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

311242Z Jan 06

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 000617 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO 
STATE FOR IO/UNESCO KELLY SEIKMAN, IO/FO DAS MILLER 
 
E.O. 12958:     N/A 
TAGS: AORC FR UNESCO
SUBJECT:  UNESCO:  WESTERN EUROPE AND OTHERS GROUP 
TACKLES ISSUE OF EXECUTIVE BOARD ROTATION:  FRENCH 
CHAIR TAKES IT SLOW 
 
REFTEL:  05 PARIS 8458 
 
¶1.  Summary and comment:  on January 16, the French 
chair convened a meeting of Electoral Group I(Western 
Europe and others) to explore the issue of the rotation 
of Executive Board membership in the context of an 
October 2005 resolution calling on the GC president to 
hold consultations on this issue.  The french chair 
began by asking Ambassador Oliver to brief on a summary 
report prepared under the US presidency (2004).  In her 
remarks, the Ambassador stressed the importance and 
complexity of the issue and said that a solution to the 
problem of rotation may be difficult to achieve.  Many 
speakers praised the us report as representing a 
neutral point of departure - although the UK took issue 
with the report's references to the EU -- and echoed 
the point that the role of non-executive board member 
states needs enhancing, including via consultations 
with board members. 
 
¶2.  Nearly all participants acknowledged that the 
problem of rotation is similarly thorny in other groups 
(Asia, Latin America), and that there can be no one- 
size-fits-all solution appropriate for every electoral 
group.  But at the same time, many observed pointedly 
that `no one here appears opposed to the principle of 
rotation.' The Netherlands even offered the latter 
point as a conclusion to be drawn from the meeting. 
But the French chair's conclusions were limited to his 
plan to convey to the president of the general 
conference Group I's willingness to study the issue 
carefully.  He also said that he would evoke the idea 
that the issue be studied in conjunction with 
representation on the world heritage committee -- 
perhaps in an attempt to confuse the issue?  At least 
one participant expressed surprise privately that the 
conclusions of the French chair did not deal with 
follow up within Group I on the substance of the issue. 
In fact, it is clear to the Conference resolution that 
called on the president of the general conference to 
consult `regional groups regarding methods of rotation 
of membership of the executive board.'  the chair asked 
outgoing Group I chair Finland to brief on the first 
meeting on the subject, convened in December.  Finland 
reported that although the General Conference president 
had outlined the serious nature of this undertaking, 
the meeting had adjourned with no decision taken, due 
to the imminent transfer of the chairmanships of the 
electoral groups.  Finland observed that in her view an 
`innovative, modern solution' -- rather than a strict 
system of rotation - is called for. 
 
¶4.  The French chair, referring to the `difficult' 
situation in other groups, said that Japan `does not 
hide that it doesn't want a profound reflection on this 
issue.' he then asked Ambassador Oliver to report on 
the study undertaken under the U.S. presidency (2004) 
highlighting possible approaches, but drawing no 
conclusions.  Ambassador Oliver stressed the importance 
of this issue, and reported that the study was 
undertaken in response to the concerns of member states 
on the gap in the degree of influence wielded by 
executive board and non-executive board members; this 
renders the race for the executive board even more 
important.  How can we ensure that different voices are 
represented on the executive board?  What can we do to 
keep non-executive board members engaged, for example, 
via information exchange?  It may be possible for some 
countries to remain involved via sub-regional 
representation. On the other hand, the reality is that 
there are certain countries that have major financial 
investments in Unesco.  Trying to reconcile these 
considerations is a challenge not just for Group I but 
for all electoral groups.  This meeting is an 
opportunity to start a discussion on how these issues 
might be resolved, the Ambassador concluded. 
 
¶5.  The French chair noted that there are no one-size- 
fits-all solutions to the problem of rotation:  Group I 
and Group IV (Asia) pose particular problems.  In the 
October 2005 executive board elections, Algeria was 
nearly bested by Qatar because the former refused to 
observe the principle of rotation.  The French chair 
also evoked similar challenges posed by the issue of 
representation on the World Heritage Committee. 
 
¶6.  Germany observed that the chaotic nature of WHC 
elections obviates its desirability as a model for the 
executive board.  Praising the quality of the report 
executed under the US presidency, Germany underlined 
three points of consensus from past discussions:  no 
member state opposes rotation in principle; Group I has 
made an effort to achieve clean slates in executive 
board races; varying political contexts in each of the 
electoral groups mean that a single model is not 
possible.  He noted that EU states not represented on 
the executive board could rely on EU executive board 
members to represent their views.  He concluded by 
citing the deal struck by the UK and Germany at the 
last executive board election whereby they will split a 
single four- year term. The UK also stressed that the 
German-UK deal was a model to be emulated, noting that 
Germany was representing the UK in negotiations on the 
use of Unesco's logo.  The UK took issue with 
references to the EU in the US report on rotation. 
 
¶7.  The Nordic states were among the prime movers 
behind the general conference resolution calling for 
consultations on the issue of rotation.  Denmark noted 
the possibility of creating sub-groups, and allowing 
them to decide on executive board representation, as is 
the case at Ecosoc.  Associating itself with Denmark's 
intervention, Sweden said that clean slates achieved at 
the last two executive board elections should encourage 
forward movement on this issue; although the `big 
players might have more say, they should make room for 
others', following the UK/German example.  Norway 
declared   himself heartened by the debate, professing 
to detect among participants a favorable attitude 
towards the principle of rotation.  Both Norway and 
Denmark posited that studying the problem in the 
context of WHC rotation might shed light on the way 
forward.  The Netherlands also endorsed the idea of 
regional sub-groups, and stressed as well that no one 
at the meeting appeared to be against the principle of 
rotation: `perhaps that can be a conclusion of the 
meeting.' 
 
¶8.  Spain agreed that `the first step is to accept in 
principle some form of rotation.' the message should 
be: there are no lifetime executive board members, and 
all Unesco members can aspire to the executive board. 
But Spain continued that the second step is to accept 
the `principle of reality' -  not all member states 
have the same means, size or population; what is needed 
is a system of qualified rotation.  Unesco needs the 
participation of countries with great means. 
Canada echoed Spain's call in favor of associating the 
principles of rotation and realism, based on `objective 
factors' and according to a system inspired by those 
existing within the UN system.  Canada evoked the 
possibility that creating sub-groups might `multiply 
rather than divide' the complexities associated with 
this issue.  Switzerland, too, advocated a system of 
`qualified rotation' and steps to ensure that those not 
on the executive board receive information.  But he 
specifically criticized the Ecosoc system for not 
according adequate representation to major donors:  he 
cited the example of a Group I sub-group that includes 
no G-8 members, yet is accorded three Ecosoc seats. 
 
¶9.  Ambassador Oliver intervened again to note that the 
membership of other electoral groups is characterized 
by geographic consistency;  in Group I, the EU is 
dominant, but does not represent all members.  When an 
EU member is on the executive board, other members 
automatically have a means - via EU coordinating 
meetings -- by which they can stay involved. This is 
not the case for non-EU members.  This must be taken 
into account as we devise a way of ensuring an 
equitable and fair distribution of voices within the 
executive board.  As the countries of the EU have 
increasingly taken coordinated positions on the 
executive board, she said that the US might have to 
take a closer look at the problem of rotation in Group 
¶I. 
 
¶10.  The French chair concluded by noting that it was 
clear that the question would not be resolved that day. 
He promised that he would do a resume for the group of 
issues outlined in the US report.  He said that when 
the president of the general conference convened a 
meeting with electoral group presidents, he would 
report that Group I had considered the issue, had 
organized a meeting, and that its members want to study 
the issue seriously, and to undertake their own process 
of reflection.  All members had agreed that the 
solution could not be the same for all electoral 
groups, the French chair recalled; there are many 
approaches Group I could follow.  The issue of 
executive board rotation might also be considered in 
relation to the problem of WHC representation.  Germany 
noted that linking the issues of WHC and executive 
board representation would not clarify the latter. 
 
¶11.  At the conclusion of the meeting, the German 
Ambassador - who had been present for the entire 
meeting -- queried the US rep privately on whether the 
French chair had drawn any conclusions from the 
discussion:  `did I miss them?'  when US rep cited the 
conclusions outlined in para 10, the German Ambassador 
expressed surprise that these conclusions only dealt 
with the informal report that the French chair would 
convey to the president of the general conference, 
rather than with any possible Group I follow up on the 
substance of the issue. 
 
Oliver