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