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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 002790 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
NAIROBI FOR K LEVINE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KPAO EAID UNESCO
SUBJECT:  UNESCO - SOCIAL AND HUMAN SCIENCES SECTORS' SEARCH FOR NEW 
"RIGHTS" 
 
¶1.  DCM and health attach had a frank exchange of views March 31 
with Wataru Iwamoto, Division Director of UNESCO's Social and Human 
Sciences (SHS) sector.  The meeting was organized at the request of 
Mr. Iwamoto who was tasked by the Director General (DG) to elicit 
Mission concerns about two SHS programs that were raised recently by 
Ambassador Oliver when she met with the DG.  The two programs raised 
by the Ambassador were "right to the city" and "migration without 
borders." 
 
¶2.  As Mr. Iwamoto understood it, the basis of the Ambassador's 
concerns was that the SHS description of the "right to the city" 
cited only Marxist philosopher Henri Lefebvre as its inspiration. 
He assured us that all mention of Lefebvre had been removed from 
their documents on this subject (although of course they could not 
remove a reference that others might make).   We explained that our 
concern was actually the reverse; that we were concerned about 
UNESCO's giving support to the notion of a "right to the city," and 
that indeed the SHS discussion of the "right to the city" referred 
to a number of documents, not just the work of Lefebvre.  We 
mentioned as one of them the International NGOs' Charter on the 
Right to the City, adopted at the World Social Forum in 2005, and 
pointed out that it contains very detailed, legislative-like text. 
Mr. Iwamoto did not seem to be aware of this document. 
 
¶3.  Mr. Iwamoto quickly pointed to the speech he had given at a 
Barcelona meeting (March 27-28) in which he had said he wanted "to 
make it quite clear that UNESCO has no intention of proposing a 
global instrument on 'The Right to the City.'"  We expressed 
appreciation for this, and said it was important to put this on the 
web site, but that this could not overcome all the other statements 
on the web site suggesting that in fact UNESCO was working toward a 
normative instrument. 
 
¶4.  We pointed out that "rights" could be "created" only by 
normative instruments, that the DG had called for a pause in 
developing normative instruments, and that we did not think UNESCO 
should be trying to do create rights for countries by normative 
instruments.  He agreed with us and assured us that there was no 
intent to create normative instruments-just to share best practices. 
 We responded that the material on the web site definitely gave the 
impression that SHS was trying to develop a normative instrument; we 
quoted the provision in the SHS letter of December 22 that 
accompanied the "right to the city" survey saying that UNESCO and 
UN-Habitat are working "towards a global normative instrument about 
citizenship rights in the city."  Mr. Iwamoto seemed chagrined. 
¶5.  We pointed out that there was an assumption behind SHS' 
activities that "creating" new rights was the best way to help 
people and that merely putting the issue in those terms presented 
only one point of view.  The goal is to have a better life for 
people-and that could better be done by ensuring opportunity than by 
a rights based culture.    We expressed concern that the SHS view of 
a "right to the city" assumed the failed socialist point of view. 
 
¶6.  Mr. Iwamoto said that the lead on this was being taken by 
UN-Habitat and that it was not clear how UNESCO could stop its 
participation in light of its agreement with UN-Habitat.  In a 
subsequent communication he informed us that the U.S. participated 
in the right to the city through UNHabitat. 
 
¶7.  We also discussed SHS activities in connection with "the right 
to migration."  We emphasized how repugnant this effort-and the 
notion behind it-are to the U.S.  We said that we doubted Member 
States had authorized the Secretariat to pursue efforts that would 
negate their sovereignty and control of borders.  He agreed that 
Member States should determine the work that the Secretariat does, 
and that the Secretariat should not undertake efforts without their 
prior direction.  He said again that there was no intention to 
create a normative instrument and understood countries' need and 
right to protect their own borders. 
 
¶8.  He said there was no intention to support "migration without 
borders."  We pointed out, however, that UNESCO had just been 
awarded the Mediterranean Without Borders prize (by the Italian 
province of Agrigento) for its work on migration.  He seemed 
non-plussed at this.  Mr. Iwamoto said that perhaps this project 
could deal with a country's treatment (e.g., health care, voting) of 
people who immigrated there.  We said that this was a matter for 
national governments, and also pointed out that there was in effect 
a market protection; people could choose where they wanted to go and 
tended to go to countries where they were satisfied with how they 
were treated. 
 
¶9.  Comment: Mr. Iwamoto had obviously been sent by his superiors to 
test our position and perhaps to see if we would accept as 
sufficient conclusory assurances that there was no intention to do 
normative instruments.  We were quite frank and direct in stating 
the U.S. objection to these projects, as they now appear to be 
designed, and in questioning SHS' authority to undertake them.   On 
several occasions we said that perhaps the things we were concerned 
about predated his joining SHS and were not his responsibility (and, 
implying they were beyond his knowledge as well). 
 
¶10.  At Mr. Iwamoto's request we met again with him and with Paul de 
Guchteneire, section chief of migration and multicultural issues, on 
April 20.  De Guchteneire explained that they had removed references 
to a right to migration on their web site.  He said that UNESCO was 
not advocating such a right, but doing research on what would be the 
implications if this should occur.   He agreed that states would, 
and should, maintain control of their borders.  When asked why, 
then, UNESCO was examining a situation that would not occur, he said 
this was a subject of vigorous academic debate and, besides, the EU 
in fact is moving to create immigration without borders.  We 
emphasized again the strong concern of the U.S. about the project 
and pointed out that the discussion of migration without borders as 
a possibility implied support for the concept.   We also asked 
whether this effort duplicated the work of other UN agencies; they 
responded that UNESCO was working closely with the International 
Organization for Migration on this project.  We checked with the 
Mission in Geneva and were told that there is no such cooperative 
project. 
 
OLIVER