null
Lucia A Keegan  11/29/2006 09:30:59 AM  From  DB/Inbox:  Lucia A Keegan

Cable 
Text:                                                                      
                                                                           
      
UNCLAS        PARIS 07562

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

DISSEMINATION: UNESCOX
CHARGE: PROG

APPROVED: AMB: LVOLIVER
DRAFTED: POL: MAPOINTER
CLEARED: DCM: ACKOSS, EDU: SGLOVEJOY, LEGAL: TMPEAY

VZCZCFRI255
RR RUEHC RUCNDT RUEHGV
DE RUEHFR #7562/01 3321246
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 281246Z NOV 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3393
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1031
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2540

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 007562 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
FOR L/UNA - DAVID SULLIVAN 
FOR ECA - TOM FARRELL, MARIANNE CRAVEN 
DEPARTMENT PASS DEPT. OF EDUCATION - ROBIN GILCHRIST 
AND STEPHANIE WHELPLEY 
DEPARTMENT PASS USAID - JOE CARNEY 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: UNESCO SCUL PHUM LAW
SUBJECT: UNESCO: JOINT EXPERT GROUP DEBATES RIGHT TO EDUCATION 
 
 
¶1. Summary: Experts from UNESCO's Committee on Conventions and 
Recommendations (CR) and the Committee on Economic, Social, and 
Cultural Rights (CESCR) convened the fifth Joint Expert Group 
Session on the right to free education at UNESCO Paris on November 
17, 2006. During discussions on the framework for the right to free 
education, Group members acknowledged diverging views on whether the 
term "primary education" or "basic education" should be used. Group 
members also debated mechanisms to monitor state compliance with 
legal obligations pertaining to the right to free education. The 
desired outcome of the meeting was to create a recommendation to 
submit to the CESCR and the UNESCO CR. End Summary. 
 
¶2. The debut of the session focused on the analysis of the current 
legal framework related to free education, as well as the 
elaboration of a future plan of action to monitor state compliance. 
An expert from the CESCR noted that the legal framework for the 
right to free education exists through the International Covenant on 
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as other normative 
instruments. She urged that it is now time to begin assessing 
compliance as many developing countries still struggle to meet their 
legal obligations. 
 
¶3. Throughout the session, CESCR experts repeatedly highlighted the 
necessity of state party compliance with their legal obligations as 
dictated by the Covenant in Articles 13 and 14. Dr. Alfred Fernandez 
of OIDEL, an NGO operating in the sphere of the right to free 
education, argued that education is not about meeting needs, but 
about respecting the law. In reaction, DCM Koss, who was attending 
as an observer, argued that for UNESCO, it is paramount that the 
focus rests on UNESCO's strengths: promoting capacity building and 
sharing best-practices. In this way, UNESCO is giving member states 
the tools needed to successfully achieve free education, as opposed 
to focusing on useless repercussions of not complying with their 
legal obligations under the Covenant.  CESCR experts countered 
saying that while this aspect is important, legal obligations are 
the relevant flip side of the coin that must also be addressed. 
 
¶4. Experts from UNESCO and the CESCR debated what levels of 
education this international right should entail. UNESCO Basic 
Education Division Head, Mrs. Ann Therese Ndong Jatta, argued that 
"primary education" should be the term of reference. However, the 
independent legal advisor noted that the Dakar Goals for the 
Education for All (EFA) campaign use the term "basic education," a 
term increasingly used within UNESCO. Experts from both sides agreed 
that free "primary education" as a right would be most acceptable as 
it would be the term most likely to garner consensus. In addition, 
this is the term used in the ICESCR, the document having an actual 
legally binding effect. 
 
¶5. Stemming from this discussion, CESCR experts reiterated that at 
the fourth session, they requested an international consultation (to 
include experts, UNESCO member states, and state parties to the 
Covenant) to draw up definitions for primary, basic, and compulsory 
education. Although Mrs. Ndong Jatta was able to provide information 
on the levels generally encompassed in primary and basic education, 
debate continued throughout the day on the need to have an 
international consultation to create clear, consensus-based 
definitions. A date for the consultation was not decided, and the 
process for creating definitions is ongoing. Mrs. Ndong Jatta 
assured Group members that she will discuss the idea with Peter 
Smith, Assistant Director General for Education. 
 
¶6. Portugal argued that UNESCO National Commissions should be 
included in the monitoring of state compliance. However, Mrs. Ndong 
Jatta countered that in many states, National Commission 
representatives are often government officials from the education 
sector. She noted that a conflict of interest could arise if 
National Commissions were relied upon to help ensure state 
compliance with international legal obligations. 
 
¶7. The primary objective of the session was to create a 
recommendation, to be presented to the CESCR and to the UNESCO CR, 
concerning future action to achieve free education and to construct 
monitoring mechanisms. Building on the suggestion made by Mrs. Ndong 
Jatta, Group members agreed that in the recommendation, the first 
recommended step for countries should be to evaluate their own 
budgets to gauge available funds that can be reallocated to 
education. She then argued that the second step should be to 
identify vulnerable groups to whom free education would be the most 
beneficial. This discussion unfolded within the context of seeking 
to establish realistic goals keeping in mind the difficulties 
encountered by Malawi and Kenya as they made the transition to free 
education. Mrs. Ndong Jatta reminded Group members that a national 
plan of action for free education for each state is not necessary as 
the Dakar Goals for EFA already require UNESCO member states to 
formulate such a plan. She insisted that the national action plans 
for EFA should be utilized as platforms for free education as well. 
The recommendation has not yet been published, and will undergo a 
period of consultation and editing between Group members before 
being submitted to the CESCR and the UNESCO CR at the 176th 
Executive Board. 
 
¶8. The next session, to take place in May 2007, will address the 
ongoing elaboration of definitions on primary, basic, and compulsory 
education to create a framework for what levels should be included 
when seeking to establish free education, as well as who should be 
responsible for guaranteeing access once it is made available. The 
next session will also begin addressing the non-discrimination 
aspect of the issue. 
 
¶9. Comment:  As happens so often, UNESCO's approach to a real-world 
problem is legalistic.  Moreover, as also frequently happens, a 
large number of states have made legal commitments they cannot meet. 
 Fortunately, the secretariat agreed with the U.S. observer's view 
that practical capacity building is more important than legal 
sanctions.  Unfortunately, this will probably not deter those who 
are determined to examine this problem through a legalistic prism. 
End Comment. 
OLIVER