UNCLASSIFIED   UNESCOPARI   05180670 
VZCZCXYZ0008
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHFR #0670/01 1381410
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 181410Z MAY 09
FM UNESCO PARIS FR
TO SECSTATE WASHDC

UNCLAS PARIS FR 000670 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL UNESCO
SUBJECT: UNESCO'S APRIL EXECUTIVE BOARD: DIRECTOR-GENERAL (DG) 
ELECTION PROCEDURES 
 
REF:  PARIS FR 2008 1945 
 
¶1.  Summary:  As the May 31st deadline for the nomination of 
candidates to become UNESCO's next Director-General approached, 
UNESCO's Executive Board reviewed and modified some of the 
procedures followed in previous elections, in part, to give Member 
States more opportunity to hear the candidates' views on how they 
see UNESCO's role in the future, and also to permit direct but 
strictly limited questioning of the candidates by each geographic 
group.  The Board also tinkered with the rules of procedure in 
connection with French/English proficiency, in response to an effort 
by the Egyptians to give greater flexibility to their candidate to 
answer in only one of those two official languages.  At the same 
time, the French pushed hard to ensure that the new DG will be 
fluent in UNESCO's second working language.  End summary. 
 
¶2.  The following provides a summary of the steps involved in the 
election process.  Also, to help understand the decisions taken 
regarding changes in the procedure adopted by the Executive Board 
last month, we have included some of the background on the debate 
held during the spring 2009 181st Executive Board. 
 
BASIC PROCEDURE 
 
Relevant Documents: 180 EX/28; 181 EX/25; Constitution, Art. VI, 
Para 2; Rules of Procedure of the Executive Board, Section XI, Rule 
58; Rules of Procedure of the General Conference, Section XIX, Rules 
105 - 108. 
 
---------------- 
 
May 31, 2009: Deadline for the Chairman to "dispatch to Member 
States a letter inviting them to submit to him confidentially the 
names of candidates for the post of Director-General, together with 
full biographical details." (Note: According to Deputy Director of 
the Secretariat Governing Bodies, Michael Millward, because the May 
31 deadline is set only in the Rules of Procedures, and not by the 
Constitution, in the event of a stalemate during the Executive 
Board's secret ballot vote, the Executive Board could potentially 
suspend or change the Rules of Procedure to permit new candidates to 
come forward to break the stalemate.  End note.) 
 
--------------- 
 
By First Week of June 2009: Confidential communication by the 
Secretariat to the Members of the Executive Board and Member States 
of the list of names suggested. 
 
--------------- 
 
By June 8, 2009: Public announcement of the names of candidates. 
 
--------------- 
 
By August 1, 2009: "Chairman of the Executive Board will invite the 
candidates to submit to the Board the text setting out their vision 
for UNESCO.  The text should not exceed 2,000 words in English or in 
French." 
 
--------------- 
 
September 7 - 23, 2009, "During the 182nd Session of the Executive 
Board": 
 
First, "The Board would interview the candidates before choosing the 
candidate whom it would recommend to the General Conference. The 
interviews with the candidates would be simultaneously video 
broadcast in Room XI, access to which would be limited to one 
representative from each Member State of UNESCO not a Member of the 
Executive Board." 
 
The duration of each interview will be a maximum of one hour. It 
will consist of two parts: 
 
First part: Oral presentation by the candidate, lasting up to 20 
minutes. 
 
Second part: (a) The candidate will have up to 30 minutes in which 
to answer six questions from the Board; 
 
(b) Each electoral group of the Board will designate its 
representative) who will ask each candidate one question; 
 
(c) The questions, which should not exceed two minutes each, may be 
asked in any of the six working languages of the Executive Board, 
and the candidates will reply in English and/or in French; 
 
(d) The candidate will have a maximum of five minutes in which to 
answer each question. 
 
(e) The order of the interviews of the candidates and the order in 
which the electoral groups ask their questions will be determined by 
lots drawn at the first private meeting of the 182nd session." 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL UNESCO
SUBJECT: UNESCO'S APRIL EXECUTIVE BOARD: DIRECTOR-GENERAL (DG) 
ELECTION PROCEDURES 
 
 
Then follows "consideration by the Executive Board in private 
meeting of the names put forward, pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of 
Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure;" (Note: The only restriction or 
guidance put forth by the above rules regarding what qualifications 
must or should be respected in evaluating candidates is the fact 
that "biographical details are available." (Rule 58, Para 2, of the 
Rules of Procedure of the Executive Board)  There is no need for the 
details themselves to be evaluated, however, according to the 
documents.) 
 
(Note:  There were two attempts to "clarify" this part of the 
procedure.  The Arab Group put forward vague language in an effort 
to maintain the option for the candidate to respond in either French 
or English during the interview process.  The French delegation 
attempted to push for all candidates to demonstrate their fluency in 
French.  Finally, the Executive Board adopted language that would 
permit either language or both to be used in answer to questions. 
End note.) 
 
On another point, South Africa asked that during the Board's 
"consideration" following the interviews, there be an opportunity to 
ask for clarification on points made by the candidates.  While it 
was decided at India's urging that there would be no follow-up 
questions or opportunity for Member States to get further 
clarification directly from the candidates, it was left purposefully 
unclear whether such questions could be asked of other Executive 
Board members to elicit their understanding of the candidate's 
responses after the interviews. 
 
Finally, "The candidate to be proposed by the Executive Board to the 
General Conference would be chosen by secret ballot by the Board." 
(Note: This vote is mandated to be by secret ballot by Rule 54, of 
the Rules of the Board, with additional contingencies laid out in 
Rule 56. The procedure for this secret ballot, established in Rule 
55, mandates that the candidate who wins a majority of valid votes 
cast - NOT a majority of Member States present - will be declared 
elected. 
 
"If no candidate obtains an absolute majority in the first ballot, 
further ballots shall be taken.  Any candidate obtaining an absolute 
majority of the votes cast shall be declared elected.  If after four 
ballots have been taken, no candidate has obtained an absolute 
majority, a final ballot shall be taken, restricted to the two 
candidates who obtained the most votes in the fourth ballot.  The 
candidate obtaining a majority of the votes cast shall be declared 
elected." 
 
The Board would then "inform the General Conference of the name of 
the (single) candidate nominated by the Board pursuant to paragraph 
4 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure and submit to the General 
Conference a draft contract establishing the terms of appointment, 
salary, allowances and status of the Director-General." 
 
--------------- 
 
October 6 - 23, 2009 (Prov.), The General Conference: 
 
Having received the Executive Board's nomination, "The General 
Conference shall consider this nomination and the draft contract at 
a private meeting and shall then come to a decision by secret 
ballot." (Note:  The proposed agenda for the 35 th General 
Conference has blocked Thursday, October 15, 2009 for the DG 
election and appointment. End note.) 
 
"Should the General Conference fail to elect the person proposed by 
the Executive Board, the Executive Board shall submit another name 
within forty-eight hours." 
Upon confirmation of the Executive Board's nomination, "the contract 
(of the Director-General) shall be signed jointly by the 
Director-General and the President of the General Conference acting 
in the name of the Organization." 
 
The Director-General shall be nominated by the Executive Board and 
appointed by the General Conference for a period of four years, 
under such conditions as the Conference may approve.  The 
Director-General may be appointed for a further term of four years, 
but shall not be eligible for reappointment for a subsequent term. 
 
--------------- 
 
BACKGROUND ON THE DEBATE REGARDING CHANGES IN PROCEDURE 
 
¶3.  There was a great deal of debate during the 181st Executive 
Board over the use of language during the DG candidate interviews, 
focusing primarily on the need for the candidates to demonstrate 
their fluency in French.  The French delegation, several times 
during the course of this Executive Board, pushed very hard to 
ensure that French does not become a less than full partner with 
English as the Organization's working language, and insisted that 
the DG candidates do more than simply demonstrate their willingness 
to improve whatever basic level of French competence they may have. 
(Note:  In our view, it would be possible to determine a candidate's 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL UNESCO
SUBJECT: UNESCO'S APRIL EXECUTIVE BOARD: DIRECTOR-GENERAL (DG) 
ELECTION PROCEDURES 
 
knowledge of French during the question and answer "interview" by 
asking the candidate simply to "please respond in French.") 
 
¶4.  The Egyptians were very active in trying to sidestep language 
proficiency issues, in order to protect Farouk Hosni, whose French 
(and English) language skills have been questioned.  We have heard 
varying accounts of his fluency in both languages.  It is generally 
believed that his English is weaker than his French. 
 
¶5.  The Egyptians also attempted to put forward amendments to the 
Rules of Procedure that would have effectively eliminated the 
Board's post-interview deliberations regarding the candidates.  It 
was suggested by others that their strategy might have been to cut 
off any deliberations that would give Board Members an opportunity 
to clarify among each other the answers they had just heard.  It was 
also thought by some that Egypt might try to ask the Board to 
declare Hosni as candidate "by acclamation" following the question 
and answer interviews.  At the end of the Executive Board, the whole 
issue of getting "clarification" during the Board's consideration of 
the candidates following the interviews was left vague. 
 
¶6.  The debate regarding the amendments began at the end of the day 
on Monday, April 20, and Egypt asked that it be continued the 
following day.  Serbia, however, vehemently objected, as their 
Foreign Minister was scheduled to address the Board on the Tuesday, 
and didn't want the Egyptian debate to force a change of the 
Minister's plans.  Serbia asked for a vote to have the debate take 
place on Wednesday.  The request was seconded, and a vote took 
place.  Egypt lost 43-15 and the debate took place on Wednesday. 
(Comment:  In forcing a vote on a minor procedural issue, Egypt 
committed a serious error.  Many delegations resented Egypt's 
inflexibility and punished it in the succeeding vote, which many 
here interpreted as an indicator of how a vote on the Egyptian 
candidate would have turned out if it had been held that day. End 
Comment.) 
ENGELKEN