null
Lucia A Keegan  11/28/2006 10:10:12 AM  From  DB/Inbox:  Lucia A Keegan

Cable 
Text:                                                                      
                                                                           
      
UNCLAS    SENSITIVE     PARIS 07553

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

DISSEMINATION: UNESCOX
CHARGE: PROG

APPROVED: AMB:LVOLIVER
DRAFTED: LEG:TMPEAY
CLEARED: DCM:AKOSS, USPTO:MSHAPIRO

VZCZCFRI227
RR RUEHC RUCNSCO
DE RUEHFR #7553/01 3320622
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 280622Z NOV 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3378
INFO RUCNSCO/UNESCO COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 007553 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR IO/UNESCO 
PLEASE PASS USPTO (SHAPIRO) 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO KPAO
SUBJECT:  UNESCO - FIRST INTERGOVERNMENTAL MEETING OF INTANGIBLE 
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES ON SOUTH VS NORTH DIVISIVE 
NOTE 
 
 REF: PARIS 07461 
 
¶1. (U) Begin Summary. The first meeting of the Inter-Governmental 
Committee (IGC) for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural 
Heritage was held in Algiers November 18-19, 2006.  The UNESCO D-G 
laid out a detailed timetable of proposed IGC and General Assembly 
meetings over the next two years that will likely set the pace for 
upcoming meetings.  The IGC had a preliminary exchange of views on 
key criteria and other issues that will ultimately govern the 
process of determining which cultural expressions are inscribed on 
the "Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of 
Humanity."  China will host an extraordinary session of the IGC in 
Beijing (23-27 May 2007) and Japan will host the IGC's second 
regular session in early September 2007 (date still uncertain). 
Reasons for concern about an incipient North-South political divide 
have begun to appear early within the Committee.  China, India, and 
Japan have already begun to assert prominent roles in shaping the 
debate on key aspects of how the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) 
Convention is to be implemented.  The U.S. observer delegation was 
well-received by all and was one of a number of other UNESCO Member 
States not Parties to the Convention that sent observer delegations 
to this meeting.  There was wide recognition by many of the 
important role that the Smithsonian Institution and other U.S. 
cultural agencies are already playing in supporting and promoting 
intangible cultural heritage not only within the United States but 
also in other countries as well.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (U) In the wake of having reached its full complement of 24 
members (see reftel), the Committee held its first meeting in 
Algiers on November 18-19, 2006.  The U.S. Observer Delegation 
consisted of U.S. Mission to UNESCO Legal Adviser Michael Peay and 
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Office of International 
Relations Attorney-Adviser Michael Shapiro.  The meeting was chaired 
by Algerian Minister of Culture, Mme Khalida Toumi.  Committee 
representation was an interesting mix of both technical experts and 
professional diplomats, each group quite vocal, which resulted in a 
robust, analytical debate on most issues.   Non-States Party 
observer delegations (such as the U.S. delegation) were permitted to 
speak, upon request, without objection by States Parties, though 
such interventions were very few.  However, during the two days of 
discussions, it became increasingly clear that the Asian-Pacific 
States on the Committee (led by India and China) had caucused 
beforehand and had come prepared to use their financial muscle and 
political solidarity to play a dominant role in shaping the early 
implementation of the Convention.  By the close of the conference, 
there was considerable grumbling, particularly among European 
States, that the Asian-Pacific assertiveness and their positions on 
important substantive issues had driven an incipient North-South 
wedge between Committee members.  A recurring theme in Asian-Pacific 
States' interventions was a sense of grievance or disappointment 
about some aspects of the World Heritage Committee process and the 
need to avoid repeating that experience on this Committee. 
 
¶3. (U) Key Agenda Items Addressed at Meeting.  Given the brevity of 
only two working days, the Committee moved with relative efficiency 
to address all items on its agenda, with a general understanding 
that time would permit only a preliminary exchange of views on some 
agenda items.  The key items addressed were: adoption of the 
Committee's Rules of Procedure; implementation operational 
guidelines; criteria for inscription on the "Representative List"; 
and advisory assistance to the Committee. 
 
 ¶4. (U) Rules of Procedure.  The Committee gave in-depth 
consideration to the draft Rules of Procedure.  The UNESCO Legal 
Adviser acknowledged that the draft Rules of Procedure which the 
secretariat had prepared for the IGC were virtually identical to 
 
SIPDIS 
those used by the World Heritage Committee (WHC) (established under 
the UNESCO 1972 Convention).  However, he informed the Committee 
that it need not "slavishly adhere" to the WHC rules.  In line with 
that guidance, the Committee considered a number of proposed 
amendments to the draft rules, some of which were adopted.  Among 
the most important amendments adopted were those relating to Rule 20 
(rules applicable to consultative bodies), Rules 40 and 41 (secret 
ballots on IGC decisions), and Rule 43 (working languages). 
However, a proposal to amend the draft rules to change the voting 
requirement from a simple majority to a two-thirds majority 
(mirroring the WHC) failed to attract support.  At the close of the 
debate on this item, the Asian-Pacific group had gotten most of the 
changes to the rules that it had sought. 
 
¶5. (U) Implementation Operational Guidelines.  The 
secretariat-drafted outline that was proposed as a basis for the 
 
SIPDIS 
preparation of the Committee's Operational Directives for 
implementation of the Convention were found to be wanting by a 
number of IGC members and is to be revised in the light of the views 
expressed about it.  The outline became controversial and could not 
be adopted, because, in effect, it embodies contentious 
implementation issues that had not yet been taken up under separate 
agenda items. 
 
¶6. (U) Criteria for Inscription on the Representative List.  The 
secretariat announced at the outset that, in view of the technical 
 
SIPDIS 
expertise needed to evaluate certain ICH expressions, it will 
probably be necessary to convene an experts meeting to assist the 
committee in drawing up the inscription criteria.  (Note: in this 
regard, India intervened twice to note for the record that it is 
prepared to host such an experts meeting; India lamented the fact 
that no Indian experts had known about or participated in previous 
experts' meetings).  The Committee considered a draft set of 10 
(ten) criteria.  There was strong Committee resistance (led by 
India's UNESCO Ambassador Mukherjee) to the secretariat's operating 
assumption that all ten criteria should be satisfied for inscription 
on the List.  A recurrent theme from a number of delegations 
representing a variety of regions was that the inscription criteria 
should not be too numerous and should be sufficiently "flexible" to 
enable inscription.  In view of time constraints and the divergent 
views that emerged regarding the content and quantity of inscription 
criteria, it was agreed that Committee Members and other States 
Parties to the Convention should submit their written views on the 
criteria by no later than 31 January 2007.  Observer States not 
party to the Convention (e.g., the U.S. and others) were informed 
that the submission of written views is limited to just States 
Parties to the Convention.  Among "criteria" issues most likely to 
be most in contention are: (i) number of criteria to be satisfied; 
(ii) rigidity vs. flexibility of criteria; inclusion, substitution, 
or elimination of contentious terms such as "roots", "repetition", 
and "free, prior, and informed consent"; (iii) duration of listing; 
(iv) de-listing; and (v) whether the criteria for the two lists 
("Representative" and "Needing Urgent Safeguarding") will be 
identical. 
 
¶7. (U) Advisory Bodies.  Another highly contentious discussion 
ensued over the issue of advisory organizations, including their 
accreditation, and how to ensure their regional representativeness 
and comprehensiveness from a technical standpoint.  India 
energetically led the charge in urging the Committee to avoid the 
experience of the World Heritage Committee that was limited to just 
two advisory bodies that were "overworked and understaffed."  What 
should the IGC do if it disagrees with a recommendation from an 
advisory body was also raised by India.  There was strong Chinese 
and other opposition (including Brazil and France to a proposed 
"umbrella advisory body" that would be composed of "representatives 
of accredited NGOs and of a limited number of private persons with 
widely recognized competence in the field of ICH." As proposed by 
the secretariat, the umbrella body would have the power to: monitor 
implementation of the Convention; recommend safeguarding measures; 
examine reports from States; review and recommend nominations for 
inscription on the two lists (noted above); and exercise other 
unspecified powers.  As a parting shot on this issue, India took the 
floor to note that, in the World Heritage Committee context, (quote) 
"when Western NGOs seek to collaborate with NGOs from the South, it 
often does not work and tends to lead to sharp North/South divisions 
and the impression that the North is telling the South what to do" 
(end quote).  This statement resonated poorly with European and some 
other delegates and, at the end of the day, gave the meeting a sour 
overtone. 
 
 ¶8. (U) The debate on advisory bodies ended with the adoption of a 
resolution in which the Committee: (a) noted that it "wishes to be 
assisted by practitioners of ICH, NGO experts, centers of expertise 
with recognized competency in the field of ICH"; (b) decided to 
continue consideration of whether to establish an "umbrella advisory 
body;" (c) requested the D-G to submit a proposal on criteria for 
accreditation of competent NGOs; and (d) invited Committee members 
and other States Parties to the ICH Convention to submit suggestions 
and proposals on these matters before 31 January 2007. 
 
¶9. (U) Venues/Timelines for next meetings.  At this meeting, the IGC 
began to give effect to the recommended timetable of meetings that 
was suggested by the UNESCO D-G in the opening plenary session. It 
was decided that China will host an extra-ordinary session of the 
IGC in Beijing, 23-27 May 2007, and that Japan would host the next 
regular IGC session in early September (date to be determined). 
Should there be a need for an experts' meeting before or after 
either of those two IGC meetings, it is a virtual certainty that the 
IGC will approve India's proposal to host such a meeting.  Pursuant 
to the D-G's timetable, the first inscription of entries on the 
Representative List should take place during the Committee's autumn 
2008 third regular meeting.  To meet that goal, the Committee 
members (half of whom will be preparing to leave the Committee by 
that date) will have to find a higher level of consensus on key 
issues, or begin resorting to a series of contentious votes to 
resolve those issues.  Within this timetable, the D-G specifically 
noted the importance of the IGC approving operational directives, 
guidelines for accreditation of NGOs, and guidelines for financial 
assistance for submission to the 2007 General Assembly. 
 
¶10. (SBU) Begin Comment:  The Algiers meeting provoked unmistakable 
North vs. South tensions within the IGC's start-up process.  Whether 
this proves to be temporary and largely a function of the 
personalities currently leading the Asian-Pacific group on the 
Committee or becomes an enduring feature of the Committee's work 
remains to be seen.  What seems clear at the moment is that a sour 
political overtone has been injected into the mix that could deepen 
further during the next several meetings - to be hosted by Asian 
countries.  The Group I (European) countries and most Latin 
countries, on the other hand, have taken a less strident position 
and seem to be working toward a balance in inter-regional control 
over the implementation of this Convention.  A number of countries 
mentioned, with admiration, to U.S. observer delegation reps the 
excellent ICH work being done by the Smithsonian Institution and 
other U.S. cultural agencies, in particular, and U.S. society, in 
general.  Frequently, this observation was matched with a follow-on 
comment that it would be great if the U.S. could join the Convention 
and play an even greater role from the inside.  U.S. observer 
delegation reps were frequently asked whether the U.S. will join the 
Convention. The routine response given was that we could not predict 
what future position the U.S. will take but that we are obtaining 
firsthand information about the Convention processes as part of 
giving the Convention an overall look. 
 
¶11. (U) (Comment continued) Ironically, China and Japan (along with 
France, Belgium, Brazil, Nigeria, and Algeria) are among the 12 
States on the Committee selected by lot to serve only two (rather 
than four years, ending in June 2008.  They will likely attempt to 
exert their maximum influence for the remaining time of their 
tenure.  This should be coupled with the fact that some Committee 
members seem intent on ensuring that the Intangible Cultural 
Heritage Convention will give to the "South" the world-renowned 
cultural heritage listings that the World Heritage Convention has 
already given to the "North."  In the ICH context, however, the 
South will definitely need the North's practical and material 
assistance to achieve their goals under this Convention.  Group I 
(largely Western European) countries will need to decide (sooner 
rather than later) whether they are willing to cede control over 
this convention entirely to the Asia-Pacific (or more generally 
"southern") countries, or whether they are prepared to take a more 
assertive role as insiders.  The U.S. will also need to assess its 
current position as a curious observer outside the Convention's 
framework, in the face of repeated questions from other delegations 
as to whether the U.S. is prepared to formally come within the 
Convention regime.  End Comment. 
OLIVER