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

041420Z Oct 05

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 006827 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SCUL ETRD UNESCO
SUBJECT:  USUNESCO:  U/S DOBRIANKSY'S MEETING ON 
CULTURAL DIVERSITY WITH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL 
 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY:  In her September 30th meeting with 
the Director General of UNESCO, Koichiro Matsuura, 
Under Secretary Dobriansky expressed deep concern about 
the ramifications of certain language in the draft 
convention on cultural diversity.  Highlighting both 
trade and human rights implications, she urged Matsuura 
to establish a way forward and implored him to not 
close discussion of the draft convention.   Doing so, 
the Under Secretary warned, would send a very 
unfortunate signal to Washington.  The Director General 
stated that USG concerns on protectionism corresponded 
to his own, but stated repeatedly that the draft text 
would not have repercussions for human rights, citing a 
lack of concern from media watchdog and human rights 
NGOS.  He noted that he controlled only the process of 
drafting instruments at UNESCO, not the 
intergovernmental process of revising them. 
Nonetheless, Matsuura was receptive to the Under 
Secretary's request for him to draft a statement that 
 
SIPDIS 
would ensure that UNESCO member states do not use this 
convention to undermine the organization's founding 
principles.  He also appeared to support the idea of 
establishing a working group on the draft text.  The 
Under Secretary also met with Assistant Director 
General Peter Smith and Director of the Communication 
Development Division, Wijayanand Jayaweera to discuss 
ways in which the USG can encourage democracy education 
through UNESCO's Education and Communication sectors. 
END SUMMARY. 
 
CULTURAL DIVERSITY: 
------------------ 
 
¶2.  (SBU) The U/S noted USG concerns with the 
ramifications of certain language in the draft 
convention on cultural diversity that could be used by 
some countries to curtail freedom of expression, noting 
that this went to the heart of the UNESCO's integrity 
as an institution.  She also cited potential 
ramifications for protectionist measures in terms of 
trade.  It would be very unfortunate, the U/S 
cautioned, if there was a reversal in the coming weeks. 
Could Matsuura, she asked, work something out and 
devise a way forward that was more inclusive of member 
states views?  She noted reports from Ambassador Oliver 
that Matsuura was considering ways in which the 
discussion on the draft convention could become more 
open.  She implored Matsuura not to close the debate on 
the document, and added that passing it would send a 
very unfortunate signal to Washington. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Matsuura noted that he would like to avoid 
the adoption of the draft convention, and affirmed 
UNESCO's commitment to press freedom.  He stated that 
this would continue, even if the convention were to be 
adopted.  He reasoned that since the draft convention 
was pushed by Canada, France and EU members, rather 
than a regime with a poor human rights record, like 
China, the main issue was not human rights, but 
protection of national film industries.  The Europeans 
and Canadians, he stated, were trying to maintain the 
current system of film quotas, which was something the 
international community could not accept in the long 
term.   Matsuura stated that he was concerned about the 
draft convention's potential to provide a political 
pretext for such protectionist trade policies, and 
added that GATS was actually the appropriate forum for 
the U.S. to promote the issue of negotiation on 
cultural services. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) He rejected the idea that the draft 
convention would have human rights ramifications, 
adding that countries who were weak in this realm would 
continue to be whether a convention was passed or not. 
He observed that no NGOs dealing with human rights or 
press freedom had raised concerns on the draft 
convention's potential to restrict these rights.  He 
cited UNESCO's commitment to Article 19 of the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and record of 
pushing for media freedom.  Finally, Matsuura assured 
the Under Secretary and the Ambassador that he 
personally would not allow the convention to be 
interpreted as a justification for curtailing human 
rights and media freedom. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) The Under Secretary observed that Matsuura 
was a man of great personal integrity and while no one 
doubted his personal commitment to ensure that the text 
would not be used to justify human rights abuses, there 
was no way to prevent the draft text from being 
misinterpreted after he stepped down as UNESCO Director 
General in 2010.   Under Secretary Dobriansky asked if 
it would be possible to obtain extra reassurance from 
Matsuura that the draft text would not be used to 
violate the principles of the UNESCO constitution.  It 
remained unclear, Ambassador Oliver added, whether the 
premise of the draft text was that a sovereign country 
could do whatever it deemed necessary to protect its 
culture.  Citing the repeated rejection of USG language 
intended to make the document clearer, they asked for 
the DG to show leadership and take steps to add 
confidence at this point.  As the meeting concluded, an 
aide to the DG suggested to the Under Secretary that 
the U.S. Delegation draft language for a statement by 
the Director general on the draft text and UNESCO's 
founding principles.  She also urged the Under 
Secretary to work with media freedom and human rights 
 
SIPDIS 
NGOs to draft a letter spelling out their concerns 
about how the draft text could be manipulated to 
justify human rights abuses and curtail the free 
exchange of information. 
 
OLIVER