UNCLASSIFIED   UNESCOPARI   06090767 
VZCZCXRO4379
RR RUEHAP RUEHFL RUEHGI RUEHGR RUEHKN RUEHKR RUEHMA RUEHMJ RUEHMR
RUEHPA RUEHPB RUEHQU RUEHRN RUEHSK
DE RUEHFR #0767/01 1601435
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 091435Z JUN 09 ZDK
FM UNESCO PARIS FR
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
INFO RUCNSCO/UNESCO COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS FR 000767 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO JA CH IN
SUBJECT:  UNESCO AVOIDS IGNITING A ROW OVER CULTURAL PROPERTY 
DISPLACED DURING WWII - FOR NOW 
 
Ref:  Peay e-mail report (19 March 2009) 
 
UNESCOPARI 06090767  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
¶1.  Summary.  At its 181st session in April 2009, UNESCO's Executive 
Board barely averted a dramatic and politically damaging showdown 
over the issue of cultural objects displaced in connection with the 
Second World War (WWII).  At the core of the dispute was whether the 
Board should adopt or endorse a disputed Draft Declaration of 
Principles relating to such cultural objects, as modified at a March 
2009 intergovernmental meeting of experts (the "Draft Declaration"). 
 More than 60 years after the tragic events of that war, a number of 
Asian and European States at UNESCO remain pitted against each 
other, demonstrating that the wounds of World War II are still not 
fully healed.  Thanks to a draft decision tabled by the U.S., the 
disputing delegations were finally able to reach a procedurally 
"neutral" compromise.  However, it will serve only to defer this 
issue until the fall of this year when the UNESCO General Conference 
will have to face an unavoidable and difficult substantive decision 
on fate of the Draft Declaration.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  In an almost surreal replay of WWII tensions, UNESCO's Executive 
Board found itself in April once again trying to find an elusive 
consensus on whether to adopt or endorse the Draft Declaration, or 
face the prospect of a divisive vote over that document.  The 
principal antagonists in this struggle were (once again) Germany, 
Poland, Russia, Japan, and China, recently outspokenly supported by 
India.  At a March 17-18, 2009 inter-governmental experts' meeting 
(see ref report), the March 2007 version of this document was 
carefully reviewed and modified only slightly by four 
consensus-based, non-substantive amendments to the preamble of the 
2007 text.  This revised version, now referred to as "the March 2009 
text," was the focal point of discussion during the 181st Board 
session. 
 
¶3.  Two or three days before the closing session of the Board, 
Russia, Germany, and the Asia-Pacific group (ASPAC) began informally 
circulating draft decisions to test reactions among the key 
interlocutors (including the U.S).  The U.S. Mission sent such draft 
texts back for the Department's reaction, and all were found to be 
seriously wanting and unacceptable to the U.S.  As tensions 
increased and time began to run out, China became more outspoken in 
urging that the Executive Board should formally endorse the March 
2009 text and ask the General Conference to formally adopt it.  In 
short, China seemed prepared to provoke a vote on this issue. 
 
¶4.  On the closing day of the 181st session, a large, open-ended 
working group (chaired by the Executive Board Chairman Yai) met in a 
desperate effort to reach a solution.  In addition to the U.S., 
other delegations that participated in that meeting (many at the 
ambassadorial level) included:  Argentina; Brazil; the Czech 
Republic; China; France; Germany; India; Italy; Japan; Norway; 
Poland; and Slovenia.  Delegations negotiated intensively over an 
hour.  Finally, on the basis of a "procedurally neutral" draft 
resolution text (see para 7 below) prepared by the U.S. Mission's 
Legal Adviser, the group agreed to a consensus outcome. 
Specifically, the Executive Board would neither adopt nor endorse 
the March 2009 text, but rather ask the DG to submit it to the 35th 
General Conference "for decision."  This approach and the supporting 
draft decision were reported to the plenary and quickly adopted 
without further debate. 
 
¶5.  Comment.  Considerable relief was expressed by Ambassadors and 
others as they left the meeting room, many offering kudos for the 
key role the U.S. played in helping to broker a consensus outcome. 
With few exceptions, however, conflicting substantive positions 
regarding the desirability of adopting the March 2009 Draft 
Declaration have not changed over the past two years.  And, they are 
not likely to change much between now and this fall when the General 
Conference will have to decide this issue.  The Chinese ambassador 
has warned us, nonetheless, that China is seriously considering 
asking for adoption of that text -- by vote if necessary.  The U.S. 
will therefore once again have to devise a strategy aimed at doing 
its utmost to prevent the WWII issue from tearing UNESCO asunder. 
 
¶6.  Comment continued:  China's increasingly strident insistence 
(now vociferously supported by India) that the Draft Declaration be 
adopted, even over the objections of others (e.g., Japan and 
Germany) is complicating the situation greatly.  Another worrisome 
complication is the increasing involvement in this issue of 
countries like India and Turkey.  Both are seeking to have the Draft 
Declaration adopted not to obtain cultural objects lost in 
connection with WWII, but largely because the Draft Declaration 
contains a single preambular paragraph which notes that "the return 
of cultural objects to their countries of origin is a major concern 
of many countries."  This innocent-sounding phrase ("the return of 
cultural objects to their countries of origin") is actually code for 
"the time has come to begin returning many cultural items now found 
in museums in many Western countries that were taken by force, 
during the colonial period, or otherwise illicitly, and that should 
now be returned to their countries of origin."  It's still too early 
to comment definitively, but the Mission believes that the "return 
to their countries of origin" concept at UNESCO is building 
momentum, much as "cultural diversity" did at the beginning of the 
 
UNESCOPARI 06090767  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
decade.  It is fairly predictable that, regardless of how the Draft 
Declaration issue is ultimately resolved, this new "return to 
countries of origin" concept is one with which UNESCO will be 
increasingly grappling, and one the U.S. will need to carefully 
monitor and seek to contain as it evolves. 
 
ENGELKEN