US embassy cable - 04THEHAGUE2733

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 THE HAGUE 002733 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/01/2014 
TAGS: PHUM, AORC, PREL, CH, NL 
SUBJECT: EU/COHOM: WORKING FOR EU SUPPORT FOR US HUMAN 
RIGHTS GOALS 
 
 
Classified By: Political Counselor Andrew Schofer for reasons 1.4 (b) a 
nd (d). 
 
1.      (C)  SUMMARY:  The United States and EU Troika met 
October 15 to discuss human rights issues in the context of 
the semi-annual "COHOM" troika meeting.  The EU confirmed 
that they still value the human rights dialogue process with 
China and want to coordinate with us on ways to refocus all 
dialogues to push China beyond its current sour approach. 
The dialogue with Iran is failing and the situation in the 
country is bleak.  On Iraq, the EU will try to support the 
elections but without traditional election monitors due to 
security concerns.  We discussed UNGA Third Committee 
resolutions on Burma, Sudan, and Congo, and a Russian 
terrorism resolution;  however, the EU had several objections 
to US proposals for a package of agreed language designed to 
overcome perennial negotiation disputes.  On terrorism, the 
USDel attempted to reassure the EU that the US international 
supports  humanitarian law.  There were good discussions of 
Guantanamo.  The EU announced a fledgling program to help EU 
embassies support human rights defenders.  There was a 
serious exchange of views on the death penalty.  Finally, we 
discussed ways to encourage democratic states to run for 
seats on the Commission on Human Rights as a way to exclude 
unsuitable countries.  End Summary. 
 
HUMAN RIGHTS WITH CHINA:  ALL SOUR, NO SWEET 
 
2.  (C) De Klerk discussed the recent EU Dialogue and the 
EU's review of the entire history of the EU's last 18 
dialogues with China.  De Klerk, who had led the EUDel to 
China recently, reiterated most of the details already 
reported in other channels. 
 
3. (C) The EU's COHOM delegation has concluded that China's 
human rights dialogues with the EU are at a crossroads.  The 
EU wants to continue them but an assertive China may become 
unwilling.  The EU sees the glass half full, pointing to the 
fact that, while many problems remain, China seems to respond 
to outside pressure in some ways, such as in reform of the 
Re-education through Labor system, de Klerk noted.  The 
dialogues strengthen the hands of HR defenders inside the 
country, he observed. 
 
4.  (C) On the other hand, USDel recalled serious 
backsliding, such as when China punishes people who try to 
take advantage of limited new freedoms.  USDel cited whistle 
blowers, political organizers, and Internet users.  "At least 
there is the Internet," EUDel countered. 
 
5.  (C) The EUDel recalled a sour atmosphere and confirmed 
apparent Chinese "dialogue fatigue," but a newcomer to China 
HR dialogues, Luxembourg's special ambassador for human 
rights Julien Alex, argued that the "fatigue" was a ploy to 
erode the dialogue.  "With my fresh eyes," he said, he found 
the Chinese "derogatory, dismissive" and "assertive."  He 
quoted one official as saying, "We are the country of the 
future; the human rights dialogues are of minor interest to 
such a country as we." He reported that they sarcastically 
suggested the EU should just bring a tape recorder from the 
last meeting since "you always repeat the same thing."  He 
noted that the Chinese revealed they are conducting their own 
analysis of the EU dialogues, as they did earlier with the 
U.S., before suspending them.  Faced with an opportunity to 
impress the EU delegation at a critical juncture, the Chinese 
failed "to go the extra mile," Ambassador de Klerk concluded. 
 Turning the tables on the EU, the Chinese, for the first 
time in his experience, criticized the EU for "the phenomenon 
of racism and mistreatment of foreigners in Europe," 
particularly of Chinese immigrants, he said. 
 
6.  (C) USDel O'Sullivan (DRL) agreed that the HR Dialogues 
are at a critical juncture.  The USG hopes to restart them, 
but no working level discussions have been possible, she 
said.  Amb. Kozak agreed with the EU's observation that "the 
Chinese feel they do not need to do it with us anymore." 
 
7.  (C) COHOM Troika dels considered ways to engage China in 
substantive HR discussions with concrete results and where 
"failure would hurt."  We agreed to seek ways to collaborate 
and focus our efforts.  USDel proposed engaging the Bern 
process (of the several countries that have China HR 
dialogues) to meet more frequently to review options and to 
coordinate.  De Klerk proposed setting limited dialogue 
agendas, as well as encouraging more academic and 
professional meetings such as those now on the margins of the 
EU dialogues. 
 
8.  (C) As for the effect of the HR situation on the China 
Arms Embargo, de Klerk said the EU delegation put their 
conclusions to the ministers at the GAERC recently, where it 
was an "integral" part of considerations on whether to lift 
of not.  The EUDel refused to be drawn on what percentage of 
the EU's deliberation was comprised of human rights concerns, 
though hard pressed by USDel to hazard a guess. 
 
IRAQ ELECTIONS 
 
9.  (C) Dutch HR Ambassador De Klerk and Commission rep 
Timans said that the security situation would prevent the EU 
from sending election observers in the proper sense.  It 
remains difficult for the EU to gather valid, current 
information because of the "considerable risks" involved in 
being on the ground.  Amb. Kozak countered that the number of 
poll watchers is less important than ensuring that the media 
coverage is fair and the counting process is correct. 
 
10.  (C) Amb. Kozak confirmed that we do not anticipate a 
postponement of the elections.  While we cannot defend every 
voter everywhere, we would encourage Iraqi voters to work 
themselves hard themselves to secure the elections.  He cited 
the example of El Salvador where citizens took matters into 
their own hands at the local level to improve security when 
elections were threatened by thugs. 
 
IRAN DIALOGUE: A FAILURE SO FAR 
 
11.  (C) The EU's dialogue with Iran is "bleaker" than that 
with China, EUDel reported, and it is the poor state of the 
dialogue that prompted them to co-sponsor Canada's Iran 
resolution this year.  There have been only a handful of 
positive results since the dialogue started.  The EU plans to 
seek renewed Iranian commitment to the promotion and 
protection of HR and to explore ways to develop practical 
means to improve the dialogue, but de Klerk expected the 
resolution would prompt the Iranians to delay discussions. 
As in the China dialogue process, the EU is asking what 
effect, if any, the dialogue process has had or could have on 
the country discussed, de Klerk said.  Commission rep Timans 
suggested the "jury is still out on whether there is more 
impact with, or without, the dialogue." 
 
THIRD COMMITTEE UNGA RESOLUTIONS: THIRD COUNTRY, THEMATIC, 
TERRORISM, AND EU/US PACKAGE 
 
12.  (C)  Dels discussed country specific resolutions on 
Burma, Sudan, and Congo. 
 
a)  BURMA RESOLUTION 
 
The EUDel said there is strong support for a focused, 
political resolution dedicated to a discrete number of issues 
and not an omnibus resolution, as the previous ones have 
been.  USDel countered that we would run the danger with a 
shorter resolution of Burma taking it as watered down. 
Moreover, we felt strongly that the new draft does not 
capture our concerns.  Both dels agreed to make references to 
Aung San Suu Kyi much more prominent, as well as finding a 
way to make key political demands more obvious.  Action on 
the resolution would move to New York now, both dels agreed. 
 
b)  SUDAN RESOLUTION 
 
De Klerk recalled that the EU's "clear message to Sudan" a 
few days ago was that it faced sanctions lest it cooperate, 
referring to the visit of the Dutch FM Bot.  Considering a UN 
resolution in the Third Committee, he said that the EU still 
prefers letting the Africans take the lead, yet there has 
been no initiative from their side.  While USDel recognized 
the pitfall of a new Sudan resolution in the Third Committee 
while the UNSC was seized with the matter, EUDel would not 
accept silence from the Third Committee since it would send 
the wrong message.  The US bottom line for any Third 
Committee resolution would be for it to be as strong as 
Security Council resolution text.  EUDel shared a draft 
resolution.  The only objections USDel raised on the spot 
were to ICC and CEDAW references. 
 
c)  CONGO RESOLUTION 
 
EUDel said that they produced a Congo resolution after the 
Africans failed to do so.  USDel noted that PP 7G already 
presents a problem, since it mentions the ICC.  As with the 
Sudan resolution, USDel was disappointed that the EU had 
included such language in the first draft, well knowing it 
would be unacceptable to us and considering there might have 
been acceptable alternatives. 
 
d) RUSSIAN RESOLUTION ON TERRORISM 
 
The U.S. and EUDel agreed to jointly approach the Russians 
about holding off on running the resolution, in light of an 
existing UNSC resolution and the Mexican resolution on the 
same issue.  The EU felt that, after the experience of 
Beslan, it would be hard to avoid it if Russia insisted. 
USDel noted that the Russians would at least have the UNSC 
resolution.  Amb. Kozak preferred awaiting the report of the 
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights prepared with 
assistance from the independent expert, due in Spring 2005, 
otherwise the resolution was premature.  UNHCHR Justice 
Arbour may offer an interim report to the Third Committee 
this fall.  DAS Lagon noted Mexico's strong preference to 
allow its CHR resolution, which provides for the independent 
expert, to run its course, which is an argument to use with 
Russia. 
 
e)  US/EU PACKAGE OF AGREED LANGUAGE 
 
Only at the last minute after lunch could the EU produce its 
largely status quo reply to the USG's new, broader set of 
proposed compromise texts for Third Committee resolutions. 
The package, as discussed last year, moved neither forward 
nor back.  USDel met the EU's objection to our package's 
"asymmetric focus on EU initiatives" by pointing out that the 
U.S. proposes few Third Committee resolutions at the behest 
of allies who fear tainting good ideas with our imprimatur. 
The EU rejected the US proposal that the package apply to 
resolutions proposed by individual third countries or EU 
member states, advising the US to speak directly with the 
individual sponsors, such as Canada on references to CEDAW. 
As expected, the EU rejected other initiatives, such as those 
addressing the Rights of the Child Convention, as being those 
where the USG would vote against the resolution no matter 
what the EU might agree to.  (Note: DAS Lagon explored the 
possibility that the USG could sponsor a resolution on 
discrete children's issues as a way to be creative and avoid 
problem areas.  EUDel had no comment.  End note.) EUDel 
concluded that the package exercise might be better suited to 
the CHR than the UNGA.  DAS Lagon cautioned the EUDel that 
despite the asymmetry it was in their interest to work to get 
our support on problem paragraphs, not only to permit US 
co-sponsorship of EU resolutions but also to avoid divisive 
and distracting paragraph votes that would otherwise surely 
come.  De Klerk proposed separate discussions among US and EU 
New York negotiators to try to settle specific issues. 
(Note:  Amb. Kozak asked de Klerk what resolutions the EU 
wanted the US to introduce.  He noted Belarus. Kozak assured 
de Klerk that the US was seriously considering it, pending 
the outcome of the October 17 elections there.  End Note.) 
 
DEATH PENALTY 
 
13.  (C) EUDel reiterated EU concerns about the imposition of 
the death penalty in the United States, focusing on minimum 
standards to be followed particularly in cases involving 
juveniles.  Amb. Kozak acknowledged the EU's concern, 
pointing out the issue of the juvenile death penalty is 
currently before the US Supreme Court.  Short of a 
constitutional amendment, he added, there is little Federal 
power over the states on this subject.  Dutch and Commission 
interlocutors told Poloffs after the meeting that they 
appreciated the serious and substantive exchange of views on 
this sensitive topic for the EU. 
 
14.  (C) The EU called attention to continuing problem of 
failed consular notifications in the U.S.  USDel replied that 
the Federal Government had worked hard to educate State and 
local police forces and judicial authorities on our 
international obligations in his regard.  Amb. Kozak noted 
that, considering the size of the U.S., there are only a few 
problem cases.  In particular cases in the US where there has 
been a failure to notify, USDel noted that the courts have 
not held this to have affected due process, even if we were 
in breach of an international obligation, since defendants 
still had access to lawyers and the courts. 
 
RESPECTING HUMAN RIGHTS WHILE FIGHTING TERRORISM 
 
15.  (C) In fighting terrorism, we need to maintain full 
respect for HR, de Klerk warned.  He acknowledged that the US 
and EU disagree only on some details in this balancing 
effort.  Specifically, EUDel called for respect for the whole 
suite of Geneva Conventions.  They dismissed the need for any 
special categories of combatants vis-a-vis the Geneva 
Conventions.  They raised concern about Guantanamo and Iraqi 
prisons where the USG holds combatants, and they insisted 
that all detainees receive due process.  Amb. Kozak argued 
why it was unlikely that Guantanamo methods bled into methods 
used at Abu Ghraib.  Finally, EUDel asked if the USG could be 
more forthcoming on facilitating "UN mechanisms" looking into 
questionable circumstances in the prisons. 
 
16.  (C) Amb. Kozak reassured the EUDel, which later 
expressed appreciation for the substantive exchange, that we 
all support international humanitarian law.  "It is a 
changing picture where we are trying to get it right," he 
said, adding, "There is due process going on."  The main 
issue involved Article V tribunals; the US Supreme Court 
spoke on this issue and now USG actions are controlled as a 
matter of law by that decision, which the EU should welcome. 
"Where people have committed abuses against prisoners, there 
will be punishments," Kozak said.  DoD DAS for Detainee 
Policy Waxman had just briefed the OSCE conference in Warsaw, 
Kozak added, and he was available to meet UN rapporteurs. 
However, rapporteurs would not get access to Guantanamo or 
coalition prisoners in Iraq due to security concerns.  ICRC 
reps have access, he added.  Amb. Kozak concluded by 
informing EUDel that many Guantanamo detainees have been 
released, while about 200 cannot be released because they are 
considered dangerous.  Of the rest, some have requested 
asylum for fear of reprisal at home, while others cannot 
travel because their home countries have rejected them. 
 
EU PROPOSAL TO SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS 
 
17.  (C) The EUDel announced that the EU would soon task its 
embassies world wide to implement a new program to encourage 
support for HR defenders.  The program will include a 
handbook designed to train field officers, who are often more 
junior colleagues in remote posts.  USDel welcomed the effort 
and asked to be invited as Observer to the EU's conference 
for this effort, scheduled to be organized before the end of 
the Dutch Presidency. 
 
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS:  ELECTIONS AND SUPPORT FOR BETTER 
CANDIDATES 
 
18.  (C) The EU does not want the CHR to become a "community 
of good guys," de Klerk noted, observing a meeting of 
"angels" would not serve the purpose of the CHR to educate 
and guide the world community.  Kozak said that increasing to 
40 over this year's 32 democracies among the CHR's 53 members 
would improve its work.  "We want to avoid the spoilers," he 
agreed.  The Democracy Caucus would be a good forum to 
promote and encourage nations committed to the CHR's purposes 
to run for election to it, DAS Lagon said.  To encourage 
smaller, nascent democracies to stand for election, it might 
be useful to offer their missions administrative or 
substantive support in Geneva, US and EUDels discussed on the 
margins. 
SOBEL