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

181504Z Aug 05

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 005573 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO 
STATE FOR IO/T, ECA CRAVEN/FARRELL 
STATE PLEASE PASS TO ROBIN GILCHRIST, DEPT. 
EDUCATION 
 
E.O. 12958:     N/A 
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO
SUBJECT:  USUNESCO: CROSS-WISE ON BORDER?  NEW PUSH 
FOR CONVENTION LIKELY AT GENERAL CONFERENCE DEBATE 
ON GUIDELINES FOR "QUALITY PROVISION IN CROSS-BORDER 
HIGHER EDUCATION" 
 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY: After a year of discussion and drafting 
meetings, the UNESCO/OECD non-binding guidelines for 
cross border quality provision in higher education 
went before the 171st UNESCO Executive Board for its 
blessing and instead got sidelined for further 
discussion at the upcoming General Conference in 
October. A subsequent agreement by UNESCO and the 
OECD to fix procedural errors so the guidelines 
could be considered for formal adoption at the 2007 
General Conference fell apart in late July when 
Director-General Matsuura decided instead to 
recommend adopting a "secretariat" document that 
incorporates the views of any member states that 
felt left out of the year-long drafting process. 
This about-face caught the new ADG/Education Peter 
Smith off guard as the Director-General acted 
without consulting him first. Matsuura did consult 
with the Japanese delegation which strongly favors 
the DG's approach that will opens up the text at the 
General for comment by any of the 191 member states. 
And this raises the possibility that those agitating 
all along for a legally-binding convention instead - 
such as the 29-million-member Education 
International union - could get their way.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  Prior to UNESCO's 171st Executive Board in April 
2005, the joint UNESCO/OECD guidelines for quality 
provision in cross-border higher education had wound 
through a year-long drafting process at UNESCO 
headquarters in Paris and at a meeting in Tokyo. 
Not long before the UNESCO Executive Board began, 
the OECD approved the text as it stood after the 
last round of comments that ended March 15.  In that 
round, the U.S. offered no further suggestions, and 
that was duly noted in documents considered by the 
OECD. 
 
¶3. Before the April meeting, however, a little drama 
erupted backstage at UNESCO when someone -- 
suggestions were that it was the Legal Adviser's 
Office -- tried to change the wording of the 
document before it went to the printers in ways that 
would have made the guidelines more binding and 
regulatory.  USDel expressed displeasure when this 
was learned - as did Japan - and the Secretariat 
scrambled to solve the problem. 
 
¶4.  Going into the Executive Board's debate on the 
Cross-Border guidelines, USDel's instructions were 
to emphasize the voluntary nature of the guidelines 
and clarify the procedures for endorsement at the 
next General Conference in the fall. 
 
¶5. During the debate in the program committee, 
UNESCO's legal adviser said the correct procedure 
had not been followed for the Board to adopt 
official UNESCO guidelines and so, the Executive 
Board had two options.  The first would be to 
recommend that the October 2005 General Conference 
consider whether this issue should be subject to 
"regulation," whether binding or non-binding.  With 
this approach, adoption of the guidelines would be 
postponed until the 2007 general conference at the 
earliest.  Alternatively, the legal adviser said, 
the Executive Board could authorize the secretariat 
to adopt the guidelines and send them to relevant 
institutions for consideration; but in this case - 
absent a General Conference mandate -- they would 
not be official UNESCO guidelines. 
 
¶6. Most delegations agreed that the guidelines 
should be adopted by the October 2005 General 
Conference, given the urgent need to protect 
students and the broad support enjoyed by this 
initiative.   Many states, such as Australia, 
emphasized the importance of non-binding guidelines, 
a theme echoed by Ambassador Oliver who also 
highlighted the importance of cooperation with the 
OECD (which had just approved the draft guidelines 
without any attempt to alter the non-binding nature 
of them.) Noting that the guidelines were meant to 
be informal, rather than regulatory, the Ambassador 
asked that language to that effect be included in 
the draft decision. 
 
¶7.  Ultimately, the draft decision invited "the 
Director General to inscribe on the provisional 
agenda of the 33rd session of the General Conference 
an item with a view to the further discussion of the 
non-binding draft guidelines," according to the 
UNESCO document "Decisions of the Executive Board." 
 
¶8. In June, new ADG/Education Peter Smith and the 
OECD's head of education Barry McGaw met and agreed 
that the guidelines would proceed through a formal 
process that would satisfy the UNESCO lawyers and 
then return to the 2007 General Conference for 
adoption by the member states. 
 
¶9. In late July, however, the Director-General told 
Smith that he had decided that the best approach was 
to go the route of a "secretariat" document. 
According to Smith, the discussion came after the 
Director-General had already made his wishes known 
to others in the organization and the new document 
with the new draft decision was sent to press. The 
lack of prior consultation with the ADG/Education 
was confirmed when USDel spoke with legal advisor 
John Donaldson who already knew of the DG's decision 
when contacted by us. Specifically, the draft 
decision, as it now stands, will invite the Director- 
General to issue guidelines taking the member 
states' thoughts into account. 
 
¶10. Smith spoke with the OECD's Barry McGaw and came 
away with the impression that this approach is 
acceptable to the OECD. 
 
¶11. Comment:  This new development raises a number 
of issues. Any way we approach this - either with a 
secretariat document or by starting down the road of 
 
SIPDIS 
formal codification at the 2007 General Conference - 
there is the risk that those still agitating for 
binding rules and, ideally in their eyes, a legally 
binding international convention will get the upper 
hand.  We will now most likely hear from those who 
view these guidelines as the first step toward a 
convention that would block for-profit educational 
providers from operating internationally and that 
would interfere with educational trade issues 
currently being negotiated at the World Trade 
Organization (WTO).  End comment. 
 
¶12. One of the loudest voices agitating for a 
convention is also one with the motive and the 
opportunity to force a convention upon UNESCO: the 
29-million-member Education International (EI) union 
that claims 348 organizations in 166 countries.  At 
an EI "mobilization" meeting held at UNESCO in 
April, Georges Haddad, the director of UNESCO's 
Higher Education division, joined the line up of 
speakers. One speaker called for stronger action in 
what he described as a "clash of values"  between 
the good ("those who see education as a public 
service") and the bad ("those who look at it as a 
commercial service.") Comments from the participants 
indicated they don't see room for both. Speakers 
warned of such dangers as American-based University 
of Phoenix and Sylvan learning centers that they 
branded as guilty of being for-profit providers. 
 
¶13. A participant from Morocco proclaimed that "EI 
(Education International) must stand firm" and added 
that Africa and the Arab States face the greatest 
risk - a theme that others from Africa repeated 
throughout the two-day discussion. Another 
participant, speaking of the draft cross-border 
guidelines, expressed "hope this is a stepping stone 
to get a real instrument." 
 
¶14. The "real instrument" they envision is spelled 
out in EI's July 2004 "Resolution for a New 
International Instrument for Higher Education" that 
cuts a wide swath in the pattern of the on-going 
cultural diversity debate.  The text can be found at 
 
 
¶15. The EI resolution ends with a call to its 
members and affiliates "to prepare a draft of the 
new instrument" and "to campaign and lobby for the 
adoption of the new instrument." 
 
¶16. There is a risk that a secretariat document 
could cause the same problems as the Millennium 
Development Goals where UN employees took the seven 
principles approved by the member states, tacked on 
a rather significant eighth goal on aid 
harmonization that none of the countries debated or 
adopted. 
 
¶17. But a positive aspect of a secretariat document 
in this instance would be to keep it as informal 
suggestions of best practices. Our argument all 
along against binding rules has been that the 
purpose of these guidelines is to share what we know 
about providers of educational services through such 
means as a web portal to help countries make 
informed choices and to thwart rogue operators. This 
is especially true in developing countries that are 
most often the targets of scam operations. 
 
¶18. By taking the route of a secretariat document, 
we help countries strengthen their education systems 
without stifling the flow of information and ideas. 
We avoid two more years of discussion in the context 
of formal codification and instead have what is 
clearly labeled a menu of opportunities for 
countries to tailor to what will help them 
strengthen education in their own countries. And we 
can highlight examples such as Nigeria to diffuse 
the idea of a convention 
 
¶19. During meetings at the Institute of 
International Education Planning at UNESCO on June 
13 and 14, education experts from around the world 
discussed the cross-border quality issue. And during 
that discussion we saw an example of the positive 
outcomes that can happen when suggested good codes 
of practice are made available and countries can 
then tailor them to their needs -- the very point 
the United States and other member states have made 
in resisting those who want strict, inflexible rules 
dictated to countries. 
 
¶20. Peter Okebukola, the Executive Secretary of 
Nigeria's National Universities Commission, said 
they had been inspired by the UNESCO/OECD draft 
guidelines and have already used them to develop 
Nigeria's own rules for quality provision. 
 
¶21. COMMENT.  This further bolsters our case against 
the growing trend of McConventions at UNESCO - 
legally binding documents with profound implications 
for the world community that are slapped together by 
non-lawyers like Big Macs on a conveyor belt. UNESCO 
can be encouraged to seize this as an opportunity to 
get out ahead and promote these best practices, 
inspiring more countries to take the initiative as 
Nigeria is doing, and harnessing the collective 
strength of the member states to form a flying wedge 
of progress toward UNESCO's goals instead of getting 
tangled in issues outside its mandate that deplete 
energy, resources and credibility. END COMMENT. 
 
KOSS