null
Lucia A Keegan  11/08/2006 02:47:15 PM  From  DB/Inbox:  Lucia A Keegan

Cable 
Text:                                                                      
                                                                           
      
UNCLAS    SENSITIVE     PARIS 07126

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

DISSEMINATION: UNESCOX
CHARGE: PROG

APPROVED: AMB:LVOLIVER
DRAFTED: POL:DROSTROFF
CLEARED: LEGAL:TMPEAY, DCM:AKOSS

VZCZCFRI173
RR RUEHC RUEHXK RUCNDT RUEHGV RUEHHE RUEHOT
DE RUEHFR #7126/01 3040907
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 310907Z OCT 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2703
INFO RUEHXK/ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0952
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2514
RUEHHE/AMEMBASSY HELSINKI 1239
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 1991

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 007126 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: UNESCO SCUL IS LE
SUBJECT: MIDDLE EAST ISSUES AT UNESCO'S 175th EXECUTIVE BOARD (FALL 
2006) WRAP UP 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY   With the military conflict between Israel and 
Lebanon still very much on the minds of delegates, the UNESCO 
Executive Board was set to face the always sensitive issues of 
Jerusalem and the Occupied Territories. This time, with the scars of 
war still open and emotions running high, a resolution calling for 
UNESCO involvement in Lebanese reconstruction was added to the mix. 
END SUMMARY 
 
¶2. (SBU) From the opening days of the conflict and before the Board 
meeting began, signals were being sent throughout UNESCO that it was 
going to be difficult to reach consensus on a decision, and that the 
unwritten rule of keeping the organization from becoming overtly 
politicized was in danger.  In early August, with hostilities still 
going on, the Palestinian observer delegation had organized an 
emotional press conference with UNESCO Artist for Peace Marcel 
Khalife.  This left no doubt that anti-Israeli feelings were running 
high at UNESCO.  Another program, organized by the Arab Group, 
entitled, "Jerusalem, Etat des Lieux", was a daylong seminar focused 
on the plight of the Palestinians in Jerusalem who, according to the 
speakers, are increasingly besieged under current Israeli policies. 
At the same time, UNESCO's emergency evaluation team sent to assess 
damage to World Heritage sites in Lebanon after the cease-fire was, 
by contrast, a serious effort by the Secretariat to keep the 
dialogue balanced and controlled. 
 
¶3. (SBU) In recent years, Israel has been successfully using UNESCO 
as a vehicle to engage as an active player within the international 
community.  Israel had even won a close race for a seat on the 
prestigious World Heritage Committee.  However, given the three 
problematic resolutions regarding the Middle East, at this fall's 
Executive Board, Israel's main goal was to set some firm lines on 
its willingness to compromise on basic issues of interest to it. 
Israel was particularly upset by the anti-Israeli tone of the 
Lebanese resolution, given its previous willingness to compromise on 
the resolutions on Jerusalem and the Occupied Territories.  The 
Israeli delegation fought the Lebanese document and clearly stated 
that if it were adopted, even with negotiated text without overt 
anti-Israeli language, the result might be an unavoidable rift with 
UNESCO after so many years of positive efforts.  Behind the scenes, 
in the side meeting rooms and hallways of UNESCO, a small number of 
delegations, including the US, and the Finnish Ambassador, in his 
role as EU president, worked tirelessly to attempt to neutralize the 
most contentious language in the three draft resolutions on the 
Middle East that were to be brought before the Board on the theory 
that since a resolution would definitely be adopted, it should be as 
neutral as possible. 
 
¶4. (SBU) In connection with Jerusalem, Palestinian efforts to expand 
the scope of the resolution, to add a "social" element, with 
reference to a "living heritage", to the problems within UNESCO's 
mandate were blocked successfully.  The Jerusalem decision remained 
unchanged from the decision adopted by consensus during April's 
174th Executive Board.  The resolution regarding the Occupied 
Territories, despite attempts to dramatically change it to more 
fully reflect the deterioration of the situation of the Palestinian 
peoples in the Occupied Territories, went forward with only minor 
changes from the version adopted at recent Board meetings. Both 
resolutions, reviewed and adopted by the PX (Programme and External 
Relations Commission), were finally sent to the Executive Board and 
adopted without debate. (Note:  The US always made it clear that we 
would never support the resolution, however, what was at stake was 
whether enough anti-Israeli language could be removed so that we 
wouldn't be forced to call for a vote.) 
 
¶5. (SBU) The much anticipated resolution on Lebanon was crafted in 
Beirut.  Lebanon's Minister of Culture Tarek Mitri made a special 
trip to Paris to make a statement during the Board meeting regarding 
the situation in Lebanon and to explain why the draft decision was 
so important to them.  The part of his presentation that used tough 
language to condemn Israel was in Arabic.  The succeeding parts in 
French and English were much more conciliatory and more balanced 
than the explanatory note which prefaced the draft decision. 
Ambassador Oliver held a 45-minute private meeting with Minister 
Mitri regarding the need for a document that was as non-accusatory 
as possible towards Israel so that it could attract support from 
UNESCO member states. 
 
¶6. (SBU) After two weeks of intense negotiations and last minute 
consultations with high-level decision makers in multiple capitals, 
the text was re-worked to eliminate any explicit references to 
Israel, and the language was toned down. However, it was clear from 
early on that the Israelis would not be able to accept the draft 
decision under any circumstances because of the implicit criticism 
of Israel. 
 
¶7. (SBU) The issue went down to the wire, with a negotiated text 
introduced at a short PX Commission meeting on Wednesday, October 
11th by the PX Chairman.  There was no discussion on the document, 
but it was formally tabled to enable countries to send back an 
official version to their capitals.  Many delegations were angered 
at the fact that the draft decision had not been properly 
translated, and indicated that they would have to consult with their 
capitals before indicating whether the language was acceptable or 
not.  Since the draft decision was still unacceptable to many 
countries, including the US and Canada, negotiations continued.  The 
PX Commission was postponed two more times because of a lack of 
agreement on several key aspects of the document. 
 
¶8. (SBU) The PX Commission opened the day on Friday, October 13th, 
before the Plenary, in order to discuss the document that had been 
revised during the last minute negotiations.  The PX Chairman 
introduced the new language and the revised draft decision was 
adopted by the Commission with no debate.  However, the PX Chairman 
said before the adoption that he was aware that there were countries 
that could not support the draft decision. 
 
¶9. (SBU) After the decision was adopted by the Plenary that 
afternoon, the US and Canada formally disassociated themselves from 
the decision with statements to that effect, which will be put into 
the permanent record.  Portugal intervened on behalf of EU members 
to express the EU's satisfaction with the resolution.  Cameroon 
spoke on behalf of the Africa Group, also expressing their 
satisfaction with the resolution. 
 
¶10. (SBU) The Israeli Ambassador, David Kornbluth, obliged to leave 
before sunset in observance of the Jewish Sabbath, gave his number 
two, Daniel Safran, the responsibility of reading Israel's 
declaration (in its status as Observer at the Executive Board) 
strongly opposing the decision. (Executive Board document references 
Jerusalem 175 EX/15; Palestine 175 EX/44 and Add; Lebanon 
175/EX/PX/DR.6). 
 
¶11. (SBU) Comment: It was a close call but UNESCO managed to avoid 
the overt politicization of the Human Rights Council and that 
characterized so much of UNESCO's work in the years before the US 
left the organization.  The US statement, though supporting the idea 
of UNESCO's providing assistance to Lebanon in its fields of 
competence, strongly criticized the anti-Israeli political tone of 
the document.  What remains to be seen is how Israel will respond to 
the Executive Board's decision.  End comment. 
OLIVER