VZCZCXRO0411
OO RUEHSL
DE RUEHC #6234/01 0540156
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O P 230148Z FEB 10
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHUJA/AMEMBASSY ABUJA IMMEDIATE 0273
RUEHAR/AMEMBASSY ACCRA IMMEDIATE 5883
RUEHAM/AMEMBASSY AMMAN IMMEDIATE 5035
RUEHAN/AMEMBASSY ANTANANARIVO IMMEDIATE 0116
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING IMMEDIATE 3090
RUEHEK/AMEMBASSY BISHKEK IMMEDIATE 6778
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA IMMEDIATE 0845
RUEHSL/AMEMBASSY BRATISLAVA IMMEDIATE 1039
RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS IMMEDIATE 6415
RUEHUP/AMEMBASSY BUDAPEST IMMEDIATE 8712
RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES IMMEDIATE 0723
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO IMMEDIATE 0461
RUEHDK/AMEMBASSY DAKAR IMMEDIATE 0158
RUEHKA/AMEMBASSY DHAKA IMMEDIATE 2809
RUEHDJ/AMEMBASSY DJIBOUTI IMMEDIATE 1786
RUEHDO/AMEMBASSY DOHA IMMEDIATE 2040
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD IMMEDIATE 6620
RUEHJA/AMEMBASSY JAKARTA IMMEDIATE 6897
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV IMMEDIATE 3392
RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ IMMEDIATE 0547
RUEHLC/AMEMBASSY LIBREVILLE IMMEDIATE 0080
RUEHLJ/AMEMBASSY LJUBLJANA IMMEDIATE 7216
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON IMMEDIATE 9441
RUEHLU/AMEMBASSY LUANDA IMMEDIATE 0023
RUEHLS/AMEMBASSY LUSAKA IMMEDIATE 8727
RUEHMU/AMEMBASSY MANAGUA IMMEDIATE 0681
RUEHMK/AMEMBASSY MANAMA IMMEDIATE 7534
RUEHML/AMEMBASSY MANILA IMMEDIATE 4257
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO IMMEDIATE 0875
RUEHMN/AMEMBASSY MONTEVIDEO IMMEDIATE 0565
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW IMMEDIATE 7504
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI IMMEDIATE 9386
RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO IMMEDIATE 0170
RUEHOU/AMEMBASSY OUAGADOUGOU IMMEDIATE 9545
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS IMMEDIATE 8553
RUEHPL/AMEMBASSY PORT LOUIS IMMEDIATE 3579
RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA IMMEDIATE 8601
RUEHRH/AMEMBASSY RIYADH IMMEDIATE 5106
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME IMMEDIATE 4216
RUEHSG/AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO IMMEDIATE 1031
RUEHVJ/AMEMBASSY SARAJEVO IMMEDIATE 3160
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL IMMEDIATE 3136
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE IMMEDIATE 7845
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO IMMEDIATE 2381
RUEHYD/AMEMBASSY YAOUNDE IMMEDIATE 0184
RUEHUB/USINT HAVANA IMMEDIATE 7707
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA IMMEDIATE 0437
INFO RUEHRY/AMEMBASSY CONAKRY PRIORITY 3650
RUEHKI/AMEMBASSY KINSHASA PRIORITY 0204
RUEHGO/AMEMBASSY RANGOON PRIORITY 9441
RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV PRIORITY 0776
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 9995

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 11 STATE 016234 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PHUM UN
SUBJECT: USG PRIORITIES FOR MARCH U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS 
COUNCIL SESSION 
 
REF: A. (A) STATE 109397 
     ¶B. (B) STATE 111466 
     ¶C. (C) STATE 12108 
 
¶1. (U) This is an action request.  See paras. 3-4. 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) will 
hold its 13th regular session in Geneva on March 1-26, 2010. 
The first week of the session will be a high-level segment; 
Under-Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs, Maria 
Otero, will attend to represent the United States during this 
portion and is scheduled to make a statement on Wednesday, 
March 3, 2010.  The USG seeks to engage other governments and 
delegations in Geneva on six top priorities for the March HRC 
Session, including: (1) advancing a consensus-based approach 
on racial and religious intolerance; (2) gaining support for 
a resolution on the human rights situation in Guinea; (3) 
renewing and strengthening the existing special procedures 
mandate for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC); (4) 
managing fallout resulting from the Goldstone Report on 
alleged violations of international humanitarian and human 
rights law committed during the winter 2008/2009 conflict in 
Gaza; (5) registering support for HRC action spotlighting 
human rights abuses in Iran; and (6) renewing 
country-specific special procedures mandates for DPRK and 
Burma.  END SUMMARY. 
 
ACTION REQUEST 
-------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) For Mission Geneva: Drawing on the suggested talking 
points in para. 5 and background available in paragraphs 
6-11, Mission is requested to engage delegations from the 46 
 
STATE 00016234  002 OF 011 
 
 
other HRC members to garner support for USG priorities. 
 
¶4. (SBU) For Embassies Luanda, Buenos Aires , Manama, Dhaka, 
Brussels, La Paz, Sarajevo, Brasilia, Ouagadougou, Younde, 
Santiago, Beijing, Havana, Djibouti, Cairo, Paris, 
Libreville, Accra, Budapest, New Delhi, Jakarta, Rome, Tokyo, 
Amman, Bishkek, Antananarivo, Port Louis, Mexico City, 
Amsterdam, Managua, Abuja, Oslo, Islamabad, Manila, Doha, 
Seoul, Moscow, Riyadh, Dakar, Bratislava, Ljubljana, 
Pretoria, Kyiv, London, Montevideo, Lusaka: Posts are 
requested to engage host governments at the appropriate level 
to garner support for USG priorities.  See para. 5 for 
suggested talking points and paras. 6-11 for background, 
which include specific notes for some capitals.  Reftels 
noted are available at the IO-HR sharepoint site at: 
http://io.p.state.sbu/HR/. 
 
SUGGESTED TALKING POINTS 
------------------------ 
 
¶5. (SBU) Begin suggested talking points: 
 
-- Express U.S. commitment to (1) defending the universality 
of human rights and the responsibility of governments to 
respect the rights of their people; (2) defending the 
independence of UN human rights mechanisms, including human 
rights monitoring and assistance functions; (3) reinforcing 
the Council,s credibility, including working to remove the 
systemic bias in the HRC against Israel; (4) advancing the 
principles of accountability, transparency, and good 
governance in the work of the HRC. 
 
-- Emphasize that we are consulting with host governments in 
advance of the session not only because we hope to work 
closely with them on key human rights initiatives, but also 
to enable us to take their views into account as we shape our 
own positions. 
 
-- Stress the importance of strengthening human rights in 
country-specific situations.  Emphasize our concern that the 
HRC address these types of situations to bolster its 
 
STATE 00016234  003 OF 011 
 
 
credibility on the ground. 
 
Specific initiatives in March 2010 HRC session: 
 
-- Religious and Racial Intolerance:  Solicit host country 
support for an action-oriented approach that a) acknowledges 
the concerns of both the OIC and members of the African Group 
regarding persistent discrimination against Muslims, and b) 
promotes concrete actions that governments can undertake now 
to make immediate progress on issues of discrimination, hate 
crimes, and the promotion of mutual respect.  Urge host 
country to not support the defamation resolution and ensure 
the ad hoc committee resolution does not call for a binding 
treaty.  A copy of the U.S. proposal is available on the 
IO/HR intranet website under &HRC 13th Session8 at 
http://io.p.state.sbu/HR/. 
 
-- Guinea:  Seek support for a resolution addressing the 
situation, focusing on opportunities for technical assistance 
and safeguards to strengthen the new government,s ability to 
effectively promote and protect human rights. 
 
-- Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC):  Convey our 
disappointment that the technical assistance-oriented special 
procedures mandate for the DRC was not renewed in 2008 and 
solicit thoughts on reinstating a focused, country-specific 
mandate or extending the existing combined thematic mandate 
regarding human rights in the DRC. 
 
-- Goldstone Report:  Convey our concerns that the attention 
generated by the Goldstone Report harms Special Envoy 
Mitchell,s peace efforts.  Continue to express our concern 
with the deeply flawed Goldstone report.  Note that UN 
Secretary-General Ban,s February 4 report observes that the 
processes initiated by Israel to investigate alleged 
violations are ongoing and that the Palestinian side only 
recently initiated its investigative effort.  The report 
concludes: &As such, no determination can be made on the 
implementation of the resolution by the parties concerned.8 
Express our belief that additional Goldstone-related 
resolutions now in the Human Rights Council serve no useful 
 
STATE 00016234  004 OF 011 
 
 
purpose when both Israelis and Palestinians need more time to 
carry out their domestic investigations.  If a resolution 
cannot be avoided, it should be minimalist and purely 
technical, calling on the parties to continue their domestic 
investigations without setting an artificial timeline for 
them to complete those investigations. 
 
-- Iran:  Convey our deep concern with the situation of human 
rights in Iran, particularly the continuing abuses following 
the June 12, 2009 presidential elections.  Solicit thoughts 
on a resolution or other HRC action addressing the ongoing 
human rights abuses in Iran.  Reiterate our hope that Iran 
not be elected to the Human Rights Council as doing so would 
undermine the credibility of this body.  (See septel cable on 
HRC elections for additional information forthcoming on the 
IO/HR intranet site at  http://io.p.state.sbu/HR/.) 
 
-- DPRK and Burma:  Reiterate that the special procedures 
mandates for DPRK and Burma will expire in March, requiring 
the HRC to act to renew them.  Seek support for the EU-led 
effort to renew these special rapporteurs without weakening 
their mandates. 
 
-- Solicit additional information on resolutions the host 
government is planning to introduce or support. 
 
TOP PRIORITIES 
-------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) Advancing a consensus-based approach on racial and 
religious intolerance: The USG seeks to prevent further 
progress toward a binding treaty banning &defamation of 
religions8 and weaken momentum for the annual HRC 
resolutions calling for bans on defamation.  More background 
on the defamation resolutions sponsored by the Organization 
of the Islamic Conference (OIC) each year during the March 
HRC session and during the fall in the UN General Assembly,s 
Third Committee is available via reftel A, and on the IO/HR 
intranet website under &HRC 13th Session.8  For more 
information on the potential treaty to ban &defamation of 
religion,8 please see reftel B and the IO/HR intranet 
 
STATE 00016234  005 OF 011 
 
 
website at http://io.p.state.sbu/HR/. 
 
We expect that the OIC will again run its &defamation8 
resolution this March, and that the governments of Nigeria 
(in its role as chair of the African Group in Geneva) and 
South Africa may run a resolution on the &Ad Hoc Committee 
on Complementary Standards,8 the body in which these 
governments and others are advocating for a binding treaty 
banning defamation (in the form of an optional protocol to 
the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial 
Discrimination).  Rather than continue down the divisive and 
discredited path of more &defamation8 resolutions and 
disagreements about the utility of a treaty to ban criticisms 
of religion, the USG hopes to unite HRC members at this March 
session behind an action-oriented approach (as highlighted in 
our first talking point) that a) acknowledges the concerns of 
both the OIC and members of the African Group regarding 
persistent discrimination against members of religious 
minorities, including Muslims, and b) promotes concrete 
actions that governments can undertake now to make immediate 
progress on issues of discrimination, hate crimes, and the 
promotion of mutual respect.  A U.S. proposal, which includes 
elements of a potential resolution, is circulating in Geneva. 
 A PDF copy of these elements and the associated &Action 
Plan to Combat Racial and Religious Discrimination and 
Intolerance8 is available at he IO/HR intranet site under 
&HRC 13th Session8 at http://io.p.state.sbu/HR/.  Posts are 
encouraged to provide this proposal to the host government, 
as appropriate. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Gaining support for a resolution on the human rights 
situation in Guinea: The USG, working in coordination with 
the Guinean delegation in Geneva and Nigeria as Chair of the 
African Group, aims to secure a broadly supported resolution 
addressing the situation of human rights in Guinea. Given the 
progress in installing a transitional government since the 
events of September 28, 2009, we expect that a resolution 
would focus on opportunities for technical assistance and 
safeguards to strengthen the new government,s ability to 
effectively promote and protect human rights.  Securing a 
resolution addressing this event and the broader situation of 
 
STATE 00016234  006 OF 011 
 
 
human rights in Guinea will require consent from Guinea and 
leadership from the Africa Group; the USG has secured 
provisional support from the Guinean delegation in Geneva and 
a verbal commitment from the Nigerian mission to Geneva to 
lead and sponsor a resolution, and we are pursuing the 
confirmation/endorsement of those in capitals.  Having the 
HRC address the human rights situation in Guinea is critical 
to building the Council,s credibility in addressing pressing 
human rights crises.  Note: On September 28, 2009, Guinean 
government authorities killed 157 people during a 
pro-democracy gathering in a stadium in Conakry. 
Secretary-General Ban commissioned a report to document the 
events of September 28, resulting in a Commission of Inquiry 
(COI) report that highlighted abuses committed by government 
authorities against civilians, including murder, rape, and 
arbitrary detention.  The COI,s report also suggests the 
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) 
establish an office in Conakry, a recommendation the HRC 
could endorse.  End Note. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Renewing and strengthening the special procedures 
mandate for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): The USG 
remains deeply concerned about the lack of capacity to 
prosecute human rights abusers in the DRC security forces, 
particularly in the military (the FARDC).  The USG continues 
to provide funding to strengthen the Congolese judiciary, 
including through programs that train judges, prosecutors, 
and lawyers in both the civilian and military justice sectors 
to investigate and adjudicate crimes of sexual violence.  At 
the March 2008 HRC session, the independent expert for the 
DRC was ended in favor of tasking a set of seven thematic 
rapporteurs with reporting on the human rights situation in 
the country.  We have heard that the EU is interested in 
creating a DRC special procedure, but they have not committed 
to leading such an effort.  We believe that in order for the 
resolution to be effective and be adopted, this resolution 
must have the support of the Africa Group and the government 
of the DRC.  During March 2009 negotiations, we received 
conflicting information from the GDRC.  The DRC mission in 
Geneva reported that it supported the previous mandate but 
not the mandate holder, while Kinshasa reported that it 
 
STATE 00016234  007 OF 011 
 
 
neither supported the former independent expert nor would it 
not support a new mandate.  Next week the USG plans to 
demarche in Geneva and Kinshasa to emphasize the importance 
of running a resolution.  At a minimum the seven thematic 
rapporteurs and the HCHR will report to the HRC during the 
March session.  The USG seeks to reinstate a focused, 
country-specific mandate or, if this fails, to extend the 
existing combined thematic mandate regarding human rights in 
the DRC. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Managing fallout from the Goldstone Report:  During 
the March HRC session, the USG aims to minimize attention to 
and controversy over the Goldstone Report, to avoid further 
damage to S/E Mitchell,s peace efforts, and to avoid an 
unbalanced and counterproductive resolution..  We believe 
that additional Goldstone-related resolutions now in the 
Human Rights Council serve no useful purpose when both 
Israelis and Palestinians need more time to carry out their 
domestic investigations.  If we cannot avoid a product, it 
should be purely technical, calling on the parties to 
continue their domestic investigations without setting an 
artificial timeline for them to complete those 
investigations.  Such a resolution would reinforce the 
primacy of domestic processes to investigate allegations of 
human rights abuses and allow those processes time to play 
out.   Note: The Goldstone Report was commissioned by the HRC 
to investigate Israeli violations of international 
humanitarian and human rights law during the 2008-2009 
conflict in Gaza.  The HRC mandate was blatantly unbalanced, 
focusing exclusively on Israel, and did not call for 
investigation of Hamas, actions.  The fact-finding mission 
was led by Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa, who 
sought to broaden his terms of reference in practice to 
include Hamas, actions, although the HRC never changed the 
formal mandate.  The U.S. government believes the Goldstone 
Report to be deeply flawed as a result of its unbalanced 
focus on Israel, the overly broad scope of its 
recommendations, the excessively negative inferences it draws 
about Israel,s intentions and actions, its failure to deal 
with the asymmetrical nature of the Gaza conflict, its 
failure to assign appropriate responsibility to Hamas for its 
 
STATE 00016234  008 OF 011 
 
 
practice of basing operations in civilian-populated urban 
areas, and its sweeping conclusions of law.  On October 16, 
2009, the HRC passed a resolution endorsing the 
recommendations in the Goldstone Report.  On January 29, 
Israel submitted to the UN Secretary General a 46-page update 
outlining the status of its investigations into alleged 
violations during the Gaza conflict.  The Palestinian 
Authority also submitted a document to Secretary General Ban 
transmitting a Presidential Decree dated 25 January 
establishing an Independent Investigation Commission to 
follow up on implementation of the recommendations made in 
the Goldstone Report with respect to the Palestinians, and a 
report on the first meeting of the Commission.  .  Both sides 
are undertaking efforts to investigate alleged violations. 
The United States believes that Israel has the democratic 
institutions to allow it to ensure domestic accountability. 
Hamas is a terrorist organization, and it has neither the 
ability nor the willingness to examine credibly its 
deliberate and repeated violations of humanitarian law.  End 
Note.  A forthcoming cable will provide additional 
information and more specific instructions in respect to the 
Goldstone Report. 
 
¶10. (SBU) Registering support for a resolution or other HRC 
action spotlighting human rights abuses in Iran: Ahead of the 
March HRC session and building on momentum generated during 
the February 15, 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Iran,s 
human rights record, the USG is interested in assessing the 
degree of support that would be forthcoming at the HRC for a 
resolution or other HRC action addressing the ongoing human 
rights abuses in Iran.  HRC action on Iran would boost the 
world body,s credibility in addressing critical human rights 
crises.  Initial impressions from host government capitals in 
response to this demarche request will be essential for 
informing the USG position moving into March.  Note: The 
human rights situation in Iran, already deeply troubling, has 
grown significantly worse in the wake of the June 12 
presidential elections and particularly during the Shi,a 
holiday of Ashura on December 26-28.  Since June, the 
government of Iran has carried out a severe crackdown on 
peaceful protestors, political critics, human rights 
 
STATE 00016234  009 OF 011 
 
 
defenders and journalists, and has acknowledged that at least 
thirty-five individuals died in clashes with security forces, 
with hundreds more injured, and nearly 4,000 imprisoned 
(after the June 12 elections and an additional 1,000 were 
detained in the wake of the Ashura protests).  Reports of 
arbitrary arrests; harassment and arrests of journalists; 
persecution against religious minorities; extrajudicial 
killings; and torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading 
punishment have been ongoing since June.  During the worst 
violence since the election, at least eight persons and 
reportedly as many as 37 were killed in clashes with security 
forces at the Ashura protests on Sunday, December 27.   Iran 
is also running for membership to the Human Rights Council, 
raising serious concerns that the credibility of the HRC will 
be further undermined by the presence of this notorious human 
rights violator on the Council.  End note.  See reftel C for 
more information. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Renewing country-specific special procedures 
mandates for DPRK and Burma: The mandates of the Special 
Rapporteurs on the Situation of Human Rights in the DPRK and 
in Burma will expire in March, requiring the HRC to act to 
renew them.  The main co-sponsors of these resolutions, both 
of which deal with countries that are among the world,s most 
serious human rights abusers, will be the EU as a whole, as 
in years past.  Japan will assist as a main co-sponsor of the 
DPRK resolution.  The USG aims to secure the renewal of these 
special rapporteurs without the weakening of their mandates. 
Ahead of the March HRC session, the USG will offer our 
support to the EU and Japan by lobbying other delegations for 
their support. 
 
OTHER POTENTIAL ISSUES 
---------------------- 
 
¶12. (SBU) Secret Detention Study (IF RAISED ONLY): On January 
26, 2010, a group of HRC Special Rapporteurs and other 
mandate holders issued a joint report on the practice of 
secret detentions.  A majority of the report focuses on the 
alleged practices of the United States.   The Department is 
working closely with the interagency on a potential response. 
 
STATE 00016234  010 OF 011 
 
 
 See below for suggested press points.  The Africa Group and 
others may seek to block consideration of the report because 
of their objection to the Special Rapporteurs undertaking a 
report of their own accord that the Africa Group believes to 
be outside their respective mandates.  If asked, the United 
States supports the ability of the Special Rapporteurs to 
present their report to the HRC through the usual Interactive 
Dialogue process. 
 
Suggested press points if asked about the USG reaction to the 
Secret Detention Study: 
 
-- The United States is still in the process of reviewing the 
report released last night on global practices in relation to 
secret detention in the context of countering terrorism. 
 
-- The United States is a strong supporter of the Special 
Mechanisms of the Human Rights Council and encourages robust 
participation and dialogue within the United Nations human 
rights system. 
 
-- As a preliminary reaction, though, we note that the report 
fails to adequately acknowledge the overall change in policy 
in the Obama Administration.  This Administration has clearly 
reiterated its commitment to the rule of law, transparency, 
and international law.  We have completed an extensive review 
of detention policy and practices and have gone to great 
lengths to ensure that they are consistent with international 
law. 
 
-- We are committed to countering threats in a manner 
consistent with our values and ideals.  As the President 
reiterated in his speech to the Nobel Committee, &even as we 
confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules . . . 
the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in 
the conduct of war.  That is what makes us different from 
those whom we fight.  That is the source of our strength.8 
 
If pressed: 
 
-- We will continue to review the report. 
 
STATE 00016234  011 OF 011 
 
 
 
REPORTING DEADLINE AND POINTS OF CONTACT 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶13. (U) Mission Geneva and posts are requested to provide 
results of engagement with delegations and host governments 
by February 26, 2010.  Please refer questions or comments to 
IO/HR Gayatri Patel. 
CLINTON