null
Lucia A Keegan  11/28/2006 10:04:02 AM  From  DB/Inbox:  Lucia A Keegan

Cable 
Text:                                                                      
                                                                           
      
UNCLAS        PARIS 07461

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

DISSEMINATION: UNESCOX
CHARGE: PROG

APPROVED: CHARGE: AKOSS
DRAFTED: LEG: MPEAY
CLEARED: NONE

VZCZCFRI770
RR RUEHC RUCNDT RUEHGV
DE RUEHFR #7461/01 3241448
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 201448Z NOV 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3233
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1011
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2536

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 007461 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE PLEASE PASS USPTO 
STATE PASS LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
STATE PASS SMITHSONIAN - RICHARD KURIN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO KPAO
SUBJECT: UNESCO:  EQUITABLE GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION IS PARTIALLY 
ASSURED FOR INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE TREATY BODY 
 
REF:  PARIS 04963 
 
¶1. Summary.  The United States participated as an Observer State at 
the Special General Assembly of States Parties to the Intangible 
Cultural Heritage Convention (the Convention) at its meeting held on 
November 9.  The Special GA elected 6 additional States Parties as 
members to the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC), the policy-making 
body that oversees the Convention's implementation. This brings the 
Committee's membership to its full complement of 24 members, as 
provided for in the Convention.  The Special GA also took steps that 
now ensure that each of UNESCO's six regional groups will hold at 
least 3 seats on the Committee, though some currently hold more. 
Left unresolved is the question of whether there will be a ceiling 
on the maximum number of seats each region will be permitted to 
hold.  The Special GA decided to defer that issue until the next 
regular session of the General Assembly of States Parties to the 
Convention, scheduled for June 2008.  Group I States (mostly Western 
European that, under one formula, would have received only two 
seats) received an unexpected gift of one additional Committee seat, 
thanks to the Africa Group which voluntarily gave up one of its 6 
seats to Group I - on an exceptional basis - in order to foster 
greater geographical balance in the composition of the entire 
Committee.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. As reported in reftel, at the First General Assembly of States 
Parties in June 2006, 18 States Parties were elected to the 
Committee.  Because the number of States Parties to the Convention 
had increased to more than 50 since that time, the States Parties 
were obliged, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Convention, to hold a 
follow-on General Assembly to elect six new States Parties to the 
remaining six Committee seats.   The Special GA was chaired by its 
Vice-Chair, the Brazilian Ambassador, in the absence of the Algerian 
elected as the chair in June, Foreign Minister Bedjaoui. 
 
¶3. BowHefore the balloting was allowed to take place, however, a 
long debate ensued on how to address two important issues left 
unsettled at the June GA - (a) whether there should be an agreed 
minimum of 3 seats per regional group and (b) whether there should 
be a ceiling on the number of seats per regional group.  The 
Asian-Pacific Group (headed by India) led the charge urging deferral 
to a later date the issue of an upper limit on seats per regional 
group.  This was widely supported by most other delegations. 
 
¶4. Delegations were then unexpectedly informed by the Gabon 
Ambassador (speaking on behalf of the Africa Group (Group V(a)) that 
that group had decided on an exceptional basis to relinquish 
voluntarily one of its seats for the benefit of Group I, with the 
caveat that in doing so, its decision should be understood as having 
no bearing on how the GA ultimately decides the question of whether 
an upper limit on seats per regional group."  This was greeted with 
applause and a round of compliments for the Africa Group's 
magnanimity. 
 
¶5. The Assembly then proceeded to carry out the election of the six 
new members, preceded by clarification for the record of how many 
seats per regional group would be filled.  As agreed, Group I would 
gain one seat; Group II, one seat; Group III, one seat; Group V(a), 
two seats; and Group V(b) one seat.  The successful candidate 
countries were: France (Group I); Belarus (Group II); Bolivia (Group 
III); Central African Republic and Mali (Group V(a)); and Syria 
(Group V(b)). 
 
¶6. The remaining important item of business was to decide which 12 
Member States on the Committee would be selected by lot to serve an 
initial term of only two, rather than four, years as foreseen by 
Article 6 of the Convention.  It was decided that two members of 
each regional group would have terms limited from 2006-2008, while 
the remaining members would serve a full four-year term until 2010. 
Those selected by lot for two-year terms were: Group I (Belgium and 
France); Group II (Bulgaria and Romania); Group III (Bolivia and 
Brazil); Group IV (China and Japan); Group V(a) (Nigeria and 
Senegal); and Group V(b) (Algeria and Syria). 
 
¶7. Article 6 of the Convention provides that "The election of States 
Members of the Committee shall obey the principles of equitable 
geographical representation and rotation."  UNESCO's practice has 
more often than not adhered to the norm of equitable geographic 
representation in the form of balanced geographical representation. 
This approach has tended to attach less importance to the uneven 
number of States per region and factors such as how many States per 
region at a given time may be parties to a given Convention.  In the 
context of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, however, 
there has developed a strong groundswell, particularly among the 
Group II and Group IV countries, to diverge from that practice in 
deciding on representation on the all-important, rules-making and 
decision-making Inter-Governmental Committee. 
 
¶8. Comment: Slow ratifications of this Convention in Group I among 
Western European countries have placed that regional group at a 
distinct disadvantage vis-`-vis other regions that currently stand 
to wield significant power on the Committee.  The mood surrounding 
elections to the Committee has clearly set it off, unfortunately, on 
a highly politicized footing.  The African Group gesture toned this 
down just a bit by ensuring that Group I will have at least 3 seats 
during this crucial start-up phase of the Committee's 
decision-making and work.  However, the still unresolved issue of 
whether there will be a ceiling on the number of seats per regional 
group still threatens to further politicize this new UNESCO treaty 
body.  The potential for adverse spill-over effects on other nascent 
UNESCO treaty bodies (such as the Committee to be established under 
the 2005 so-called Cultural Diversity Convention when it enters into 
force) cannot be discounted.  This would be unfortunate not just 
within the UNESCO context but also elsewhere within the UN system 
where other treaty bodies are also being negotiated and/or being 
established.  The outcome of this process therefore deserves to be 
closely followed, particularly as we move toward inter-agency 
reflection on whether the U.S. should look afresh look at the 
possibility of joining the ICH Convention.   The U.S. will field a 
small observer delegation to the First Meeting of the IGC that meets 
in Algiers November 18-19.   A report on that meeting will follow. 
KOSS