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

UNCLAS PARIS 000431 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
E.O. 12958:    N/A 
TAGS: KPAO ECPS ETRD ECON EINT ETTC UNESCO
SUBJECT:  UNESCO AMBASSADORS ON POST WSIS SCENE 
¶1.   (SBU) SUMMARY:  Ambassador David A. Gross, U.S. 
Coordinator for International Communication and 
Information Policy and U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO Louise 
¶V. Oliver met with a select group of UNESCO 
Ambassadors, including members of the Information for 
 
All Programme Council, to exchange views on Internet 
Governance and WSIS outcomes at Ambassador Oliver's 
residence on January 19, 2006.  In a discussion of what 
UNESCO's role might be, UNESCO Ambassadors expressed 
frustration at the low level of acceptance for UNESCO 
initiatives within the UN family and the difficulty of 
asserting UNESCO's core competencies within the UN 
system.  With regard to WSIS, they also asked about the 
image of UNESCO at the Tunis Summit, the EU position on 
the process towards "enhanced cooperation", the Athens 
meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, and the 
disappointing treatment of journalists and NGO leaders 
by the Tunisian government in November 2005.  The 
Belgian Ambassador to UNESCO, Philippe Kridelka, noted 
the importance of standard setting at UNESCO in order 
to "rein in globalization" and expressed hope that the 
UNESCO Director General would soon permit discussion of 
new instruments.  A list of Ambassadors in attendance 
is included at the end of this cable. 
--------------------------------------------- - 
UNESCO:  FOREVER A WEAK LINK IN THE UN SYSTEM? 
--------------------------------------------- - 
¶2. (SBU)  The Austrian Ambassador, Harald Wiesner 
noting his country's current EU Presidency, stated that 
whenever a hot issue emerges within the UN system, the 
UN in New York often assumes the lead, leaving UNESCO 
and others out of the picture.  He then asked 
Ambassador Gross what his opinion was of overlapping 
jurisdictions in the UN system.  The Czech Republic 
Ambassador Irena Moozova and Indian Ambassador Bhaswati 
Mukherjee also posed similar questions.  The Czech 
Republic noted that UNESCO had responsibility for 8 
WSIS action lines, but asked how labor would be divided 
since UNESCO shared these responsibilities with others. 
For example, the Czech Ambassador stated, UNESCO should 
have the lead in implementing the Education for All 
Programme but it often appeared to hesitate.  India, 
referring to its long attempts to drag a WIPO debate on 
copyright issues into UNESCO, (The Rome Convention for 
the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms 
and Broadcasting Organizations) stated flatly that 
certain mandates of UNESCO are poached upon by other UN 
organizations.  Ambassador Jean Gueguinou of France 
pointed out that Secretary General Annan was near the 
end of his second term, and speculated that he would 
not be inclined to make hard decisions on turf battles 
pertaining to WSIS follow up, or otherwise.  The Dutch 
Ambassador, Charlotte van Schaik-Zaaijer, bluntly 
stated that the real question was a lack of acceptance 
within the UN family for UNESCO-led initiatives. 
¶3.  (SBU) Ambassador Gross acknowledged that there is a 
"contest" within the UN family for issues and then 
introduced the question of how the Internet Governance 
Forum (IGF) might take shape, noting that Canada 
supported Markus Kumar.  In a nod to the Hungarian 
Ambassador in attendance, he cited Budapest's proposal 
on the table, and also mentioned past industry-driven 
initiatives to house the IGF in Paris. 
¶4. (SBU)  In response to inquiries about other UN 
bodies poaching on UNESCO territory, Ambassador Gross 
clarified that with respect to WSIS, negotiators on the 
final document gave UN member states an important tool 
by being clear that they were not looking to any 
specific organization to expand its mandate and by 
clarifying which agencies had a role to play in each 
WSIS Action line.  The Tunis agenda did not order 
anyone to do anything, he stated.  He noted that the 
document also called on high-level negotiators to 
coordinate in order to avoid duplication among UN 
bodies.  He reminded the group that working out core 
competencies and applying pressure to avoid duplication 
was ultimately up to member states, acknowledging that 
each member state has its own favorite member of the UN 
family.  At the same time, he cautioned that UNESCO 
should be careful not to overreach and end up with even 
less than it wanted.  (COMMENT:  It appears that 
between the lines, UNESCO Ambassadors might have been 
suggesting that the United States put its trust back 
into UNESCO and defend its core mandates vis-a-vis 
other UN bodies.  This step seems unlikely, given our 
recent battles over cultural diversity.  During our 20 
year absence, many issues that might have been 
addressed at UNESCO were addressed elsewhere, perhaps 
to the dissatisfaction of some member states.   END 
COMMENT.) 
¶5.  (SBU) Ambassador Zhang Xuezhong of China inquired 
about the image of UNESCO at Tunis, noting that he had 
heard that it had not been a very visible actor. 
Ambassador Gross responded that it was not, but that no 
specific member of the UN family was.  WSIS, he stated, 
was very member state driven.  The exception to this 
was the European Commission as a single actor 
representing its 25 members, he noted.  The private 
sector also did not play a large role, he added, 
because WSIS was viewed as an intergovernmental 
negotiation process.  He stated that it now was time 
for member states to focus on UNESCO's core 
competencies - education and the free flow of 
information - as UNESCO claimed its role.   Ambassador 
Oliver suggested that UNESCO's role might encourage 
deeper cross-sectoral cooperation, especially with 
regard to ICTs and education. 
------------------------------------ 
EU: MESSAGE ON ENHANCED COOPERATION 
------------------------------------ 
¶6.  (SBU)  The Ambassador of the Netherlands to UNESCO 
asked how Gross' latest talks with the European Union 
proceeded.  Ambassador Gross explained to the audience, 
which included 8 EU member states, that there were 
differences in how the term "enhanced cooperation", 
referring to the language of the Tunis Agenda adopted 
at WSIS, was interpreted.  Some in the European 
Commission, he noted, saw this as a need for a new 
intergovernmental mechanism to address Internet 
governance issues.  The U.S., he added, strongly 
disagreed and interpreted the language as referring to 
the use of existing organizations.  Nobody wants to 
renegotiate the agreements from WSIS, he said, so it is 
time to look to existing organizations and their 
mandates.  This was, he noted, a reason why UNESCO was 
so important. 
------------------------- 
INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM 
------------------------- 
¶7.  The French Ambassador to UNESCO asked whether all 
questions raised at Tunis would be discussed at the 
first meeting of the IGF in Athens in the fall of 2006, 
or just the question of Internet governance. 
Ambassador Gross responded that once the forum's 
secretariat is established and a bureau is selected, 
 
SIPDIS 
then the multi-stakeholder bureau would set the agenda. 
He noted that there was a general sense that it would 
not be worthwhile to re-hash WSIS battles, and 
emphasized that the IGF was not a decision making or 
oversight body, but a place to exchange information. 
-------------------- 
REPRESSION IN TUNIS 
-------------------- 
¶8.  Ambassador Hans Heinrich Wrede of Germany expressed 
concern at the Tunisian treatment of NGO activists and 
journalists during the WSIS summit, and regretted that 
media coverage of this overshadowed reporting on the 
event itself, especially in the European press.   At 
the very least, many agreed, it had been useful to 
shine a light on the practices of the Tunisian 
government.  However, the Ambassadors acknowledged that 
is a privilege for a country to host a UN event, and 
accordingly, basic principles of the UN, such as human 
rights, should be respected.  Ambassador Gross noted 
that the U.S. had been outspoken on these issues at the 
Summit, including a statement during the plenary 
speech. 
--------------------------------- 
UNESCO:  A STANDARD SETTER AGAIN? 
--------------------------------- 
¶9.  (SBU)  The Belgian Ambassador noted that his 
government shared in the success at WSIS.  While ICANN 
was doing a good job, he said, a forum was needed to 
discuss views and identify social aspects and 
principles.  The recent Convention on Cultural 
Diversity, he stated, showed that standard setting at 
UNESCO in order to "rein in globalization" was 
important.  He expressed hope that the Director General 
would soon allow further work on standard setting and 
regretted his current call for a moratorium on new 
instruments. Ambassador Gross responded that he hoped 
it would be years before UNESCO even considered new 
instruments.  (COMMENT:  The subtext of the Belgian 
Ambassador's comments here suggests a view that the 
only way to get UNESCO to matter in the international 
system is through setting standards and creating new 
instruments.  END COMMENT.)  He then asked how UNESCO 
could link its mandate on education to WSIS, and 
expressed concern on whether UNESCO's Assistant 
Director General for Education, Peter Smith (Amcit) 
would be able to reform the education sector. 
¶10. (SBU)  COMMENT:  The discussion, intended to cover 
Internet Governance and WSIS implementation, revealed a 
surprising level of frustration among UNESCO 
Ambassadors with the organization's role and its 
reputation within the UN system.  At the same time, the 
Ambassadors expressed hope that UNESCO could claim a 
role on education and media freedom in post-WSIS 
implementation.   We observed that there were no 
questions on how UNESCO would follow up with the WSIS 
Action line on ethical dimensions of the information 
society, as Ambassadors appeared more focused on the 
IGF and the role of UNESCO in the UN system. 
Ambassador Gross's emphasis on a more activist role for 
member states in promoting the core competencies of UN 
bodies and better coordination within the UN family to 
avoid duplication was well received, and Mission looks 
forward to hosting more events for senior USG officials 
to demonstrate to our UNESCO audience that the USG is 
in listening mode and genuinely wants to exchange views 
on UNESCO issues.  END COMMENT. 
¶11.  (SBU) The guest list is as follows: 
Ambassador Harald Wiesner, Austria 
Ambassador Philippe Kridelka, Belgium 
Ambassador Jean Gueguinou, France 
Ambassador Hector Gros Espiel, Uruguay 
Mrs. Maria Clemencia Lopez-Jimenez, Venezuelan National 
Commission 
Mr. Carlos Herrera, Charge d'Affaires, Peru 
Ms. Linda Te Puni, New Zealand 
Ambassador Yvon Charbonneau, Canada 
Ambassador Hans Heinrich Wrede, Germany 
Ambassador. Maria Wodzynska-Walicka, Poland 
Ambassador Zhang Xuezhong, China 
Ambassador Dr. Sharifah Maimunah Syed Zin, Malaysia 
Ambassador Dr. Shadia Kenawy, Egypt 
Ambassador Bhaswati Mukherjee, India 
Ambassador Numan Hazar, Turkey 
Ambassador Luiz Felipe de Macedo Soares, Brazil 
Mrs. Jane Madden, Australian Deputy Chief of Mission to 
France 
Ambassador Charlotte van Schaik-Zaaijer, Netherlands 
Ambassador Andras Lakatos, Hungary 
Ambassador Irena Moozva, Czech Republic