USUNESCO: EXECUTIVE BOARD ITEM - EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 006165

SIPDIS

FROM US MISSION TO UNESCO PARIS

STATE FOR IO, IO/UNESCO, EUR/ERA, L/EUR, L/UNA

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SCUL ETRD UNESCO EUN PREL SCUL
SUBJECT: USUNESCO: EXECUTIVE BOARD ITEM - EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
REPRESENTATION

REF: PARIS 2961


1. See action request at paragraph 10.


2. In reftel report of the April 2006 (174th ) UNESCO Executive
Board (EB) session, Mission reported (in para 30) on the possible
need to review and revise the EB rules of procedure in the light of
a novel European Union (EU) practice involving ambassadorial
representation on the Board. Specifically, this incipient practice
consists of having an EU Member State Ambassador from one country
(not elected to the Board) participate in EB meetings as part of the
delegation of another EU Member State that was duly elected to the
Board. For instance, the German Ambassador sat behind the UK
placard during debate of certain issues and the Austrian Ambassador
sat with the Hungarian delegation (as occurred during debate over
the Danish cartoons issue).


3. Mission further reported at that time that several delegations,
among them, Canada, India, Indonesia, and Japan were surprised and
upset by this practice. As a consequence, an item (No. 51) to
examine this practice in the light of existing EB rules has been
duly inscribed on the EB's provisional agenda, with Afghanistan,
China, India, Indonesia, Japan, and Pakistan shown as initial
co-sponsors. The document that discusses this item has been
provided to the Department (IO/UNESCO).


4. The item attaches a draft decision that would "entrust to an
open-ended inter-sessional working group" of the Board the task of
examining the EB rules of procedure with regard to the EU's informal
practice mentioned above and to update and amend the rules "to
reflect the present composition and terms of reference" of the EB.
Quite apart from our immediate concern about reining in the EU's
practice, we would also be concerned about the possibility that
review of the rules for this legitimate purpose could lead to
undesirable broader rules amendments that may not warrant the same
degree of urgent consideration.


5. Mission, however, particularly wishes to convey its concerns and
seek the Department's guidance with respect to the incipient EU
attempt to ensure surrogate representation on the Board. In
practice, it works as follows. Each Board members gets eight
minutes to present its positions. The ambassador of the Member
State holding the EU presidency is embedded in the delegation of
another EU Member State. The EU members on the Board cede a few
minutes each to the embedded ambassador who then speaks for all the
members and EU aspirants on one or more issues. However, the other
EU Member State ambassadors on the Board also use their reserved
minutes to speak [to the same or to other issues], though for a
reduced time.


6. EU Mission interlocutors assert that they have "special needs"
that warrant such irregular participation and that EU lawyers have
examined the propriety of this and see not problem. In effect, the
practice is tantamount to saying "forget the letter of credentials
my head of state sent to the UNESCO Director General, today I'm
helping to represent another EU Member State."


7. Mission fears that this conduct has serious implications for
other Executive Board commissions, such as the Committee on
Conventions and Recommendations (the "CR" which addresses
communications alleging human rights violations) whose documents are
UNESCO "confidential" and whose deliberations are closed to all but
CR members. By extension, the EU practice could lead to, for
instance, the Cuban and/or Venezuelan Ambassadors embedding into the
Ecuadorian delegation and speaking to issues they would otherwise be
unauthorized to address, pursuant to the rules as they have been
applied up to now. In addition to UNESCO-wide implications, this EU
gambit has even wider potential ramifications for the UN,
system-wide that can easily be imagined.



8. Canada has privately registered with the Mission its serious
concern about this EU practice. India, which has a very strong and
vocal Ambassador, raised serious concerns about this at the last EB
meeting. She added that she now regrets having agreed to "special
arrangements" for the EU and the European Commission during
negotiation of the diversity of cultural expressions convention last
fall. We believe that India has spearheaded the inscription of this
item onto the EB agenda. We have no sense yet how firmly the
Europeans are prepared to push back on this attempt to rein in this
practice, particularly if the draft resolution is amended to provide
for suspension of this practice pending the report of the working
group - an amendment the Mission would be inclined to favor.


9. According to the current "Provisional Timetable of Work" for the
EB and its subsidiary bodies, discussion of Agenda Item 51 is
scheduled to be taken up on either Wednesday, September 27 or
Thursday, September 28 as part of the work of the EB's Special
Committee. The U.S. is not a member of the Special Committee but
sessions are open to all member states. Unfortunately, this also
coincides with the time the CR will be meeting. Mission Legal
Adviser will juggle both meetings giving priority to the EU issue.



10. Action Request: Request Department's guidance (particularly
from IO and EUR) on what position we should take on all of Agenda
Item 51, but in particular the effect to examine with a jaundiced
eye the incipient EU practice of surrogate representation through
embedding in each others' delegations.
Oliver