USUNESCO: UNESCO VOTES TO ADOPT CULTURAL

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 007230

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS
STATE PASS USTR C.BLISS, S. MCCOY
NSC B. WILLIAMS
ROME FOR C.BERNINI, PLEASE PASS TO A/S SILVERBERG'S
PARTY

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETRD PREL SCUL FR UNESCO
SUBJECT: USUNESCO: UNESCO VOTES TO ADOPT CULTURAL
DIVERSITY CONVENTION: U.S. VOTES NO

Refs: A) Paris 7109, B) Paris 7128


1. (U) Summary. On October 20, by a vote of 148 in
favor, 2 (U.S. and Israel) opposed, and 4 (Australia,
Honduras, Liberia, and Nicaragua) abstentions, the
UNESCO General Conference, meeting in plenary session,
adopted the highly controversial Convention on the
Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural
Expressions ("the Convention"). Apart from the U.S.
explanation of vote (EOV),10 other EOVs also
underscored in various ways that the Convention must be
applied in a manner consistent with rights and
obligations under other international instruments. The
need to protect human rights in implementing the
Convention, however, was given less stress in those
interventions. The tone and substance of EU dealings
with the U.S. on this issue remained hard-edged and
unyielding down to the bitter end, as reflected in the
UK's plenary EOV (on behalf of the EU),"This is a
great day for UNESCO. With one country, we have agreed
to disagree on this issue." End Summary.


2. (U) The vote took place in a room filled with
delegation representatives, NGOs and press in an air of
high anticipation. There were no catcalls or other
undignified acts of which we are aware, after the
results were announced. The States whose EOVs
underscored the importance of respecting rights and
obligations under other international agreements
included Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Iraq, Japan,
Korea, New Zealand, Oman, Philippines, and Thailand.
Only Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, and Thailand
made explicit references in their EOVs to the need to
protect trade rules, WTO agreements, and/or
intellectual property obligations. Notably, the out-
going president of the Executive Board (a German) made
an impassioned intervention appealing to the room not
to speak of victories and defeats and calling for a
Convention text that could eventually be accepted by
all Member States, "otherwise it won't be credible."
He went on to say that we "owe respect to different
opinions" about the Convention, that the supporters of
the Convention should take seriously the concerns that
have been expressed, and noted his hope that the
convention would be applied "in good faith."


3. (U) Before closing the plenary session on this item,
Kadr Asmal, the South African who chaired the
negotiating sessions of inter-governmental experts, was
invited to the podium to make a final statement
(Comment: many elements of which were clearly
disingenuous). For instance, he said that the
Convention should not be seen as a "French, or EU, or
Canadian" convention and that it was "not part of a
power play." He stated that the Convention was about
more than radio and TV control and access, and also
about "respect." He asserted that the Convention was
"not adopted light-heartedly, frivolously, or rapidly."
He said the Convention does not supercede other
conventions, but rather is complementary to them. He
thanked the Director General "for his steadfastness"
during the negotiations of the Convention. He urged
quick ratification of the Convention for its entry into
force.

4. (U) Prior to the plenary session vote on the
Convention's text, Commission IV met to review and
approve a written report of its proceedings and to hear
an oral report on its proceedings from the rapporteur.
At that meeting, the U.S. delegation sought to add
either a footnote or an additional paragraph to the
written report to reflect the discussion and vote
relating to a key U.S.-proposed amendment to improve an
unhelpful Japanese Draft Resolution that provided an
ambiguous interpretation of the Convention. The U.S.
effort to have the record reflect this part of the
Commission's proceedings was roundly opposed on the
ground that it was inconsistent with UNESCO's practice
regarding defeated draft amendments.


5. (U) For contextual background, the U.S. amendment
had sought to include in the final paragraph of the
Japanese resolution the verbatim wording of two
principles enshrined in the UNESCO Constitution,
namely, "the free flow of ideas by word and image" and
the "free exchange of ideas and knowledge." As
amended, the amended paragraph would have read:
"Expresses its confidence that the Convention shall be
implemented in a manner consistent with the principles
and objectives of the Constitution of UNESCO, in
particular the free flow of ideas by word and image"
and the "free exchange of ideas and knowledge."
However, our proposed amendment was defeated by a vote
of 116 (opposed),3 (Afghanistan, Israel, U.S.) in
favor and 3 abstentions, and the written report of
Commission IV remained silent regarding that telling
vote. For the record, it is worth noting that
Afghanistan, Australia, and Israel were also among
those States (in addition to Kiribati, Korea,
Philippines, Rwanda, Thailand) that had voted to
support, or to abstain on, a number of the U.S.'s 28
proposed (but rejected) amendments to the Convention
text (see reftels).


6. (U) However, at the plenary session, taking
advantage of the fact that all plenary intervention are
fully recorded, the U.S. delegation made an
intervention that recalled the U.S. proposed amendment
to the Japanese resolution and that verbatim wording
taken from UNESCO's Constitution had been rejected by a
vote for inclusion in the Japanese resolution.


7. (U) Comment. The full import of this convention on
"culture" has, from its inception, too often been
underestimated, misrepresented, and widely
misunderstood by many. Despite an assiduous if
unsuccessful U.S. Government effort to prevent this
result, the Convention's adoption is now a fait
accompli and its potential entry into force only 30
ratifications away from becoming a juridical reality.
In many important respects, this Convention can be seen
and exploited as a clarion call to take serious note of
indicative diplomatic developments that have critical
implications for U.S. multilateral diplomacy, for trans-
Atlantic policy, and for U.S. outreach to the
developing world.


8. (U) Comment continued. A key observation about the
process that led to adoption of this instrument is the
disturbing trend within UNESCO towards regional-group
block voting that is either aimed at, or has the
practical effect of, completely shutting out U.S.
capacity to influence group decisions before they are
reached. The adroit European Union maneuvering to land
this Convention, tinged with complete disregard for its
impact on the U.S., cannot be ignored. Nor can this
victory's potential for emboldening the EU to pursue
further such victories in multilateral forums, where it
can once again count on surrogate supporters such as
Canada, Brazil, India, and the G-77.


OLIVER