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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PARIS 000993 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO 
 
E.O.  12958:    N/A 
TAGS: KPAO SCUL AORC SOCI UNESCO
SUBJECT:  UNESCO DIRECTOR GENERAL PARRIES WITH EXECUTIVE 
BOARD IN QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION 
 
 
¶1.  Summary:  On January 19, 2006 the UNESCO Executive Board 
met for an information meeting with UNESCO Director-General 
(DG) Matsuura.  Members of the Executive Board were invited 
to submit questions in advance of the meeting.  Rather than 
answer questions directly, the DG read prepared remarks that 
highlighted activities since the November 2005 General 
Conference.  (Copy available from IO/UNESCO) 
 
¶2.  There were three topics that warrant special mention -- 
normative instruments, the G-8 Summit and Education Sector 
reform.  Although the DG stressed that there would be a 
"pause" on normative instruments, he also suggested that a 
convention on bioethics might be needed.  The Moroccan 
Delegate, Vice-President of the Arab Group, questioned 
whether such a "pause" has been agreed to.  The Canadian 
Ambassador pressed repeatedly on what action the Secretariat 
would take to encourage the ratification of the Cultural 
Diversity Convention.  Education-related questions used up 
more than half the time allotted for questions and answers. 
There was much interest in UNESCO's role at the G-8 Summit 
in June 2006 and in UNESCO Education Sector reform. 
Ambassador Oliver used the session to press for 
accountability, including in the awarding of UNESCO prizes. 
Other delegations took issue with the format of the question 
and answer session itself, saying it did not facilitate 
exchanges.  End Summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
The DG speaks - "I don't claim to have answered all your 
questions." 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
¶3.  In the DG's opening remarks, he used the 60th 
anniversary of UNESCO as the backdrop to restate that UNESCO 
is an irreplaceable organization with an all-encompassing 
mandate, which is indispensable to the UN.  The "exalting 
paradox" of the tensions between the intellectual and the 
technical, the global and the local makes UNESCO unique.  In 
the area of Education, the DG touched on the November 
meeting in Beijing of the High Level Group on EFA.  The 
focus of that meeting was on literacy.  UNESCO presented a 
draft Global Action Plan for comment.  The final plan will 
be presented at the E-9 Ministerial Conference in Monterrey, 
Mexico in February.  More importantly, it was announced at 
the Beijing meeting that EFA would be on the agenda at the 
July 2006 G-8 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia.  The DG 
also spoke about the important work UNESCO is doing on 
tsunami warning and mitigation systems.  He stressed the 
 
SIPDIS 
absolute importance of cooperation among nations in sharing 
data among the various systems. 
 
¶4.  The DG tried to put the best face on a recent setback 
regarding UNESCO's role in the dialogue among cultures and 
civilizations.  In 2001, the UN General Assembly made UNESCO 
the lead agency in this area.  More recently, however, 
UNESCO was not included on a High-Level Group on the 
Alliance of Civilizations created by the UN Secretary- 
General.  The DG said this is a vast and complex field where 
no one organization can pretend to have a monopoly. 
Similarly, the DG touched on UNESCO's role after the WSIS 
meeting in Tunis, stressing the role UNESCO will play in 
cooperation with other UN agencies.  The DG was pleased with 
the recognition afforded UNESCO for its work and expertise 
in post-conflict areas.  The International Conference on 
Education in Iraq highlighted the importance of education. 
He also pointed to successes in Afghanistan.  Finally, he 
mentioned restoration of cultural sites in Kosovo -- where 
the U.S. is the major donor. 
 
¶5.  On administrative issues, the DG noted that reform at 
the UNESCO Office in Brazil is underway.  The DG will make a 
progress report at the April 2006 Executive Board meeting. 
The DG made a plea to the Member States to fund the $25 
million special account to support UNESCO programs.  This 
"reinforcement" makes up the difference between the budget 
request of $635 million and the approved zero-nominal-growth 
budget of $610 million.  A set of guidelines on how to make 
donations was distributed at the meeting (available from 
IO).  (Comment.  The Education Sector asks for $16 million 
in supplemental funds, all for priority programs.  This is 
somewhat typical of UNESCO Secretariat ploys - funding 
nonessential programs and pet projects from the approved 
budget and asking for supplemental funds to support 
priorities.  End Comment.)  In closing, the DG made a pitch 
for the vision and benefits of decentralization and reform 
at UNESCO. 
 
¶6.  Regarding the pause in normative instruments over the 
next biennium, the DG said UNESCO should focus on ratifying 
and implementing recently adopted instruments.  He 
mentioned, though, that a normative instrument on bioethics 
might be warranted in conjunction with the tenth anniversary 
of the Human Genome Project. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
Some Express Continued Support for Normative Instruments 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
¶7.  During the question and answer session, it appeared that 
the pause in normative instruments over the next biennium 
does not sit well with several Delegations.  Morocco 
professed surprise at the DG's assertion that a pause had 
been agreed, and said this issue should be addressed at the 
Executive Board.  In general, the DG responded that the 
biennium would focus on programs, decentralization and 
reform.  Further, the General Conference did not direct the 
Secretariat to develop any new instruments other than a set 
 
SIPDIS 
of non-binding principles regarding cultural objects 
displaced during World War II.  Finally there are a number 
of normative instruments -- including in the cultural domain 
-- awaiting ratification and implementation. 
 
¶8.  India also took exception to the pause in normative 
instruments, voicing support for an instrument on the 
protection of the rights of broadcasting organizations. 
(Note:  The U.S. position is that this issue belongs to the 
World Intellectual Property Organization, not UNESCO.  End 
Note) 
 
¶9.  Indonesia expressed support for follow-up on the Jakarta 
Declaration on basic education as a human right.  This 
declaration resulted from a conference of Indonesian 
education specialists and UNESCO staff in December 2005.  It 
was unclear as to whether the Ambassador from Indonesia was 
actually advocating a new instrument or simply follow-up 
from the meeting.  The DG expressed a need for discipline in 
the process for initiating normative instruments.  (Comment. 
This needs to be a process where the agenda is driven by 
Member States, not ministers for education from a regional 
meeting.  End Comment) 
 
¶10.  Canada intervened three times about ratification of the 
Cultural Diversity Convention.  The Canadian Ambassador 
first asked about the UNESCO Secretariat's plans for the 
ratification of the Convention.  The DG responded with an 
historical overview of the six conventions passed since 1968 
that are awaiting ratification.  Putting the Cultural 
Diversity Convention on equal footing with other conventions 
prompted a second intervention by the Canadian Ambassador. 
He reminded the DG of the urgency felt by many Delegations 
regarding cultural diversity.  In his third intervention, 
the Canadian Ambassador opined that UNESCO's role is not 
simply to approve normative instruments at General 
Conferences with no follow up.  He asked the DG if he agreed 
that passing conventions and not seeing them through is a 
waste of time. 
 
¶11.  Comment.  The Cultural Diversity Convention may have 
taken the wind out of UNESCO's sails for the moment.  For 
the next biennium, the General Conference only called for 
one non-binding instrument regarding cultural objects 
displaced during World War II.  Some delegations are now 
backtracking and attempting to rewrite history concerning 
their pet projects.  The U.S. Delegation will insist that 
this backtracking not gain momentum.  Our strategy will be 
to focus on programs and the positive aspects of UNESCO 
actions.  End Comment. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --------------- 
Education:  Focus in G-8 Role and Sector Reform 
--------------------------------------------- --------------- 
 
¶12.  Education took up more than half the entire session. 
Two items dominated, the G-8 Summit and the proposed 
Education Sector reforms.  Although Delegations were 
interested in UNESCO's role in the 2006 G-8 Summit, the DG 
had few details and did not clearly define what role UNESCO 
would play. 
 
¶13.  Regarding Education Sector reforms, the DG reinforced 
the point that the reforms announced by ADG Smith at a 
January information meeting, are limited to the 
management/administrative aspects of the Sector.  Programs 
mandated by the General Conference and Executive Board will 
not be altered.  Rather, the goal is to make those programs 
more effective.  The DG urged Delegations with concerns to 
engage in bilateral consultations with the ADG for 
Education. 
 
¶14.  The DG was challenged by one Delegation on the decision 
to move Anti-Doping in Sport from the Education Sector to 
the Social and Human Sciences Sector without consulting the 
Executive Board.  He responded by saying that anti-doping 
had traditionally been a social sciences topic.  Further, 
given the importance of achieving EFA goals, the Education 
Sector did not need the additional distraction of anti- 
doping.  The DG went on to mention a memorandum of 
understanding between UNESCO and the World Anti-Doping 
Agency (WADA), who will run the program. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
Science:  A Plea From Africa for Tsunami Coverage 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
¶15.  In response to the DG's extended plea in his opening 
remarks for cooperation and sharing of data among tsunami 
warning systems, African nations asked if the tsunami 
warning systems could be extended to the African coasts. 
The DG responded that this might be possible after those 
areas most prone to tsunamis are covered by the system. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
U.S. Questions:  Pressing for Accountability and Discipline 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
¶16.  The U.S. submitted four questions before the meeting 
and Ambassador Oliver asked several questions during the 
"debate."  In general the U.S. questions concerned 
procedural consistency and accountability and served as a 
reminder that organizational discipline is part of the 
overall reform process. 
 
¶17.  The written questions concerned the awarding of UNESCO 
prizes in the wake of the decision to award the 2005 Jos 
Mart Prize to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a question 
the DG did not answer; use of the UNESCO name and logo; the 
availability of a UNESCO calendar of events and timetable 
for the medium-term strategy process.  From the floor, 
Ambassador Oliver asked about the relationship between 
UNESCO and its affiliated institutions - field offices, 
education institutes, NGOs, UNESCO publications and UNESCO 
prizes.  Specifically, how is each accountable to UNESCO? 
In addition, why was the link between education, teacher 
training and HIV/AIDS prevention not even mentioned in the 
DG's remarks?  Finally, she asked if the $1 million donation 
from China, announced in Beijing, would go into the special 
account for the $25 million UNESCO is looking to raise? 
 
¶18.  The question about the medium-term strategy (2008 - 
20013) was one of the few written questions answered by the 
DG in his remarks.  He asserted that the questionnaire would 
be sent out to Member States, National Commissions, NGOs and 
IGOs by the end of February 2006.  A series of five regional 
consultations will follow in May-June and questionnaires are 
due back to UNESCO by mid-July.  Draft recommendations will 
be available in August and a first draft of the new medium- 
term strategy will be presented at the October Executive 
Board meeting. 
 
¶19.  In terms of accountability, the DG mentioned a 
forthcoming "accountability framework" but cautioned that it 
would perhaps be best not to be "too stingy" with the UNESCO 
name on publications.  The DG agreed with the important link 
between HIV/AIDS and education.  The DG suggested that 
Ambassador Oliver contact the Chinese Ambassador regarding 
the $1 million.  (Note:  In the afternoon session the 
Chairman of the Executive Board, who is the Chinese Minister 
of Education, said the $1 million would be used for capacity 
building in Africa.  The funds will be divided between 
training facilities, research, fellowships and operations. 
The question about the special account was never answered. 
We later learned that although the $1 million was announced 
at a UNESCO meeting, it will take the form of bilateral aid 
that does not involve UNESCO at all.  End Note) 
 
-------------------- 
UNESCO Snubs 
-------------------- 
 
¶20.  Comment:  The stated support for normative instruments 
by a few key Delegations is worrisome.  But Member States 
also focused on a series of "snubs" in the areas of 
Education and Culture.  These include:  the fact that the 
Education Sector was sited for not fulfilling its leadership 
role in EFA by a UN Joint Inspection Unit report, and the 
fact that UNESCO was not selected to participate in the UN 
High-Level Group on the Alliance of Civilizations.  The 
debate at the question and answer session underscores Member 
States' awareness of the need for UNESCO to be more 
effective as an organization.  Anxiety about UNESCO's 
importance in the UN system seems high and this could cause 
more member states to push for more normative instruments to 
feel that they are making a difference.  Meanwhile, the 
Mission will continue to focus on program successes as the 
best way to improve UNESCO's faltering reputation, rather 
than on normative instruments, which as the DG stressed, 
often remain un-ratified.  End Comment. 
 
OLIVER