UNESCO: WESTERN EUROPE AND OTHERS GROUP

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 000617

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO
STATE FOR IO/UNESCO KELLY SEIKMAN, IO/FO DAS MILLER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC FR UNESCO
SUBJECT: UNESCO: WESTERN EUROPE AND OTHERS GROUP
TACKLES ISSUE OF EXECUTIVE BOARD ROTATION: FRENCH
CHAIR TAKES IT SLOW

REFTEL: 05 PARIS 8458


1. Summary and comment: on January 16, the French
chair convened a meeting of Electoral Group I(Western
Europe and others) to explore the issue of the rotation
of Executive Board membership in the context of an
October 2005 resolution calling on the GC president to
hold consultations on this issue. The french chair
began by asking Ambassador Oliver to brief on a summary
report prepared under the US presidency (2004). In her
remarks, the Ambassador stressed the importance and
complexity of the issue and said that a solution to the
problem of rotation may be difficult to achieve. Many
speakers praised the us report as representing a
neutral point of departure - although the UK took issue
with the report's references to the EU -- and echoed
the point that the role of non-executive board member
states needs enhancing, including via consultations
with board members.


2. Nearly all participants acknowledged that the
problem of rotation is similarly thorny in other groups
(Asia, Latin America),and that there can be no one-
size-fits-all solution appropriate for every electoral
group. But at the same time, many observed pointedly
that `no one here appears opposed to the principle of
rotation.' The Netherlands even offered the latter
point as a conclusion to be drawn from the meeting.
But the French chair's conclusions were limited to his
plan to convey to the president of the general
conference Group I's willingness to study the issue
carefully. He also said that he would evoke the idea
that the issue be studied in conjunction with
representation on the world heritage committee --
perhaps in an attempt to confuse the issue? At least
one participant expressed surprise privately that the
conclusions of the French chair did not deal with
follow up within Group I on the substance of the issue.
In fact, it is clear to the Conference resolution that
called on the president of the general conference to
consult `regional groups regarding methods of rotation
of membership of the executive board.' the chair asked
outgoing Group I chair Finland to brief on the first
meeting on the subject, convened in December. Finland
reported that although the General Conference president
had outlined the serious nature of this undertaking,
the meeting had adjourned with no decision taken, due
to the imminent transfer of the chairmanships of the
electoral groups. Finland observed that in her view an
`innovative, modern solution' -- rather than a strict
system of rotation - is called for.


4. The French chair, referring to the `difficult'
situation in other groups, said that Japan `does not
hide that it doesn't want a profound reflection on this
issue.' he then asked Ambassador Oliver to report on
the study undertaken under the U.S. presidency (2004)
highlighting possible approaches, but drawing no
conclusions. Ambassador Oliver stressed the importance
of this issue, and reported that the study was
undertaken in response to the concerns of member states
on the gap in the degree of influence wielded by
executive board and non-executive board members; this
renders the race for the executive board even more
important. How can we ensure that different voices are
represented on the executive board? What can we do to
keep non-executive board members engaged, for example,
via information exchange? It may be possible for some
countries to remain involved via sub-regional
representation. On the other hand, the reality is that
there are certain countries that have major financial
investments in Unesco. Trying to reconcile these
considerations is a challenge not just for Group I but
for all electoral groups. This meeting is an
opportunity to start a discussion on how these issues
might be resolved, the Ambassador concluded.


5. The French chair noted that there are no one-size-
fits-all solutions to the problem of rotation: Group I
and Group IV (Asia) pose particular problems. In the
October 2005 executive board elections, Algeria was
nearly bested by Qatar because the former refused to
observe the principle of rotation. The French chair
also evoked similar challenges posed by the issue of
representation on the World Heritage Committee.


6. Germany observed that the chaotic nature of WHC
elections obviates its desirability as a model for the
executive board. Praising the quality of the report
executed under the US presidency, Germany underlined
three points of consensus from past discussions: no
member state opposes rotation in principle; Group I has
made an effort to achieve clean slates in executive
board races; varying political contexts in each of the
electoral groups mean that a single model is not
possible. He noted that EU states not represented on
the executive board could rely on EU executive board
members to represent their views. He concluded by
citing the deal struck by the UK and Germany at the
last executive board election whereby they will split a
single four- year term. The UK also stressed that the
German-UK deal was a model to be emulated, noting that
Germany was representing the UK in negotiations on the
use of Unesco's logo. The UK took issue with
references to the EU in the US report on rotation.


7. The Nordic states were among the prime movers
behind the general conference resolution calling for
consultations on the issue of rotation. Denmark noted
the possibility of creating sub-groups, and allowing
them to decide on executive board representation, as is
the case at Ecosoc. Associating itself with Denmark's
intervention, Sweden said that clean slates achieved at
the last two executive board elections should encourage
forward movement on this issue; although the `big
players might have more say, they should make room for
others', following the UK/German example. Norway
declared himself heartened by the debate, professing
to detect among participants a favorable attitude
towards the principle of rotation. Both Norway and
Denmark posited that studying the problem in the
context of WHC rotation might shed light on the way
forward. The Netherlands also endorsed the idea of
regional sub-groups, and stressed as well that no one
at the meeting appeared to be against the principle of
rotation: `perhaps that can be a conclusion of the
meeting.'


8. Spain agreed that `the first step is to accept in
principle some form of rotation.' the message should
be: there are no lifetime executive board members, and
all Unesco members can aspire to the executive board.
But Spain continued that the second step is to accept
the `principle of reality' - not all member states
have the same means, size or population; what is needed
is a system of qualified rotation. Unesco needs the
participation of countries with great means.
Canada echoed Spain's call in favor of associating the
principles of rotation and realism, based on `objective
factors' and according to a system inspired by those
existing within the UN system. Canada evoked the
possibility that creating sub-groups might `multiply
rather than divide' the complexities associated with
this issue. Switzerland, too, advocated a system of
`qualified rotation' and steps to ensure that those not
on the executive board receive information. But he
specifically criticized the Ecosoc system for not
according adequate representation to major donors: he
cited the example of a Group I sub-group that includes
no G-8 members, yet is accorded three Ecosoc seats.


9. Ambassador Oliver intervened again to note that the
membership of other electoral groups is characterized
by geographic consistency; in Group I, the EU is
dominant, but does not represent all members. When an
EU member is on the executive board, other members
automatically have a means - via EU coordinating
meetings -- by which they can stay involved. This is
not the case for non-EU members. This must be taken
into account as we devise a way of ensuring an
equitable and fair distribution of voices within the
executive board. As the countries of the EU have
increasingly taken coordinated positions on the
executive board, she said that the US might have to
take a closer look at the problem of rotation in Group

I.


10. The French chair concluded by noting that it was
clear that the question would not be resolved that day.
He promised that he would do a resume for the group of
issues outlined in the US report. He said that when
the president of the general conference convened a
meeting with electoral group presidents, he would
report that Group I had considered the issue, had
organized a meeting, and that its members want to study
the issue seriously, and to undertake their own process
of reflection. All members had agreed that the
solution could not be the same for all electoral
groups, the French chair recalled; there are many
approaches Group I could follow. The issue of
executive board rotation might also be considered in
relation to the problem of WHC representation. Germany
noted that linking the issues of WHC and executive
board representation would not clarify the latter.


11. At the conclusion of the meeting, the German
Ambassador - who had been present for the entire
meeting -- queried the US rep privately on whether the
French chair had drawn any conclusions from the
discussion: `did I miss them?' when US rep cited the
conclusions outlined in para 10, the German Ambassador
expressed surprise that these conclusions only dealt
with the informal report that the French chair would
convey to the president of the general conference,
rather than with any possible Group I follow up on the
substance of the issue.

Oliver