of 165-7(U.S.)-3 a 
resolution containing the so-called institution-building 
package of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), as amended by 
Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.  (The amendment 
added to the package a resolution containing a code of 
conduct for the HRC's special procedures mandate-holders. 
The HRC had adopted both resolutions in June.)  The United 
States and Israel disassociated from consensus on the 
adoption of the amendment, and Israel called for a recorded 
vote on the package.  Canada, Palau, Micronesia, the Marshall 
Islands, and Australia joined the United States and Israel in 
voting against the package.  The U.S. Permanent 
Representative to the UN, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, 
delivered an explanation of vote, expressing U.S. concerns 
regarding the HRC, including its failure to address the 
situation of human rights violations in Zimbabwe, DPRK, Iran, 
Belarus and Cuba.  (The full text is available at 
www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press releases/ 
20071116 313.html.) Finally, the Committee took note of the 
HRC's report (A/62/53) and once again the United States and 
Israel, joined by Palau, disassociated from consensus.  End 
summary. 
 
¶2. (U)  As they had during the Nov. 5-6 general discussion of 
the HRC report (reftel), several nations joined the United 
States in criticizing the HRC for the unbalanced and 
selective nature of its decisions. Ambassador Khalilzad 
criticized the HRC's "relentless focus during the year on a 
single country---Israel." Palau, Micronesia, Australia, 
Canada, Poland, the Netherlands, Portugal on behalf of the 
EU, the UK, and France also criticized the HRC for singling 
out Israel as the only country with its own permanent item on 
the HRC agenda. Many stated that this selectivity goes 
against the principles upon which the HRC was created.  But 
Cuba, Syria, Palestine, Iran and Sudan all praised the 
decision and stated that the special procedure should remain 
in place until the end of the Israeli occupation. 
 
¶3. (U) Ambassador Khalilzad also expressed disappointment 
over the elimination of the mandates of the Special 
Rapporteurs "on two of the world's most active perpetrators 
of serious human rights violations, the Governments of Cuba 
and Belarus."  Joining the United States, Canada, Australia, 
Portugal on behalf of the EU, the Netherlands, Poland, the 
UK,  France, and the Czech Republic also expressed regret 
that the HRC had decided to terminate the UN country mandates 
on human rights in Belarus and Cuba.   Belarus, Cuba and Iran 
welcomed the move.  Belarus stressed the importance of the 
HRC's new Universal Periodic Review as a means for reviewing 
all member states' human rights records objectively and said 
it hoped "the era of teachers and students in the area of 
human rights will remain in the past."   Cuba called the end 
of the "unjust anti-Cuban mandate" a tribute to its long 
resistance, but stated that the Council did not go far enough 
and should have eliminated all country mandates. 
 
¶4. (U) Both the United States and Canada were critical of the 
manner in which the HRC package was adopted at the Human 
Rights Council. Ambassador Khalilzad described the procedure 
as "deeply unfair and un-transparent," noting that an 
announcement was made in Geneva on July 19 that the Council 
had adopted the package the previous night, when "the only 
thing that really happened the night before was an 
announcement that the Council would not act on the package 
until the next day."  He noted that if a national election 
were carried out in this way, "the world would rightly regard 
that election as unfree and unfair."  Canada expressed regret 
that "procedural manuvering took precedence over the 
principles at stake" when the HRC adopted the package by 
consensus, although Canada had made it clear that consensus 
did not exist.  The Canadian delegate argued that "Canada was 
denied its sovereign right to call a vote on the substance of 
the package," in a move that ignored the HRC and UN rules of 
procedure and that set a "very dubious precedent." 
 
¶5. (U) Several EU countries called the code of conduct for 
 
USUN NEW Y 00001112  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
the special procedures mandate-holders redundant and 
unnecessary, but expressed hope that it would lead member 
states to increase their cooperation with the 
mandate-holders.  Iran praised the code of conduct as a means 
of guaranteeing the impartial performance of all 
mandate-holders and also called for a review of all mandates. 
 
 
¶6. (U) Responding to criticism of the HRC by the United 
States, the Cuban delegate alleged that the United States, "a 
major violator of human rights," had not even submitted its 
candidacy to the Human Rights Council for fear that it would 
not be elected.  He also criticized Israel, Canada, 
Australia, Portugal on behalf of the EU, the Netherlands, 
Poland, the UK, France, and the Czech Republic for failing to 
address arbitrary detentions in the "illegally occupied 
territory" of Guantanamo.  The Cuban delegate also criticized 
the U.S. trade embargo, alleging that the United States wants 
to "reconquer" Cuba by force. 
 
¶7. (U) Sudan argued that the United States was acting as 
judge and jury on human rights and expressed its desire for 
the HRC to evaluate the Human Rights of the United States, 
especially regarding "concentration camps" and other prisons. 
 
¶8. (U) Ambassador Grover Joseph Rees responded to Cuba and 
Sudan in a right of reply, thanking them for their 
interventions and noting that the United States, Cuba and 
Sudan did not disagree on as many things as previously 
thought: although Cuba and Sudan often say that the UN fora 
should not be used to "name and shame" human rights 
violators, their anti-U.S. interventions demonstrate that in 
fact they agree with the U.S. that, in some cases, "naming 
and shaming" is permissible. 
 
¶9.  (U) The US right of reply led to responses by Cuba, Sudan 
and the DPRK.  Cuba stated that the Cuban government is 
diametrically opposed to the US positions on human rights, 
accusing the US of violating civil rights in other countries 
and of being mainly responsible for the crimes against the 
Palestinian people.  Also responding to the US right of 
reply, the Sudanese delegate called on the United States to 
open the doors of the detention center in Guantanamo to the 
UN's Special Rapporteurs, so that the international community 
"could know the worst violations of human rights of this 
'pioneer' of human rights." 
 
¶11. (U) The North Korean delegate added to the criticism of 
the United States, asking whether the United States as the 
"worst human rights violator" should be viewed as a role 
model and accusing the United States of "attacking, occupying 
and killing innocent people" and discriminating against the 
U.S. minority population.  He called on the United States to 
"mend its own house" before talking about the human rights 
situation in other countries. 
 
¶12. (U) Ambassador Rees delivered a statement disassociating 
the United States from consensus on the HRC Report (Text 
available at www.usunnewyork. 
usmission.gov/press releases/20071116 315.html).  Deputy U.S. 
Representative to ECOSOC Robert S. Hagen delivered the U.S. 
statement of disassociation from consensus on the Cuban 
amendment  (www.usunnewyork. 
usmission.gov/press releases/20071116 318.html). 
Khalilzad