null
Lucia A Keegan  09/18/2006 10:21:31 AM  From  DB/Inbox:  Lucia A Keegan

Cable 
Text:                                                                      
                                                                           
      
UNCLAS        PARIS 06165

SIPDIS
cxparis:
    ACTION: UNESCO
    INFO:   AMB AMBO DCM SCI POL ECON AMBU

DISSEMINATION: UNESCOX
CHARGE: PROG

APPROVED: AMB:LVOLIVER
DRAFTED: LA:TMPEAY
CLEARED: DCM:AKOSS

VZCZCFRI738
OO RUEHC RUEHZL RUEHGV RUCNDT
DE RUEHFR #6165/01 2570932
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 140932Z SEP 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1311
INFO RUEHZL/EUR POSTS COLLECTIVE
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2487
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0892

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 006165 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM US MISSION TO UNESCO PARIS 
 
STATE FOR IO, IO/UNESCO, EUR/ERA, L/EUR, L/UNA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SCUL ETRD UNESCO EUN PREL SCUL
SUBJECT:  USUNESCO:  EXECUTIVE BOARD ITEM - EUROPEAN COMMUNITY 
REPRESENTATION 
 
REF: PARIS 2961 
 
¶1. See action request at paragraph 10. 
 
¶2. In reftel report of the April 2006 (174th ) UNESCO Executive 
Board (EB) session, Mission reported (in para 30) on the possible 
need to review and revise the EB rules of procedure in the light of 
a novel European Union (EU) practice involving ambassadorial 
representation on the Board.  Specifically, this incipient practice 
consists of having an EU Member State Ambassador from one country 
(not elected to the Board) participate in EB meetings as part of the 
delegation of another EU Member State that was duly elected to the 
Board.  For instance, the German Ambassador sat behind the UK 
placard during debate of certain issues and the Austrian Ambassador 
sat with the Hungarian delegation (as occurred during debate over 
the Danish cartoons issue). 
 
¶3. Mission further reported at that time that several delegations, 
among them, Canada, India, Indonesia, and Japan were surprised and 
upset by this practice.  As a consequence, an item (No. 51) to 
examine this practice in the light of existing EB rules has been 
duly inscribed on the EB's provisional agenda, with Afghanistan, 
China, India, Indonesia, Japan, and Pakistan shown as initial 
co-sponsors.  The document that discusses this item has been 
provided to the Department (IO/UNESCO). 
 
¶4. The item attaches a draft decision that would "entrust to an 
open-ended inter-sessional working group" of the Board the task of 
examining the EB rules of procedure with regard to the EU's informal 
practice mentioned above and to update and amend the rules "to 
reflect the present composition and terms of reference" of the EB. 
Quite apart from our immediate concern about reining in the EU's 
practice, we would also be concerned about the possibility that 
review of the rules for this legitimate purpose could lead to 
undesirable broader rules amendments that may not warrant the same 
degree of urgent consideration. 
 
¶5. Mission, however, particularly wishes to convey its concerns and 
seek the Department's guidance with respect to the incipient EU 
attempt to ensure surrogate representation on the Board.  In 
practice, it works as follows.  Each Board members gets eight 
minutes to present its positions.  The ambassador of the Member 
State holding the EU presidency is embedded in the delegation of 
another EU Member State.  The EU members on the Board cede a few 
minutes each to the embedded ambassador who then speaks for all the 
members and EU aspirants on one or more issues.  However, the other 
EU Member State ambassadors on the Board also use their reserved 
minutes to speak [to the same or to other issues], though for a 
reduced time. 
 
¶6. EU Mission interlocutors assert that they have "special needs" 
that warrant such irregular participation and that EU lawyers have 
examined the propriety of this and see not problem.  In effect, the 
practice is tantamount to saying "forget the letter of credentials 
my head of state sent to the UNESCO Director General, today I'm 
helping to represent another EU Member State." 
 
¶7. Mission fears that this conduct has serious implications for 
other Executive Board commissions, such as the Committee on 
Conventions and Recommendations (the "CR" which addresses 
communications alleging human rights violations) whose documents are 
UNESCO "confidential" and whose deliberations are closed to all but 
CR members.  By extension, the EU practice could lead to, for 
instance, the Cuban and/or Venezuelan Ambassadors embedding into the 
Ecuadorian delegation and speaking to issues they would otherwise be 
unauthorized to address, pursuant to the rules as they have been 
applied up to now.  In addition to UNESCO-wide implications, this EU 
gambit has even wider potential ramifications for the UN, 
system-wide that can easily be imagined. 
 
 
¶8. Canada has privately registered with the Mission its serious 
concern about this EU practice.  India, which has a very strong and 
vocal Ambassador, raised serious concerns about this at the last EB 
meeting.  She added that she now regrets having agreed to "special 
arrangements" for the EU and the European Commission during 
negotiation of the diversity of cultural expressions convention last 
fall.  We believe that India has spearheaded the inscription of this 
item onto the EB agenda.  We have no sense yet how firmly the 
Europeans are prepared to push back on this attempt to rein in this 
practice, particularly if the draft resolution is amended to provide 
for suspension of this practice pending the report of the working 
group - an amendment the Mission would be inclined to favor. 
 
¶9. According to the current "Provisional Timetable of Work" for the 
EB and its subsidiary bodies, discussion of Agenda Item 51 is 
scheduled to be taken up on either Wednesday, September 27 or 
Thursday, September 28 as part of the work of the EB's Special 
Committee.  The U.S. is not a member of the Special Committee but 
sessions are open to all member states.  Unfortunately, this also 
coincides with the time the CR will be meeting.  Mission Legal 
Adviser will juggle both meetings giving priority to the EU issue. 
 
 
¶10. Action Request:  Request Department's guidance (particularly 
from IO and EUR) on what position we should take on all of Agenda 
Item 51, but in particular the effect to examine with a jaundiced 
eye the incipient EU practice of surrogate representation through 
embedding in each others' delegations. 
Oliver