FOLLOW-UP ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE TUNIS AGENDA

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 001007 SIPDIS FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS SENSITIVE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KPAO ECPS ETRD ECON EINT ETTC UNESCO SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE TUNIS AGENDA FOR UNESCO REF: PARIS 431 ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: On February 2, 2006 the UNESCO Director General (DG),Koichiro Matsuura, and Assistant Director General (ADG) for Communication and Information, Khan, held an information session for UNESCO's permanent delegations to outline the implications for UNESCO of the World Information Summit on the Information Society's (WSIS) Tunis Agenda. UNESCO's strategy at WSIS featured four key principles: 1) Freedom of expression, 2) Universal access to information and knowledge, 3) Respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, 4) Quality education for all. According to the DG, UNESCO's delegation to Tunis clarified which action lines it would work on, distanced itself from the Internet governance debate, did not rule out the creation of new normative instruments, and reiterated its commitment to private sector partnerships. END SUMMARY. -------------- IMPLICATIONS OF THE TUNIS AGENDA FOR UNESCO -------------- ¶2. (SBU) The Tunis Agenda designates UNESCO as a moderator/facilitator for 7 Action Lines: 1) Access to information and knowledge, 2)E-learning, 3)E-science, 4) Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content, 5) Media, 6) Ethical dimensions of Information Society, 7) International and regional cooperation. The DG stressed that UNESCO expects to actively participate along with ITU and UNDP in the overall coordination of multi-stakeholder implementation of the WSIS outcomes. -------------- INTERNET GOVERNANCE -------------- ¶3. (SBU) UNESCO will participate in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as established by the Tunis Agenda. Any preference that UNESCO had for the location of the IGF Secretariat was not discussed. The Brazilian Ambassador SIPDIS asked how "enhanced cooperation," as mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, would be addressed, noting that the language was deliberately imprecise. The DG stated that UNESCO would play a role in identifying what was meant by enhanced cooperation, so that all parties are involved. (COMMENT: He did not offer specifics. END COMMENT.) He also affirmed that UNESCO would be engaged in three aspects of Internet governance: 1) Openness, 2) Linguistic diversity, 3) Access (meaning interoperability). -------------- CALL FOR INSTRUMENTS -------------- ¶4. (SBU) The Japanese DCM asked if the DG saw scope for normative instruments in the area of Internet governance. The DG responded that at the moment he does not envisage any normative instruments in the Communication and Information sector, but UNESCO's important mission is to formulate normative instruments in key areas. If there is further need for instruments in Communication and Information, he added, UNESCO should not shy away. ADG Khan noted that the IGF could advance areas of concern with member state support. The Communication and Information sector did not, he said, need normative instruments today, but since technology was changing so fast, he could not say that UNESCO would not consider them in the future. (COMMENT: World Press Freedom Committee Representative Rony Koven's reaction to this comment was, "We'll worry about the future when we get there. The main thing is that he sees no need for instruments now." Koven is a thirty-year advocate of media freedom at UNESCO, an active WSIS stakeholder, and seasoned observer of the UNESCO scene, who will participate as a stakeholder in the Internet Governance Forum. END COMMENT.) -------------- UNESCO'S ROLE INADEQUATE? -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Delegates from Brazil, India, and Japan questioned whether UNESCO had been given its "due" role in the process. The Indian Ambassador stated that, according to the Indian delegate at WSIS, UNESCO was not allowed to play the role it wanted to have because of "certain key delegations." (COMMENT: Is this the same Indian Delegate to WSIS that the USG worked well with? We wonder if the Indian Ambassador is articulating her own version of WSIS events here. END COMMENT.) This echoed concerns that UNESCO ambassadors, including the Indian Ambassador, raised with Ambassador Gross on January 18, 2006 (reftel). The DG responded that while he shared this concern, it was useless to complain. UNESCO, he stated, had wanted to represent member states in the WSIS process and its only ambition was to fulfill its mandate. -------------- CRITICISM OF PUBLIC SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS -------------- ¶6. (SBU) The Indian Ambassador criticized UNESCO for signing a software agreement with Microsoft, stating that such an agreement had resulted in UNESCO abandoning efforts to develop open-source software. (COMMENT: It is not clear whether the Indian Ambassador is motivated by anti- globalization ideals, as she might like to suggest, or national interest, though we suspect the latter. The UNESCO open-source software project "Enrich" is being developed, in large part, by Indian software engineers. END COMMENT.) ADG Khan defended this partnership by stating that developing software is vital for capacity building, and added that UNESCO continues to work on open-source software. The Tunis Agenda, he reminded the audience, calls for private sector partnerships in this area, and UNESCO plans to increase them. The DG stated that UNESCO must maintain momentum in building partnerships with the private sector in areas covered by WSIS. The agreement with Microsoft does not mean that UNESCO will stop pursuing the idea of free and open software. ¶7. (SBU) COMMENT: While it is disturbing that the DG stated that the Communication and Information sector "should not shy away" from new instruments, we note that some Communication and Information junkies at UNESCO find little evidence that this will happen in the next biennium. The Mission will remain vigilant in its efforts to promote media freedom and Internet status quo at UNESCO. END COMMENT. Oliver