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

161402Z Dec 05

UNCLAS PARIS 008502 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: FR UNESCO
SUBJECT:  UNESCO HIGH-LEVEL MEETING ON HUMAN SECURITY 
DEC 12-13 
 
 
¶1.  A high-level working meeting on Human Security was 
held December 12 and 13 at UNESCO headquarters.  The 
purpose of the meeting was to advise on a "major 
publication" on human security that is planned for 
¶2007. 
 
¶2.  The high-level working meeting (note: "high-level 
working meeting" is not itself an official UNESCO 
meeting category) was convened by UNESCO's sector for 
Social and Human Sciences to advise on a "major 
publication" on human security planned, for 2007. 
According to Moufida Goucha, chief of the UNESCO human 
security program, human security has been the subject 
of an "intellectual debate" since the 1990's and is now 
a priority in the organization's medium term strategy 
2002-2007.  It brings together the different things 
UNESCO is doing-better management of the environment, 
education, etc., and has a social and ethical 
foundation.  (Comment: when asked by our health attache 
several months ago for a definition of "human 
security," Goucha responded everything that affected 
people.)  Goucha listed the various publications that 
have been issued (including the highly anti-American 
report "Promoting Human Security: Ethical, Normative 
and Education Frameworks in the Arab States" issued 
last summer) and conferences held.   Among other 
regional conferences, a conference will be held in 
Egypt in 2006 on human security in the Arab states. 
 
¶3.  Most of the experts' interventions focused on the 
importance of human security, what is meant by human 
security, and what UNESCO should do.  Remarks by Majid 
Tehranian, an expert from the United States, were 
representative.  Among his comments:  "Nation states 
are no longer as autonomous as they used to be; 
globalization blurs boundaries.  States are not in 
command of their economies or societies.  September 11 
demonstrated this.  So the framework must be an 
international dialogue.  It used to be, during the Cold 
War, East vs. West; now it is North vs. South.  Most 
conflicts are intra-state; most casualties are 
civilian.  Rich countries bear a responsibility-- 
ethical and practical--to pay attention to what is 
going on.  The world is unequal.  Afghanistan and Iraq 
are fights between nomadic societies and digital 
societies." 
 
¶4.  Bechir Chourou (expert from Tunisia who wrote the 
report on human security in the Arab world that is so 
critical of the U.S.) said that human security is multi- 
dimensional.  The state in many parts of the world is a 
threat to human security.  This puts UNESCO is a tight 
spot; it is being forced to tell some of the member 
states that they are a threat.  (Comment:  Given his 
track record, we wonder which ones.) 
 
¶5.  The South African charge delivered an intervention 
on the first day that in effect questioned the need for 
the project and asked how it meshed with UNESCO's core 
focus.  Oddly, the second day he intervened again and 
said that South Africa fully supports the concept.  The 
Indian ambassador also intervened to question the 
utility of the meeting, pointing out that this work is 
being done in other UN agencies.  The U.S. delegation 
also intervened and raised doubts about the need for 
the proposed publication.  It raised questions also 
about the process: would the publication be put out 
under UNESCO's name without Member States reaching 
consensus on it (referring to, without naming, the 
report on human security in the Arab world as an 
example of publications put out under UNESCO's name but 
not approved by Member States)? 
 
¶6.  UNESCO is determined to pursue its efforts in human 
security, and the effort is funded in the 2006-07 
budget.  The Secretariat says it will consult with 
experts broadly and involve more member states.  A 
questionnaire was to be distributed on-line after the 
meeting.  It will be sent to approximately 500-1000 
"experts" but not member states. 
 
¶7.  Comment:  We are concerned that this publication 
will appear under the UNESCO logo with minimal input 
from member states.  Much of what was discussed in 
terms of human rights is good and helpful and 
consistent with the U.S. goal to enhance democracy, 
human rights, and individuals' freedom and well-being. 
It would not be unreasonable to expect, however, that 
there will be efforts to insert statements that portray 
the U.S. as a threat to human security rather than as a 
main protector and that align with anti-globalization 
and anti-capitalism rhetoric. 
OLIVER