VZCZCXYZ0009
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #2641 3342033
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 302027Z NOV 09
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHVN/AMEMBASSY VIENTIANE IMMEDIATE 0000
RUEHWD/AMEMBASSY WINDHOEK IMMEDIATE 0000
RUEHYD/AMEMBASSY YAOUNDE IMMEDIATE 0000
RUEHYE/AMEMBASSY YEREVAN IMMEDIATE 0000

UNCLAS STATE 122641 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: UNGA PHUM UN
SUBJECT: V-Y ACTION REQUEST: DECEMBER VOTE ON "DEFAMATION 
OF RELIGIONS" 
 
REF: A. REF A: STATE 109397 UNGA 3C PRIORITIES CABLE 
     ¶B. REF B: STATE XXX AD HOC COMMITTEE CABLE 
 
 1.(SBU) During the week of 7-12 December, the deeply 
problematic "combating defamation of religions" resolution, 
which seeks to undermine established human rights of freedom 
of religion and expression, will come to the plenary session 
at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) for a final vote.  This 
resolution passed out of the UNGA,s Third Committee on 
November 12th by a vote of 81-55(U.S.)-43.  Increasing the 
number of &no8 votes and abstentions between the November 
12th and December vote is a priority of the Department. 
Drawing on reftel (UNGA third committee priorities and 
demarche request on the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary 
Standards) points, and the additional talking points and 
information noted in paragraphs 2 - 15, Posts are requested 
to demarche at the highest appropriate level to seek host 
government views on the resolution, educate about the 
potential dangers of the "defamation" concept, and to solicit 
support to vote against the resolution, or, as a fall back, 
to abstain.  Note specific background by region with voting 
information provided in paragraphs 6 through 15.  Posts are 
requested to respond by Monday, December 7 via front channel 
cable using SIPDIS caption.  Posts should not deliver this 
demarche if they determine it would be counterproductive to 
do so, and in such cases, are requested to inform Department 
(IO-RHS and DRL-IRF) of their rationale. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
GENERAL BACKGROUND 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶2.    Per Ref A, the resolution is sponsored by the 
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a 57 nation 
block with majority or significant Muslim populations, which 
has successfully brought similar resolutions before the UNGA 
Third Committee and the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in 
Geneva.  Among the stated concerns behind the resolution is 
that negative stereotyping or offensive statements about 
Islam contribute to discrimination against Muslims around the 
world.  For reasons noted in reftel A and B, the United 
States strongly opposes the &defamation of religions8 
concept but condemns negative stereotypes of Islam and 
believes it is incumbent upon governments to foster a society 
of respect, diversity, and understanding.  In submissions to 
the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and to 
the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards (a subsidiary 
body of the Human Rights Council through which some in the 
OIC and Africa Group are using to advocate for the creation 
of a new international legally binding treaty on racism and 
religious intolerance that would prohibit &defamation of 
religions8), the United States has offered an alternative 
vision for combating intolerance and discrimination that 
would not infringe on the freedom of expression or freedom of 
religion and center on pro-active implementation of existing 
human rights obligations.  Posts may wish to refer to these 
documents and can find these submissions on the IO-Human 
Rights (IO-HR) intranet website 
http://io.p.state.sbu/RHS/default.aspx, under the title 
&Defamation of Religions,8 which can be located on the 
left-hand side of the page. 
 
¶3.    The &defamation8 debate has garnered considerable 
attention within the Department and on the Hill, and was the 
focus of a recent hearing held by the Tom Lantos Commission 
on Human Rights.  The Secretary is personally concerned about 
the negative impact of the defamation concept, and mentioned 
our concerns in numerous addresses, including most recently 
at the release of the Annual Report on International 
Religious Freedom (http://www.state.gov/ 
secretary/rm/2009a/10/130937.htm.  Members of Congress have 
also directly lobbied governments on this issue.  Copies of 
letters signed by 35 members of Congress are available on the 
IO-HR intranet website.  These may be downloaded and left 
with host government counterparts as a means of reinforcing 
the bipartisan concern over this issue in all parts of the 
U.S. government. 
 
¶4.    Posts seeking additional background or information on 
how host country voted in the recent Third Committee vote 
should please visit the IO/HR intranet site.  The most recent 
voting sheets and an Excel chart with votes over the last 
three years is posted on the IO/HR site.  Also available on 
that website is the &Defamation of Religions8 non-paper 
distributed in New York, and that may be left behind with 
host country counterparts.  The non-paper, which is available 
in English, Spanish, includes examples of specific cases when 
the defamation concept has been used to justify human rights 
abuses.  We are also in the process of translating the 
non-paper into French and Arabic. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
SUGGESTED TALKING POINTS 
--------------------------------------------- 
¶5.    Begin talking points: 
-- The &defamation of religions8 concept is a threat to 
minority groups everywhere.  It has already resulted in the 
death or incarceration of people across the globe, persecuted 
because of what they believe and how they have expressed 
themselves.  The promulgation of the &defamation of 
religions8 concept is one of the most serious threats to the 
global human rights system. Secretary Clinton has taken a 
personal interest in combating the &defamation8 concept and 
we are following closely where governments line up on this 
issue. 
 
-- While the United States recognizes the OIC,s stated 
concern underlying the &defamation8 resolution regarding 
discrimination and intolerance, we think there are better 
ways we can practically address these concerns without 
seeking limits or restrictions on speech.  Calls for such 
limitations or bans on freedom of expression are 
unacceptable, not only due to the importance of free speech, 
but also because we believe that suppressing speech does not 
increase tolerance; rather it has the opposite effect. 
 
-- Rather than limited or banning offensive speech, the 
United States believes that the most effective role for 
government is to: (i) proactively reach out to minority 
groups, in particular, to address discrimination and 
intolerance, (ii) develop appropriate legal regimes to 
adjudicate discriminatory acts and hate crimes, and (iii) 
allow diversity to flourish through robust freedom of 
religion and expression protections. 
 
-- The US is committed to robust implementation of existing 
international human rights law, including the International 
Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and 
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and 
to working constructively with the international community, 
in particular OIC countries, on this difficult and polarizing 
issue.  For example, at the recent meeting of the Ad Hoc 
Committee on Complementary Standards in Geneva, the U.S. 
delegation submitted an Action Plan to Combat Racial and 
Religious Discrimination and Intolerance.  (See IO-HR website 
and online at http://Geneva.usmission.gov 
/2009/11/09/complemtary-standards.) 
 
-- We ask you to vote against the "Defamation of Religions" 
resolution, or as a fall back, to abstain.  We note that in 
the recent Third Committee vote and even in the HRC, "no" 
votes and abstentions outnumbered the "yes" votes.  Support 
for the resolution is falling as governments see the negative 
impacts resulting from the defamation concept. 
 
SPECIFIC REQUESTS AND VOTING INFORMATION FOR WHA POSTS: 
 
¶6.    Chile, Mexico, Panama, and Uruguay have taken the bold 
step of voting against the resolution at UNGA and should be 
thanked for their support.  We would welcome their views on 
how to convince others in Latin America to do the same. 
Likewise, Bahamas and Jamaica helpfully shifted from yes to 
abstention and should be encouraged to continue to abstain or 
to vote "no".  Continuing to break the GRULAC block is 
essential to the success of USG efforts to put an end to this 
polarizing debate. 
¶7.    Posts are requested to approach countries that have 
consistently abstained to urge them to vote &no.8  This 
includes: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, 
Grenada, Guatemala, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad-Tobago). 
Similarly, Posts should reach out to countries that were 
absent during the vote (St. Kitts-Nevis, Haiti) and probe if 
they are willing to abstain in person or vote 8no.8  Posts 
should also approach consistent "yes" voters or countries 
that have switched their votes in an unhelpful manner to gain 
views about the resolution and to state USG commitment to 
addressing issues of concern, as noted in the recent Action 
Plan submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary 
Standards.  This includes Antigua-Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, 
Bolivia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guyana, 
Honduras, Nicaragua, St. Vincent-Grenadines, Suriname, and 
Venezuela. 
 
SPECIFIC REQUESTS AND VOTING INFORMATION FOR EAP POSTS: 
 
¶8.    Vanuatu took the step to vote "no" for the first time 
this year and should be thanked for it.  Republic of Korea 
maintained its &no8 vote and we would welcome ROK,s views 
on how to convince others to do the same.    Posts are also 
requested to engage with countries that have abstained to 
urge them to vote against the resolution.  This includes 
Fiji, Japan, Mongolia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon 
Islands, Timor Leste, Tonga, and Tuvalu.  The abstention of 
Japan, in particular, is curious.  It should be noted that 
Fiji switched its vote from "yes" to "abstain" for the first 
time this year and that Nauru was not present at the vote 
this year. 
¶9.    Posts should also approach consistent &yes8 voters to 
gain views about the resolution and to state USG commitment 
to addressing issues of concern, as noted in the recent 
Action Plan submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee on 
Complementary Standards.  This includes: Brunei, Burma, 
Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, 
Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. 
 
SPECIFIC REQUESTS AND VOTING INFORMATION FOR EUR POSTS: 
 
¶10.   Posts in EUR are requested to approach countries that 
have abstained, voted yes, or were absent during the vote to 
urge them to vote &no8 or abstain, as a fall back.  This 
includes Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, 
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Russia, and Turkey.  USUN has heard that 
Bosnia-Herzegovina will switch to an abstention for the 
Plenary.  Posts should confirm this switch with capital. 
Despite OIC pressure to vote for the resolution, Albania 
abstained on the resolution and should be thanked for its 
abstention. 
 
SPECIFIC REQUESTS AND VOTING INFORMATION FOR AF POSTS 
 
¶11.   The &defamation8 resolution has wide support in 
Africa, but it is unclear if that is because governments 
themselves believe in the resolution, or because they are 
going along with the wishes of the Africa Group leadership 
(which includes Egypt, among the resolution,s main 
proponents). 
¶12.   There were several positive shifts in the vote count in 
Africa, although no Africa country went so far as to vote no 
this year.  (Cape Verde and Liberia voted "no" at Third 
Committee last year, but abstained or were absent this year.) 
 Posts are requested to thank countries that have switched 
votes in a positive manner to express appreciation and 
encourage their continued support ) this includes Cameroon, 
Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Mauritius, and Namibia. 
¶13.   Posts are requested to persuade countries that have 
consistently abstained to vote &no.8  This includes 
Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Ghana, Kenya, 
Madagascar, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Zambia.  We would 
be interested to understand why Cameroon abstains at the 
Third Committee but votes "yes" at the HRC.  Equatorial 
Guinea has abstained in the past, but was absent at the vote 
this year. 
¶14.   Posts should also approach consistent &yes8 voters as 
well as countries that have recently switched their votes in 
an unhelpful manner to gain views about the resolution and to 
state USG commitment to addressing issues of concern, as 
noted in the recent Action Plan submitted to the Ad Hoc 
Committee on Complementary Standards.  This includes: Angola, 
Benin, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cote D'Ivoire, 
Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, 
Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, 
Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South 
Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, and Uganda. It should be 
noted that South Africa and some other African states see 
&defamation of religions8 as a way to protect human 
dignity. 
 
SPECIFIC REQUESTS AND VOTING INFORMATION FOR SCA POSTS 
 
¶15.   Posts are requested to persuade consistent Yes voters 
to vote &no8 or at least abstain.  This includes: Bhutan, 
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and 
Uzbekistan. Posts are requested to encourage countries who 
have abstained to continue to abstain or vote &no.8  This 
includes: India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka.  It should be noted 
that Sri Lanka abstained for the first time this year ) a 
positive development. 
 
SPECIFIC REQUESTS AND VOTING INFORMAION FOR NEA POSTS 
 
¶16.   NEA posts are &info8 on this demarche, as NEA 
countries are consistent Yes voters and have not voted 
outside of an OIC bloc vote to date.  Department doubts that 
these votes will change for the December vote, but includes 
NEA posts here for background purposes and in the event that 
host country raises the &defamation8 issue. 
 
¶17.   REPORTING DEADLINE AND POINTS OF CONTACT: Posts are 
requested to respond by Monday, December 7th.  Please direct 
any questions or concerns to DRL/IRF Joannella 
Morales/Nasreen Badat or IO/HR Amy Ostermeier/Colleen 
Neville. 
CLINTON