India refused to succumb to US pressure to condemn Zimbabwe elections- Wikileaks

India refused to endorse a statement by the Community of Democracies condemning Zimbabwe’s 2008 elections which appeared to have been spearheaded by the United States and went on to withdraw its support for a Diplomat’s Handbook which it had earlier endorsed.

According to the latest cable from Wikileaks the United States was baffled by India’s response because it believed that support from India would have helped to soften a “begrudging but compliant South Africa”.

South African opposed the statement because it felt this would interfere with the delicate efforts of its President Thabo Mbeki to find a peaceful solution to the Zimbabwe crisis.

The United States felt that the statement, if endorsed by India, the world’s biggest democracy, would put pressure on Mbeki to take a more assertive role.

India did not give any reasons for its opposition to the statement but the US cable acknowledged that India had a long history of opposing “country-specific language” in resolutions.

This was demonstrated in its withdrawal from the Diplomat Handbook which had already gone to print. According to the cable India was the chair of the working group out of which the handbook emerged.

India withdrew its endorsement of the handbook because in one case study there was mention of Burma/Myanmar. India said it no longer recognised the old name, Burma.

It also objected to a study entitled: Belarus: Europe’s Last Dictator saying this was an insult to the sovereignty of Belarus. In another case there was mention of Taiwan. India said there was no such country.

Full cable:

Viewing cable 08STATE62767, DEMARCHE REQUEST: INDIA’S ROLE IN THE COMMUNITY

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

VZCZCXYZ0014

PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #2767 1631350

ZNR UUUUU ZZH

P R 111340Z JUN 08

FM SECSTATE WASHDC

TO RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 0000

INFO RUEHSB/AMEMBASSY HARARE 0000

RUEHLI/AMEMBASSY LISBON 0000

RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 0000

RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA 0000

RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0000

UNCLAS STATE 062767

SENSITIVE

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A

TAGS: KDEM PGOV PREL PHUM UNGA IN ZI SF PO CA

SUBJECT: DEMARCHE REQUEST: INDIA’S ROLE IN THE COMMUNITY

OF DEMOCRACIES

¶1. (U) This is an action request. Please see paragraph 3.

SUMMARY

——-

¶2. (SBU) India has a longstanding position at the UN against

the use of country-specific language in resolutions and it

seems they are extending that position to statements issued

by the Community of Democracies (CD). India has been

particularly unhelpful on efforts to issue a statement on the

situation in Zimbabwe; an appropriate high-level approach may

be helpful in obtaining India’s support, which would be very

useful in drawing along a begrudging but compliant South

Africa. To urge further action on Zimbabwe, we have taken

the following actions: the U.S. delegation to the CD has

asked India for an explanation of its position and included

the issue in President Bush’s brief for his meeting with PM

Singh on the sidelines of the G-8. Thus far the Indian

delegation maintains its unhelpful stance, objecting to the

statement without explanation. Additionally, India’s recent

decision to remove its Foreign Secretary’s endorsement for

the CD’s Diplomat’s Handbook, a successful initiative that

has been in the works for well over one year and has been

widely praised by CD members, calls into question the GOI’s

commitment to the efforts and principles of the Community.

After the strong support India had thus far displayed for the

Handbook and the recent reversal, it may be possible that the

Indian delegation in Washington did not adequately report on

the project throughout the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA)

in earlier stages. An explanation of India’s decision on

Zimbabwe, its recent reversal on the handbook, and its intent

for future cooperation on CD projects would be useful.

OBJECTIVES

———-

¶3. (U) Post is requested to pursue the following objectives:

— Ascertain India’s reasons for not supporting the statement

on Zimbabwe. Though we understand that India opposes the

statement, we have not heard any particular reasons either

publicly or privately. Other CD members have shared with us

their confusion about India’s position on this matter. No

other country has objected in writing as the Portuguese

procedure required: Others like Mongolia, the Czech

Republic, and El Salvador are publicly supportive while South

Korea and Morocco are privately supportive. We would find

India’s constructive comments helpful in advancing the

ability of the CD to play an effective role in supporting

democratic elections in Zimbabwe.

— Urge India’s support for a Community of Democracies

Statement on the election crisis in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is

undergoing an urgent crisis over its elections. As

democracies, we ought to urge Zimbabwe to end the violence

and establish a level playing field for the runoff election.

This situation goes to the core of what CD is about — the

promotion and protection of democratic institutions and

processes. Even South Africa, which did not like the

proposed statement, said it would not block the CG from

issuing it. Zimbabwe’s actions June 5, when police forces

detained British and U.S. diplomats at the outskirts of

Harare, and characterized their elections observations in the

north as “criminal,” is indicative of the true attitude of

the Mugabe regime toward democracy.

— Remind India of our shared commitments under the CD to

protect democracies under threat. The CD is a forum distinct

from the UN, and one designed specifically to bring

democracies together to assist one another – and to offer

examples of good governance. Cooperation on CD issues has

been discussed at several Summits with President Bush and PM

Singh and the high level Global Issues Forum. India’s

opposition to the CD statement is not in the spirit of our

commitments in Warsaw or our countries’ bilateral talks.

— Query India as to its reasons for the sudden withdrawal of

Foreign Secretary Menon’s endorsement for the Diplomat’s

Handbook, which it had previously supported during the GOI’s

strong leadership of the Working Group for Democratic

Governance and Civil Society in the run up to the Bamako

Ministerial last year.

REPORTING DEADLINE

——————

¶4. (U) Embassy is requested to report results of efforts by

cable to DRL/MLGA Laura Jordan, G Joaquin Ferrao, and SCA/INA

Madeeha Ashraf before June 16.

BACKGROUND

———-

¶5. (SBU) At the May 5 meeting of the Convening Group (CG),

we circulated a draft statement on the situation in Zimbabwe

and urged the CG to issue it on behalf of the Community of

Democracies. The U.S. delegation argued Zimbabwe is

undergoing a clear crisis over its elections, and that free

and fair elections are at the core of what CD is about. The

heart of the CD lies in the Warsaw commitments — to promote

and defend democracy, especially in situations such as

Zimbabwe. It would be detrimental to its mission if the CD

remained silent. As democracies, the CD member states ought

to urge Zimbabwe to end the violence and establish a level

playing field for the runoff election, particularly by

allowing international monitors. At a special Convening

Group meeting May 23 to further discuss the possible CD

statement on the situation in Zimbabwe, our delegation

offered an updated version for consideration, expressed

openness to changes in the document that could make the

declaration more meaningful and current, and asked that

delegations express their thoughts on the matter quickly to

enable us to identify a way forward.

¶6. (SBU) India privately reached out to Portugal shortly

after the draft statement was first proposed to ascertain the

level of support for the text; when Portugal noted South

Africa’s reservations due to Mbeki’s role as the SADC

mediator, India then expressed reservations for unstated

reasons. Since the May 23 meeting, India issued its

opposition to the statement in writing and asked that the

statement not be issued, but did not provide its reasons for

opposing the statement. India has been mostly opposed to

country-specific actions in multilateral fora, preferring

instead thematic approaches to human rights problems. (Note:

India played the key obstructionist role last fall, when the

CD tried – and failed – to issue a statement condemning the

Government of Burma’s crackdown on peaceful democracy

activists and Buddhist monks. However in 2003 the CD did

manage to issue a statement on Burma. At the Human Rights

Council’s March 2008 Session, India attempted to water down

the resolution on Burma. End Note.)

¶7. (SBU) South Africa’s position is that the current

proposed statement would interfere with the delicate efforts

of President Mbeki to help find a peaceful resolution to the

election crisis. Privately, South Africa says it is

concerned about having tough language in the declaration

because it believes it would undermine its role as a

mediator. We have been publicly supportive of SADC’s

mediation role and of South African President Mbeki as the

designated SADC facilitator, but privately we have encouraged

him to take a more active role. Mbeki deserves credit for

helping improve the conduct of the elections, but his efforts

have not prevented post-election manipulation of the results

or the descent into runoff-related violence. Mbeki has been

subjected to harsh domestic criticism on Zimbabwe and the

Zimbabwean opposition has “fired” him as facilitator, which

puts his ability to continue in this role in question. We

think the Convening Group should issue the statement on

Zimbabwe, since for us it is a more neutral way to increase

public pressure on Mbeki and South Africa to take a more

assertive position, and since the statement supports SADC’s

leading role in addressing the Zimbabwe crisis.

¶8. (SBU) Separately, India requested May 29 in a private

meeting with NGO Council for a Community of Democracies (CCD)

the removal of its Foreign Secretary’s endorsement in the

frontispiece to the Diplomat’s Handbook for Democracy

Development Support. The specific reasons given were three:

One case study was entitled Burma/Myanmar. CCD was told

India no longer recognizes the old name Burma. One case

study was entitled “Belarus: Europe’s Last Dictator?”

Apparently, India regards that reference as an insult to the

sovereignty of Belarus. Taiwan was mentioned (CCD said it is

mentioned twice, once in the Resource list under Taiwan

Foundation for Democracy) in the Handbook. India’s position

is that there is no such country. CCD notes their

understanding that even if they had made modifications to the

handbook the FS’s decision was not reversible. This came as

the Diplomat’s Handbook launched May 30 in final form on

www.diplomatshandbook.org and went to print the same day.

India was the chair of the working group out of which the

Diplomat’s Handbook emerged in the run-up to the Bamako

Ministerial; Canadian retired diplomat Jeremy Kinsman led the

effort with the help of CCD and Princeton University to

develop, publish and promote the book. FSI recently

announced its intent to purchase 400 copies of the book to

use in training of U.S. diplomats. CCD notified us that they

were able to remove FS Menon’s remarks from the book before

it went to print.

POINT OF CONTACT

—————-

¶9. (U) Please contact DRL/MLGA Laura Jordan at (202)

647-3088 or via e-mail for any necessary further background

information or argumentation to meet our objectives.

RICE

(103 VIEWS)