Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05PARIS2402
2005-04-08 16:07:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Paris
Cable title:  

UNESCO: EU Seems to be Gaining Ground in its Push for EC Representation at Cultural Diversity Convention

Tags:  PREL ETRD UNESCO EUN SCUL 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 002402 

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS

FOR IO/T BOOTH/COWLEY, L/EUR OLSON, L/UNA OSBORN, GENEVA FOR
PEAY

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL ETRD UNESCO EUN SCUD
SUBJECT: UNESCO: EU Seems to be Gaining Ground in its Push
for EC Representation at Cultural Diversity Convention

RE: A) PARIS 2231, B) PARIS 01857, C) 2004 PARIS 8818, D)
2004 PARIS 7677, E) RYMAN - OLSEN 4 APRIL E-MAIL

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 002402

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS

FOR IO/T BOOTH/COWLEY, L/EUR OLSON, L/UNA OSBORN, GENEVA FOR
PEAY

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL ETRD UNESCO EUN SCUD
SUBJECT: UNESCO: EU Seems to be Gaining Ground in its Push
for EC Representation at Cultural Diversity Convention

RE: A) PARIS 2231, B) PARIS 01857, C) 2004 PARIS 8818, D)
2004 PARIS 7677, E) RYMAN - OLSEN 4 APRIL E-MAIL


1. Summary. The Luxembourg Ambassador, representing the
European Union Presidency, and European Commission (EC)
officials held an April 7 briefing to support the request
that the April 2005 UNESCO Executive Board issue a decision
that EC may participate, but not vote, in UNESCO-based
negotiations concerning a Cultural Diversity Convention.
Reprising themes sounded repeatedly over the last several
months (refs A through D),they:

--explained that the EC had exclusive competence in some
subject areas covered in the draft Cultural Diversity
Convention now under discussion in UNESCO;

--argued that the EC's current status as an UNESCO Observer
did not give it sufficient powers to fulfill its
responsibilities in the Cultural Diversity negotiation
process;

--referred to substantial monetary contributions made by the
EC and EU Member States to UNESCO; and

--maintained that EC participation in the Cultural Diversity
negotiation process would not create a precedent allowing
similar status for other international regional groups.

End summary.

EU Member State and EC Reps Explain, Once Again, Evolving
European Institutions
-------------- --------------


2. Luxembourg Ambassador and EU Presidency Representative
Hubert Wurth made short opening remarks emphasizing that
European integration had eliminated the specter of war
between the EU member states and had lead to peace and
prosperity for them. He then turned over the floor to the
head of the EC's Observer Mission, Michel Vanden Abeele, who
started with a brief explanation of how the EU functions.
Turning to the Cultural Diversity Convention negotiations,
he reported that a November 2004 Council of Ministers
Decision had charged the European Commission the
responsibility to represent the EU member states in the
Cultural Diversity Convention negotiations with respect to
the following subjects:

--Free Movement of Goods, People and Capital
--Competition Aid given by States
--Internal Market
--Intellectual Property

--Trade Policy
--Immigration
--Development Cooperation (i.e., Assistance)


4. Vanden Abeele did not make any attempt to match up the
sections of the draft Cultural Diversity Convention now
under discussion with the subject matters within the EC's
purview. In response to a question from the Canadian
Ambassador Yvon Charbonneau, an EC Commission lawyer, Thomas
Hoffmeister, acknowledged the difficulties in making
distinctions between matters within the exclusive competence
of the EC and matters that remained the ambit of the EU
Member States. Hoffmeister also noted that "cultural
policy" itself was a matter that remained within member
state control and that in some member states, responsibility
for cultural policy was assigned to local government.
(Note. The draft proposed decision does not list the areas
of exclusive EC competence or limit the EC reps to speaking
to areas within them. Instead, it would generally allow the
EC representatives to "actively participate in the name
manner as full participants in the work of the
Intergovernmental Meeting, excluding the right to vote."
(Ref E) End note.)

Observer Status Not Enough
--------------


5. Hoffmeister acknowledged that the EC now has observer
status in UNESCO, but maintained that the EC could not
fulfill its responsibilities insofar as the Cultural
Diversity Convention negotiations were concerned within the
constraints imposed on UNESCO observers. He noted three:

--Observers speak last.
--Observers' interventions are restricted in time.
--Observers may intervene only once.

(Comment. In reality, the EC rep does not operate under
these limitations in the Cultural Diversity Negotiations.
Instead, the EC rep is "embedded" with the delegation of the
EU Presidency. This arrangement has allowed the EC rep to
intervene along with the Member States and without
limitation on the number of interventions or their length.
Hoffmeister, however, did not even refer to the "embedding
mechanism," let alone refer to any problems the EC had
experienced with it. End Comment.)
The Money
--------------


6. Luxembourg Ambassador Wurth emphasized that the twenty-
five member EU States had entrusted the EC with the mandate
to negotiate certain matters in the name of all. They
also made large monetary contributions to UNESCO, Wurth
added, saying that "this (monetary contribution) and good
relationships with other Member States" justify granting the
request for EC participation.

The Question of Precedent
--------------


7. At a number of points during their presentations, Wurth
and the EC representatives said that the request for EC
participation was limited to the cultural diversity
convention negotiations. During the question period,
Canadian Ambassador Yvon Charbonneau noted that other groups
of countries could ask for the same privileges and
questioned whether this would be a wise precedent to set.


8. Hoffmeister addressed the issue by saying that the
transfer of competencies from EU Member States to the EC is
"so vast" that the EC has the competence to enter into
treaties, but ASEAN, the OAU and other like organizations do
not. Hoffmeister did say that he was open to thinking
about changing some of the text so as to lessen the
possibility that other regional organizations could cite it
as a precedent.


9. In response to another question, Hoffmeister explained
that the phrase "economic regional integration
organizations" in paragraph four has been used to refer to
the EC in other UN documents and so had been used here.
The Canadian Ambassador riposted that the proposed decision
does not refer to these precedents and asked why not.
Without pausing for a response, he went on to note that this
decision is "not following precedent; it is establishing
it." He noted that if we continued down this path, UNESCO
could become an organization in which the African regional
organization speak for Africa, a Latin American regional
organizations speaks for Latin America; an Asian
organization for Asia, etc.


10. Comment. The EC is not acting consistently with
respect to requests to participate in UNESCO talks. For
example, the current UNESCO discussions on a bio-ethics
declaration affect intellectual property matters, but the EC
has not asked to participate in those talks.


11. Comment continued. The EC and EU Member States have
been hard at work, in Paris and in capitals, to line up
support for its request for EC representation at the
Cultural Diversity Convention (Refs A and B). This work has
apparently paid off. This was a far smaller and friendlier
audience than the audience at the first briefing session
(ref C),during which Member State reps from all of UNESCO's
geographically based electoral groups peppered the EC reps
with sharp questions. Fewer than two dozen non-EU
representatives, with virtually none from developing
countries, attended this session. This time, only the
Canadian Ambassador asked substantive questions.

OLIVER