VZCZCXRO4000
OO RUEHAT RUEHSK RUEHSL
DE RUEHGV #0094/01 0331141
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O R 021139Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0047
INFO HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL COLLECTIVE
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0008
RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV 0001

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 07 GENEVA 000094 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PREL UNHRC
SUBJECT: Preview of March 2010 Human Rights Council Session 
 
REF: GENEVA 16 
 
Summary 
 
------- 
 
 
 
¶1.  (U) The 13th session of the Human Rights Council (HRC) will 
take place in Geneva from March 1 - 26, 2010.  The longest of the 
three yearly meetings, the March session opens with the High Level 
Segment.  This cable outlines key issues Mission Geneva expects 
will be raised at the 13th Session, particularly: "defamation of 
religions," religious intolerance, and related issues; presentation 
of a joint study on global practices in relation to secret 
detention; and country-specific items to include the Goldstone 
report follow-up, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Iran, 
Guinea, and the renewal of the mandates for the Democratic People's 
Republic of Korea, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Burma. 
We also outline possible resolutions based on recent activities in 
Geneva and the 2009 March session.  End Summary. 
 
 
 
High Level Segment 
 
------------------ 
 
 
 
¶2.  (U) Since the establishment of the Council in 2006, the March 
session has opened with a High Level Segment (HLS).  Typically, 
delegations are represented at the Ministerial or higher level for 
the opening of the Session.  In some cases, Heads of State have 
addressed the Council. In the past, the United States has been 
represented by the Chief of Mission.  At the request of 
Switzerland, the HRC is also organizing a mini-High Level Segment 
on the issue of the draft Declaration on Human Rights Education and 
Training.  The Swiss have asked for senior U.S. representation or 
at least a USG statement from the floor during this mini-high level 
segment.  [Note: we informed the Swiss that we did not expect to 
have a high level official for this segment and that we would 
consider making a statement from the floor.  End note.] 
 
 
 
---------- 
 
Key Issues 
 
---------- 
 
 
 
The Defamation Cluster 
 
---------------------- 
 
 
 
¶3.  (U) Drawing from the experience of the 10th HRC Session in 
March 2009, which featured five resolutions on the cluster of 
issues tied to the "defamation of religions" debate, we can expect 
this topic to figure prominently at HRC 13.  Resolutions in this 
area may seek to impose legal restrictions on speech as a way to 
combat religious discrimination.  The five related resolutions 
presented in March 2009 which may reappear this year are listed 
here, including sponsor state and/or group: 
 
 
 
-- Elaboration of Complementary Standards to the International 
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial 
Discrimination, which governs the Ad Hoc Committee (South 
Africa/Nigeria).  See paragraph 4 for details. 
 
 
 
-- From Rhetoric to Reality: A global call for concrete action 
against racism, related intolerance (South Africa).  This 
resolution incorporated language on the work of the Ad Hoc 
Committee in 2007, but ran separately in 2008. 
 
 
 
-- Combating Defamation of Religions (Pakistan/OIC). 
 
GENEVA 00000094  002 OF 007 
 
 
-- Religious Intolerance (EU).  Note: While this EU resolution is 
traditionally run in the March session, the EU has not yet 
confirmed its plans for the resolution during the 13th session. 
This resolution has been subject to increasingly intense 
negotiations in recent years, with some OIC member states offering 
problematic formulations linked to defamation, or rejecting others 
that would promote absolute religious freedom (such as references 
to the ability to change one's religion); it was unexpectedly 
called to a vote by South Africa in 2009, in which they voted no. 
 
 
 
¶4.  (SBU) The Ad Hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary 
standards:  This body is the nexus for the defamation and freedom 
of expression debate.  The Chairperson-Rapporteur, Algerian 
Ambassador Idriss Jazairy, will present the report of the Ad Hoc 
Committee's October 2009 meeting at the March session.  Jazairy has 
assured delegations that he will present a factual recording of the 
discussion, reflecting the lack of consensus within the group; 
however, the follow-on resolution could spark fierce debate.  As 
the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee is not time-limited, we expect 
the African Group (AG), with support from OIC delegations, to table 
a resolution providing for a specific program of work for the 
Committee in 2010.  Like the meeting in October, a potential 
resolution on this issue will again provide a forum for continued 
debate on the appropriate government responses to counter racial 
and religious intolerance.  The OIC and AG interpret this mandate 
as a requirement to draft a new treaty that would limit free speech 
as a way to prevent people from negatively portraying religions 
(primarily Islam).  Dispute over whether such a mandate pertains 
exclusively to "complementary standards" in the form of a new 
international legally binding instrument would no doubt continue in 
the negotiation of such a resolution. 
 
 
 
¶5.  (U) While we will continue to oppose any attempts to amend or 
reinterpret existing international law to address racial and 
religious discrimination and intolerance, we see this as an 
opportunity to offer an alternative, action-based approach that 
would address the underlying concerns without placing unacceptable 
limits on the freedom of expression or religion.  Heavy, early 
engagement and lobbying could gain further support for our Action 
Plan approach, which could provide an alternative to states that 
need a justification to oppose any further work by the Ad Hoc 
Committee on a binding instrument.  In the long-run, such an 
approach might also contribute to increased opposition to the 
defamation resolution in general, as countries realize that concern 
for religious minorities can be addressed through support for 
concrete measures rather than protracted, conceptual debates. 
 
 
 
¶6.  (SBU)  We should capitalize on the momentum of the United 
Nations General Assembly (GA) vote, where we have increased 
steadily the "no" votes on the defamation of religions resolution; 
A/RES/64/156 was adopted in plenary with a vote of 80-61(US)-42, up 
from 81-55(US)-43 in the Third Committee just weeks prior, and a 
significant improvement over the vote in 2008 (85-50(US)-42). 
 
 
 
 
 
Secret Detention Study 
 
---------------------- 
 
 
 
¶7.  (SBU) A group of four special procedures will present their 
joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in 
the context of countering terrorism (Secret Detention Study).  The 
group includes the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and 
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while 
countering terrorism; the Special Rapporteur on torture and other 
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the 
Vice-Chairperson of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; and 
the Chairperson of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary 
Disappearances.  The four will sit jointly on the dais during the 
March HRC for an interactive dialogue devoted solely to the report. 
The report was posted on the OHCHR website in late January.  The 
pages covering the United States feature criticism of alleged U.S. 
 
GENEVA 00000094  003 OF 007 
 
 
uses of secret detention and alleged abuse of detainees in U.S. 
custody.  The report mentions approximately 70 countries (some 40 
of which responded to the study questionnaire) and covers incidents 
both before and after the beginning of the war in Afghanistan.  We 
should be prepared for a session in which other states, NGOs, and 
the media condemn the alleged practices of the United States. 
Other states have already taken issue with the report.  The African 
Group reportedly sent a letter to the HRC Secretariat expressing 
concern about the report, arguing that the mandate holders exceeded 
their mandates in undertaking the study.  The African Group and OIC 
might try to block the presentation and discussion of the report at 
the March session.  The OHCHR has encouraged the Group's members to 
allow the report to be presented and to make their critical 
comments from the floor of the HRC during the debate.  This issue 
could come up as early as the February 20 organizational meeting 
for the HRC March session. 
 
 
 
Iran 
 
---- 
 
 
 
¶8. (SBU) The March session offers an opportunity to highlight 
concerns about recent human rights violations in Iran.  Options 
include a resolution seeking a range of actions, from establishing 
a Special Rapporteur or other special procedure, to recommending 
that the United Nations launch a commission of inquiry. 
 
 
 
¶9. (SBU) Several European members, including Spain (the incoming EU 
President), France, and Norway, have expressed interest in Council 
action on Iran.  A significant number of NGOs are actively urging a 
Special Session.  Other delegations have told us we should not 
expect Iran specific action in the HRC absent a triggering event 
[i.e. something worse than the current, ongoing crackdown]. 
 
 
 
¶10. (SBU) COMMENT: U.S. Mission Geneva assesses that there may be 
enough support for an Iran item, but we and like-minded countries 
would need to expend significant political and human capital to 
ensure a substantive outcome with specific follow-up.  It is 
unlikely that any Council action would be able to replicate the 
numbers from the GA vote.  Some Council members oppose 
country-specific items on principle.  Furthermore, Iran will 
undergo its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process in February 
¶2010.  Some members may hesitate to put Iran in the spotlight so 
soon after its UPR.  For some states, Iran's conduct at its UPR may 
influence their willingness to back action against Iran in March. 
END COMMENT. 
 
 
 
Guinea 
 
------ 
 
 
 
¶11. (SBU) The human rights situation in Guinea also warrants 
country-specific action at the March session.  Options are similar 
to those on Iran and include seeking a special procedure or running 
a resolution expressing concern about recent events.  Alternatives 
include declaring support for the Commission of Inquiry's 
recommendation to establish an OHCHR presence in Guinea.  Many 
European delegations are keen on Guinea action.  There appears to 
be hesitancy among African delegations.  Zambia, Mauritius, and 
Senegal, have all told us they would not be in a position to lead 
on a Guinea resolution and that they were awaiting the outcome of 
the African Union Summit to determine the direction the African 
heads of state wanted to take in addressing the situation in 
Guinea. 
 
 
 
¶12. (SBU) COMMENT: For Council action on Guinea to succeed, it will 
require the strong and early support of African states.  It would 
be best to have African states lead an initiative or have another 
like-minded country act as the main force behind the resolution. 
As with any country-specific item, action on Guinea would require a 
significant push of outreach and lobbying to achieve.  One African 
delegate suggested we consider pushing an Iran resolution at the 
 
GENEVA 00000094  004 OF 007 
 
 
same time as the Guinea resolution in order to dilute the African 
concerns that they are targets of resolutions because of their 
perceived "weakness."  END COMMENT. 
 
 
 
Mandates for Renewal 
 
-------------------- 
 
 
 
¶13. (U) The mandates for the Special Rapporteurs for the Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Myanmar will be up for 
renewal in March.  In addition, the resolution calling for 
strengthened technical assistance and cooperation to the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo (DRC) will need to be renewed, or replaced 
with a stronger country mandate seeking a Special Rapporteur or 
Independent Expert, if further HRC-mandated investigation is to 
continue. 
 
 
 
Goldstone, Israel, the OPT, and Related Items 
 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶14. (U) We can expect a significant focus on Israel, the Occupied 
Palestinian Territories (OPT), and related issues at the March 
session.  In particular, we expect three major outcomes resulting 
from Council Resolution S-12/1, passed at the 12th Special Session 
in October 2009 (Gaza Session).  First, we expect a report from the 
UN Secretary General on steps taken to implement the 
recommendations of the Independent International Fact-Finding 
Mission on the Gaza Conflict (Goldstone Report).  Second, the High 
Commissioner for Human Rights is to report on the status of the 
implementation of Resolution S-12/1.  Third, a Council member 
(likely Pakistan on behalf of the OIC, with strong support from the 
Arab Group, NAM, and the African Group) is likely to present a 
follow-up resolution on the implementation of the Goldstone report 
recommendations.  According to Spain, this resolution may be based 
on the resolution that was drafted but withdrawn at the 12th 
Regular HRC Session in September 2009. 
 
 
 
¶15.  (U) Additional elements in a Goldstone follow-up resolution 
could advocate for the implementation of GA resolution A/64/L.11 
(for example, calling on the Government of Israel and Palestinian 
authorities to conduct independent investigations, or calling on 
the Government of Switzerland to reconvene a Conference of High 
Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention).  In December 
2009, we received a Note Verbale from High Commissioner Pillay 
concerning the recommendation that States pursue criminal 
investigations in national courts, using universal jurisdiction, to 
prosecute perpetrators of the alleged grave breaches of the Geneva 
Conventions outlined in the report.  There may be further requests 
from the High Commissioner regarding Goldstone recommendations. 
 
 
 
¶16.  (U) In addition to the items that are specifically related to 
Goldstone follow-up, the following resolutions relating to Israel 
and the OPT could be presented this year, based on what we are 
hearing in Geneva and based on last year's March session: 
 
 
 
-- Israeli military attacks in Gaza; last year's resolution 
particularly highlighted the events at al-Aqsa mosque and called 
for follow up at the 13th Session (Pakistan/OIC, Palestine/Arab 
League) 
 
 
 
-- Right of Palestinian people to self-determination 
(Palestine/Arab Group) 
 
 
 
-- Israeli settlements (Palestine, Arab Group) 
 
GENEVA 00000094  005 OF 007 
 
 
-- Human Rights in the Syrian Golan (Palestine/Arab Group, Syria) 
 
 
 
 
 
Universal Periodic Review Reports 
 
--------------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶17.  (SBU) The following UPR Reports will be presented for adoption 
at the March Council session.  While UPR report adoptions usually 
go smoothly, we should keep an eye out for potential problems 
concerning adoption of the Cyprus report; Cyprus refused to attend 
the adoption of the report by the December UPR Working Group (see 
Geneva 16).  The States Under Review are required to accept or 
reject all recommendations before their UPR report adoption in the 
HRC session.  In this vein, we should continue to encourage broad 
acceptance by DPRK of recommendations provided during its UPR 
review.  At the same time, we should maintain pressure on other 
governments to hold DPRK to a high standard. 
 
-- Albania 
 
-- Bhutan 
 
-- Brunei Darussalam 
 
-- Cambodia 
 
-- Costa Rica 
 
-- Cote d'Ivoire 
 
-- Cyprus 
 
-- Democratic People's Republic of Korea 
 
-- Democratic Republic of the Congo 
 
-- Dominica 
 
-- Dominican Republic 
 
-- Equatorial Guinea 
 
-- Eritrea 
 
-- Ethiopia 
 
-- Norway 
 
-- Portugal 
 
 
 
¶18.  (U) Following is a list of possible resolutions based on 
discussions in Geneva and the resolutions presented at the 10th HRC 
Session in March 2009.  Last year's sponsors are listed in 
parentheses when known.  Post will canvass delegations to determine 
what resolutions will come up this year. 
 
 
 
Civil and Political Rights Resolutions: 
 
 
 
-- Arbitrary Detention (France) 
 
-- Human Rights and Counterterrorism (Mexico) 
 
-- Arbitrary deprivation of nationality (Russian Federation) 
 
-- Enforced or involuntary disappearances (France) 
 
-- Right to Truth and Forensics (Argentina) 
 
-- Use of Mercenaries (Cuba) 
 
-- Torture (Denmark) 
 
-- Genocide prevention (Armenia) has been discussed at previous 
March sessions, but was not introduced at HRC 10. 
 
GENEVA 00000094  006 OF 007 
 
 
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights Resolutions: 
 
 
 
-- Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Portugal) 
 
-- Persons with disabilities (Mexico, New Zealand) 
 
-- Climate Change, possibly to include Copenhagen follow-up 
(Maldives) 
 
-- Rights of the Child Implementation (Uruguay) 
 
-- UN Declaration for HR Education and Training, including 
mini-high level segment (Morocco, Switzerland) 
 
-- Leprosy, potential follow-on resolution to finalize the 
guidelines passed last year (Japan) 
 
-- Right to Food resolution at March 2009 Session established a 
3-year mandate for a Special Rapporteur; we could see a follow-on 
resolution (Cuba) 
 
-- Administration of Justice, Juveniles (Austria) 
 
-- Social Forum, Poverty (Cuba) 
 
-- Cultural Rights (Cuba); the 2009 resolution established the 
special procedure and called for followup in March 2010. 
 
 
 
Country-Specific Resolutions and Other 
 
-------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
-- Situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Mandate 
renewal (Japan, Spain/EU) 
 
-- Situation in Myanmar, Mandate renewal (Spain/EU, usually 
requires lobbying from the U.S. and Japan) 
 
-- Technical Cooperation for Democratic Republic of the Congo 
(Egypt/African Group) 
 
-- Composition of staff of the Office of the High Commissioner of 
Human Rights (OHCHR) 
 
-- International Human Rights Cooperation (NAM) 
 
-- Regional Arrangements for HR (Belgium) 
 
 
 
 
 
Comment 
 
------- 
 
 
 
¶19.  (SBU) March will be a packed session.  Given the significant 
number of high-profile and particularly challenging issues on the 
docket for March, we will need to tightly prioritize our 
initiatives.  This is particularly important given the need for 
lobbying by Washington and in capitals.  Mission Geneva believes 
that with energetic attention to addressing the specific area where 
the concept of "defamation of religions" has most recently and 
dangerously been advanced, namely the Ad Hoc Committee on 
Complementary Standards, we may be able to secure enough support 
for a positive outcome on that resolution.   However, such success 
will require intense, active work with not only the moderate group 
of cross-regional countries who voted in support of the Committee's 
original mandate but remain opposed to a binding instrument on 
defamation, but also with the resolution's traditional sponsors: 
South Africa, with the support of African Group Chair Nigeria. 
Likewise, we could face difficulties if we extend ourselves on 
country mandates at the same time.  It will be important to find 
other delegations to take the lead on some of these initiatives. 
At the same time, we will have to continue to demonstrate that we 
 
GENEVA 00000094  007 OF 007 
 
 
are both firm on demanding Council action on the worst abuses while 
also building new cross-regional alliances that demonstrate we are 
changing the dynamic of the Council.  End comment. 
RICHTER