VZCZCXRO1370
RR RUEHCD RUEHGD RUEHHO RUEHMC RUEHNG RUEHNL RUEHRD RUEHRS RUEHTM
RUEHTRO
DE RUEHME #3455/01 3431322
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 091322Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY MEXICO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9320
INFO RUEHXC/ALL US CONSULATES IN MEXICO COLLECTIVE
RUEHUJA/AMEMBASSY ABUJA 0054
RUEHAR/AMEMBASSY ACCRA 0035
RUEHAM/AMEMBASSY AMMAN 0055
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 0003
RUEHBM/AMEMBASSY BUCHAREST 0043
RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES 0001
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0477
RUEHRB/AMEMBASSY RABAT 0048
RUEHSJ/AMEMBASSY SAN JOSE 0001
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 0366
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0378
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0352
RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 MEXICO 003455 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: MX PHUM PINR PREL PGOV
SUBJECT: U/S OTERO LEADS USG TO HRC "REFLECTION GROUP" 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary:  Mexico and France hosted a meeting in 
Mexico City October 29-30 on strengthening the United Nations 
Human Rights Council (HRC) and to discuss the 2011 Review of 
its mandate by the General Assembly.  A hand-selected group 
of HRC Member States, representing its five regional groups, 
gathered in Mexico City to evaluate the pros and cons of the 
HRC's existing structure.  Most representatives argued 
against both wholesale "reform" of the HRC and any 
"reopening" of the 2006 institution-building package (IBP), 
which established the Council's organization and rules. 
However, many favored specific amendments that would tackle 
the HRC's current shortcomings.  Led by U/S Maria Otero and 
IO DAS Suzanne Nossel, the USG delegation suggested 
"broadening the toolkit" the Council uses to respond to human 
rights violations and holding governments more accountable 
when it comes to implementing HRC recommendations.  The 
French and Moroccans volunteered host follow-up meetings next 
spring.  End Summary. 
 
Participants 
------------ 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Co-hosts Mexico and France invited the delegations 
from Ghana, Jordan, Romania, Morocco, Nigeria, Republic of 
Korea, Spain, Costa Rica, India, Brazil, Switzerland, 
Ukraine, the United States, and Argentina to participate in a 
"Reflection Group on the Strengthening of the Human Rights 
Council."  These countries were drawn from the UN's five 
regional groups and generally subscribe to constructive views 
regarding how to use the HRC to promote greater human rights 
respect.  The NGOs Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, 
and the International Commission of Jurists were also invited 
to send representatives.  Maria Otero, Under Secretary for 
Democracy and Global Affairs, headed the USG delegation.  The 
U.S. delegation also included Suzanne Nossel, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for International Organizations (IO), 
Lynn Sicade, Deputy Director of the Office of Multilateral 
and Global Affairs (MLGA) for the Bureau for Democracy, Human 
Rights, and Labor (DRL), Lisa Sherman, G Special Assistant, 
Catherine Powell, Policy Planning Staff (S/P), Mark Cassayre, 
Counselor for the U.S. Permanent Mission in Geneva, and 
Nicole Otallah, First Secretary Political Officer in the U.S. 
Embassy in Mexico City. 
 
Positive Dimensions of Existing HRC Structure 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) Conference participants described the Universal 
Periodic Review (UPR), a system designed for States to 
evaluate one another on their respect for human rights, as 
one of the HRC's most constructive mechanisms to date.  The 
reports by HRC special rapporteurs, experts in their fields, 
have raised the profile of human rights challenges and 
abuses.  Further, HRC broadcasts its sessions through live 
webcasts, which currently reach over 80,000 viewers a day. 
With this technology, the HRC disseminates information 
directly to the public about individuals' human rights. 
 
HRC's Limitations 
------------------ 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Despite the progress made in the HRC's first three 
years, it still has numerous limitations.  Primarily, the 
Council has failed to adequately address chronic human rights 
abuses.  The Swiss representative underscored that the 
Council's mandate included preventing human rights violations 
and responding to chronic violations, in places such as 
Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, and Guinea.  He suggested that the HRC 
was failing on both scores.  The participants identified 
further difficulties with the HRC special sessions:  the 
often high threshold of encroachment on human rights needed 
to convene these emergency sessions, the absence of follow-up 
to HRC recommendations, the lack of cooperation by the 
concerned State, and the insufficient impact on victims' 
lives.  Participants suggested that the Council needed 
greater flexibility to address country-specific situations, 
which could entail using special sessions differently or 
 
MEXICO 00003455  002 OF 003 
 
 
holding briefings on specific cases.  The U.S. suggested 
pulling all country issues into one subset of the Council's 
work while enhancing the HRC's "toolkit" to address 
situations more relatively and flexibly, possibly by having a 
graded approach to problematic cases. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) The Reflection Group had a broader concern about 
the HRC's procedures and resources.  Ideology has led some 
HRC members to exploit special sessions for political 
reasons.  For example, representatives at the Reflection 
Group highlighted misrepresentation within the HRC system 
designed to organize participation for UPR observer countries 
and NGOs, known as the "queuing system."  Human 
rights-violating States have asked countries and/or NGOs 
friendly to them to arrive hours early to sign-up, skewing 
the number of serious participants and UPR reports' results. 
The Costa Rican Ambassador commented that, logistically, 
small countries and NGOs often find it difficult to staff-up 
for the HRC, particularly when the UN's Third Committee and 
the UNGA are in session.  This drain can also impact the USG. 
 Therefore, the U.S. delegation suggested readjusting the 
schedule of the HRC's annual sessions to address this 
concern. 
 
Review Process 
-------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) The Reflection Group's most significant themes 
related to the Review revolved around the HRC's internal 
structure, whether or not to reopen debate on the 2006 
institution-building package (IBP), how to improve the HRC's 
impact on victims of HR abuses, and how to time and 
coordinate the Review itself.  The Indian delegate argued 
that the Review should not reopen the IBP or change the HRC's 
rules/structure.  Most participants agreed with the Indians 
that the Council should not reopen the entire IBP, but many 
did argue strenuously in favor of some internal reform, such 
as changing the "queuing" process. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The conference attendees proposed numerous steps to 
increase the HRC's influence over the lives of victims of 
human rights abuses.  The International Commission of Jurists 
representative suggested regular country debates with 
experts, roundtables with Rapporteurs, and follow-up to the 
UPR with a high-level representative to ensure implementation 
of the UPR recommendations for each country.  The Swiss 
argued for giving more moderate HRC members  a voice in 
finding creative solutions when the Council deadlocks on 
resolutions.  The Nigerians proposed the creation of regular 
cross-regional consultations.  The Office of the High 
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) underscored the need to 
provide the HRC more institutional support, and the Swiss 
also advocated more financing for the Office of the President. 
 
USG messaging 
------------- 
 
¶8.  (SBU) U/S Otero emphasized that the USG saw the HRC as a 
value-added tool in the human rights community, especially 
through the UPR, the work of special rapporteurs, its 
technical assistance, and the Council's flexibility.  IO DAS 
Nossel raised six areas that the USG judged should be 
discussed in the 2011 Review: 
 
 -- meeting the expectations of HR victims; 
 -- avoiding polarization along UN block politics; 
 -- improving the Council's interaction with Governments; 
 -- strengthening implementation and response to the HRC's 
recommendations; 
 -- resolving some of the difficulties related to the HRC's 
membership and composition; and 
 -- linking the Geneva and NYC review processes and ensuring 
that the NYC human rights community relies on Geneva's 
expertise. 
 
"Reflection Group" Follow-up and Review Integration 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
MEXICO 00003455  003 OF 003 
 
 
 
¶9.  (U) The primary movers behind the Mexico conference, the 
French, plan to host another meeting of the "Reflection 
Group" in Paris this spring.  The leadership of the group 
will then diversify, as the Moroccans plan to hold a third 
session.  Depending on timing, the Argentinens may choose to 
host a fourth.  The participants debated how to weave the 
Reflection Group process back into the official 2011 Review, 
which, according to a resolution proposed by the Russians, 
will consist of several meetings running from June-December 
2011, culminating in a report to the UN General Assembly. 
Though the U.K. representative noted that the UNGA resolution 
on the Review left several deadlines open to interpretation, 
she advocated for completing the Review by June 18, 2011. 
The HRC would then send the results directly to the General 
Assembly -- and not the Third Committee -- presumably with 
strong contributions by the Reflection Group.  Most 
participants preliminarily agreed with these suggestions. 
 
¶10.  Comment. Mexico and France deserve credit for drawing 
together some moderate voices within the HRC as part of an 
attempt to use the Review as a lever to for change within the 
Council and the multi-lateral human rights community.  Going 
forward, though, the "Reflection Group" will face a challenge 
in transitioning from the brainstorming stage to a united 
vision.  The group will have an even greater challenge in 
seeking to integrate its recommendations into the work of the 
HRC Review working-group scheduled to begin in Geneva in 
June, in accordance with a September Russian resolution, as 
well as the yet undefined review process expected to take 
place at the General Assembly in New York.  End comment. 
Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity and the North American 
Partnership Blog at http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap / 
PASCUAL