UNESCO CULTURAL DIVERSITY CONVENTION NEGOTIATIONS:

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 000206

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS

SENSITIVE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO EUN UN
SUBJECT: UNESCO CULTURAL DIVERSITY CONVENTION NEGOTIATIONS:
UNESCO LAWYER DOESN'T BUY OCTOBER 2005 DEADLINE



1. (SBU) Summary and Action Request. UNESCO Senior Legal
Officer John Donaldson called into question the October 2005
goal for adoption of a Cultural Diversity Convention, noting
that UNESCO rules and past practice are consistent with a
four-year timetable, not the current two-year schedule. He
also said that the scope of the UNESCO Director-General's
report may vary somewhat in scope from the October 2003
UNESCO General Conference Resolution that began the process
of developing a Cultural Diversity Convention.

Post seeks Department guidance in evaluating Donaldson's
reasoning concerning the October 2005 goal. See
paragraphs11-12.

End Summary and Action Request.

Conversation that Started on Scope Turns to Timing
-------------- --------------


2. (SBU) In the course of a 3 January telcon with poloff
concerning the scope of the General Conference's Resolution
setting into motion the negotiations for a Cultural
Diversity Convention, Senior UNESCO Legal Officer John
Donaldson turned the conversation to the normal timetable
for UNESCO Conventions. (Note. Reso. 32C/34 "Invites the
Director General to submit a preliminary report.setting
forth the situation to be regulated and the possible scope
of regulation action proposed, accompanied by a preliminary
draft of a convention on the protection of the diversity of
cultural contents and artistic expressions." End note.)


3. (SBU) Donaldson pointed out that the normal four-year
process had gotten compressed into two years, which was
simply not enough time to sort through the issues.
Normally, he said, a resolution beginning the process of
drafting a Convention would ask for a preliminary report
setting forth various possibilities. That preliminary
report would be discussed at a General Convention, which
would then make policy decisions and direct the preparation
of a final report.


4. (SBU) Donaldson cited additional arguments to support
his position.

--UNESCO Rule E, which covered adoption of Conventions,
required the Director General to distribute a "final
report," not a "preliminary report," seven months prior to
the General Conference. Therefore, he noted, we are faced
with the anomalous situation in which the DG is apparently
gearing itself up for issuing a "final report" in March
2005, even though the "preliminary report" mandated by the
General Conference is not due until October 2005.

-- Investigation of the wording of the resolutions
concerning other UNESCO Conventions and the timetable of
their adoption would bear the normal four-year timetable
out, he said, noting that the materials are available on the
UNESCO web site.


5. (SBU) In response to poloff's question about the
timetable of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention,
Donaldson said that he "thought" that the Underwater
Cultural Convention took four years, even though there was a
rush to complete negotiations at the end.


6. (SBU) Poloff, however, has been told that in fall of
2003, the then-newly arrived UNESCO Chief Legal Officer,
Abdulqawi Yusuf, opined in the context of the Underwater
Heritage Convention that it was possible to develop and
adopt a UNESCO Convention in one biennium, or two years.
Relying on this opinion, poloff was told, the October 2003
General Conference adopted the Underwater Cultural Heritage
Convention. (Comment. The Underwater Cultural Heritage
Convention is now viewed as an unmitigated failure in UNESCO
circles. Probably because the rush to complete negotiations
left unresolved some important technical issues, it has been
ratified by only a handful of states, with no further
ratifications expected. As top UNESCO culture official
Mounir Bouchenaki told Ambassador Oliver in September 2004,
the UNESCO Secretariat does not want the Cultural Diversity
Convention to suffer a similar fate as the Underwater
Cultural Heritage Convention "fiasco." End Comment.)

Conversation on Scope
--------------


7. (SBU) In the earlier part of the telcon, poloff asked
Donaldson about the scope of Reso. 32C/34. Donaldson
responded that this resolution, like other General
Conference resolutions, set forth guidelines. Some
development or change would be permissible, but he noted
that the Intergovernmental report should explain why it had
varied from the mandate.


8. (SBU) Poloff asked Donaldson whether there were any
limits to how far the draft Convention submitted by the
Intergovernmental process could vary from the Reso. 32C/34.
Donaldson explained that it could not be completely off-
topic, that it must be related to the mandate.


9. (SBU) Poloff pointed out that the question of the Saudi
Arabian Ambassador to Donaldson at a 16 December meeting had
been about a significant policy issue -- whether the draft
Convention submitted to the October 2005 General Conference
must cover "cultural contents," as apparently anticipated in
Reso. 32C/34, or may instead be limited to "cultural
expressions."

10. (SBU) Donaldson took the point, but responded that
recent General Conference resolutions, such as Reso. 32C/34,
had become much more specific in recent years, in response
to previous UNESCO Director Generals, who had sometimes
submitted reports at wide variance with the General
Conference resolutions, effectively substituting their own
judgment for that of the General Conferences. (Note.
Donaldson hastened to add that this had not been a problem
with the current Director General, however. End note.) In
this case, Donaldson concluded, the variance in scope was
less important, as it was something the members themselves
appeared to want, and not something imposed by the DG.

ACTION REQUEST.


11. (SBU) Even though the words of Reso. 32C/34 require
only the submission of a "preliminary" report covering the
"possible" scope of regulating action and a "draft"
Convention, the general feeling in UNESCO corridors seems to
be that the General Conference is required to decide on
passing a Convention in October 2005. If, as Donaldson
intimates, this timetable is not consistent with UNESCO
rules, then the current momentum to finish the job in
October could be slowed considerably.


12. (SBU) Mission would therefore appreciate Washington's
analysis and guidance.

Oliver