VZCZCXYZ0005
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0096/01 0321144
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 011144Z FEB 08
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6013
INFO RUEHZJ/HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL COLLECTIVE
RUEHAD/AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI 0153
RUEHAH/AMEMBASSY ASHGABAT 0156
RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 0950
RUEHWN/AMEMBASSY BRIDGETOWN 0131
RUEHJB/AMEMBASSY BUJUMBURA 0020
RUEHCO/AMEMBASSY COTONOU 0162
RUEHOR/AMEMBASSY GABORONE 0155
RUEHBH/AMEMBASSY NASSAU 0038
RUEHOU/AMEMBASSY OUAGADOUGOU 0146
RUEHNT/AMEMBASSY TASHKENT 0231
RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV 4525
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 4980
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 2627

C O N F I D E N T I A L GENEVA 000096 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/01/2018 
TAGS: PHUM UNHRC
SUBJECT: UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW:  UN'S NEW HUMAN RIGHTS 
MECHANISM UNDERGOING BIRTH PAINS 
 
REF: 07 GENEVA 2541 
 
Classified By: A/DCM David Gilmour.  Reasons: 1.4 (b/d). 
 
¶1. (C) SUMMARY:  The Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the 
UN's newest human rights mechanism, remains set to get 
underway in April, but concerns are emerging that many 
unresolved issues involving its modalities might lead to a 
delay.  Already, countries of the African Group and others 
have blocked agreement over the selection and roles of 
"troikas," which are to facilitate each review, and this has 
resulted in a delay in troika selection.  Other issues that 
were left vague in planning for UPR, including what kind of 
outcome the reviews will produce, could also become a subject 
of dispute, producing delays in UPR start-up or shifting 
attention from the substance of reviews to their procedures. 
Word that reviews will be webcast, contrary to earlier 
information, is good news.  Hopes remain high that UPR will 
start on time and prove at least moderately effective in 
addressing human rights situations, but for the moment, much 
attention centers on the mechanism's birthing pains.  END 
SUMMARY 
 
A NEW MECHANISM, WITH MANY GROUND RULES NOT YET SET 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶2. (SBU) As we described previously, UPR was among the key 
innovations of the recently formed UN Human Rights Council. 
(Reftel offered an overview of the UPR process.)  It provided 
a mechanism by which every UN member state's overall human 
rights performance would undergo a review once in a four-year 
cycle, with 48 countries reviewed each year.  The first 
tranche of reviews for 2008 are scheduled to begin in April, 
with a second tranche in May and a third in December. 
(Embassies in countries scheduled for review in the first 
three tranches are listed as info addressees on this and 
reftel cable.) 
 
¶3. (SBU) Although the original guidelines and "roadmap" 
offered much information on modalities, they left many issues 
unanswered.  That fact was acknowledged but seen as 
inevitable in a process being started from scratch.  Thus, an 
informal consensus formed to get the reviews underway, with 
details of the procedures to be established as the process 
unfolds. 
 
THE "TROIKA" CONTROVERSY 
------------------------ 
 
¶4. (SBU) That consensus already has been disrupted over the 
selection and role of the three troika members, each 
representing a Council member state, who are to facilitate 
each review.  The immediate dispute centers on the selection 
process, which is to be done by lottery.  To give countries 
flexibility, the roadmap established that the country under 
review may request the substitution of one of the selected 
troika members, and that a country eligible to become a 
troika member may opt out of any troika.  The dispute emerged 
over how to carry this out in practice.  The Office of the 
High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) insisted that the 
selection process, including the substitution and opting out, 
be conducted in public, in full view of the Council, to 
ensure transparency; OHCHR officials told us they did not 
want to be accused of manipulating troika selection to any 
country's advantage or disadvantage.  The African Group, by 
contrast, put emphasis on confidentiality, saying that 
forcing a country publicly to exercise its right either of 
substitution or of opting out would be politically difficult; 
a country chosen to serve on a troika, for instance, might 
find it politically inexpedient to say publicly that it did 
not want to take on that role.  A practical way could 
seemingly be found to resolve the differences, and Council 
President Doru Costea has been working hard to do so. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Although details about selection are the main 
subject of negotiation, an underlying dispute centers on the 
roles troikas should play.  With the guidelines open to 
 
interpretation, African Group countries argue that troikas' 
roles should be clearly and narrowly defined for the sake of 
fairness.  According to those countries, it would be unfair 
for one troika to play a pro-active and aggressive role, 
generating its own difficult questions to the country under 
review, while a troika in another review plays a more passive 
role, merely collecting questions and input from others. 
Similarly, they argue, one troika should not be allowed to 
draw its own sweeping conclusions about a country at the end 
of the review session, while another troika simply collates 
the questions and recommendations of others.  As one African 
diplomat commented to us, troika members must not be allowed 
to act with the independence of Special Rapporteurs. 
 
¶6. (C) Negotiations have been ongoing, but have produced 
little progress, a well-connected OHCHR staffer told us. 
Many observers believed that the African Group and its allies 
sought to delay troika selection to ensure that troika 
members were not given enough time to perform more than a 
limited role in the UPR process.  That explanation still 
seems likely.  The OHCHR staffer noted, however, that the 
African Group's position has become more intractable, raising 
concerns that the real motivation is to postpone the April 
and May tranches. 
 
OTHER ISSUES FOR DEBATE 
----------------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) Although attention currently centers on the 
selection process, many other issues remain to be worked out. 
 Among the most important is the preparation of the report 
that will emerge from each review.  Although the roadmap laid 
out general categories of information to be included in each 
report, questions remain whether the report will contain a 
pro forma presentation or be more selective, perhaps 
highlighting or downplaying some conclusions or 
recommendations.  It remains unclear who will prepare the 
report -- the troika, OHCHR staff, or perhaps the Council 
President and his staff -- but whoever is given that task 
would be placed be under huge pressure from both supporters 
and critics of the concerned country, as well as NGOs and 
others pressing for a focus on a particular issue. 
 
¶8. (C) The assumption remains that the nature of the report 
will be hashed out as UPR reviews take place, with debates 
during review sessions no doubt having a major impact.  Some 
countries, however, may seek to work out at least some of the 
key modalities ahead of time, possibly during the March 
regular session of the Council. 
 
GEARING UP FOR THE FIRST SET OF REVIEWS 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) Meanwhile, the 16 countries to be reviewed in April 
and May are working on the input they are to provide by their 
February 28 deadline.  Several have expressed uncertainty 
about what is expected of them; a Zambian diplomat told us 
her government had asked her to approach OHCHR with numerous 
questions, to which she was getting limited responses.  Many 
delegations are hopeful that sessions on UPR preparation will 
provide many answers; the first of these, for francophone 
countries, is to take place in Rabat in early February. 
 
¶10. (SBU) For its part, OHCHR is preparing the summaries of 
information from treaty body reports, special procedures and 
other official UN documents that it is to provide, by 
February 24, on each of the countries in the first tranche. 
The OHCHR staffer said that his organization was feeling the 
strain as that deadline approaches, but that funding for 
seventeen new positions devoted to UPR would make things far 
more manageable, and ensure good quality reports, in the 
future. 
 
REVIEWS TO BE WEBCAST 
--------------------- 
 
¶11. (C) Among the issues debated as UPR took shape was 
 
whether reviews should be conducted by working groups or in 
Council plenary sessions.  Because Council working groups are 
not webcast, countries reluctant to give broad publicity to 
reviews favored that option, which won out.  OHCHR staffers 
have told us, however, that though conducted by working 
groups, reviews are to be webcast, with voluntary funding 
already in hand to cover the first tranches.  The staffers 
were quick to add that they have not advertised the prospects 
for webcasting since they hoped to avoid sparking new 
controversy among those who may still believe it will not 
take place. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶12. (C) The stalemate over troika selection modalities is 
discouraging and appears to signal, at minimum, an attempt by 
some countries to limit the role of troikas.  The argument, 
that troikas should have clear ground rules to ensure equal 
treatment for all countries under review, makes some sense 
but also seems motivated by a desire to limit the focus of 
reviews, thus making them less of a threat to human rights 
violators.  We can expect similar debate over other 
unresolved issues, and the continued precedence of procedure 
over the substance of human rights concerns could get the UPR 
process off to a slow start.  Delaying the April start date 
for reviews, which may occur if the troika debate is not 
resolved, would also be a setback to UPR, although it would 
be far from fatal to the process. 
 
¶13. (C) Indeed, hopes remain high that UPR will prove at 
least moderately effective as a human rights mechanism.  The 
fact that reviews are to be webcast will allow the comments 
of the international community to be quickly and widely 
disseminated, and UPR will also provide a useful forum to 
highlight human rights best practices.  We believe, then, 
that the USG will be able to use UPR to advance USG human 
rights goals.  Septel will offer some ideas on how to do so. 
TICHENOR