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

151651Z Jun 06

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 004095 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EU UNESCO
SUBJECT:  UNESCO-DISCUSSION OF ROTATION CAUSING CONSTERNATION 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  Sharing worries about a threat to the status quo 
and the potential of a "rogue" proposition rising to open discussion 
and a possible vote, key donor nations from several electoral groups 
met for the first time to discuss their views on rotational 
representation on UNESCO bodies.   The consensus was that a 
potential danger exists if any proposal from the "informal contact 
group" on rotation organized by the General Conference President is 
permitted to reach the Executive Board.  A vote by smaller nations, 
unified to seek greater representation on the Executive Board, would 
likely succeed, turning out major donor states.  Resentment is also 
growing again the EU's heavy-handed policy of embedding ambassador's 
from non Executive Board member states into the delegations of EU 
members on the Board.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (U) Japanese Ambassador to UNESCO Sato held an informal 
"consultation" on the subject of rotation with Ambassadors from 
Russian, Brazil, India, France, and representatives from the United 
States, and China in his Miollis offices on June 8. 
 
¶3. (SBU) French Ambassador Gueguinou made the first comment, saying 
that each geographic electoral group must find solutions for itself. 
 He indicated that, of course, France wants to be present 
permanently on the Executive Board, and later told DCM Koss that he 
anticipated a "clean slate" in 2007 and no problems for French or US 
re-election in 2007. 
 
¶4. (SBU) DCM Koss stated clearly that it would be premature for the 
United States to discuss rotation as we had just finished a 20-year 
rotation off the board. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Russian Ambassador Kalamanov said that the principle of 
rotation will kill all committees.  Using the United States as an 
example, he said that not having the US elected to the International 
Hydrological Committee, when it clearly provides most of the 
expertise, is ridiculous.  Regarding the Executive Board, he said 
that it is important to maintain the status quo. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Brazil's Ambassador, Macedo Soares, said it was noteworthy 
that the President of the General Conference, Oman's, Musa Bin 
Hassan, who has over 20 years experience at UNESCO, chose to convene 
an "informal contact group" on the subject of rotation.  The 
Ambassador said that the chairman's decision was intended to send a 
message and was not the result of a lack of judgment or 
inexperience.  Others described the Omani as "committed to the 
principle" of rotation, and noted that he has the small states 
unified behind him on the issue. 
 
¶7. (SBU) The Brazilian Ambassador said that the danger is that this 
informal group could potentially put "something on the table," 
though he doubted the President would permit it to get that far.  On 
the issue of rotation, he said that if the electoral Groups start 
making formal rules, it could set precedents for the other Groups. 
He went on to say that within Group III (Lat Am/Caribbean) the 
decision to split the Group into two parts for voting was an 
unfortunate choice and has made things difficult. 
 
¶8. (SBU) The Indian Ambassador said that within Group IV, there was 
a debate on the issue of rotation, but no meeting of the minds.  She 
said that a large number of the countries were opposed to rotation. 
She added that there is no benefit in forcing a rotation on states 
that have already proven their credentials in the organization. 
 
¶9. (SBU) She expressed concern that if the General Conference 
President's "informal group" came up with a "fait accompli" and 
forced a vote on rotation it would be dangerous, because they would 
win.  She again reiterated that it is imperative that the contact 
group not come up with a decision, because it will be adopted.   She 
finished her remarks by saying that we face a potentially dangerous 
period ahead, as others will try to force the issue. 
 
¶10. (SBU) French Ambassador Gueguinou agreed, saying that the 
electoral groups must decide for themselves on the subject of 
rotation.  He added that in the case of the UK and Germany (which 
have decided to rotate between themselves on the Executive Board) 
that their agreement is one only between the two countries and does 
not bind the other group members in any way. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Indian Ambassador Mukherjee said that their decision, in 
fact, strengthens the hand of those who say there should be two-year 
term limits.  When the Indian Ambassador asked if there was a 
gentlemen's agreement within Group I to support the UK/German 
rotation, French Ambassador Gueguinou said, no, that was not the 
case. 
 
¶12. (SBU) When the Japanese Ambassador asked if representatives from 
the African or Arab group should be included in future meetings, the 
Russian Ambassador said that the issue was too sensitive, and that 
he would not attend if they were invited. 
 
¶13. (SBU) On a separate issue, the Russian ambassador also expressed 
displeasure with the EU practice of "imbedding" ambassadors from 
other delegations in the delegations of EU members that belong to 
the Executive Board.  The French ambassador was clearly annoyed by 
the statement and refused to engage.  (Comment:  This issue that we 
reported on earlier, is clearly not going away.  EU members seem to 
be ignoring the resentment certain states are harboring about their 
behavior.) 
 
¶14. (SBU) Comment:  Rotation is clearly a sensitive issue that big 
states at UNESCO are trying to dance around.  All those who attended 
the meeting agreed that it's an issue that must be carefully 
managed.  Brazil had a scare at last fall's General Conference when 
it was re-elected to the Board by a scant margin.  None of the big 
members are anxious to see that happen again.  End Comment. 
OLIVER