VZCZCXYZ0814
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0158/01 0621037
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 021037Z MAR 08
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6112
INFO RUEHZJ/HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL COLLECTIVE
RUEHAD/AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI 0165
RUEHAH/AMEMBASSY ASHGABAT 0159
RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 0953
RUEHWN/AMEMBASSY BRIDGETOWN 0134
RUEHJB/AMEMBASSY BUJUMBURA 0023
RUEHCO/AMEMBASSY COTONOU 0165
RUEHOR/AMEMBASSY GABORONE 0158
RUEHBH/AMEMBASSY NASSAU 0050
RUEHOU/AMEMBASSY OUAGADOUGOU 0149
RUEHNT/AMEMBASSY TASHKENT 0234
RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV 4537
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 4983
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 2660

C O N F I D E N T I A L GENEVA 000158 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/28/2018 
TAGS: PHUM UNHRC
SUBJECT: UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW:  GEARING UP FOR THE 
FIRST ROUND OF REVIEWS 
 
REF: A. A) GENEVA 96 (NOTAL) 
     ¶B. B) GENEVA 107 (NOTAL) 
 
Classified By: Deputy Permanent Representative Mark Storella.  Reasons: 
 1.4 (b/d). 
 
¶1. (C) SUMMARY:  The Human Rights Council passed a major 
hurdle to getting its new Universal Periodic Review mechanism 
underway when it selected "troikas" on February 28 for the 
first two tranches of country reviews.  This came after 
disagreements over the selection process were finally 
resolved, although this necessitated a compromise that 
narrowed the role of the troikas, at least for the initial 
stage of the reviews.  Plenty of issues remain to be sorted 
out, and the African Group and OIC continue seeking to lessen 
UPR's transparency.  Nonetheless, the first tranche of 
reviews, which will include 16 countries, is now almost 
certain to begin in April, as scheduled.  In the five and a 
half weeks before then, we can use the UPR to serve our 
policy goals most effectively by coordinating with 
like-minded countries.  END SUMMARY. 
 
COUNCIL FINALLY SELECTS UPR TROIKAS 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (C) After much anticipation, the Council met on February 
28 to draw lots for the troikas for the first two tranches of 
country reviews.  The three Council member states chosen for 
each troika are to facilitate the review of a country's human 
rights record under the newly established UPR.  As noted 
previously (ref A), controversy had swirled around the 
selection mechanism, with the African Group leading those 
encouraging more confidentiality in the process and Western 
delegations leading those in favor of more transparency. 
Working intensely with regional groups over recent weeks, 
Council President Doru Costea found a compromise formula that 
allowed the selection process to begin.  Costea laid out that 
compromise in a February 28 presidential statement.  That 
compromise had been established a week earlier but, as late 
as February 26, there was still uncertainty whether it would 
hold.  In private, Costea expressed frustration with the 
controversy, telling the Ambassador that the selection 
process had become far more complex than was necessary. 
 
¶3. (U) Although somewhat complex, the selection itself went 
smoothly.  Each of the 32 countries to be reviewed in the 
first two tranches drew lots in a two-step process:  first, 
to choose the three regional groups their troikas would come 
from, and then, to pick the country within each group that 
would serve on its troika.  The country under review could 
pick one of the three regional groups, a right that most 
African countries exercised.  It could then reject one of the 
three troika members it had randomly selected, although no 
country exercised this right.  Finally, each country selected 
could opt out of serving as a troika member, a right that 
only Pakistan exercised when it was picked to serve on 
India's troika.  The atmosphere in the room grew increasingly 
relaxed as the selection proceeded.  The most light-hearted 
moment came when the UK PermRep randomly selected Egypt and 
Russia as two of his three troika countries, to groans from 
the room.  As the UK PR returned to his seat, his Russian 
counterpart came up to him to embrace him, eliciting applause 
from the room. 
 
¶4. (C) Despite his frustrations, Costea was pleased that the 
selection was taking place in time to allow for the scheduled 
April start of the reviews.  In a February 26 meeting with 
JUSCANZ members, he had commented that some countries had 
complicated the debate about selection modalities because 
they hoped to delay the start of the reviews.  Such a delay 
would have dealt a blow to UPR even before it began. 
 
¶5. (SBU) As of February 29, however, a delay could not be 
totally ruled out.  Some countries in the first tranche had 
yet to submit their national reports, raising concerns that 
this might precipitate calls for a delay.  Such calls would 
be on procedurally weak grounds, since countries under review 
 
are not required to submit their national reports in writing 
and have the right to present them orally during the session. 
 Nonetheless, the concerns remain, resulting in part from 
persistent rumors that some countries still do not want to 
begin the reviews on schedule. 
 
TROIKA ROLE NARROWED, MANY QUESTIONS REMAIN 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (U) Frustrations remain that the agreement on the 
selection process also resulted in limiting the roles that 
troikas could play, at least in the run-up to the reviews. 
The African Group and OIC had long favored such limits.  The 
presidential statement indicates that the troikas will 
"collate questions and/or issues" without interpreting or 
evaluating them.  In effect, the troikas will have only the 
mechanical role of listing all the questions and comments 
submitted about the country under review, rather than 
synthesizing them in any way. 
 
¶7. (U) The presidential statement refers only to arrangements 
for the troika selection and review preparation phase, 
however.  It therefore leaves plenty of questions unanswered 
about the troikas' roles both during the reviews themselves 
and in the aftermath, including in preparing the outcome 
document for each review.  While general guidance on some of 
those questions already exists, a new round of negotiations 
is possible, and could lead to further compromises. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Indeed, in Costea's meeting with regional group 
heads late on February 27, controversy arose over whether 
questions posed ahead of time to countries under review 
should be made public.  The African Group urged that such 
questions be forwarded only to the concerned country, while 
the Western Group pressed to have them posted on the web. 
That issue remains to be resolved. 
 
PROCEEDING WITH WEBCASTS 
------------------------ 
 
¶9. (SBU) Webcasting of the February 28 troika selection was a 
positive development, setting the stage to webcast the 
reviews themselves.  There had been fears that some 
countries, perhaps led by the African Group, would object to 
webcasting the reviews.  While the precedent has now been 
set, however, concerns remain about long-term funding for the 
webcasts.  Staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for 
Human Rights (OHCHR) had told us that the General Assembly 
had not increased funding for the UN Department of Public 
Information, which was thus not providing funds for 
webcasting.  OHCHR is covering the costs for now, and has 
received a voluntary contribution from the UK, but sees 
potential funding problems in the future. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶10. (C) The selection process generally went well, but it 
also highlighted the ongoing efforts of many countries, led 
by the African Group and the OIC, to limit the transparency 
of UPR in hopes of weakening its ability to shed light on 
human rights problems.  As we have noted previously, UPR is 
widely accepted as a non-confrontational exercise, and we are 
likely to gain traction if we approach it in that spirit. 
Nonetheless, we need to counter the African Group and OIC 
efforts to distort or water down the process. 
 
¶11. (C) The first tranche of the UPR is likely to begin on 
April 7-18, as scheduled.  It will include some interesting 
countries, including South Africa and Algeria as well as the 
UK.  We have previously laid out some suggestions (ref b) for 
using the UPR to best further our human rights goals.  At 
this stage, it might be particularly useful to focus on 
ensuring that countries under review receive questions on the 
range of key human rights issues, either submitted ahead of 
time or posed during the reviews themselves.  This can best 
be done by coordinating with like-minded countries, which can 
 
be the focus of our efforts in the less than six weeks before 
the reviews get underway. 
TICHENOR