VZCZCXYZ0019
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHFR #0669/01 1011601
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 101601Z APR 08
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2544
RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK 0368
RUEHPF/AMEMBASSY PHNOM PENH 0241

UNCLAS PARIS 000669 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPARTMENT PASS TO NPS - STEPHEN MORRIS AND RICHARD SUSSMAN 
EMBASSY BANGKOK FOR MARY-GARDNER COPPOLA; EAP/MLS FOR SHANNON DORSEY 
AND DAVID RICHELSOPH 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: UNESCO SCUL
SUBJECT:  UNESCO - WORLD HERITAGE BANDARIN DEBRIEF 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: Preah Vihear and Jerusalem were the key subjects 
in an hour-long discussion with World Heritage Director Bandarin, 
noting several issues that could provide difficulties during the 
World Heritage Committee meeting in July.  End summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU) State Department IO Deputy Assistant Secretary Gerry 
Anderson and Ambassador Oliver met UNESCO's World Heritage Center 
Director Francesco Bandarin on April 9 for a debrief on current 
issues during Mr. Anderson's presence in Paris for the 179th 
Executive Board. 
 
Bombs and Mines 
 
¶3. (SBU) Mr. Bandarin opened the meeting by describing several 
blocks of issues that will shape July's World Heritage Committee 
(WHC) meeting in Quebec.  They include issues dealing with the State 
of Conservation of WH sites, Sites in Danger, Nominations, and 
Policy issues.  Bandarin noted that while there are certain issues 
that are already sure to spark intense debate, which he called the 
"bombs", his concern is trying to identify the unseen "mines" which 
have not yet been anticipated. 
 
¶4. (SBU)  Bandarin mentioned that some possible sites that could be 
put on Danger List, based on the recommendations of the advisory 
bodies now under review, include the Tower of London and Riga.  He 
added that, in the past, the very act of proposing a site for the 
Danger List creates enormous political pressure, prompting the 
Member State to take action, and has proven to be a greater 
motivator than actually putting a site on the List.  He also said 
that Machu Picchu is a candidate for the Danger List, due to the 
general lack of control of the site, illegal habitats and overall 
sprawl.  Bandarin mentioned that no US sites have been identified as 
candidates for the Danger List. 
 
Urbanization and Outstanding Universal Value 
 
¶5. (SBU) Ambassador Oliver said that the problem of balancing the 
natural growth of cities and maintaining outstanding universal value 
(OUV) is going to be a complicated problem for the WHC in the 
future, given the cases of London, Riga, Florence, St. Peterburg and 
other cities.  Bandarin said that there is a new initiative on the 
subject of problematic urbanization of WH sites.  The issue is now 
being referred to as the "contemporary role of historic urban 
areas".  Bandarin said that the WHC is asking the Director General 
to help develop proposals that will go through the Executive Board 
and ultimately to the General Conference as the WHC is in need of 
some guidelines on difficult cases in this context. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Ambassador Oliver warned that we must be careful in moving 
forward to ensure that we clearly define as to what aspect of WH 
issues is appropriate for the Executive Board to engage in, what is 
appropriate for the WHC, for the Culture Sector, SHS, and all of the 
different players in this area where roles overlap. 
 
Buffer Zones and Periodic Reporting 
 
¶7. (SBU) Bandarin then talked about the issue of "buffer zones", and 
the fact that there is an enormous backlog of work to be done in 
making a "retrospective inventory", as many sites do not have 
identified buffer zones, (e.g., the pyramids in Egypt).  Bandarin 
went on to say that the debate regarding buffer zones as "regulated 
territories" always returns to the question of what is the OUV of 
each site, adding that in the case of many of the older sites the 
World Heritage Center must help them "invent" their OUV's, as they 
were inscribed when less exacting guidelines were in place. 
 
¶8. (SBU) He added that this retrospective inventory, as a part of 
the WH Center's desire to launch a periodic reporting system of WH 
sites, is causing a problem in itself, as a decision taken in the 
1990's to begin with the Arab states is now raising questions, as 
they do not wish to be the "guinea pigs" for the process. 
 
Jerusalem 
 
¶9. (SBU) Bandarin then turned to Jerusalem, and the fact that the 
Arabs are again complaining about the Israelis having put 
"Jerusalem" on their tentative list, which means extending 
boundaries to include Mount Zion.  While this is not a new issue, as 
Israel's Jerusalem candidature, dating from 2000, is clearly marked 
with the footnote, "... to postpone further consideration of this 
nomination proposal until an agreement on the status of the City of 
Jerusalem in conformity with International Law is reached, or until 
the parties concerned submit a joint nomination..."  (The Old City 
of Jerusalem and its Walls was inscribed on the WH List in 1981 by 
 
Jordan). 
 
A Problem Bigger than Mughrabi Gate ? 
 
¶10. (SBU) Bandarin then spoke about Mughrabi Gate, noting that he 
hopes the WHC will appreciate the progress made by all parties, 
demonstrating the success of UNESCO's role as mediator.  He then 
turned to a problem which he feared could potentially be much more 
serious than the Mughrabi Gate for the Arabs.  He described a 
synagogue now under construction in the area of the Western Wall 
where the Israelis are planning to create a large underground area 
for prayer which, while next to the Temple Mount walls, also lies 
beneath the Moslem quarter.  Bandarin fears that this could 
potentially become a problem far larger than Mughrabi Gate.  The 
State of Conservation report on Jerusalem being prepared for Quebec 
will touch upon the synagogue construction, potentially leading to a 
difficult discussion in Quebec. 
 
Cities and Urban Landscapes 
 
¶11. (SBU) Bandarin also talked about another problematic nomination: 
Buenos Aires.  He said that this is part of a new trend in 
nominations, where cities and urban landscapes are being proposed 
for inclusion on the WH List.  The difference, he said, is that 
there is a heavy focus on  "intangible" elements, (e.g., citing a 
neighborhood where the tango was born), potentially broadening the 
meaning of OUV to the point of losing a clear sense of what the 
definition stands for.  He noted that ICOMOS has not accepted the 
nomination, but expects to see similar nominations in the future, 
including Rio de Janeiro. 
 
¶12. (SBU) Ambassador Oliver mentioned the problem of "pre-approved 
nominations", like the case of the Baha'i's, where intangible 
elements, like religion, are brought into the mix, raising the 
viability of nominations of sites that under current guidelines, 
wouldn't normally pass muster. 
 
Preah Vihear 
 
¶13. (SBU) This opened the discussion to the policy of "anticipating 
nominations" and "pre-inscriptions", which Ambassador Oliver 
believes are dangerous practices.  In the case of Preah Vihear, 
Ambassador Oliver said that the WHC in 2007 had left Cambodia with 
the clear impression that if serious progress were made regarding 
certain gaps in its management plan, the WHC would very likely 
approve the site during the Quebec meeting. 
 
¶14. (SBU) Bandarin described Preah Vihear as a "total stalemate", 
where the Cambodians are "playing with words and facts".  He said 
that, while there are many technical problems, in fact, the issue is 
a political one between Thailand and Cambodia. 
 
¶15. (SBU) Ambassador Oliver raised the possibility of having the 
Cambodians accept the creation of a separate International 
Coordination Committee (ICC) for Preah Vihear in the event the site 
is inscribed on the WH List.  She noted that the Cambodians had 
suggested an ICC for Preah Vihear, but only as an adjunct of the 
existing Angkor Wat ICC.  This solution, she said, would not give 
the Thais a sufficiently strong voice, making the solution 
unacceptable.  The question of how to "institutionalize" Thailand's 
voice in such a structure, if resolved, could lead the way to 
resolution of the current problems. 
 
Recentralizing Discussions at UNESCO 
 
¶16. (SBU) Bandarin indicated his concerns that the Cambodians are 
moving in a direction that would effectively cut the Thais out of 
any serious "joint" management of the site.  It was noted that the 
Thais did not attend the recent "technical meeting of experts" 
organized by UNESCO's Culture sector in late March.  Bandarin said 
that that meeting was part of ADG Culture Francoise Riviere's effort 
to "recentralize" discussions in Paris, as certain players in the 
field have taken positions too closely aligned to the two host 
countries.  Ambassador Oliver suggested that any "public" meetings 
on Preah Vihear would be doomed to failure, and that private 
negotiations would be the only way to advance. 
 
Future Events 
 
¶17. (SBU) At the close of the meeting, Bandarin mentioned a recent 
visit to Bahrain, where he saw the largest pre-historic "mound" 
necropolis of some 50,000 burial mounds.  He also informed us of 
UNESCO's plans for a major ceremony next September 10 in connection 
with the re-erection of a monumental obelisk in Ethiopia (financed 
 
by Italy), timed to mark the end of Ethiopia's millennium 
celebrations.  OLIVER