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

UNCLAS PARIS 004159 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO 
 
STATE FOR IO/UNESCO KELLY SIEKMAN 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: AORC EAID SOCI UK UNESCO
SUBJECT:  UK DELEGATION SEEKS EU CONSENSUS ON UNESCO'S ROLE IN 
ADVANCE OF ATHENS MEDIUM-TERM STRATEGY CONCLAVE 
 
REFS:  A) Paris 5862, B) Paris 6028, C) Paris 6136 
 
¶1. At a June 16 informal meeting of UNESCO delegates, the UK deputy 
informed Mission Officer that the UK is, in advance of Group I 
consultations in Athens on the medium-term strategy, seeking to 
achieve EU consensus on a non-paper on UNESCO's role.  The aim of 
the UK paper is to encourage UNESCO to re-define its role to better 
align with ongoing UN reform efforts.  Achieving EU consensus on 
this issue may be challenging - Belgium and Finland had already 
taken a stab at the UK draft, but the UK has strong ideas on what 
UNESCO's role should be. 
¶2.  The UK believes that the five elements of UNESCO's role - as 
laboratory of ideas, as standard setter, as clearing house, as 
capacity builder in member states, and as catalyst for international 
cooperation - need to be tightened.  In particular, UNESCO's role as 
a laboratory of ideas needs to be re-focused on policy 
recommendations and standard setting.  The UK believes that policy 
committees should be set up to advise the Executive Board on areas 
within UNESCO's fields of competence, similar to committees existing 
at the OECD.  Thus, UNESCO could assume a role in formulating 
standards for public policy.  The UK deputy noted that some had 
raised objections to the costs entailed in setting up such policy 
committees, but she stressed that these would not be significant. 
¶3.  Mission officer said that while it might be useful for UNESCO to 
explore its role in giving advice on public policy to member states 
seeking such advice, setting standards for public policy is another 
matter.  The UK deputy offered reassurances that such 
standard-setting would only constitute "soft law."  This would be a 
means of addressing U.S. concerns about further normative 
instruments.  She also noted that the U.S. and Israel had been 
isolated during the Cultural Diversity debate and that this "soft 
law" approach would be a means of guaranteeing future consensus. 
U.S. Mission Officer repeated that the U.S. does not regard UNESCO 
as a purveyor of either "hard" or "soft" law. 
¶4.  This issue seems to be on the minds of EU delegations.  Last 
week, U.S. Mission DCM was approached by the Belgian ambassador to 
UNESCO, who probed him on the U.S. stance on UNESCO's role as a 
stand setter.  This was probably triggered by the intra-EU 
consultations described above.  End Note. 
Oliver