USUNESCO: PLANS TO RECOGNIZE LE CORBUSIER'S WORK

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 004375 SIPDIS FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS PLEASE PASS NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - STEVE MORRIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: SCUL AORC FR UNESCO SUBJECT: USUNESCO: PLANS TO RECOGNIZE LE CORBUSIER'S WORK AS UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITES PROCEED ¶1. Summary: Twenty Le-Corbusier-designed buildings have been chosen to represent the architect's work in a possible nomination for World Heritage site status, according to Le Corbusier Foundations officials who spoke at a June 21 informal UNESCO meeting. (A Le Corbusier-designed building on Harvard University's campus is not included in the package.) The World Heritage Site nomination process, however, does not easily accommodate the planned 2007 nomination. The French Ambassador recommended discussing this issue with reps of countries standing for election to the World Heritage Committee (WHC). End summary. ¶2. At a 21 June meeting attended by representatives of the Argentinean, Belgian, German, French, Indian and Swiss UNESCO representatives, representatives of the Le Corbusier Foundation explained the current status of the plans for a "serial nomination" in 2007 for World Heritage Site status that would recognize a twenty Le-Corbusier designed buildings worthy of World Heritage Site status and representative of the architect's life's work. The buildings are located in France, Switzerland, India, Belgium, Germany and England. The organizers dropped their original plans to include a Le Corbusier designed building located on Harvard University's campus, but expressed hope that perhaps this building might someday be included as an "extension" site. ¶3. French Ambassador to UNESCO Jean Gueguinou said that Le Corbusier's work obviously deserved recognition as a UNESCO World Heritage site. Gueguinou then succinctly stated the problems: --when the nomination is made in 2007, WHC rules will limit the total number of new sites to 40 per year. Each country may nominate a maximum of two sites, but one of them must be a natural site. --Therefore, for the nomination to succeed, each of the countries containing a building on the organizer's list would be required to select that building as their one cultural site for nomination. This would be highly unlikely -- Countries may nominate only sites that are listed on their "Tentative List." (Note. World Heritage Convention procedures anticipate that each signatory will maintain a list of sites in its territory that it considers worthy of "World Heritage" status. These lists are called "Tentative Lists." End note.) --Some countries, such as India and Argentina, might have different priorities for their Tentative Lists, Gueguinou noted. The Argentine and Indian reps noted agreement. --The German and Belgian reps noted that the Le Corbusier sites are not on the their respective Tentative Lists and would not likely be included, due to internal political processes. Moreover, Germany has already more or less decided on which sites to nominate through the year 2010. ¶4. Gueguinou emphasized that a solution should be found to the many procedural difficulties, given the obvious merit of a Le Corbusier nomination. He expressed the hope that the World Heritage Center, the Paris-based UNESCO-housed administrative support body for the 1973 World Heritage Convention, would help find a solution. The World Heritage Center representative at the meeting, apparently already persuaded that the Le Corbusier work deserved recognition, said that the World Heritage Center had a certain flexibility in interpreting the rules, but stopped well short of saying that the current rules could accommodate the nomination ¶5. Gueguinou and the Le Corbusier Foundation reps floated an idea to the effect that France and Switzerland could nominate Le-Corbusier buildings on their territories, with other Le Corbusier locations considered as "extension" sites. ¶6. Gueguinou noted that 12 of the 21 States who are represented on the World Heritage Committee, the policy- making body established by the 1973 World Heritage Convention, stand for election in October. He encouraged discussion of the procedural problems in Le Corbusier nomination with reps of the countries standing for election. He also reiterated his feeling that the World Heritage Center should be able to help find a way to accommodate the nomination. Finally, he suggested that the interested parties reconvene in November, after the UNESCO General Conference and the World Heritage Committee elections, to continue to make plans to promote the nomination Oliver