VZCZCXRO6718
RR RUEHAP RUEHFL RUEHGI RUEHGR RUEHKN RUEHKR RUEHMA RUEHMJ RUEHMR
RUEHPA RUEHPB RUEHQU RUEHRN
DE RUEHFR #1029/01 1510909
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 300909Z MAY 08
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3203
INFO RUCNSCO/UNESCO COLLECTIVE
RUEHJM/AMCONSUL JERUSALEM 0318

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 PARIS 001029 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION TO UNESCO PARIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: UNESCOSCULPRELPHUMKPALCUIRXFVEKV
SUBJECT: UNESCO SPRING EXECUTIVE BOARD:  POLITICAL ISSUES 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  UNESCO's April 1-17 Executive Board was a success 
for the United States.  On the whole, we enjoyed good working 
relations with countries in other geographic groups.  Regional 
voting blocs and economic and other groupings, such as the 
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the G-77 initially sought 
confrontation on several issues but later showed flexibility.  Most 
notably, Cuba and Iran fell far short when they tried to submit a 
draft initiative on human rights and cultural diversity that was 
intended to polarize the organization between the non-aligned and 
others. 
 
¶2. (SBU) On major policy issues (internal management-organizational 
issues septel), we were able once again to adopt consensually 
without debate a resolution on Jerusalem and the Mughrabi Gate 
ascent to the Temple Mount. A Venezuelan initiative for a treaty on 
the preservation of indigenous languages was deferred for 
consideration at a later Executive Board, largely because Venezuela 
had failed to follow through on its undertaking to provide 
extra-budgetary funding for a preliminary experts' study of what 
would be needed.  (N.B. The Board did not accept any proposals for 
new normative instruments.) Finally, the Board endorsed a refined 
(and significantly pared down) plan of action for the commemoration 
of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
that included a U.S. suggestion that the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights be translated into an additional 120 indigenous 
languages, if possible.  The decision "invites the Director-General 
to seek extra-budgetary resources" to ensure implementation of the a 
number of elements in the refined plan. 
 
¶3. (SBU) We did not, of course, get everything we wanted or entirely 
avoid controversy.  We would have preferred, for example, that the 
Mughrabi Gate issue not be treated as a separate agenda item, as the 
issue is a technical matter more appropriately addressed by the 
World Heritage Committee and, within the Executive Board as one of a 
cluster of progress reports routinely made by the Director General 
on pending matters. A last minute maneuver by Egypt (against the 
highly unusual combined opposition of Israel, Jordan, and the 
Palestinians) resulted in the adoption of a decision that retained 
the Mughrabi Gate issue on the Executive Board's future as an 
element of the "Jerusalem" issue. 
 
¶4. (SBU) On a more concerning note, a U.S. decision to invoke its 
right to request permission to observe private sessions of the 
Committee on Conventions and Recommendations (CR) as it reviews 
human rights complaints, even though we are not a member of the CR, 
met with heated opposition from Cuba and South Africa and statements 
of concern from France and Luxembourg.  The rarity of requests like 
ours by sitting Executive Board Member States, combined with the 
fact that both the rules and past precedent allowed for such 
observer participation, caught opponents by surprise and led some 
to argue that the presence of the U.S. or other observers would 
somehow chill the committee's debates.   An obviously, uncomfortable 
German committee chair after consulting UNESCO's Legal Adviser and 
the Bureau ruled in our favor taking the view that the rules of 
procedure cannot be changed during an Executive Board session. We 
need to be alert, however, for a move to change those rules at a 
succeeding Board session.  Finally, Serbian Foreign Minister Jeremic 
strongly denounced the alleged destruction of Serbian cultural 
monuments in Kosovo and served notice that Serbia will look to 
UNESCO to help protect cultural sites in the face of "the danger 
posed by the unilateral, illegal, and illegitimate declaration of 
independence by the Kosovo Albanians on February 17."  End Summary. 
 
¶5. (U) The 58 members of UNESCO's Executive Board (EB) met in Paris 
April 1-17 for the Board's 179th session.  This was the first 
substantive Board meeting since last October's General Conference 
and a key opportunity to set the tone for the biennium now 
beginning. This message examines the key political issues at the 
Board.  A separate message will report on the Board's consideration 
of issues relating to UNESCO's internal organization and management. 
 
 
CUBAN DRAFT DECISION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY 
 
¶6. (SBU) Cuba began a four-year term on the Board with a strong 
effort to revive UNESCO's dormant non-aligned caucus (NAM) of which 
it is the chair and polarize the membership along north-south lines. 
 In doing so, it worked hand-in-glove with Iran (not currently a 
Board member). UNESCO almost always operates on consensus with most 
measures adopted by consensus. Friendly diplomats on developing 
country delegations, however, warned us just before the Board that 
in meetings of the NAM Cuba was talking openly of forcing votes and 
was trying to win support from NAM members to launch several 
initiatives that the north would be certain to oppose.  Among these 
was a suggestion from Iran that the NAM submit a resolution on the 
"right to scientific knowledge."  Thanks, we are told, to the strong 
opposition of India, Cuba and Iran failed to win the backing of the 
NAM for such a measure . 
 
PARIS 00001029  002 OF 006 
 
 
 
¶7. (SBU) Cuba and Iran did, however, win agreement to the submission 
of a draft decision that requested UNESCO take note of the 
Declaration on "Human Rights and Cultural Diversity" that was 
adopted by the September 2007 NAM Ministerial in Tehran.  As 
submitted initially, the draft recommended that UNESCO use the 
Tehran declaration during its celebration the 60th anniversary of 
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  It would also have 
required UNESCO to cooperate with the NAM Center for Human Rights 
and Cultural Diversity in Tehran, as well as insert an item on 
"Human Rights and Cultural Diversity" on the agenda of the Spring 
2009 Executive Board session. 
 
¶8. (SBU) The Cubans' draft resolution aroused strong opposition 
among Western countries (Group I). In several heated Group I 
meetings, many states expressed resentment at the apparent link 
being made between the 2005 Convention on the Diversity of Cultural 
Expressions and the body of generally accepted human rights, as well 
as the implied limitation on full respect for all human rights when 
such rights are inconsistent with dominant cultural mores. France 
and Belgium were adamant about their readiness to call for a vote on 
the Cuban draft, if necessary.   Italy recalled in that advocates of 
the 2005 convention had explicitly assured the U.S. that the 
convention had nothing to do with human rights. Greece strongly 
condemned a blatant effort at "forum shopping."  The Greek 
ambassador pointed out that the United Nations General Assembly 
(UNGA) had spent three weeks debating a resolution referring to the 
Tehran NAM Declaration and had in the end only agreed to take note 
of that document.  Cuba and Iran should get less in Paris than they 
got in New York, he insisted. 
 
¶9. (SBU) In the end, the Norwegian EB Vice Chair Einar Steensnaes 
(representing Group I) held a series of tense negotiating sessions 
with NAM representatives that continued until the afternoon of the 
Board's very last day.  In these discussions, European Union members 
were keen to have the NAM agree to language that reiterated that 
universality of human rights and removed direct reference to the 
Tehran Declaration.  (The French told us that they suspected the 
Iranians' ultimate goal was to create cultural exceptions to 
otherwise universal human rights standards.)  Numerous formulations 
were tried, as was a general reference to the 1993 Vienna Plan of 
Action.  When NAM representatives would not accept such a reference, 
France with support from Italy, Belgium, and other Europeans 
announced it was instructed to seek a vote.  At this, however, the 
NAM recoiled. Even though the Cubans' original intention had 
probably been to force such an outcome, the other NAM members 
clearly did not want to break UNESCO's tradition of consensus and 
leave the organization divided and politicized.  In the end, the NAM 
agreed to a resolution that referred only to the General Assembly 
resolution (62/155) -- not the underlying Tehran Declaration -- and 
quotes language from the Vienna Plan of Action that reaffirms that 
all human rights are universal, while tasking the UNESCO 
Director-General to "report on UNESCO's activities on human rights 
and cultural diversity, through the Executive Board, in order to 
contribute to the Secretary-General's report on this subject" at the 
64th General Assembly session. 
 
Jerusalem and Mughrabi Gate Issues 
 
¶10. (SBU) Jerusalem and the Mughrabi Ascent to the Temple Mount 
bulked large at this session as they have at recent Board meetings. 
While UNESCO was once again able to avoid divisive debate and adopt 
resolutions on these topics by consensus, there was extensive and 
sometimes heated discussion in the corridors outside the meeting. 
 
¶11. (SBU) The essential issue was whether the Mughrabi Ascent should 
be treated as a stand-alone agenda item, and if not, whether it 
should be subsumed within the resolution on Jerusalem that is taken 
up at each session as a separate item.  In recent Executive Boards, 
for reasons that were unique to those sessions, there has been one 
resolution on maintaining the character of Jerusalem and another 
regarding the Mughrabi Ascent to the Temple Mount. At this Board 
session, it no longer made sense to keep the Mughrabi Ascent as a 
separate agenda item as the issue was referred to the World Heritage 
Committee last year.  In taking this position, the U.S. was joined 
by Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian observer delegation. 
 
¶12. (SBU) Egypt, nonetheless, was determined to keep the Mughrabi 
Ascent as a separate item on the Executive Board's agenda and 
skillfully manipulated Executive Board Chairman Ya'i (Benin) to 
facilitate this outcome.  The U.S. was forced to intervene in the 
first minutes of the opening Plenary to object to the inclusion on 
the formal agenda of an item on this subject.  We argued the item 
could be dealt with in the Director-General's progress report to the 
Board on actions taken to implement past Executive Board decisions; 
any additional actions should be agreed at the World Heritage 
Committee. 
 
 
PARIS 00001029  003 OF 006 
 
 
¶13. (SBU) Deputy Director-General Barbosa attempted to defuse the 
problem by folding the Mughrabi Ascent issue into a second "section" 
of the draft decision that dealt with the character of Jerusalem. 
Egypt eventually accepted inclusion of language on the Mughrabi 
issue in the larger draft Jerusalem decision, but worked behind the 
scenes with Chairman Ya'i and the Secretariat to have a separate 
topic on Mughrabi Gate included in the agenda at the last moment, 
although the draft decision presented on this topic was purely 
pro-forma. The important language on the Mughrabi ascent issue wound 
up in the Jerusalem resolution. Notably, as finally adopted, the 
latter decision invites the Director-General to make a progress on 
the issue. This decision is ambiguous as to when and in what form 
the progress report is to be made. 
 
¶14. (SBU) The U.S. made a statement for the record after the 
decision was adopted, indicating that it would make formal 
objections in the future should the Mughrabi Ascent be again put on 
the agenda as a separate item.  Only Egypt and Algeria spoke 
afterwards, reaffirming their view that the Mughrabi Ascent is of 
sufficient importance to require its review as a separate issue. 
 
INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES 
 
¶15. (SBU) Before the Board's opening, it had been widely assumed 
that the language issue would dominate these proceedings.  This is 
the UN's Year of Languages, and Venezuela had convinced the Spring 
2007 Board to adopt a decision, requesting the Director-General to 
"conduct a preliminary study of the technical and legal aspects of a 
possible international standard-setting instrument for the 
protection of indigenous and endangered languages . . . . and to 
submit such a preliminary study to the Executive Board" at its 
Spring 2008 session. EB Chairman Ya'i did little to conceal his 
support for the idea of a new standard-setting instrument, believing 
fervently as he does, that African children must receive some of 
their education in their native languages. 
 
¶16. (SBU) In any event, the push for a new treaty on languages 
stalled.  While the Latin American states did not wish to publicly 
disagree with Venezuela, current chair of the Latin American group, 
we understand many expressed reservations when the Latin group met 
behind closed doors.  Most important, there was no preliminary study 
for the Board to discuss because, after winning agreement to conduct 
such a study, Venezuela failed to provide the extra-budgetary funds 
needed to carry it out. 
 
COMMEMORATION OF THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UDHR 
 
¶17. (SBU) Prior to this Executive Board meeting, the U.S. 
Delegation anticipated that consideration of UNESCO's proposed plan 
for commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration 
of Human Rights would lead to heated controversy as happened when 
the plan was first presented to the General Conference last October. 
 At that time, the Secretariat's ambitious plans for a series of 
regional conferences and two large international meetings, all 
intended to focus on emerging rights, provoked vigorous debate 
following which the General Conference refused to "endorse" the 
original plan and called for a "refined plan" for approval at this 
Executive Board session. 
 
¶18. (SBU) Debate on this issue turned out to be calmer at this Board 
session than at the General Conference last October.  In the end, 
two decisions on this topic were adopted with little fanfare.  One 
was a scaled back version of the original plan but with deeper 
Member State ownership and input, for most of which the 
Director-General will seek extra-budgetary funding.  (N.B. The list 
included a U.S. suggestion that the Universal Declaration be 
translated into as many as 120 additional indigenous languages.  A 
symbolic U.S. contribution toward the costs of such translation will 
be needed to re-affirm U.S. credibility on this issue.)  A second 
decision submitted by Colombia with significant support from other 
Latin American states requested the Director-General to provide 
intellectual support for a regional human rights conference in 
Colombia and asked him to mobilize the intellectual and human 
resources needed to organize this event, "it being understood that 
conference's logistical expenses will be covered by the host 
country." 
 
OTHER ISSUES 
 
¶19. (SBU) EDUCATION:  Few other issues provoked the drama or 
controversy of the ones already mentioned.  There were, however, 
several significant education issues on the agenda.  The Board, for 
example, adopted without debate a decision on Educational and 
Cultural Institutions in the occupied Arab Territories.  Adopted 
also was a progress report on the application of the Global Action 
Plan to achieve the Education for All (EFA) goals by 2015. On that 
item, this Delegation was successful in ensuring that the language 
in the draft decision clarified that there were other financial 
 
PARIS 00001029  004 OF 006 
 
 
mechanisms in addition to the Fast Track Initiative (FTI) that were 
funding EFA. WE also expanded the meaning of the term "multi-lateral 
assistance" to include "promoting national leadership, capacity 
development, communication and advocacy, resource mobilization and 
effective use of aid through existing mechanisms" so that it was not 
limited to financial assistance.  Finally, there was broad support 
for a German draft decision requesting a UNESCO strategy on 
Technical and Vocational Education and Training.  Over half of the 
delegations, including the United States, agreed to cosponsor this 
proposal. 
 
¶20. (U) A Latin-proposed measure on PRELAC (Regional Education 
Project for Latin America and the Caribbean) was postponed until the 
autumn 2008 Executive Board at the request of the Latin American 
countries, because the UNESCO-prepared document blatantly failed to 
reflect the decisions taken by the Latin American Ministers of 
Education at the second Intergovernmental Committee meeting of 
PRELAC in March, 2007. 
 
¶21. (SBU) The most controversial education item was a decision on 
the Joint Experts Seventh Meeting on the Right to Education.  The 
United States had concerns that both the summary and the draft 
decision referred to "normative bases" and could imply that UNESCO 
and the Joint Experts group were seeking new normative instruments 
in this area.  The United States, working through the Portuguese 
Delegation, was successful in ensuring that the draft resolution 
expressly referred to "existing" normative bases so it is clear that 
no new normative instruments would be created or implied regarding 
this topic. 
 
¶22. (U) SCIENCE:  Natural Science issues generated little debate at 
this Board.  Discussion of UNESCO's Draft Climate Change Strategy 
generated nothing like the controversy it did when first discussed 
last October.  It was not adopted, however. About 25 members of the 
Executive Board spoke, most favorably.  St. Kitts and Nevis 
encouraged greater emphasis on Small Island Developing States 
(SIDS), and added language to increase emphasis on SIDS and other 
less developed countries.  The US requested a reduction in the 
emphasis on renewable energy based on a desire to focus resources in 
areas of demonstrated UNESCO competence.  Luxembourg supported this 
position.  Norway encouraged greater focus and asked for a revised 
plan with specifics on value added, significant contributions, and 
measurable results.  A revised plan will be submitted at the 181st 
Executive Board meeting.  The US also requested that the key 
concerns of Member States, expressed at the meeting, be addressed. 
 
¶23. (U) Member States also supported an Ethiopian proposal to make 
2011 the International Year of Chemistry. 
 
¶24. (U) Also considered were several so-called category 2 centers, 
centers that are paid for by the host countries but are supposed to 
assist UNESCO in its work.  Two proposed centers, one in China and 
the other in the Korean Republic aroused little opposition, although 
several members questioned whether two centers dedicated to the 
preservation of intangible cultural heritage of the Asia-Pacific 
region were needed in such close proximity to each other.  The 
Secretariat was asked to prepare a feasibility study on these and to 
report on its findings at the autumn 2008 session of the Board. 
 
¶25. (SBU) A Chinese proposal to establish a Category 2 Center 
managed by the Chinese Academy of Sciences to monitor cultural and 
natural sites, including World Heritage Sites and World Biosphere 
Reserves, using satellite remote sensing techniques aroused an 
extended debate.  Approximately 20 countries endorsed the proposal 
with only minor criticisms.  Most speakers noted the important 
capacity-building aspects and hoped to cooperate with the Center. 
The Japanese, however, remarked that no current activities existed 
between their space agency (JAXA) and the CAS, although China had 
claimed some cooperation with Japan in the proposal.  The US spoke 
positively about the Center but attempted to add language that would 
require for all such Centers, starting with Category II Centers 
approved at this Board session, a standing requirement to obtain an 
external review before the Center could be renewed by UNESCO.  China 
agreed, in principle, that reviews of centers should be encouraged 
but wanted the matter deferred and considered in a larger context. 
Brazil stated that there was a provision for review in the model 
agreement for centers in Annex II, Article 16 of the 33C/Resolution 
¶90.  This article permits review by the Director-General with a 
presentation of the results at the Executive Board.  Language to 
request a review by the Director-General of the Center prior to 
renewal under Article 16 was accepted. 
 
DIFFICULT POINTS AND WARNING FLAGS 
 
¶26. (SBU) CR:  Not everything went our way.  Disagreements emerged 
that signal serious problems at future Executive Boards.  In 
addition to the second agenda item on the Mughrabi Gate (see above), 
the U.S. request to observe the private deliberations of the 
 
PARIS 00001029  005 OF 006 
 
 
Committee on Conventions and Recommendations (CR) touched off 
fireworks that may have reverberations at the Board session next 
autumn.  Despite the CR Chairman's approval (Germany), several 
countries, including Cuba and South Africa, registered strong and 
continuing protests against the U.S. presence in the room, while 
France and Luxembourg indicated discomfort with such a practice, 
invoking vaguely articulated reasons.  The central argument invoked 
against having an observer present was that an observer could 
compromise the confidentiality of the (human rights) "cases" being 
discussed.  The U.S., however, was clear that, while countries whose 
cases are being reviewed by the Committee should never be present 
during the CR's debate over what conclusions should be drawn and how 
to report to the Executive Board, all Executive Board members can be 
entrusted to respect the confidentiality of CR proceedings and hence 
"private" meetings should never exclude sitting Executive Board 
members.  (Note:  All member states may sit in as observers at all 
Executive Board sessions and at meetings of its subsidiary bodies 
and committees.)  Moreover, there has not to date been any known 
instance of an observer State violating the confidentiality of any 
CR proceeding. 
 
¶27. (SBU) The issue was discussed with UNESCO's Legal Adviser and in 
the Bureau.  It was acknowledged that the rules do not prohibit such 
observer status and it was determined that the existing rules of 
procedure could not be revised during the current Executive Board 
session. We believe that the rules are clear that all UNESCO 
meetings, whether called "private" or "open" may be observed by, at 
the very least, all sitting Executive Board Members. "Private" 
should be interpreted as meaning that such meetings may not be 
viewed by the general public or other UN agencies.  We can expect, 
however, that the question of which countries may observe various 
meetings will come up again at a future Board meeting, and we could 
well face a move to change the rules to make observer presence at 
private sessions impossible.  We should begin to muster compelling 
legal arguments that can be deployed when that debate arises. 
 
¶28. (U) Serbia/Kosovo:  Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic used 
his remarks during the general debate at the opening of the 
Executive Board to deliver a stern warning that Serbia may seek in 
future to raise at UNESCO the issue of preservation of Serbian 
cultural monuments in Kosovo.  In a highly emotional statement that 
won scattered applause from other delegations he declared that "the 
greatest challenge to human rights in Serbia lies in our southern 
province of Kosovo under United Nations administration since June 
1999 . . . . More than 150 churches or monasteries  . . . have been 
set ablaze by Kosovo Albanian extremists in the past eight years . . 
. . Hundreds of other holy sites remain at risk . . . The purposeful 
attempt to vandalize, loot, burn, desecrate, and destroy what others 
have built long ago  . . . (to) invent an historical narrative of 
one's own must be condemned in the strongest possible terms, and 
identified clearly for what they are:  revolting acts of cultural 
cleansing." 
 
COMMENT: 
 
¶29. (SBU) By the standards of past UNESCO meetings, the spring 
Executive Board was a model of how well UNESCO can function, in 
spite of itself.  While regional blocs maintained their outward 
solidarity, they were not as rigid or as determined to thwart the 
U.S. as in meetings past.  Behind the scenes, for example, other 
Latin countries clearly exercised a restraining influence on Cuba 
(and Venezuela, not on the Board but currently Latin American Group 
chairman). 
 
¶30. (SBU)  Notably, the Board did not adopt any new initiatives 
intended to lead to new normative instruments, with one possible 
exception.  A superficially-prepared initiative by the Secretariat 
to have the Board adopt a formal recommendation on the preservation 
of historic urban areas ran into significant opposition from many 
delegations.  The experts committee that recommended this measure 
was composed largely of German and Austrian experts and had little 
geographic balance. As a result, its conclusions received a cold 
reception from delegations from other regions. Member states by and 
large felt the matter was not ripe for consideration by the Board. 
In the end, they welcomed the fact that the issue will be considered 
by the World Heritage Committee at its upcoming meeting in Quebec in 
July 2008, and invited the Director-General to "submit at its 181st 
(spring 2009) session a full preliminary study of the technical and 
legal aspects of this issue. 
 
¶31. (SBU) It is not clear how long this period of relative harmony 
will last. It may well be short.  A slight shift in attitudes would 
be all that is needed to leave the U.S. in serious difficulties. 
The fact that the U.S. is no longer on the Bureau (the committee of 
highly influential members who organize Board meetings) means that 
our ability to prevent mischievous items from receiving serious 
consideration is much reduced.  We must also contend with the 
personality of Executive Board Chairman Ya'i who famously remarked 
 
PARIS 00001029  006 OF 006 
 
 
at a meeting a year ago that he might be a chairman but could not be 
neutral.  We have seen some indications of a similar attitude on his 
part in recent months.  He has, for example, openly used the power 
of the chair to promote a new normative instrument on indigenous 
languages.  We will need to stay very much alert for tricky 
maneuvers by him that may be contrary to our interests. 
 
¶32.  (SBU) Finally, we will need to be wary of the fact that many of 
our colleagues do not measure success or progress as we do. The 
relative harmony that prevailed at this meeting is not to everyone's 
taste, including many relatively moderate member states.  In talking 
with our colleagues from other delegations about the most recent 
Executive Board, we often hear the complaint that it was boring. 
Many of our colleagues regretted that there were no major 
controversies to attract international attention, and there was no 
agreement to begin negotiation of new international treaties. 
Regrettably, many other delegations seem to measure UNESCO's 
achievements largely in terms of treaties agreed.  Given these 
attitudes, we should expect more turbulence in these waters in the 
period ahead. 
 
OLIVER