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

UNCLAS PARIS 001857 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
FOR IO/T BOOTH, EB/TPP/MTA/MST DOWNES, L/EUR OLSON 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SCUL ETRD UNESCO
SUBJECT: EC MAKES NEW PITCH ON CULTURAL DIVERSITY 
CONVENTION 
 
¶1. SUMMARY:  DCM Koss and I attended a lunch March 19 hosted 
by Luxembourg ambassador to UNESCO Hubert Wurth.  Wurth, who 
was acting for the EU presidency, also included his deputy 
and Xavier Troussard of the Culture and Education Division 
of the European Commission.  Lunch discussion focused on the 
UNESCO cultural diversity convention.  Highlights of the 
discussion included EC insistence that the convention must 
be "complementary" and not subordinate to other 
international obligations and that the proposed convention 
would not contradict existing trade agreements.  Troussard 
also gave a lengthy explanation of why the word "protect" 
should not be defined in the convention.  At the end of the 
lunch Wurth gave us a copy of the draft resolution on EC 
participation in cultural diversity negotiations to be 
discussed at the next UNESCO Executive Board in April.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. Troussard remarked that most of the horizontal issues in 
the draft cultural diversity convention are related to 
article 19 (the relationship of the convention to other 
international instruments).  He insisted that the proposed 
cultural diversity convention would be complementary to 
other agreements and that no country would want to use it to 
erect trade barriers.  Troussard also averred that any 
country adopting a policy that limits the choice of cultural 
expressions would not be acting in the spirit of the 
convention. 
 
¶3. Troussard was categorical that the word protect must not 
be defined in the convention.  According to the EC Rep, a 
definition is not necessary since the word has no trade 
connotations.  The EC believes the definition will be 
implicit in the rights and obligations clause of the 
convention. "He also felt that the principles of respect for 
human rights and openness are embodied in the convention and 
therefore a definition is unnecessary." 
 
¶4. We were also unable to reach agreement on the criteria 
for a "cultural" good.  Troussard was adamant that 
agricultural products do not have a cultural component.  His 
view on the matter could be boiled down to "you'll know a 
cultural good when you see it." 
 
¶5. During the discussion I mentioned US concern that the 
proposed dispute resolution mechanism would turn UNESCO into 
a dispute resolution body.  (Neither Troussard nor Wurth 
responded to this.)  I also asked what prevents nations from 
acting now to preserve their culture (again, no good 
answer).  Lastly, I emphasized the difference between a 
declaration and a convention, and that since a convention is 
a binding commitment on governments, there must be a clarity 
on scope, objectives, and terms. 
 
¶6. Before leaving, Wurth handed us a copy of a draft 
resolution for the upcoming executive committee meeting 
(copy already faxed to IO/T).  The resolution seeks full 
participation for the EC at the next round of negotiations, 
including the right to sit behind its own nameplate and to 
speak in its own name at the same time as the members of 
UNESCO.  The resolution does not seek voting rights for the 
EC. 
 
¶7.  Comment:  It cannot be said it was a dialogue of the 
deaf, but it is clear from the discussion that we are far 
apart from the EC on many issues.  The Commission has strong 
views on several sensitive topics.  It will take a lot of 
hard negotiating and continued dialogue to find the common 
ground that will allow for a convention we can accept. 
Oliver