This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 003027 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR IO, IO/T, EUR/ECA, L/EUR, L/UNA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SCUL ETRD UNESCO
SUBJECT:  USUNESCO:  OUTCOME OF EXECUTIVE BOARD DECISION ON 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION PARTICIPATION IN CULTURAL DIVERSITY 
NEGOTIATIONS 
 
REF:  PARIS 02231 (NOTAL) 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  The EU continues to focus on UNESCO as a 
place to enhance its influence in United Nations 
organizations.  Following the rebuff last fall of the EU's 
attempts to gain a seat at the table during ongoing 
negotiations on a cultural diversity convention, the EU was 
back at it during UNESCO's most recent Executive Board 
meeting which ended April 29.  While the final draft 
resolution gave the EU much less than they wanted, they 
still succeeded in gaining more than they had before.  The 
resolution says that the EC "while maintaining its observer 
status" will remain seated at the back of the hall with 
other observers during the next round of negotiations (May 
23-June 4) but will not be subject to the same rules 
observers must follow on when and how much they can address 
the meeting.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Negotiations on the Draft Convention on the 
Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Contents and 
Artistic Expressions (also known as the cultural diversity 
convention) began in the fall of 2004.  A second round of 
talks was held in February and there will be another later 
this month. 
 
¶3. (SBU) During last fall's meeting of UNESCO's biannual 
Executive Board, European Union members on the board 
submitted a draft resolution seeking enhanced observer 
status at future negotiations.  Claiming that EU member 
states had transferred competency in several areas-trade, 
free movement of people, and intellectual property rights-to 
the European Community, they asserted a need for a seat at 
the table.  The EU members had not done their homework and 
ended up withdrawing the resolution in the face of a 
maelstrom of negative reactions. 
 
¶4. (SBU) As a result of the resolution's failure to pass, 
European Commission representatives were "embedded" in the 
delegation of the EU presidency (Luxembourg) during the 
February round of negotiations.  Most member states felt 
that this approach worked well; the EC was able to present 
its positions without a problem. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Since the beginning of this year, the EU member 
states on the Board have again been pushing the 
participation issue strongly.  They prepared another draft 
resolution for the spring Executive Board and began intense 
lobbying of national delegations at UNESCO and in capitals. 
We cited one example of their efforts reftel where the 
Jamaican ambassador received new instructions to support the 
EU after lobbying in her capital. 
 
¶6. (SBU) The Executive Board's Special Committee was the 
first to look at the EU's draft resolution.  When the 
Committee was unable to reach consensus, it referred the 
matter to a working group headed by the Indian ambassador to 
UNESCO.  The Indian Ambassador, working with Uruguay and 
Brazil, came up with a chairman's text.  Despite the lack of 
consensus on this text, it was referred to the plenary and 
was readily embraced by EU states that substituted it as a 
new version of their draft resolution.  The operant language 
of this text states that "the European Community, while 
maintaining its observer status, may actively participate in 
the same manner as full participants in the work of the 
Intergovernmental Meeting of Experts, excluding the right to 
vote." 
 
¶7. (SBU) With sentiment seeming to coalesce around this 
version and the likelihood that the EU would prevail in a 
vote, the US delegation, assisted by US Mission Geneva Legal 
Advisor Michael Peay, engaged in last-minute negotiations 
with the EU.  The operant language of the final version of 
the resolution (cleared by IO and EUR) reads: (para 3)(The 
Executive Board) invites, on an exceptional basis, the 
European Community, while maintaining its observer status, 
to participate actively and as fully as appropriate in the 
work of the Intergovernmental Meeting of Experts (May 25 - 4 
June 2005). 
 
(para 4) Recommends that the General Conference, at its 33rd 
session, take this decision into account with respect to its 
consideration of the item related to the Preliminary Draft 
Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural 
Contents and Artistic Expressions. 
 
¶8. (SBU) This version was introduced to the plenary by the 
Indian ambassador as a consensus text.  After adoption, the 
UK ambassador read a clarifying statement: (AK note-need to 
get proper language here) 
 
"The Decision refers to active participation of the European 
Community as fully as appropriate. 
 
The European Union considers that this active participation 
shall consist, within negotiation of the convention, of the 
ability to speak as other participants.  Such active 
participation shall also consist of the ability to reply, to 
put forward proposals and amendments on issues for which it 
has competence at the formal meetings.  It shall also 
include the ability to take part in the discussion of 
procedural issues within the context of the Draft Cultural 
Diversity Convention and the ability to take part in the 
committees, working groups, formal or informal meetings set 
up in the course of the work relating to negotiation of this 
Convention.  The European Community shall have its own 
nameplate. 
 
The European Community may not chair committees or sub- 
committees or serve as Rapporteur unless there is full 
consensus.  The European Community shall not have the right 
vote nor break or block consensus. 
 
Furthermore, European Community participation does not mean 
an additional voice.  Indeed, the European Community decides 
in internal coordination whether the Presidency of the 
Council will speak on an issue on behalf of the Community 
and its member states.  During this process, we have been 
open to providing further explanations concerning 
competences of the Community as regards the draft Convention 
whenever it speaks and we will continue to do so." 
 
¶9. (SBU) The Australian Ambassador asked that the UK 
Ambassador's statement be put verbatim in the records of the 
meeting.  The Russian Ambassador also asked for a clear 
articulation of EU competencies. 
 
10.(SBU) Comment. Most delegations at UNESCO told us they 
were really pleased with the outcome.  They dreaded a vote 
and many told us they hated being caught between the US and 
the EU.  We repeatedly made the point that this was not 
about the US vs. the EU, that this was about broader 
principles of UNESCO and UN governance.  We were 
disappointed that so few states were willing to confront the 
EU's egregious over reaching.  Most of the responses to IO's 
demarche on this subject showed support in capitals for the 
US position, but that did not translate into support on the 
ground.  We also were disappointed with the unwillingness of 
countries like Australia and Russia to address the issue 
until after the US delegation had finished with all the 
heavy lifting. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Comment continued.  While we avoided a vote that 
would have been a clear win for the EU, we are not entirely 
satisfied with the outcome.  Though their participation 
remains heavily circumscribed, the EU gained more than they 
had going into the meeting, and no matter how many times 
they deny this will be a precedent, it will be a precedent. 
 
¶12. (SBU) Comment continued.  An interesting source of quiet 
support during this period has come from EU delegations that 
indicated they were so tired of EC bullying and over reach 
on this issue that they hoped the resolution would be voted 
down.   The message came over as save us from ourselves.  We 
were told that many EU members also did not want a vote and 
resisted a strong French push for a vote. 
 
¶12. (SBU)Comment (continued).  This will not be the last 
time the EU will come knocking on the door.  We see this as 
one more in a series of attempts by the EU to gain the same 
rights as member states in UN organizations.  UNESCO is a 
great place to start because so many delegations operate 
without instructions from their capital or (as in the case 
of Morocco) are free to operate as they wish.  The language 
in the resolution about referring this matter to the General 
Conference in October will likely lead to a reprise of this 
debate when the issue of who can sign the cultural diversity 
convention will probably be raised.  End comment. 
 
OLIVER