UNESCO: AMBASSADOR USES JANUARY 16 MEETING WITH

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 000341

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS

STATE FOR IO/UNESCO DOUGLAS ROHN, FOR IO/S GEORGE ABRAHAM,
FOR OES LIZ TIRPAK

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/17/2016
TAGS: AORC SCUL SOCI UNESCO KSA
SUBJECT: UNESCO: AMBASSADOR USES JANUARY 16 MEETING WITH
DG MATSURA TO PRESS US GOALS IN PROGRAMS, HIRING; PRIZE TO
CHAVEZ A KEY CONCERN



1. (U) Classified by N. Cooper Acting Deputy Chief of
Mission, reasons 1.4.(D)


2. (C) Summary and Comment: Ambassador Louise V. Oliver's
January 16 meeting with UNESCO DG MATSUURA focused on USG
program priorities including literacy (and the Honorary
Ambassador role of the First Lady) and U.S. participation in
the review panel for the Social and Human Sciences and the
Natural Sciences sectors. The Ambassador and the DG also
exchanged views on the upcoming MOST conference in Buenos
Aires. On personnel matters, the Ambassador underlined the
importance of ensuring that the next Assistant Director
General for Culture does not come from a country that was a
prime mover behind the Cultural Diversity Convention. The
Ambassador stressed Washington's concern over the recent
decision to award UNESCO's Marti Prize to Venezuelan
President Hugo Chavez; the DG expressed regret at the
decision, but appeared to have been trapped; the nomination
had been advanced by seven member states.


3. (C) The meeting was substantive and cordial, covering a
lot of ground. The Ambassador told the DG that Washington
is willing to support continued active participation at
UNESCO as long as no further issues/debates -- similar to
the Cultural Diversity Convention -- cause major concern.
The DG clearly understands what is at stake. He emphasized
that he has to make decisions that he can defend. The
Ambassador stressed in turn her determination to ensure that
the DG understands in advance where potential problems may
lie -- from the U.S. point of view -- so that he can manage
potential areas of discord appropriately. End Summary and
Comment.

DG SENDS KUDOS TO U.S. DELEGATION TO CARIBBEAN TSUNAMI
CONCLAVE


4. (U) The DG opened the meeting by praising the quality of
the U.S. delegation to the recent Barbados IOC meeting to
establish a tsunami mitigation system in the Caribbean.
Describing the delegation as "excellent", he gave the
Ambassador a copy of the speech he delivered at the
conference, saying that he intends to send a note to the
First Lady, given the interest that she expressed in tsunami
issues during their meeting in February 2005.

EDUCATION: A LEADING ROLE FOR THE FIRST LADY


5. (U) Literacy: The Ambassador noted the First Lady's
interest in taking a more high-profile role in UNESCO's
literacy program. The DG reported that Education Assistant
Director Peter Smith had told him about the First Lady's
visit to Nigeria; he expressed regret that there was not
much to see on the ground to represent UNESCO's investment
in Nigerian schools, since UNESCO works at a higher, policy
level in that country. Ambassador Oliver noted that Nigeria
is in the first group of target countries for the literacy
program, and that there will doubtless be other
opportunities for the First lady to make similar visits in
the future. The DG reported that Education ADG Smith had
also mentioned a possible high-level conference for the
spouses of Presidents in May. The Ambassador explained that
that is part of an effort to build political will in
countries for literacy initiatives, but that no firm
decision has been made and no date determined yet. (Note:
The Ambassador asked ADG Smith whether a September meeting
in New York would work and he replied that it would as long
as the date was not too close to that of the September 26-
October 12 Executive Board. End Note.)

THE MARTI PRIZE TO CHAVEZ: A POINT OF DISCORD


6. (C) Marti Prize: The Ambassador told the DG that the
decision to bestow UNESCO's Marti prize on Venezuela
President Hugo Chavez is of great concern to Washington.
The DG said he did not know about it until after it had
happened. The Ambassador replied that this constituted a
direct challenge to both the DG and U.S.: A challenge to
the DG because it was done without his knowledge, and to the
U.S. because Chavez was chosen. The DG said that his first
instinct had been to set aside the decision, but that he was
advised by his staff not to do so, in part because six other
countries had joined in the nomination; he agreed that it
was a "coordinated set-up". The Ambassador said that the DG
should have overturned the decision, because this was the
first time a UNESCO prize had been given to a politician.
The DG demurred, saying that other UNESCO prizes, like its
Peace prize, had been awarded to politicians. The
Ambassador stressed that if UNESCO gives prizes to
politicians, the decision-making process must be tightly
controlled: UNESCO is supposed to be a technical agency
working at the experts' and technical level, and not a
political body, as in New York. The import of the issue is
larger than that of prizes. What is UNESCO's responsibility
for prizes, institutes, etc. that bear the UNESCO name?
UNESCO cannot allow its name to be used and then claim it
has no responsibility for decisions made on prizes and for
work done by institutes bearing its name. UNESCO cannot
allow its name to be used and then claim it has no
responsibility for the consequences. The Ambassador assured
the DG that she would raise these questions at the January
19 Executive Board Meeting with the DG. The DG concluded by
saying that he thought he had made a mistake in allowing
Chavez's name to go forward and that he would try to
minimize the impact of the prize. He noted the involvement
of ADG for Social and Human Sciences Pierre Sane in the
Chavez decision, expressing his displeasure.


7. (C) The DG said that he had visited several of the
Caribbean islands as part of his trip to Barbados for the
tsunami conference, including St. Lucia and St. Kitts, now

SIPDIS
on the Executive Board. He noted that Cuba and Venezuela
are making a big push in the Caribbean by offering free
medical care and flying patients for treatment and doctors
for training to Cuba for free. He said the U.S. should be
concerned about this and that we should promote our positive
involvement in Caribbean tsunami work. He noted Japan's
increased focus on the Caribbean.

NATURAL AND SOCIAL AND HUMAN SCIENCES: U.S. ROLE IN REVIEW


8. (C) Science Review: The Ambassador asked about the
planned review of the SHS and Natural Science sectors --
mandated by the October 2005 General Conference -- querying
the DG on when decisions will be made on membership. The DG
replied that the delay was due to the fact that some
geographical groups had been slow in submitting names:
GRULAC has just submitted its nominations, and the African
group submitted only one name despite being asked for two.
The first meeting of the Review panel will take place in
late February 2006, so membership decisions will be made
before then. DG said many Ambassadors have sought meetings
with him to push their candidates, but that NSF Deputy
Director Olsen would definitely figure on the panel. (Note:
Group I submitted the names of seven candidates. Given the
paucity of candidates from the Africa Group, might
Washington have a name to suggest? End Note.)


9. (C) MOST: The Ambassador expressed concern about the
size (more than 1,000 participants invited) and planned high
profile of the February 2006 MOST meeting that will take
place in Buenos Aires and several other Latin American
cities. She indicated that the outcome document will be of
critical importance. The U.S. does not want to see an
expansion of this initiative. Although we recognize that
social sciences are an important part of the sciences, we do
not want to see the MOST program expanded as it is not a
priority for UNESCO. She informed the DG that the U.S.
would send a State Department officer and a National
Commission member to the meeting. The DG responded that he
planned to send Deputy Director General Barbosa to the
meeting to "keep control of it." He added that he had asked
SHS ADG Sane to invite more Americans.

PERSONNEL ISSUES CRUCIAL TO SET THE STAGE FOR U.S.
OBJECTIVES


10. (C) ADG Culture: Referring to her December 2005
conversation with the DG, The Ambassador reiterated USG
concern about the choice of the new ADG for Culture. Unlike
the Chavez decision -- which involved other players -- the
ADG decision is the DG's alone to make, and he will be held
responsible for it. The Ambassador underlined concerns
about the symbolism of the choice, citing rumors that the
position was "wired" for Francoise Riviere. The DG denied
the rumors, saying that Riviere knew that she might not be
chosen, and that the French government was not pushing her
as a candidate. The Ambassador remarked that if this latter
assertion were reported to Washington, few would believe it.
The DG responded that he would insist on professional
qualifications, and that there are ten candidates for him to
consider (Comment: same number cited by current ADG
Bouchenaki. End Comment.) Ambassador Oliver expressed the
hope that there is a qualified candidate for the position
who is not currently working for UNESCO and who does not
come from a country that was a key proponent of the Cultural
Diversity Convention. If this is not the case, the position
should be re-competed. It makes more sense to take extra
time and choose the right person -- as was done in
recruiting the ADG for Education -- than to choose the wrong
person and have ongoing problems, the Ambassador counseled.

11. (C) Other personnel issues: The Ambassador noted that
the Capacity Building P5 position in Science Sector has
still not been re-advertised, and told the DG that the U.S.
will put forward a strong candidate. The DG advised that
the U.S. encourage more than one strong candidate to apply
for the position.

The Ambassador urged that the Democracy P5 position in the
Information and Communication be competed externally, as it
is a key position for the U.S., given our focus on democracy
and the total absence of Americans in high-level positions
in the CI Sector.

The Ambassador expressed concerns about the process for
recruiting the D1 Human Rights position in SHS, noting that
that a highly qualified U.S. candidate had not made the
short list. Although we support a transparent hiring
process, the fact is that those interviewing at the
preliminary stages might have different criteria than the DG
and might eliminate the wrong people. DG recalled that in
fact current ADG for Education Peter Smith had originally
been eliminated. He said that he has the authority to
request that candidates be brought back into competition at
the D1 level, and that he would take a close look at this
U.S. candidate.

The DG reported that he plans to consolidate the staffs of
the General Conference and the Executive Board because the
staff of the General Conference works hard only during the
General Conference and had little to do the rest of the
time.

OLIVER