null
Lucia A Keegan  11/08/2006 10:09:38 AM  From  DB/Inbox:  Lucia A Keegan

Cable 
Text:                                                                      
                                                                           
      
UNCLAS    SENSITIVE     PARIS 07095

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

DISSEMINATION: UNESCOX
CHARGE: PROG

APPROVED: AMB:LVOLIVER
DRAFTED: POL:DROSTROFF
CLEARED: DCM:AKOSS

VZCZCFRI009
RR RUEHC RUCNSCO RUCNMEM
DE RUEHFR #7095 3001651
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 271651Z OCT 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2648
INFO RUCNSCO/UNESCO COLLECTIVE
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS PARIS 007095 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: UNESCO SCUL PO IS BR LE CU EU
SUBJECT:  MEDIUM TERM STRATEGY ISSUE AT UNESCO 175TH EXECUTIVE BOARD 
(FALL 2006) 
 
 
¶1.  (U) MEDIUM TERM STRATEGY The Medium Term Strategy (MTS) for 
2008-2013 (34 C/4) was the source of hours of discussion and a major 
"thematic" debate on UNESCO's role in the world.  (Comment:  we know 
of no other organization that is as self-absorbed as UNESCO and 
wastes as much time discussing its raison d'etre.) The next MTS, 
which is to be adopted by the General Conference in the fall of 2007 
will serve as the basis for UNESCO's overall program strategy for 
2008-2013. 
 
¶2.  (U) A consistent theme in all the Member State's interventions 
on the MTS is that UNESCO must do less and do it better.  Programs 
must be reviewed for their usefulness and sunset clauses need to be 
built into every new program.  The reality is that numerous 
countries continued to press their pet projects.  One of the most 
egregious was a Russian proposal to have UNESCO become the 15th UN 
agency to get involved in renewable energy.  (Comment:  The irony of 
this was clearly lost on the Russians as UNESCO did have a renewable 
energy section until the late 90's directed by a Russian, but it was 
closed down due to corruption.)  The introduction of an expanded 
program to study migration was also a new topic of discussion. 
 
¶3.  (U) The Secretariat's first draft (175 EX/21) of the MTS, based 
on input from member states and national commissions) was not 
especially well received.  The French Ambassador was particularly 
critical of this document.  There was also much discussion about the 
fact that the science review, potentially reforming the Natural and 
Social Science Sectors, is still underway.  The U.S. and others 
emphasized that it was not realistic to include these sectors in any 
MTS planning before the report is finished.  The same logic was 
cited for the Cultural Sector, with a potential restructuring 
following the arrival of the new ADG for Culture, Francoise Riviere. 
 Another reason given was the need to wait for a management audit in 
the World Heritage Center to be completed before there could be any 
talk about how this flagship program fits into the Medium Term 
Strategy.  There was also some concern about the fact that the 
ongoing discussions in New York on UN reform must also be integrated 
into the MTS and must not be pre-judged.  There were many complaints 
that the document was too heavily Secretariat inspired, and did not 
take sufficient direction from the Member States. 
 
¶4.  (U) A working group, with three representatives from each 
Electoral Group (including the U.S.), was formed to help guide the 
Secretariat's next version of the MTS.  The first sign of trouble 
 
SIPDIS 
was the inability to select a chairman for the group.  As neither 
the Indian Ambassador nor the Nigerian Ambassador was willing to 
withdraw from consideration, a decision was taken to have them serve 
as co-chairs. 
 
¶5.  (U) Despite a marathon effort to deliver something to the 
Executive Board before it finished, the informal working group's 
output was a wish list of programs with no sacred cows, such as 
UNESCO's dubious philosophy program or the Russian energy project, 
spared.  Cultural diversity also figured prominently in the final 
document with a number of countries led by Canada, Switzerland, 
Brazil and St. Vincent and the Grenadines (normally a non-entity at 
UNESCO) pushing for mention of the as yet unratified convention as a 
guiding principle for the next medium term strategy.  (Comment: 
other UNESCO members are aware of U.S. concerns about this 
convention; their efforts to highlight it can only be read as a poke 
in the eye of the US.  Here the Indian chair, who realized the 
divisiveness of the issue, did her best to keep this item out of the 
final document, though it was added at the final plenary meeting.) 
 
¶6. (SBU) The United Kingdom, well aware of U.S. concerns, was also 
particularly insistent on including mention of UNESCO's normative 
function in the draft document. (Comment:  The UK Ambassador, 
showing increased sensitivity to US concerns, has raised this issue 
for discussion several times in the past week, adding, "when there 
is consensus support." End comment.) Other troublesome points that 
emerged over U.S. objections were language that talked of "sharing" 
of knowledge rather than "transmission," an emphasis on a "culture 
of peace," the highlighting of UNESCO's foresight function, 
promoting cultural industries and the continued need for the ethics 
program.  (Comment:  With no U.S. presence for 19 years, UNESCO has 
adopted a lot of meaningless buzz words and meaningless programs 
that other member states have not care to challenge.  End comment.) 
 
OLIVER