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 001344 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
FOR IO/UNESCO 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: SCUL KPAO AORC UNESCO
SUBJECT: UNESCO: THE WAY AHEAD 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) My staff and I held an off-site meeting February 14 
to review the past two years of our engagement with UNESCO 
and to offer suggestions for the path ahead.  We all agreed 
that we need to achieve tangible results for the USG by the 
October 2007 General Conference. That requires a realistic 
assessment of the problems and opportunities at UNESCO for 
the USG.  The following will discuss what we face on the 
ground at UNESCO, USG re-engagement for the past two years, 
and Mission ideas on three possible scenarios for USG future 
engagement at UNESCO. 
 
What We Face on the Ground at UNESCO 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶2. (SBU) One problem we face is the misguided idea held by 
many in the Secretariat that the way to increase UNESCO's 
influence in the international community is ever-more new 
initiatives and programs, when there are other agencies 
responsible for those issues within the UN system.  That 
leads to UNESCO's desire to enlarge its role in issues like 
sustainable development, climate, health, human rights, 
human security, migration, and potentially WSIS issues. It 
also means that UNESCO accepts all proposed extra-budgetary 
projects, regardless of whether or not they are related to 
its priorities, in order to expand its activities without 
having to pay for them.  The same thing is true for UNESCO 
prizes, affiliated institutes, and centers, an increasing 
number of which use the UNESCO name without UNESCO financing 
or significant oversight.  The result has been a 
proliferation of unfocused, ineffective, poor quality UNESCO 
programs, and the creation of various national institutes 
that try to increase their prestige by loosely associating 
themselves with UNESCO. 
 
¶3. (SBU) A second problem within the Secretariat is the 
presence of a certain number of long-term staffers who are 
clearly anti-American, and who orchestrate such things as 
giving UNESCO's Marti prize to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. 
Many of these individuals work in the Social and Human 
Science Sector, but there are some in the other sectors as 
well.  Other UNESCO staffers may not be explicitly anti- 
American, but they are anti-globalization, anti-free trade, 
pro-environmental regulations, pro-international law, and 
pro-resource transfer in the name of equity and fairness. 
The cultural diversity convention got a great deal of 
internal support from these individuals who believe that 
UNESCO's normative instruments can help constrain U.S. power 
and influence, particularly in the area of trade. 
 
¶4. (SBU) The USG also has to deal with the multiple agendas 
of UNESCO's member states, many of which use UNESCO as a 
strategic tool to advance their own national interests 
through a combination of extra-budgetary support and 
sympathetic members of the staff.  Japan and China use it to 
enhance their international credentials (a Japanese DG and a 
Chinese Chairman of the Executive Board).  The UK uses it to 
promote its development agenda, particularly in Africa (its 
delegation is primarily responsible to the Department for 
International Development (DFID).  Italy gives large extra- 
budgetary contributions for culture, the Nordic countries 
for education, and the French for cultural protectionism. 
Brazil wants to protect biodiversity, Hungary to promote 
ethics, and India to develop a UNESCO convention on 
broadcasting.  Groups of countries also have their own 
agendas, such as the desire of the Organization of the 
Islamic Conference (OIC) to use UNESCO to deal with the so- 
called cartoon issue. Although much of UNESCO's work is done 
at the technical and expert level, it is in fact a highly 
political organization, thanks to the activities and 
interests of its member states. 
 
 
¶5. (SBU) Politics also drives many of the decisions of the 
DG.  Funds are often allocated to field offices on the basis 
of where they are located, frequently before any work plan 
has been agreed on.  This was true of the 11 countries 
chosen for the first phase of the LIFE program, the 23 
countries chosen for the teacher-training program, and the 
countries chosen for the US-funded endangered movable 
objects program.  Although the DG tries to be sensitive to 
the concerns of the U.S., he is equally sensitive to the 
political concerns of other countries and is therefore 
reluctant to exert strong leadership or take public stands 
that might become controversial.  That problem may become 
worse as the DG approaches the end of his term and starts to 
think about his legacy. 
 
U.S. Re-engagement for the Past two Years 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) When I left DC in March 2004, my primary 
instructions were that UNESCO should "do no harm". 
Unfortunately, we had to negotiate three normative 
instruments during our first two years at UNESCO.  Despite 
being a young Mission with no on-site lawyer, the bioethics 
declaration and the anti-doping convention did no harm.  We 
also had one major failure, the cultural diversity 
convention, partly because it was a top foreign policy goal 
for a number of UNESCO's most active member states, 
especially the EU led by France, and not a high priority for 
the USG. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Since the USG's re-engagement with UNESCO, the 
Mission has also actively promoted our reform agenda. We 
have promoted key concepts such as programmatic coherence, 
and institutional transparency and accountability with both 
the Secretariat and Member States.  We've also tried to 
persuade Member States that the way to gain influence and 
respect is not through adding new initiatives or passing 
conventions, but by strengthening the quality of UNESCO's 
programs.  In addition, we've talked about the need to 
identify UNESCO's comparative advantage, and to avoid 
unintended consequences that may result from poorly thought- 
out programs or controversial initiatives that do not enjoy 
broad-based support from member states. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Despite all the problems and challenges that exist 
at UNESCO, there have been some positive results during the 
past two years.  These include an increased focus on long 
term sustainable results through capacity building, a mother- 
child focused program in literacy, cultural preservation in 
endangered movable objects, and leadership in the expansion 
of the tsunami warning system.  It also includes holding the 
line on a zero nominal budget, positive input on the next 
medium term strategy, preventing normative instruments in 
cross-border education guidelines and traditional games and 
sports, and establishing an appropriate framework for 
UNESCO's ongoing involvement in the WSIS implementation. In 
addition, the USG has played a key role in enabling UNESCO 
to expand its programmatic work in the Middle East by 
brokering consensus resolutions on education and culture for 
Jerusalem and the Occupied Territories. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Additional positive results include the USG's 
election to the World Heritage Committee, its reelection to 
the IOC Inter-governmental Council, and its election as the 
Vice-President of the Executive Board.  Also, more American 
citizens are being hired, with Peter Smith and Jim 
Kukilowski in key full-time positions.  USG experts involved 
with UNESCO programs include Midge Decter on COMEST, Benita 
Somerfield on the Literacy Advisory Board, John Moore on the 
IBSP board, and Kathie Olsen on the Science Review panel. 
Marta de la Torre has been hired as a consultant to help 
provide oversight to the endangered movable objects program. 
 
¶10. (SBU) A more detailed report has been prepared on the 
first two years of the USG's re-engagement with UNESCO. 
Additional papers are being prepared on other issues 
involving the USG and UNESCO. These documents should provide 
the background for strategic decisions that should be made 
as soon as possible regarding the USG's priorities for the 
next two years. 
 
Possible Scenarios for Future U.S. Engagement at UNESCO 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
 
¶11. (SBU) One option might be to build on what has been 
accomplished since the USG's return to UNESCO.  That would 
include a continued focus on damage control, with a 
particular emphasis on trying to prevent the development of 
new instruments, continued attempts to promote 
administrative and management reform, and continued efforts 
to strengthen selected programs, focusing on education, 
particularly literacy, and the opportunities that may come 
from the review of the two science sectors.  Even with the 
Mission's limited resources, we could have some successes, 
though they would probably not significantly advance the 
Secretary's goal of transformational diplomacy. 
 
SIPDIS 
 
¶12. (SBU) Another option might be to expand UNESCO's efforts 
in education in the Arab world, particularly in the BMENA 
countries.  For example, UNESCO's current program in teacher 
training is entirely directed to sub-Saharan African 
countries.  Yet not only is teacher training critical for 
post-conflict countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, it could 
also be the mechanism to deal with the resistance in the 
Arab world to efforts to change curriculum.  Given the 
sensitivities in the Arab world on curriculum, working 
through UNESCO might be more effective then expanding 
existing bi-lateral programs in this area, especially since 
we have a supportive ADG for Education.  The same argument 
could be made for programs that promote gender parity.  In 
order to be successful with this option, the Mission would 
have to work closely with both the BMENA and MEPI 
initiatives. 
 
¶13. (SBU) A bolder and more aggressive approach to UNESCO 
should also be considered, which would be to use UNESCO as a 
vehicle to explicitly promote a pro-democracy agenda.  This 
strategy would tie together democracy and development, 
similar to what has been done with the President's 
Millennium Challenge initiative.  We hear little about 
democracy at UNESCO, but much about development.  By linking 
the two ideas, we could create a cross-cutting initiative 
that would encompass all sectors.  It would involve reviving 
the education for democracy section in the education Sector, 
with a particular focus on curriculum, and revamping the 
democracy section in SHS, assuming that the Sector still 
exists after the Science review and that it has new 
leadership.  It would also include incorporating the basic 
democracy-building work of communications and information 
into this democratic framework with an emphasis on programs 
like the International Program for the Development of 
Communication (IPDC). Perhaps there could also be a focus on 
democracy in some of the culture sector's programs that 
promote inter-cultural dialogue.  By stressing the positive 
role that democracy plays in promoting development, we might 
be able to change the discussion at UNESCO away from its 
current anti-globalization, anti-free market, and implicitly 
anti-American rhetoric.  It could appeal to the self- 
interests of many of UNESCO's member states, such as the 
G77, and take advantage of UNESCO's leadership role in 
education which is fundamental to building strong 
democracies and strong economies. 
 
¶14. (SBU) If there is support for this idea, we would 
propose the following actions: 
 
a. Use the weeks leading up to the Executive Board to shape 
this idea and find allies 
 
b. Establish a Community of Democracies group at UNESCO by 
identifying an enthusiastic member of that group who could 
convene a meeting 
 
c. Introduce a resolution at the Ex Board calling for a 
cross-cutting initiative in democracy and development, 
similar to what was done last year in capacity building 
 
d. Work in the coming months to give this initiative a 
central place in the next medium-term strategy 
 
e. Develop reinforcing projects, such as a major UNESCO 
conference on Education, Democracy, and Development, or 
making the International Centre for Democratic transition in 
Budapest into a UNESCO Institute 
 
f. Work closely with the National Commission to take 
advantage of the expertise and contacts of many of the 
Commissioners 
 
¶15. (SBU) It is important that this not be seen as a 
strictly U.S. initiative, and we would thus propose to use 
the Community of Democracies (CoD) as a vehicle, possibly 
even asking the Malian Ambassador to take the lead since 
Mali has just hosted the 2006 Ministerial meeting for the 
CoD.  Some of the other active CoD participants with strong 
Ambassadors at UNESCO include Hungary, Poland, and 
Lithuania. India is a very strong presence at UNESCO and 
might be willing to play a role, particularly after the 
President's trip.  Although a CoD group at UNESCO could play 
a critical role in helping to advance a USG pro-democracy 
agenda, it should not be seen as a substitute for active USG 
leadership in this area. 
 
¶16. (SBU) Though we recognize that UNESCO is still a 
somewhat dysfunctional organization, and that there is 
always the possibility of serious unexpected problems, we 
think that now would be a good time to consider a more 
robust USG engagement at UNESCO. There is a lot of concern 
at UNESCO, both in the Secretariat and among member states, 
that USG enthusiasm and support for UNESCO may have been 
hurt by the unpleasant atmosphere resulting from the 
negotiation of the cultural diversity convention, and by the 
more recent Marti prize.  Therefore, there seems to be a 
desire to find ways to work constructively with the U.S. 
Although one never knows how serious the expressions of good 
will are, there is no reason not to test the depth of the 
many expressions of support that we have received over the 
past several months.  Moreover, although the DG may not be 
as strong and supportive as we would like, we do have a very 
good relationship with him, and we do not know who will 
replace him in less than four years.  Finally, if we are 
going to want to do anything serious at UNESCO in the 
foreseeable future, it must be done now so that we can get 
our ideas and initiatives incorporated into the next medium 
term strategy. 
 
¶17. (SBU) If it is decided that the USG should try to use 
UNESCO as a strategic tool for transformational diplomacy, 
it will require a close working relationship between Paris 
and Washington, as well as additional resources, 
particularly in the area of targeted extra-budgetary 
funding.  Possible USG secondments to UNESCO staff should 
also be considered, along with consultants and interns.  A 
pro-democracy agenda would also imply a more aggressive 
reaction to UNESCO statements, publications, and conferences 
that undermine democratic principles.  A more active and 
effective UNESCO is only a positive achievement if the 
organization promotes programs and ideas that can be 
supported by the USG.  It is said that the best defense is a 
good offense. If we do not promote our ideas, values, and 
principles more aggressively at UNESCO, we will continue to 
find ourselves playing defense most of the time, and sooner 
or later, USG patience with UNESCO will end. 
 
¶18. (SBU) We do understand that there are serious budget 
issues in the U.S., and that there are other compelling 
priorities that must be dealt with by the USG.  If it is not 
possible to strengthen USG engagement at UNESCO at this 
time, we will continue to do as much as we can to advance 
USG strategic interests at UNESCO.  If that is the case, 
however, we should be realistic about what we can and cannot 
achieve at this organization. 
Oliver