VZCZCXRO9061
RR RUEHAP RUEHFL RUEHGI RUEHGR RUEHKN RUEHKR RUEHMA RUEHMJ RUEHMR
RUEHPA RUEHPB RUEHQU RUEHRN RUEHSK RUEHSL
DE RUEHFR #1481/01 3081741
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 041741Z NOV 09
FM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS FR
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
INFO RUCNSCO/UNESCO COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 PARIS FR 001481 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12598:  N/A 
TAGS: TPHY PREL PHUM UNESCO
SUBJECT: UNESCO'S 35TH GENERAL CONFERENCE:  SOCIAL AND HUMAN 
SCIENCES COMMISSION 
 
¶1.  Summary:  The October 16-21 meeting of the Social and Human 
Sciences Commission was the scene of some of the most heated debates 
at UNESCO's 35th General Conference.  The Commission began its work 
by discussing whether to initiate negotiation of a proposed 
"Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles in Relation to Climate 
Change."  Several states (e.g., Canada, UK, Brazil, and the U.S.) 
warned that UNESCO should not preempt work being done in preparation 
for the upcoming Copenhagen Conference, but small island developing 
states (with some blatant cheerleading from the Secretariat) were 
keen to proceed.  In the end, the Commission confirmed language 
agreed at the just-concluded September Executive Board that asked 
the Director-General to consult with member states and stakeholders 
and submit at the September 2010 Executive Board "a report on the 
desirability of preparing a draft declaration of ethical principles 
in relation to climate change." 
 
¶2.  A draft resolution submitted by the Secretariat on activities 
carried out to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights also sparked controversy.  U.S. efforts 
to eliminate mentions of rights within UNESCO's competence met 
pushback.  Not all such references were eliminated.  The Secretariat 
which again made little pretense of neutrality succeeded in 
including language in the resolution adopted that requests the 
Secretariat to report on implementation of UNESCO's "Strategy on 
Human Rights and the Integrated Strategy to Combat Racism, Racial 
Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance" at its 
September 2010 Executive Board session. 
 
¶3.  France's effort to include language in UNESCO's Draft Program 
and Budget that would have required UNESCO to undertake "initiatives 
to combat anti-semitism" occasioned the longest and most heated 
debate.  Islamic delegations objected strenuously that such language 
was unbalanced and did not require UNESCO to combat other forms of 
intolerance.  The effort might, nonetheless, have succeeded if not 
for an ill-timed intervention by the chair (Lebanon's Salwa Saniora 
Baassiri) that overturned a private understanding between France and 
Iran that would have allowed adoption of the language in return for 
permitting Islamic states to record their concerns for the record. 
The chair instead dictated language that made no mention of 
anti-semitism and merely enjoined UNESCO to combat "all forms of 
racial and/or religious intolerance."  France with firm support from 
Germany and the U.S. strongly protested the chairperson's action. 
End Summary. 
 
Proposed Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles in Relation to 
Climate Change 
 
¶4.  The Secretariat kicked off discussion of the climate change 
issue by informing Member States that the World Commission on the 
Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) had 
recommended at its sixth Ordinary Session (June 16-19, 2009, Kuala 
Lumpur, Malaysia) that UNESCO should develop an ethical framework of 
principles in relation to climate change.  Assistant 
Director-General for Social and Human Sciences Pierre San and 
COMEST Chair Alain Pompidou (France) both strongly advocated 
immediate action.  After an impassioned presentation about the 
disappearing Carteret Islands off Papua-New Guinea, ADG San 
outlined four broad areas that a universal declaration might focus 
on:  state responsibilities, access to scientific knowledge, 
international solidarity, and dissemination of ethical practices. 
He also said that most ethical principles are already articulated in 
international frameworks; the principles just need to be adapted to 
climate change.  San emphasized that UNESCO should claim its "right 
place in the climate change debate" and ethics is an area where 
UNESCO has a comparative advantage. 
 
¶5.  Several Member States warned that it is premature to decide 
whether UNESCO should launch an effort to negotiate a declaration on 
climate change ethics.  Canada noted the world is not without 
ethical principles.  The U.K. expressed concern that launching a 
separate climate change process at UNESCO will undercut Copenhagen 
and referred to COMEST's efforts as "premature."  The U.K. strongly 
insisted that a decision to go forward with an intergovernmental 
negotiation cannot be left to the Executive Board alone and all 
Member States at UNESCO need to be consulted.  Brazil commented that 
this was an "uncalled for initiative," and that Brazil cannot 
support any instrument on ethical principles. Japan thought 
consideration of this issue should wait until after COP15."  The 
U.S. noted that climate change is a serious issue, and that ethics 
will be an important element in what is discussed in Copenhagen. 
The U.S. also stressed that UNESCO should complement not compete 
with the Copenhagen process. 
 
¶6.  There was strong support for UNESCO action on the ethics of 
climate change from the Caribbean island nations and from the 
Scandinavians.  Norway intervened in the lengthy debate to note that 
the Executive Board had considered this issue in September and had 
reached a careful compromise.  Norway in the end persuaded the 
Commission to adopt the text approved by the Executive Board without 
change.  This ignited a round of applause from the Commission. 
 
¶7.  As the chair was announcing that the measure had been adopted, 
 
PARIS 00001481  002 OF 005 
 
 
the United Kingdom representative protested furiously and declared 
that the UK must have the Secretariat's assurance that Member States 
will be consulted before the report is submitted to the Executive 
Board at its 185th Session.  This was agreed upon and included in 
the final report of the SHS Commission.  The original text was 
adopted without change. 
 
Report of the Director-General on the Activities carried out to 
celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights. 
 
¶8.  The Report of the Director-General on the Activities carried out 
to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights contains a short proposed amendment sponsored by 
Austria regarding "the facilitation of youth participation," which 
was widely supported and adopted without opposition.  The rest of 
the text, however, which was drafted by the Secretariat, provoked a 
lengthy debate, and resulted in the Commission examining the 
document paragraph by paragraph.  The representatives of 17 Member 
States and one Observer took the floor.  Numerous countries proposed 
amendments, including the U.S. 
 
¶9.  The U.S. joined other states in stressing the importance of 
human rights and endorsed Austria's proposed amendment.  The U.S. 
raised a couple of questions regarding the cost of human rights 
mainstreaming and which UN normative instrument is referenced in 
this text.  The Netherlands supported the U.S. in regard to 
questioning the UN normative instrument.  The Netherlands also 
supported Cuba in regard to examining the text paragraph by 
paragraph.  France was in favor the queries put forward by the U.S. 
and additionally endorsed the proposed amendment by Austria.  France 
also stated that it supports UNESCO's efforts in human rights 
education. 
 
¶10.  Cuba proposed to add language at the end of para 2 that cited 
the Vienna Convention.  This proposal was overridden by Canada's 
proposed amendment to use the language crafted by the Executive 
Board.  Cuba wanted to add "universality" and "indivisibility" to 
para 2 and was defeated again by Canada, who proposed to use 
language approved by the Executive Board.  The Commission decided to 
replace both para 2 and 3 with the Executive Board language provided 
by Canada. 
 
¶11.  The U.S. suggested deleting "the rights within UNESCO's 
competence" in para 5.  This was accepted without opposition.  When 
the U.S. made the same argument to delete "...in particular those 
within the UNESCO mandate..." in para 7, a debate erupted.  The 
outgoing UNESCO Board Chairman, Olabiyi Yai (Benin), directed a 
question to USDEL, asking why the U.S. would want to remove language 
involving the rights within UNESCO's mandate.  USDEL stated there 
may not be agreement on the rights under the competence of UNESCO. 
Additionally, USDEL said his delegation believes human rights are 
within the competency of the Human Rights Council. 
 
¶12.  Italy, Peru, and Cuba stated their support for the amendment 
proposed by the U.S. in para 5, but did not agree with the U.S. 
proposed amendment in para 7.   Italy said that eliminating "within 
the UNESCO mandate" could imply UNESCO has no human rights authority 
at all.  Italy stated this is now a question of a legal matter and 
requested the Secretariat's legal advisor.   Indonesia, Pakistan, 
and India were also not in favor amending para 7.  India explicitly 
said they cannot accept the deletion proposed by the U.S. 
 
¶13.  On the other hand, St. Lucia and France supported the U.S. 
amendment in para 7.  St. Lucia pointed out that in their opinion 
the sentence implied that the financial impact has more seriously 
violated the rights within UNESCO's mandate, as opposed to other 
rights.  France said that using language that refers to only the 
rights "within the UNESCO mandate" actually waters down the text. 
Luxembourg echoed France's intervention and added that deleting this 
language, as the U.S. is proposing, clarifies the text. 
 
¶14.  Germany shared the concerns of the U.S. and suggested replacing 
"in particular" with "including."  Grenada endorsed Germany's 
proposal.  The U.S. stated it could accept the proposal made by 
Germany.  India, however, said it cannot accept it and proposed 
replacing "in particular" with "especially." 
 
¶15.  The Chair intervened and proposed replacing "in particular" 
with "with particular attention to".  The Chair's proposed amendment 
was adopted. 
 
¶16.  Regarding operative para 4, the Secretariat proposed moving 
Austria's proposed amendment "the facilitation of youth 
participation" to operative para 9.  This was accepted by the 
Commission without opposition. 
 
¶17.  Regarding operative para 5, Canada proposed to keep the 
language consistent with other UNESCO documents and use 
"research-policy linkages" rather than "policy-oriented research." 
This was adopted without opposition.  Canada also proposed to 
rephrase the later half of para 5, which was accepted and also 
 
PARIS 00001481  003 OF 005 
 
 
included India's proposal to move "gender equality and women's 
rights" to the top of the sentence.  The adopted text read 
"...including on gender equality and women's rights, on the 
relationship between access to safe drinking water, sanitation and 
human rights, and on the struggle against poverty, in full 
conformity with universal human rights standards". 
 
¶18.  Also, in regard to operative para 5, the U.S. proposed 
replacing "universal human rights standards" with "international 
human rights law."  Canada supported this proposed amendment, but 
most countries objected, such as India, who was most vocal.  India 
stated the U.S. "frequently" tries to replace "standards" with "law" 
and asked the legal advisor of the Secretariat to clarify the 
difference between the two.  The legal advisor said "standards" is 
wider in scope and can refer to non-binding instruments.  The legal 
advisor also said "law" refers to binding instruments only and it 
"is our practice to use law".  India called a point of order and 
asked the Secretariat if international human rights law is better 
than universal human rights standards, why did the Secretariat 
include this language in the text?  The Chair continued to call on 
countries and this question was not answered.  Indonesia 
specifically noted their support for "standards" over "law."  Italy 
stated it could accept "law" over "standards," but had a problem 
with "international" vs. "universal."  Additionally, Italy believed 
"international" was ambiguous and could also include bilateral 
instruments.  The Chair stated "standards" is of broader scope and 
gaveled through the original text using the phrase "universal human 
rights standards."  (When the Commission met to approve the Chair's 
report, the U.S. asked the Chair to include in her report that the 
U.S. preferred to use the term international human rights law.) 
 
¶19.  The document's mention of "right to water" sparked diverging 
opinions among some countries.  India firmly supported the right to 
water and stated that governments have an "obligation" to their 
people to uphold this right.  Madagascar also supported the language 
"right to access safe drinking water."  Brazil adamantly disagreed 
and noted that the international community has not come to an 
agreement on the "right to water."  The Netherlands strongly 
supported Brazil and said it is premature to refer to "right to 
water."  France echoed that there is no point in acknowledging a 
right that does not exist.  The legal advisor of the Secretariat 
stated it is not up to him to say if the "right to water" is an 
emerging right or not.  The legal advisor noted it is up to the 
Commission to decide which "rights" are emerging rights. 
 
¶20.  Regarding operative para 6, the U.S. suggested that the name of 
the UN normative instrument be specifically mentioned.  India 
proposed deleting the later half of the sentence which would remove 
"...and participation in the elaboration of a United Nations 
normative instrument concerning human rights education".  India's 
proposal was adopted. 
 
¶21.  Regarding operative para 8, Cuba felt the language related to 
"new partners" was unclear, but did not propose an amendment.  Cuba 
did propose, however, adding at the end of the para 8, "avoiding 
unnecessary duplication," which was not accepted.  Cuba later 
amended its proposal to suggest a full stop after "...Office of the 
High Commissioner for Human Rights" which would delete "...the 
United Nations treaty bodies, the Human Rights Council and special 
procedure mandate holders and to undertake, when necessary, steps to 
institutionalize such cooperation;"  India supported deleting this 
language and noted that any such cooperation with other UN 
specialized agencies will require a MOU.  Para 8 was adopted with 
deleted text as proposed. 
 
¶22.  Regarding operative para 10, the Netherlands questioned what 
are UNESCO's "new priorities"?  The Secretariat replied the economic 
crisis and the environmental crisis.  The Secretariat also said that 
research is still being conducted on these issues and have not yet 
identified the implications of these crises.  Canada intervened to 
say that it cannot approve "new priorities" if we don't know what 
they are and suggested a full stop after "...Related Intolerance" 
and start up again with "by taking due account of (deleting: new 
priorities and challenges in the area of human rights, notably those 
deriving from the global economic and financial crises, as well as 
the achievements and) lessons learned from the commemoration of the 
60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration, and to present a 
report thereon to the Executive Board at its 185th session". 
Germany was also worried about the Secretariat's explanation and 
fully supported Canada.  The U.S. and Peru also supported Canada's 
proposed amendment, which was adopted. 
 
Revision of the Statutes of the Intergovernmental Committee for 
Physical Education and Sport (CIGEPS). 
 
¶23.  Member states gave a Secretariat proposal to revise the 
statutes of the Intergovernmental Committee for Physical Education 
and Sport (CIGEPS) a rough reception.  The Secretariat's draft 
proposed to:  (1) increase the number of Member States from 18 to 
30, (2) establish an International Expert Committee, (3) revitalize 
the International Fund for the Development of Physical Education and 
Sport, and (4) replace references to physical "activities" with 
 
PARIS 00001481  004 OF 005 
 
 
physical "education."  The representatives of 22 Member States took 
the floor.  Cuba, as the Chair of CIGEPS, strongly supported the 
revisions of the statues, arguing that these changes were necessary 
for CIGEPS to operate most effectively and said that this reform 
would be carried out through the existing budget.  It was backed by 
Spain, and garnered additional endorsement from Ecuador, Algeria, El 
Salvador, Columbia, Madagascar, Cote D'Ivoire, and Niger. 
 
¶24.  Even with this support the revisions were not adopted.  Germany 
opposed them, stating it was not in a position to accept these 
revisions without having a discussion about the budgetary 
implications.  Germany's concern was echoed, but articulated in 
different ways by India, Finland, Norway, Brazil, Canada, Japan, 
India, Kuwait, Morocco, Pakistan, Grenada, Czech Republic, and 
Barbados.  India pointed out that the Executive Board had not 
reviewed this item nor had there been an informational meeting on 
this topic.  Brazil said it was open to revising the statutes but 
felt it just did not have enough information on which to base a 
decision.  In the end, the Commission requested the Director-General 
to conduct the required studies and consultations and to submit, 
after consideration by CIGEPS, a report thereon containing, if 
appropriate, a proposal for revision of the Statutes to the 
Executive Board at its 185th session. 
 
Draft Resolutions Relating to the Draft Program and Budget: 
 
¶25.  The Social and Human Sciences Commission also considered 
several proposed amendments to UNESCO's draft program and budget. 
It notably agreed to adopt 35 C/DR.6 (Islamic Republic of Iran) 
which asked UNESCO to strengthen "regional and international 
cooperation in the field of bioethics . . .," after clarification 
that the proposal had no budgetary implications.  A proposal by the 
Dominican Republic that asked for UNESCO to promote the 
philosophical heritage of each region also was adopted.  Other 
proposed amendments offered by Cuba, Colombia, the Dominican 
Republic, and Egypt were either withdrawn or not retained. 
 
Anti-Semitism 
 
¶26. A budget amendment proposed by France, supported by Argentina, 
and co-sponsored by the Netherlands and Poland caused more 
controversy than any other measure in the entire General Conference. 
 These countries proposed to amend UNESCO's strategy and budget to 
request it to encourage ". . . initiatives to combat anti-Semitism 
and all other forms of xenophobia, anti-religious and racial 
intolerance," while working to implement UNESCO's Integrated 
Strategy to Combat Racism, Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related 
Intolerance. 
 
¶27.  The French expected their proposal would meet opposition and 
had a careful planned strategy to overcome it.  First, they 
approached like-minded countries like Germany, Netherlands, Czech 
Republic, Argentina, and the United States and lined them up to 
speak in favor of the French proposal.  Second, they also held very 
discreet discussions with Iran and obtained agreement that Iran 
could ventilate its views but would not/not block consensus on the 
resolution. 
 
¶28.  When the time came for debate on the draft resolution, it 
looked like France's scenario would be followed.  The U.S. and 
others took the floor to support the French text, while Iran, as 
expected, criticized it.  Specifically, the Iranians complained that 
the language proposed by France does not incorporate all forms of 
intolerance, such as "islamophobia," and thought France's amendment 
was "unnecessary."  Significantly, Iran did not offer amendments to 
the French text and did not say it would block consensus.  Iran's 
reservations were supported by Indonesia, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Saudi 
Arabia, Kuwait, and Cuba.  Again, despite the reservations of these 
countries, no country said that it would block consensus. 
 
¶29.  SHS Commission Chairperson Salwa Saniora Baassiri (Lebanon) 
then destroyed France's careful plan.  She suddenly announced that 
there was no consensus on the French text.  She then dictated aloud 
her own version, which left out anti-Semitism and just referred to 
combating "all forms of racial and religious intolerance." 
Pandemonium followed.  Turkey supported the Chair's proposed text. 
India suggested replacing "racial" with "ethnic," which was 
accepted.  Peru thought the reference to all forms of intolerance 
was better than specifically mentioning any form of intolerance. 
Germany noted that the Commission now has lost consensus; therefore, 
Germany proposed using Geneva language, which would have listed 
"anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Christianaphobia, and all other forms 
of intolerance."  Iran supported listing each phobia.  Madagascar 
criticized the Chair for her intervention and asked that she permit 
consensus to stand when it exists.  U.S. Ambassador Killion seconded 
Madagascar and noted how difficult it is to work on contentious 
issues.  Furthermore, he said the Chair's intervention raised doubts 
as to whether solutions negotiated in good faith would be honored. 
Ultimately, the language "encouraging initiatives to combat all 
forms of racial and/or religious intolerance" was adopted. 
 
¶30.  Comment:  This was not the only time the Chair intervened to 
 
PARIS 00001481  005 OF 005 
 
 
the detriment of the U.S. (e.g., see para. 18 above).  The U.S. and 
French delegations both felt the Chair was out of line in imposing 
her personal views rather than waiting for a consensus to emerge and 
wrote privately to the President of the General Conference, Davidson 
Hepburn of Bahamas, to complain strongly.  End Comment. 
 
¶31.  France and Germany also insisted in having a reservation on the 
text finally adopted be included as a footnote in the written report 
of the Commission.   This also occasioned a lengthy debate with 
frequent appeals to the legal advisor as to what sort of reservation 
could be put in the text of the commission's report.  Predictably, 
Iran intervened to say that if one Member States' statements are 
included, all statements should then be included.  Pakistan said 
this would open up "Pandora's box."   Nonetheless, in the end a 
footnote was added as follows:  "France and Germany expressed 
reservation on this point, which will be included in the final 
report of the Chair person and the report of the General 
Conference." 
 
Other Objections 
 
¶32.  Other countries followed the French lead and asked that their 
reservations be included in the Chair's oral report.  The U.S., for 
example, in regards to the discussion in Para 18 above, requested 
that the Chair report that the U.S. believes that the proper 
terminology is "international human rights law," versus "universal 
human rights standards". The Chair agreed to include to do so. 
 
¶33. Madagascar mentioned that the rapporteur (Belgium) summarized in 
the oral report the objection made by Brazil to the right to water. 
Madagascar asked that the oral report also mention that a number of 
African states would like to use the language, "right to water." 
 
 
KILLION