UNCLASSIFIED UNESCOPARI 06080760 
VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHFR #0760/01 1591531
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 081531Z JUN 09
FM UNESCO PARIS FR
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS

UNCLAS PARIS FR 000760 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO PREL CU VE
SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FOR A NEW UNESCO STANDARD-SETTING INSTRUMENT ON 
INDIGENOUS AND ENDANGERED LANGUAGES STAYS ALIVE BUT ITS NEXT STEPS 
 
ARE UNCERTAIN 
 
REF:  (A) 08 PARIS 1029 (B) PARIS FR 693 
 
¶1.  Summary.  UNESCO's Executive Board at its 181st session adopted 
a decision that ignored three of its previous decisions that had set 
the holding of an experts' meeting and a consultation with 
indigenous peoples as key pre-conditions for further consideration 
of a possible new UNESCO standard-setting instrument on protecting 
indigenous and endangered languages.  Despite U.S. objections that 
doing so would move the process forward prematurely, the Board 
decided to inscribe this issue on the UNESCO General Conference's 
(GC) provisional agenda "for examination" when that body meets this 
fall at its 35th session.  The decision left unclear, however, 
whether the GC would be expected at that time to approve the start 
of negotiations on a draft text of such an instrument, or would be 
expected only to agree that continued UNESCO reflection is needed on 
several still unresolved but important issues, such as, among 
others, whether such an instrument should take the form of a 
declaration, recommendation, or convention.  In view of this 
ambiguity, U.S. vigilance and continued diplomacy will be needed to 
help ensure that UNESCO's next steps on this very sensitive matter 
are in line with the measured, more cautious approach suggested in 
the preliminary feasibility study.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  In a rare display of balance and objectivity with respect to 
UNESCO standard-setting instruments, UNESCO's Secretariat produced a 
crisply analytical, informative, and cautionary preliminary study 
regarding issues that needed to be addressed in preparing a proposed 
international standard-setting instrument on protection of 
indigenous and endangered languages.  The analysis contained in that 
study recognized that there already exists an abundance (not less 
than 13) of relevant international instruments (of both a binding 
and non-binding character) that contain provisions that can help 
protect languages.  Importantly, the study advised against taking a 
rights-based approach in a UNESCO instrument on protecting 
languages.  Moreover, the study outlined the difficult choices that 
must be made in deciding the purpose and scope of such a 
standard-setting instrument.  It underlined the need to defer to the 
speaker communities themselves in deciding whether and how their 
languages are to be revitalized and maintained.  It even cast doubt 
on the feasibility of drafting such an instrument that would be 
binding.  A key conclusion in the study was the desirability of 
engaging in further systematic observation of existing 
standard-setting instruments and the efficacy of national and 
regional policies for protecting languages, before starting the 
process now of drawing up a new instrument, advising against any 
"rash" decisions about what strategy to follow. 
 
¶3.  Building upon these potent and sensible observations in the 
preliminary study, the U.S. reminded the Board that this item has 
been on its agenda since the 176th Executive Board session at the 
request of Venezuela.  From its inception, Venezuela had promised to 
provide the necessary extra-budgetary funds to finance the experts' 
meeting and consultation with representatives of the indigenous 
communities regarding the desirability of a UNESCO standard-setting 
instrument.  It was clear to all, however, that Venezuela had failed 
to honor its pledge, to date.  We further reminded that at past 
Board sessions, a number of delegations from diverse geographic 
regional had joined the U.S. in lauding the wisdom of first holding 
an experts meeting and holding consultations with indigenous 
representatives, as key procedural pre-conditions, before embarking 
down the path towards the adoption of a new instrument.  Also, many 
of those same countries (as recently as the 180th Board session) had 
agreed with the U.S. that holding a real, face-to-face experts 
meeting at UNESCO headquarters would also enable many delegations to 
learn from those experts directly and in the process become better 
informed about what such an instrument should pragmatically entail. 
 
¶4.  At the 181st Board sessions, delegations in their opening 
remarks did variously express words of caution and the need for due 
deliberation before rushing to move this proposal forward.  These 
included: Chile ("preliminary study needs clarification"); Cote 
d'Ivoire ("supports the U.S., Norway and others"); Colombia 
("framework of a new instrument should be prepared first by an 
experts meeting"); Egypt ("many areas need clarification"); France 
(questions the "value added" of a new instrument and urged holding 
the "experts meeting soon"); India ("the preliminary study needs 
supplementary consideration"); Hungary, Lithuania, Malaysia ("needs 
further reflection"); Norway, Senegal, Tanzania (the "process is 
incomplete"); and Thailand. 
 
¶5.  Brazil, however, became the single-handed spoiler.  As it had 
done from the beginning when Venezuela first proposed this idea, 
Brazil took a very hard line and insisted that this matter could not 
wait any further for an experts meeting to be held.  Brazil also 
requested a legal opinion from the Legal Adviser on whether the 
failure to hold the experts meeting and consultation, constituted 
legal impediments to sending forward a proposal to the GC to approve 
negotiation of a new standard-setting instrument on indigenous and 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO PREL CU VE
SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FOR A NEW UNESCO STANDARD-SETTING INSTRUMENT ON 
INDIGENOUS AND ENDANGERED LANGUAGES STAYS ALIVE BUT ITS NEXT STEPS 
ARE UNCERTAIN 
 
endangered languages.  An assistant Legal Adviser, in response, 
ruled that the preliminary study on the proposed instrument had met 
the technical requirements of UNESCO's special rules of procedure 
applicable to the preparation of certain UNESCO instruments. 
 
¶6.  The U.S. immediately challenged this legal ruling, asserting 
that while the generic pre-conditions for approving new instruments 
may have been met, the Executive Board had broadened the 
preconditions with the requirement to first hold an experts' meeting 
and a consultation with indigenous people.  The broadened 
requirements could not simply be ignored after repeated Board 
approval.  Unhappily, that adverse legal ruling suddenly turned the 
tide in the room for a large number of delegations, including many 
of the same delegations that had earlier voiced the need for caution 
and further reflection.  The U.S. - alone in objecting to the 
validity of the legal ruling - was faced with choosing between 
calling for a vote on this item or allowing the item to be adopted 
over our objection without blocking consensus.  In the press of the 
moment, we chose the latter. 
 
¶7.  Comment: Regrettably, the kind of haphazard, undisciplined 
decision-making reflected in the adoption of this Executive Board 
decision is too often indicative of the many UNESCO Member States 
who easily gloss over important substantive issues and related 
considerations, in order to appear "politically correct."  This 
holds particularly true when emotive issues, such as protecting 
indigenous and endangered languages, are involved.  Consequently, 
the preliminary study is now on its way to the General Conference, 
but minus the benefit of what might have been learned had the Board 
remained faithful to the pre-conditions of holding an experts' 
meeting and consulting with representatives of indigenous people as 
an integral part of the preliminary study process. 
 
¶8.  Comment (continued).  It is not at all clear what the GC will 
consider to be its most appropriate next step - give its blessing to 
opening formal negotiations on a draft text or agree that continued 
UNESCO reflection is needed on several still unresolved but pivotal 
issues, such as (among others that were cited in the preliminary 
study) whether such an instrument should take the form of a 
declaration, recommendation, or convention.  One small consolation 
in the decision is that the U.S. was able to keep in a request to 
the Director-General to take several important steps recommended in 
the preliminary study and also to proceed with convening the meeting 
of experts, including representatives of indigenous peoples, as 
called for in several previous Board decisions.  If that experts' 
meeting takes place before the fall GC session, it will at least 
enable the GC to make a more informed decision about how to act on 
this proposal.  If that meeting fails to take place, however, the 
U.S. should seek (in concert with others) to use this important flaw 
in the process to persuade the 35th GC session that the proposal is 
not yet ready to move to the next stage, namely negotiations.  If we 
are persuasive, it would put off the project for another two years, 
and fully allow delegations the needed additional time to reflect 
and envision an appropriate instrument on this subject. 
 
¶9.  The Board's action at this session showing favor toward the 
eventual adoption of a (binding or non-binding) instrument on 
languages needs to be seen in a broader context, i.e., in tandem 
with the Board's decision also taken at this session to endorse the 
negotiation of a new standard-setting instrument on historic urban 
landscapes (see ref (b)).  Together, these two Board actions appear 
to signal the effective end of a three-year moratorium at UNESCO on 
initiating new standard-setting and normative instruments.  They may 
be ushering in a period of renewed UNESCO "legislative" activism, at 
least within its core mandate of "Culture".  For all of the above 
reasons, U.S. vigilance and continued active diplomacy will be 
needed to help ensure that UNESCO's next steps are fully in line 
with the measured, more cautious approach suggested in the 
preliminary study on this very sensitive matter of protecting 
indigenous and endangered languages.  End Comment. 
 
ENGELKEN