US embassy cable - 05NEWDELHI2138

C O N F I D E N T I A L NEW DELHI 002138 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/20/2015 
TAGS: PHUM, PREL, IN, Human Rights 
SUBJECT: UNCHR 61: INDIAN OBJECTIVES 
 
REF: STATE 42847 
 
Classified By: PolCouns Geoffrey Pyatt. Reasons 1.4(b,d) 
 
1.  (C) Summary: Poloff delivered the UNCHR 61 demarche 
(Reftel) to MEA Deputy Secretary (UN Economic and Social) 
Gopal Baglay on March 17, and PolCouns double-tracked with 
Joint Secretary (UN) Hamid Ali Rao.  Baglay reiterated that 
the GOI neither supports country-specific resolutions nor 
opposes no-action motions in principle.  Noting that the GOI 
will back a resolution on the right to development again this 
year, he added that India disagrees with the proposal to 
universalize the membership of the CHR as recommended by the 
High Level Panel Report.  We will follow-up on these issues 
at more senior levels before the GOI's Geneva delegation 
departs Delhi approximately March 26.  End Summary. 
 
Polite Disagreement on US Goals 
------------------------------- 
 
2.  (C) Baglay reiterated GOI opposition to Item 9 
country-specific resolutions, including proposed resolutions 
on Cuba and Belarus, alleging that they are 
counterproductive.  India's support for country-specific 
resolutions against apartheid was a unique case.  The GOI 
prefers Item 19 actions first.  Baglay listened to our 
position that Cuba represents a special case and promised to 
pass that message to his superiors. 
 
3.  (C) Baglay similarly demurred from supporting the USG 
position against no-action motions, arguing that they do not 
limit debate, but only indicate that the resolution in 
question was unacceptable to the majority.  He admitted, 
however, that allowing such votes permits each country to 
take a clear stand on the issues. 
 
Indian Goals for UNCHR 61 
------------------------- 
 
4.  (C) Asked about India's broader goals for the session, 
Baglay replied that the GOI did not plan to sponsor any 
resolutions, but would support several that it traditionally 
championed, including one on religious intolerance.  He 
added, however, that the GOI does not support enumerating 
examples of religious intolerance in this resolution, which 
distracts from the general principle. 
 
5.  (C) Baglay noted that India would again support a 
thematic resolution on the right to development, 
traditionally sponsored by Malaysia and the Non-Aligned 
Movement.  Observing that over time this resolution has 
garnered more and more "yes" votes than abstentions from 
Western nations, he stated that India would like to find 
common ground with the US on this question.  Advised that the 
USG prefers to use the CHR to focus on fundamental civil and 
political rights, Baglay responded that India believes that 
economic and social rights can be discussed concurrently. 
 
Nepal and Cuba 
-------------- 
 
6.  (C) Informed of the proposed US resolution on Cuba, 
Baglay promised to draw his superior's attention to the 
minimalist USG position.  On Nepal, the GOI had not decided 
on what course to take regarding the CHR, he said, but its 
response to a Swiss/European proposal would depend on the 
exact text. 
 
7.  (C) Baglay welcomed the establishment of a democracy 
caucus, commenting that this would advance common goals of 
democratic nations.  Universalization of the membership of 
the CHR would be counterproductive, he stated, and India 
therefore opposed such a move. 
MULFORD