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

231526Z Sep 05

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 006534 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SCUL CJAN ETRD UNESCO CA AF AS ID JA RS EG AG CV
SUBJECT: UNESCO EXECUTIVE BOARD PX (PROGRAM AND EXTERNAL 
RELATIONS) COMMITTEE URGES ADOPTION OF PRELIMINARY DRAFT 
CULTURAL DIVERSITY CONVENTION 
 
REF:  STATE 171993 (NOTAL) 
 
¶1.  Summary.   The final vote was 54-1 in the UNESCO 
Executive Board PX Committee for the Canadian-sponsored 
resolution that paves the way for adoption of the current 
preliminary draft Cultural Diversity Convention at the 
October 2005 UNESCO General Conference.   In discussions 
leading up to the vote, however, some reps (Afghanistan, 
Australia, Indonesia, and Japan) strongly urged further 
negotiations.  Russia expressed doubts about the procedure 
concerning the Canadian resolution and Egypt generally 
expressed regret that the current preliminary draft version 
did not address all important issues.  End summary. 
 
¶2.  The Resolution urges UNESCO's Executive Board to 
recommend that the General Conference consider the current 
'preliminary draft' convention as a 'draft' convention and 
to approve it as a final UNESCO Convention at the October 
2005 General Conference.  (Text faxed to IO/UNESCO.)  The 
Canadian Ambassador, in presenting the resolution, said that 
the current June 2005 version of the Convention, when 
adopted, would  'respect' international obligations 'while 
placing the convention on an equal footing with other 
international agreements.' 
 
¶3.  In remarks preceding the vote, the Japanese Ambassador 
said that his country's doubts about some aspects of the 
convention had not yet been overcome.  He stressed that 
Japan did not view this Cultural Diversity Convention as 
superceding rights and obligations derived from other 
international agreements and asked his counterparts to state 
explicitly their agreement with this interpretation in the 
debates.  He concluded by strongly urging further 
negotiations. 
 
¶4.  Australia's representative characterized as 'incoherent' 
the derogation clause of the current preliminary draft 
version (Article 20), pointing to the internally 
inconsistent language on whether the preliminary draft 
Convention could supersede current international 
obligations.  She also expressed reservations about the 
unclear and potentially expansive definition of cultural 
goods and services. 
 
¶5.  Indonesian and Afghan representatives advocated further 
negotiations in order to achieve consensus.  (Note.  Both 
the Indonesian representative, who will likely be the next 
chairman of the Executive Board, and the Ambassador from 
Afghanistan, a long-time UNESCO Secretariat official who 
became Ambassador after retiring from UNESCO, have a strong 
interest in maintaining the tradition of consensus.  End 
note.) 
 
¶6.  The Russian representative objected strongly to the 
'artificially accelerated '  procedure set forth in the 
Canadian resolution, but noted that his country would vote 
for the adoption of the Convention in October. 
 
¶7.  The Egyptian representative noted that the present draft 
Convention did not address all the important issues and 
seemed to favor more negotiation.  (Comment.  In a recess, 
The Algerian Ambassador told poloff that the Egyptian 
remarks had been misunderstood and that the entire Arab 
group was in strongly favor of the Canadian resolution and 
the adoption of the June 2005 version of the preliminary 
draft Convention.) 
 
¶8.  During the interventions we saw the emergence of group 
positions. The Brazilian ambassador claimed he spoke for the 
Latin Union, which includes Latin American and other 
countries, the UK ambassador spoke for the EU, and the 
Tanzanian ambassador said he spoke for the whole Africa 
group. 
 
¶9.  Per instructions (ref), Ambassador Oliver's 
interventions stressed the need for more negotiations on 
this important document.  Her speech was apparently 
respectfully received.  Remarks will be distributed and 
posted on Mission website.  They will also be sent to IIP 
for distribution in the Washington File. 
 
¶10.  At the end of discussions, Ambassador Oliver invoked a 
roll-call vote.  (Note.  Votes, especially roll-call votes, 
are unusual in UNESCO, which generally works by consensus. 
End Note.)   Despite reservations expressed in discussions, 
all countries save Australia voted for the resolution. 
Australia, citing instructions from its capital, abstained. 
Japan raised reservations about the convention but voted in 
favor of the Canadian resolution while making the point that 
its support did not preclude further discussion of the 
convention.  Pakistan and Cape Verde were absent.  All other 
countries of the 58-member Executive Board voted in favor of 
the Canadian resolution. 
 
¶11.  Despite Embassy Kinshasa's recent report that Congo 
will support us, the Congolese delegate stated he had no 
instructions from his capital.  This points to the perennial 
problem at UNESCO, getting delegates to follow instructions. 
We will address next steps in a separate message. 
 
Oliver