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

300526Z Sep 05

UNCLAS PARIS 006710 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SCUL ETRD CJAN UNESCO
SUBJECT:  UNESCO:  CULTURAL DIVERSITY CONVENTION ADVANCES 
ONE STEP CLOSER TO FINAL ADOPTION 
 
Refs:  a) State 179138 and b) Paris 6534 
 
¶1. (U) Summary.  On September 29, 2005, in a lopsided vote 
in which the U.S. again stood alone, the UNESCO Executive 
Board meeting in plenary session adopted a decision 
recommending that the General Conference consider and in 
effect formally adopt as a UNESCO convention the preliminary 
draft text of the cultural diversity convention.   While the 
Board's decision does not bind the General Conference to 
adopt the convention when it meets between 3-21 October, it 
nonetheless provides an unhelpful impulse towards such 
adoption.   The Board's action could also complicate high- 
level USG efforts during the interim to persuade some UNESCO 
member States to agree to postpone adoption of the 
convention in October to allow further negotiations on key 
provisions we consider still seriously flawed.   The high 
marks the U.S. received for the procedural skill and 
reasonableness shown in pressing our case during the plenary 
has been noted by some delegations as contrasting with the 
boorish and inflexible performance of the UK and the EU. End 
Summary. 
 
¶2. (U) The Executive Board's September 29 plenary action on 
the draft decision followed on the September 23rd 
consideration of that draft in the Program and External 
Relations Commission.   At the Commission, as per 
instructions, the U.S. called for an unprecedented roll-call 
vote on paragraph 6 (ref B), seeking to remove it in its 
entirety from the draft decision).   (See the Ambassador's 
intervention posted at the U.S. Mission's website).   That 
paragraph "recommends that the General Conference at its 
33rd session consider the said preliminary draft as a draft 
convention and adopt it as a UNESCO convention." 
 
¶3. (U) At the Executive Board's plenary session, per Ref A 
instructions, we moved that "no action" be taken on the 
entire draft decision.  However, the motion failed to carry 
by a vote of 55 against and 1(the U.S.) for.  (Australia 
voted against our motion, explaining later that it did so 
out of respect for decisions that have been adopted by the 
Commission).  We then sought to amend paragraph 6 so that 
the final clause would read "consider adopting it as a 
UNESCO convention" in an effort to weaken the text.  Brazil 
countered with a motion that "no action" be taken on the 
U.S. proposed amendment.   That fed into what became a 
protracted, somewhat acrimonious debate about substance and 
procedure.  Several delegations (Afghanistan, Indonesia, 
Japan, Australia) indicated in various ways that the U.S. 
proposed amendment may not be all that bad.   The debate, 
however, ended only when the U.S. withdrew its amendment and 
asked for an up or down vote on the draft decision.   This 
gesture drew spontaneous applause, later confirmed by 
expressions of gratitude from a number of delegations.  The 
vote count was 53 in support of the draft decision, 1 
opposed (the U.S.), two abstentions (Australia and Jamaica), 
and two delegations absent (Bangladesh and Kenya). 
(Jamaica's abstention was due largely to confusion and 
should not be seen as a well-considered abstention). 
 
¶4. (U) The Ambassador delivered an EOV drawing from the 
Department's guidance.   Before delivering the EOV, however, 
the Ambassador rebuffed a comment from the Canadian 
Ambassador who said the draft decision should send a 
"political message" to the General Conference demonstrating 
the need for prompt adoption of the convention.  Our 
rejoinder was that the true political message that we had 
intended to send by our proposed amendment is that this 
convention raises complex issues that deserve further 
scrutiny by all concerned and should not be adopted 
hurriedly. 
 
¶5.  Comment.  At the end of the procedural maneuvers and 
debate, the mood in the room among other delegations was 
surprisingly one of gratitude toward the U.S. but surprise 
and disappointment at the UK and the EU for having shown 
impolitic rigidity toward the U.S. proposed amendment.  It 
turns out that a number of delegations saw the amendment as 
a possible way of achieving a consensus result on the draft 
decision without either us or the convention's proponents 
giving in to the other before the General Conference.   In 
any event, our persistence has helped to heighten awareness 
that the U.S. is far from giving up, is prepared to leave no 
stones unturned, and is not prepared to simply walk away 
mildly from this fight.  As we fast approach the General 
Conference, very heavy lifting will be required if we are to 
have any chance of securing a genuine opportunity for 
further discussions that could cure major defects still 
inherent in the cultural diversity convention text.  End 
Comment. 
 
Oliver