VZCZCXRO0839
RR RUEHAP RUEHFL RUEHGI RUEHGR RUEHKN RUEHKR RUEHMA RUEHMJ RUEHMR
RUEHPA RUEHPB RUEHQU RUEHRN
DE RUEHFR #1172/01 1750621
ZNR UUUUU ZZH ZDK ZUI RUEHNM1037 1890542
R 230621Z JUN 08
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3504
RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 6736
INFO RUCNSCO/UNESCO COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PARIS 001172 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
GENEVA PLEASE PASS TO USTR 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: UNESCO SCUL ETRD ECA BE XA
SUBJECT: THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH-SPEAKING COMMUNITY OF BELGIUM 
INITIATIVE TO REGULATE PRIVATE EDUCATION - A CAMPAIGN FOR A NEW 
NORMATIVE INSTRUMENT? 
 
PARIS 00001172  001.3 OF 004 
 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary:  U.S. agencies, including those involved in 
international trade agreements, need to keep a careful eye on the 
efforts of the government of Belgium's French-speaking community to 
enlist UNESCO -- in an unhelpful way -- in the fight against 
fly-by-night diploma mills in Africa and elsewhere.  On May 23, 
2008, the French-speaking Community of Belgium, Wallonia-Brussels, 
sponsored an international seminar entitled, "The State as the 
Regulator of Education".  This seminar was attended by Embassy 
Brussels at the request of the US Mission to UNESCO.  While the 
Belgian Francophones told us they were motivated by a desire to 
ensure the delivery of quality education in states that lack the 
resources to educate all children in public schools, particularly in 
Africa, the documents they have produced thus far do not make their 
ultimate goal clear. In comments made to other seminar participants 
and in documents circulated in conjunction with the meeting, they 
made frequent favorable references to the 2005 Convention on the 
Diversity of Cultural Expressions and to the need to prevent 
education from being traded as a commodity while ensuring that 
children in developing countries receive culturally appropriate 
education.  The campaign being launched by the Belgian Francophones 
recalls the early phases of the campaign which ultimately resulted 
in the 2005 convention on cultural diversity. Their intentions may 
become clearer in Geneva in November 2008 if they raise this issue 
at the International Conference on Education. End Summary 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Roger Dehaybe, the former General Administrator of the 
Intergovernmental Agency for Francophonie in Belgium, has approached 
the U.S. Mission to UNESCO on several occasions in recent months to 
discuss an initiative to encourage governments to better regulate 
private education.  As Dehaybe described the problem to us, African 
public education systems are being deluged with large numbers of 
children seeking schooling.  There is no place for many of them in 
these countries' over-crowded public educational systems, with the 
result that many parents have no choice but to enroll their children 
in private schools.  In Africa, many of the latter are "for profit," 
and in Dehaybe's view deliver a bad outcome at an exorbitant cost to 
parents.  "They are little more than baby-sitting services," he 
complained to us.  He has suggested that he would like donor 
countries to work with UNESCO to provide advice to African countries 
on how to regulate these private operations to ensure they deliver 
quality education. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) The US Mission has taken the position with Dehaybe and the 
Belgian UNESCO Delegation that the U.S. is willing to work with 
UNESCO and others to consider ways to improve educational quality in 
Africa.  Many African UNESCO delegations have indicated concern 
about this problem. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) The US Mission, however, has had to question the Belgians 
repeatedly about whether it is really their intention only to share 
advice and best practices with African nations to address this 
issue.  For several months, the Belgian Francophones have been 
seeking support among member delegations for a draft declaration on 
this subject.  The text has gone through numerous drafts and 
revisions, and the Belgian Francophones have used different 
rationales when explaining this initiative to other delegations. 
Early drafts used language that referred to education as a public 
service ("bien public") that should not be an item of commerce and 
stated that education should be exempt from the rules laid down in 
the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).  The early drafts 
also made repeated references to the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the 
Diversity of Cultural Expressions which the U.S.  strongly opposes 
and which contains language intended to permit governments to 
regulate cultural issues while evading their obligations under the 
rules of the World Trade Organization.  Some versions of the draft 
seemed to imply that private education is somehow not culturally 
appropriate for children in developing countries. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) On May 23, 2008, the Belgian Francophones convened a 
meeting in Brussels in their capacity as a member of the 
international Francophone community to consider their proposed draft 
declaration.  (N.B.  This was technically not/not a UNESCO meeting.) 
 We are deeply indebted to our colleagues in Embassy Brussels who 
attended the meeting and contributed to this report. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) According to the accounts we have received, a number of 
countries, (Mali, Gabon, Venezuela, Kuwait, France, Brazil and 
Chile) were quite vocal in support of State regulation of private 
education.  Brazil even voiced concerns about the US buying private 
universities in Brazil that in turn influenced students.  In 
addition, Ambassador Yai, the Permanent Delegate to UNESCO from 
Benin and President of the UNESCO Executive Board attended the 
seminar.  At the end of the seminar, the participants from over 40 
countries adopted the text styling it as an "appeal for action" and 
calling on all governments to commit to preserving and reinforcing 
 
PARIS 00001172  002.3 OF 004 
 
 
public education that is of high quality and equitable, and making 
certain that private education recognized by public authorities 
responds to the same criteria.  In addition, the appeal also invited 
UNESCO to continue to reflect on the role of the State as the 
regulator of education with the aim of placing this topic on the 
agenda of the International Conference on Education (ICE) sponsored 
by UNESCO in November, 2008 in Geneva. (See Para. 14 below for full 
text of this document). 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The final version of this text, however, leaves the 
Belgian Francophones' goal for this initiative still unclear. 
Although some of the worst language in the earlier drafts has 
disappeared (e.g., rhetoric against GATS), there is still much that 
makes us uncomfortable.  What action will they want after the 
November ICE meeting "reflects" on this issue?  Although they 
vociferously deny it, we fear they are attempting to begin a process 
that would lead to a new normative instrument adopted by UNESCO. Our 
colleagues in the Canadian delegation agree that this appears to be 
the Belgians Francophones' unacknowledged goal. If it is, the 
Belgian delegation may well ask the ICE to recommend that the issue 
be put on UNESCO's agenda. If that happens, UNESCO's General 
Conference in October 2009 has the authority to ask the Organization 
to convene a meeting to draft a new normative instrument.  A similar 
procedure led to the 2005 Cultural Diversity Convention. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) In addition to opening the door to a possible eventual 
normative instrument, we have concerns about the text of this 
"appeal" and how it could affect the delivery of education in 
countries, particularly the United States.  The text appears to 
apply to all levels of education (primary, secondary and higher), 
and it is universal in scope and not limited to Africa.  In meetings 
with the Belgian Francophones, they have specifically stated that 
the goal is to target primary education but the appeal has no 
references to targeting only primary education.  The appeal seems to 
make no distinction between for-profit and non-profit education, 
referring to "private education" generally and requesting that all 
governments commit to state regulation of all private education.  In 
addition, the continued presence of language about culturally 
appropriate education implies private education (particularly 
education based on the U.S. model) is somehow less likely to be 
culturally appropriate and that private schools must have foreign 
sponsors.  Finally, there are very few references to "quality 
education" which is what the Belgian Francophones have consistently 
told us is the overall goal.  The few references to quality in the 
document imply that if the State regulates private education the 
State will ensure quality.  Given that education is a sovereign 
responsibility and is delivered in numerous ways, the Mission is 
concerned that an international normative instrument on this issue 
will be at odds with how sovereign governments deliver education and 
will force countries into State regulation of all private education. 
Rather than improving educational quality across the board, 
countries may "dumb down" private education to ensure it does not 
deliver a better result than public education.  Finally, there are 
numerous US universities, both public and private, for-profit and 
non-profit as well as US primary and secondary education 
institutions that provide education abroad.  The Mission is 
concerned that these discussions and this appeal could also be 
laying the groundwork for an attack on them with the goal of making 
it difficult for them to operate. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) The next step in this process will be to bring attention 
to the urgency of this issue at the IBE conference in November, 
¶2008.  In that vein, it is possible that an item could be submitted 
by the Belgian delegation at the UNESCO fall Executive Board meeting 
to request that state regulation of private education be a topic at 
the ICE conference.  The ICE conference takes place every four years 
bringing Ministers of Education from all over the world together to 
discuss a current and emerging educational topic.  This year's topic 
is "Inclusive Education:  The Way of the Future".  At the end of the 
Conference, a communiqu is issued and agreed to by the 
participants.  This will be an opportunity for the Belgian 
Francophones and others to push this initiative and move it closer 
to a normative instrument.   Therefore, the U.S. should oppose 
having this topic placed on the ICE agenda. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) Note: During the Education Ministerial on the margins of 
the October 2007 UNESCO General Conference, Marie Arena, 
Minister-President of the French-speaking Community of Belgium, 
participated in a panel session on partnerships for education and 
economic development.  In her remarks she noted that the IBE 
Conference would be a great opportunity to reach a consensus for the 
minimal rules States could adopt at the national or regional level 
in order to make sure that private operators of education "respect a 
certain number of values and offer all guarantees on the quality of 
the rendered service". 
 
PARIS 00001172  003.4 OF 004 
 
 
 
¶11.  (SBU) Among many things unclear about the Belgian Francophone 
initiative is how much support it really has.  Several Francophone 
African states (e.g., Senegal) attended the Brussels conference and 
appear to be committed supporters.  Beyond this group, support is 
more uncertain.  As far as we know, the EU has yet to take a 
position. The Canadians tell us they do not like the fact that the 
Belgian text applies to higher education as well as lower 
educational levels.  The Indians tell us too that they are concerned 
about the potential impact of this initiative on their educational 
system which has a very important private element. 
 
¶12.  (SBU) We can, nonetheless, not rely on our partners' private 
reservations to stop this train if it gains momentum.  Delegations 
at UNESCO tend to bend over backwards to allow other delegations to 
save face, conceding more than they should.  The U.S. Mission would 
welcome reporting from other posts on the attitude of other 
governments, if and as the Belgian Francophones continue to seek 
wider support for their initiative. 
 
¶13.  (SBU) Comment:  On June 11, 2008, Ambassador Oliver met with 
Ambassador Kridelka, the Permanent Delegate of Belgium to UNESCO. 
Ambassador Kridelka stated that the Ministry of Education of the 
French Community is pushing this issue but the Federal Foreign 
Ministry of Belgium does not want a confrontation with the United 
States on this topic due to Belgium's strong desire for US support 
of their candidacy to the UNESCO Executive Board in 2009. 
 
¶14.  (U) Following is the full English language text of the Brussels 
appeal: 
 
Begin Text 
 
The Brussels Appeal of 23 May 2008 
 
We, the Participants in the seminar organized in Brussels on Friday 
23 May 2008 concerning the State as the Regulator of Education 
Provision 
 
Recalling That 
 
- International agreements ensure fundamental rights concerning 
education, notably by adopting the following principles: 
- Equal access for all and at all levels; 
- Agreement on fundamental aims of education, which are to enable 
all people to seek individual fulfillment, to enhance their 
knowledge, and to develop their capacities to participate in 
economic and social progress in their societies; 
 
- An assurance of quality by all public and private providers. 
- States and Governments should ensure quality education for all 
that is offered by well-trained and respected professionals, in 
particular by developing legal and regulatory means to regulate and 
monitor private provision of education; 
 
- In most countries, organizing education services implies the 
existence of a diversity of public and private provision; 
 
Aware That 
 
- The role of the private sector in education is on the increase as 
a result of: 
 
- Higher fees for education that are borne by households; 
- Financing or investment by foundations, companies and private 
institutions; 
 
- With the effects of globalization, the mobility of educational 
supply across borders is growing, notably through distance education 
and other forms of export. In consequence, there is a risk that more 
education services will be commercial goods, without consideration 
for the resulting effects of increasing inequality and 
destabilization. 
 
- Purely profit-making private education institutions do not always 
take pupils' and students' social and cultural contexts into 
account, with the risk of ignoring the protection of identity or the 
strengthening of cultural and linguistic diversity and social 
cohesion; 
 
Reaffirm that 
 
Unregulated or poorly regulated private education can result in 
higher costs and lower quality and relevance and in consequence 
increased economic, social and cultural inequalities between people 
 
PARIS 00001172  004.4 OF 004 
 
 
as well as weakening of equitable access of citizens to public goods 
- education and training. 
 
Launch An Appeal For Action To: 
 
¶1. Encourage Governments to commit to: 
 
- Preserve and reinforce public education that is of high quality 
and equitable, and make certain that private education recognized by 
public authorities responds to the same criteria; 
- Develop tools for oversight and control of educational systems 
that continuously monitor the quality of educational provision, and 
when necessary, take measures to ensure that quality is maintained; 
- Ensure respect for the pertinence of education to linguistic and 
cultural identity, to local development needs and to social 
cohesion, in particular by encouraging participative management. 
 
¶2. Foster an international dialogue between education and training 
stakeholders notably between countries from the South, by creating a 
network that could undertake to: 
 
- Analyze private and public provision of education and assess its 
impact on the respect of existing international commitments endorsed 
by public authorities; 
- Identify successful experience on all continents and regions by 
developing research tools, collecting comparable information about 
the provision, financing and results of private education (assessing 
the impact of private financing of national education services, 
private-public partnerships,...); 
 
¶3. Reinforce multi-stakeholder partnership and in consequence 
collaboration between national and international stakeholders, 
including civil society and professional organizations that 
contributes to the development and outcomes of decision-making tools 
for governments concerning regulation of private as well as public 
education and training and assist in implementing them; 
 
¶4. Ensure that development partners consider internationally 
recognized quality assurance as an essential component of education 
reform at all levels; 
 
¶5. Invite governmental and nongovernmental regional and 
international organizations as well as civil society stakeholders to 
support this Appeal and to collaborate actively with the 
aforementioned network; 
 
¶6. Invite UNESCO to continue reflection on the role of the State as 
regulator of education, notably during the International Conference 
on Education in Geneva (November 2008) and to facilitate exchange of 
experience and expertise on this subject. 
 
End Text. 
 
ENGELKEN