UNCLASSIFIED   UNESCOPARI   11172106 
VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHFR #2106/01 3220636
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 170636Z NOV 08
FM UNESCO PARIS FR
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA

UNCLAS PARIS FR 002106 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
TAGS: UNESCO PREL SCUL NI BN SF IN
SUBJECT: UNESCO'S AUTUMN 2008 EXECUTIVE BOARD:  Category 2 
Institutes 
 
The message is sensitive but unclassified. 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  At UNESCO's autumn 2008 Executive Board, the U.S. 
clashed with a coalition of developing countries over Category 2 
institutes - independent institutes that are paid for by their host 
countries but are under the aegis of UNESCO.  Led by India and South 
Africa, these countries resisted a U.S. effort to amend the 
Secretariat's draft strategy for these institutes that would have 
required they have an independent evaluation before renewal of their 
agreement with UNESCO.  Board members in the end postponed 
consideration of the strategy document to the Executive Board's 
spring 2009 session.  A U.S. effort to open debate and ask questions 
about a proposed Category 2 institute of African culture at the 
Obasanjo presidential library in Nigeria was met with indignation by 
South Africa who stated that it was impugning the "honor of Africa." 
   End Summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU) North-South tensions flared on several occasions during the 
September 30-October 21 (180th) session of UNESCO's Executive Board 
(septels).  The most intense clash came as UNESCO moved to consider 
issues regarding Category 2 institutes, independent institutes that 
are financed by their host governments but are under UNESCO's aegis. 
 There were two related items on the agenda.  The first asked member 
states to approve a Secretariat-proposed revised strategy and new 
model agreement that would govern UNESCO's relationships with all of 
these institutes.  The second item asked the Board to recommend to 
the General Conference that it approve the establishment of three 
specific Category 2 institutes:  an institute on human rights issues 
in Buenos Aires, an institute on water issues in the Dominican 
Republic, and an institute on African culture at the Obasanjo 
Presidential Library in Nigeria. 
 
Category 2 Center Strategy 
 
¶3.  (SBU) The Organization's October 2007 General Conference 
mandated that the Secretariat produce at this Executive Board 
session a strategy for better using the centers and dealing with the 
administrative burden that their rapidly growing number poses. 
(Note:  There are currently 40 such institutes with plans for at 
least another 15-20 at various stages of development.  Under 
existing rules, Secretariat members attend the Board meetings of 
each institute and are expected to coordinate regularly with them. 
In return, each institute is permitted to use the UNESCO name and 
logo.  End Note.)  At the 2007 General Conference and subsequently, 
the U.S. strongly supported the need for a new strategy and urged 
that it provide for a six-year sunset clause and an independent 
evaluation of the contribution these institutes make to UNESCO's 
work before their agreements with UNESCO are renewed. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Prior to the most recent Executive Board session it was 
clear that some developing countries had misgivings about revising 
the strategy and, in particular, about including a provision for 
regular evaluation of institutes.  India notably took the lead in 
stirring anxieties among the developing countries, arguing that the 
cost of independent evaluation would be too high and that the U.S. 
was trying to prevent developing countries from having institutes by 
making them too costly for any but rich countries to afford. 
(Comment:  While there are more Category 2 institutes in rich 
countries than poor ones, as might be expected, it is absolutely 
untrue to say the developed countries are trying to prevent poorer 
countries from having them.  There are currently Category 2 
institutes in such countries as Malawi, Burkina Faso, and India 
itself.  End Comment.) 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Despite this opposition, as the session began it appeared 
that a deal might be possible.  Many delegations - from both rich 
and poor countries - agreed that UNESCO needed to get a better grip 
on these institutes.  The Indian delegation told us in confidence 
that what concerned them most was the possibility that an evaluation 
might address the efficiency with which these independent institutes 
are run.  The U.S. delegation said that it was alright to respect 
the independence of the institutes as long as it was balanced by 
appropriate accountability.  The Indian Ambassador suggested 
privately to the U.S. Ambassador that an open-ended working group 
could be convened to iron out differences when the Board considered 
the issue.  The U.S. delegation, therefore, submitted proposed 
amendments to the draft strategy that would have provided for sunset 
clauses, criteria for establishing centers, and independent 
evaluation, and would have placed clear limits on the amount of 
assistance that UNESCO provides to Category 2 institutes. 
 
¶6. (SBU) When the proposed Category 2 center strategy came up for 
consideration in a joint meeting of UNESCO's Finance and Program 
Commissions, Program Commission Chair, Argentine Senator Daniel 
Filmus opened the floor to general comments.  This gave India the 
opportunity to argue the institutes pose no burden on UNESCO, and 
that institutes cannot be subjected to uniform standards, since 
conditions in the developing world are different.  Many other 
developing countries, notably including Brazil and South Africa, 
spoke up to support India.  Many states also said the proposed new 
 
 
strategy should not be applied to existing institutes. 
 
¶7. (SBU) The U.S. stated that we were not seeking to prevent the 
establishment of new institutes but rather ensure that the direct 
and indirect costs of these institutes to the Organization are 
limited as much as possible.  The U.S. then recommended the 
establishment of a working group, which was supported by a number of 
other countries.  However, India reversed its previous position and 
opposed the establishment of the working group.  Following India's 
lead, other countries rejected the idea of a working group as well. 
When India announced that there was little support for a working 
group, the representative of the Philippines intervened and said 
that she had taken copious notes during the discussion and that 
India was wrong, and that in fact there was significant support for 
a working group.  The Philippine representative then received a 
public dressing down from the Indian Ambassador for breaking 
solidarity with the Asia-Pacific Group in a public session.  The 
Philippine representative responded with an abject apology to her 
Indian colleague. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) The Argentine Chair then directed the members to consider 
an Indian draft decision that would have approved the strategy while 
stipulating that it would not apply to existing institutes until 
their agreements with UNESCO were renewed.  The U.S. amendments were 
not considered.  However, having heard the tenor of the debate, the 
Indians decided to amend their own decision from the floor.  In 
revised form, it merely welcomed the Secretariat's proposed 
strategy, invited Member States to send the Director-General 
comments on it, and decided to consider the matter again at the 
Board's next session in spring 2009.  The decision was adopted in 
this form. 
 
Proposed Nigerian Institute 
 
¶9.  (SBU) It was late in the evening, and emotions were already 
strained when the Argentine, Dominican, and Nigerian institutes came 
up for consideration.  As many other observers had left, a wave of 
young Nigerian men, carrying still and video cameras, filled the 
vacant chairs.  A Nigerian minister sat behind his country's 
nameplate in place of Nigeria's regular ambassador. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) The chairman announced that the Bureau (conference 
steering committee) had recommended all three institutes be 
considered without debate.  The U.S. asked for the floor and said 
that, given the importance of Category 2 institutes, we thought 
there should be discussion.  The chair then allowed debate but said 
the three institutes must be considered together and not separately, 
and that delegations would have up to ten minutes speaking time to 
comment on all of them.  (Note:  The U.S. had learned that the 
Secretariat's third and most recent feasibility study completed in 
June 2008 on the Nigerian proposal had raised serious concerns about 
an unresolved court case regarding the property rights at the 
proposed site and had found that little thinking had been done on 
the proposed institute's vision, goals, objectives, and program. 
End Note.) 
 
¶11. (SBU) The representative of South Africa publicly attacked the 
U.S. Ambassador for "disreputable conduct" because the U.S. was not 
abiding by the "decision" of the Bureau recommending no debate, 
which he said was the result of three hours of heated discussion at 
the previous Bureau meeting.  Ambassador Oliver responded by saying 
that she would not tolerate those kinds of personal comments, and 
that any country had the right to discuss any item it wished to at 
the Executive Board regardless of what was "decided" in the Bureau, 
especially since the Bureau was only empowered to make 
recommendations, not decisions.  (Comment:  There was a major 
disagreement in the Bureau on the Nigerian Center as several Bureau 
members opposed the Center's going forward given all the unresolved 
issues relating to the Center.  A compromise had been reached in the 
recommended decision which stated that the Director General could 
only sign the UNESCO agreement with the Government of Nigeria after 
the court case had been resolved.  The U.S. supported the compromise 
decision.) 
 
¶12.  (SBU) Later on the debate, after more than a dozen states had 
taken the floor to say in almost exactly the same words that they 
supported all three of the proposed institutes, the U.S. intervened 
again to congratulate the governments of Argentina, the Dominican 
Republic, and Nigeria for their proposed Cat II institutes.  The 
U.S. then went on to ask questions about the the status of the 
Nigerian court case and about the center's vision, goals, 
objectives, and program.  In response, the Nigerian minister blandly 
assured the Board that the court case had been settled (N.B. a claim 
contradicted by news reports) and that the Nigerian Government is 
committed to supporting the center over the long-term. The South 
African delegation took the floor to complain that the U.S. 
questions had impugned the "honor of Africa." After this, the chair 
announced that the decision in favor of all three centers had been 
adopted.  There was general jubilation among the large numbers of 
Nigerians who had by this time filled the room. 
 
 
 
¶13.  (SBU) Comment:  This discussion, especially consideration of 
the proposed Nigerian institute, was one of the most emotional we 
have experienced at UNESCO in quite some time.  Although it took 
place against a wider backdrop of North-South tensions on other 
issues (septel), we suspect that many developing countries were 
motivated less by a strong sense of group solidarity and more by a 
desire to protect their particular centers.  The Indians were 
clearly concerned about what an evaluation of their institutes might 
show, and, other delegations tell us, the Indians warned developing 
country delegations behind the scenes that institutes in their 
countries might be closed if the U.S. initiative was adopted.  The 
Argentines told us they worried approval for their institute might 
be delayed if it became caught up in a quarrel over a new strategy. 
For their part, the Nigerians were determined to have their 
institute approved come what may, and many developing countries were 
happy to oblige them in hopes of having the favor returned later. 
 
¶14.  (SBU) Comment Continued:  The whole affair demonstrates how 
hard it is for many UNESCO Member States to put the interests of the 
Organization ahead of their own.  Prior to the session most Member 
States appeared to agree that Category 2 institutes should be better 
regulated and their costs to the Organization kept limited, but they 
lost their nerve when presented with a concrete and effective plan 
for doing so. 
 
Oliver