Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06PARIS7127
2006-10-31 09:07:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy Paris
Cable title:  

EUROPEAN UNION AMBASSADORIAL DELEGATION

Tags:  UNESCO SCUL UNGA EUN 
pdf how-to read a cable
null
Lucia A Keegan 11/08/2006 02:46:46 PM From DB/Inbox: Lucia A Keegan

Cable 
Text: 
 
 
UNCLAS SENSITIVE PARIS 07127

SIPDIS
cxparis:
 ACTION: UNESCO
 INFO: POL ECON AMBU AMB AMBO DCM SCI

DISSEMINATION: UNESCOX
CHARGE: PROG

APPROVED: AMB:LVOLIVER
DRAFTED: LEGAL:TMPEAY
CLEARED: DCM:AKOSS

VZCZCFRI175
RR RUEHC RUEHGV RUCNDT RUCNMEM
DE RUEHFR #7127/01 3040907
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 310907Z OCT 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2705
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2516
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0954
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 007127 

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS

SENSITIVE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: UNESCO SCUL UNGA EUN
SUBJECT: EUROPEAN UNION AMBASSADORIAL DELEGATION
SWITCHING ISSUE AT UNESCO'S 175th EXECUTIVE BOARD (FALL 2006)

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 007127

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS

SENSITIVE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: UNESCO SCUL UNGA EUN
SUBJECT: EUROPEAN UNION AMBASSADORIAL DELEGATION
SWITCHING ISSUE AT UNESCO'S 175th EXECUTIVE BOARD (FALL 2006)


1. (U) The question of EU ambassadorial delegation switching -
which provoked strong, negative reactions at the Spring 2006
Executive Board session - was followed up with determination by the
Asia-Pacific (ASPAC) States (led by India and Japan, and joined by
Afghanistan, China, Indonesia) to have a resolution adopted during
the just concluded Executive Board session that would call this
practice into question. Their resolution proved to be one of the
more politically sensitive issues that emerged. The wording of the
resolution as finally adopted represents a significant improvement
over the draft text originally proposed by the ASPAC States.


2. (U) Although this matter is not likely to be definitively
resolved until at least the next (or 176th) session, and perhaps the
177th session, the US Delegation achieved a short-term victory by
preventing the Executive Board from giving this practice a hurried,
expedient endorsement. Instead, working in tight collaboration with
the ASPAC and Norwegian delegations (with them in the lead),the
U.S. succeeded in getting the Executive Board to institute a
deliberative process by which this unusual practice will be given
more in-depth consideration. Our hope is that this consideration
will entail an assessment of the full range of legal, political,
governance, and other implications arising from ambassadorial
delegation switching.


3. (U) Also, importantly, the review process now underway expressly
contemplates the possibility of an active role for Executive Board
Member States to consult with the Director-General about whether
such delegation switching should be considered acceptable UNESCO
practice. Further, this process offers a critical opportunity for
Executive Board Member States to, in effect, override the legal
opinion of UNESCO's Legal Adviser (Yusuf),who on three occasions
asserted that he finds nothing in the Executive Board's current
rules of procedure that prohibits such delegation switching. To
make their views known, however, Member States will need to be
pro-active and present to the Director General their written legal
and policy views on this matter before the next Executive Board
meeting (April 10-26, 2007).


4. (SBU) The good news is that the European delegations refrained

from repeating this objectionable practice during the 175th EB
session. They appear a bit shaken by the degree of controversy that
has been sparked around this issue. Indeed, mid-way through the
Board session, the UK Ambassador (Tim Craddock) informed ASPAC
ambassadors that "perhaps we [the European Ambassadors] had gone too
far" by engaging in delegation switching. Craddock went even
farther (presumably speaking on behalf of his EU colleagues) by
offering to provide the ASPAC group as well as the Chairman of the
EB with a "gentleman's agreement" letter that in effect would have
offered an EU promise to refrain from again engaging in delegation
switching by Ambassadors or their Charge d'Affaires at Executive
Board or General Conference meetings. The ASPAC States responded
immediately by welcoming the receipt of such a letter. However, for
reasons that still remain unclear, two days later the Europeans
abruptly withdrew their promise to provide such a letter. The ASPAC
States reacted to this reversal with considerable pique and with
reinforced determination to proceed with their resolution.


5. (SBU) Caucusing closely with the US delegation, the ASPAC States
enthusiastically endorsed the US idea that the resolution should
expressly provide for referral of this issue to the General
Conference's Legal Committee. A revised ASPAC resolution to that
effect was therefore circulated. When the matter came before the
Joint Meeting of the PX and FA Committees, the issue was hotly
debated, with the ASPAC States (joined by the US) pushing for
adoption of a resolution that called for a three-step review
process: (i) a Secretariat paper surveying UN rules and practice
with respect to delegation switching by ambassadors; (ii) follow-on
independent consideration by the Legal Committee of this issue; and
(iii) final consideration within the Executive Board of the
acceptability of this practice, taking into account the Secretariat
paper and the findings of the Legal Committee. The EU States sought
to have the issue sidelined at the Joint Meeting so it could be
taken up only at the Plenary session, and France called for a vote
on having this done. (Comment: The Executive Board usually works by
consensus; calling for a vote is unusual.) The EU proposal lost by
three votes (23 opposed to versus 20 in favor of the European
proposal). (Comment: Many of UNESCO's Executive Board members are
not diplomats and were likely unaware of the stakes involved for the
broader UN system.) Norway then offered a compromise resolution
that differed from the revised ASPAC resolution by eliminating step
(ii) (i.e., referral to the Legal Committee). To avoid a long
further debate on the issue, the chairman created a working group of
the interested States representing all regional groups who met
separately. Their mandate: to try to craft a compromise resolution
drawing from both the revised ASPAC and the Norwegian texts. The
result of that effort was the consensus resolution adopted which, in
relevant part:


6. (U) Requests the Director-General to develop a document for the
176th session of the Executive Board outlining the present rules,
regulations, and practices concerning the designation of members to
delegations to the Executive Board in UNESCO and to similar bodies
within the UN system generally, and, in that regard, to consult
Member States of the Executive Board in this process:


7. (U) Decides to have a discussion on how to proceed on this
issue, based on the document requested above, at the 176th session
of the Executive Board.

8. (SBU) During the course of the working group's deliberations,
some ASPAC States (Japan and India in particular) decided to drop
the referral to the Legal Committee on the theory that that step
could still take place later, depending upon how the EB's
deliberations go at the 176th session. It turned out that
Afghanistan had not been alerted to this change of position by its
other ASPAC co-sponsors and Afghanistan privately objected strongly
to deletion of an early Legal Committee review. Though disgruntled,
Afghanistan did not prevent consensus adoption of the resolution.


9. (SBU) We anticipate (and hope) that the ASPAC States will remain
seized with this issue. Several, such as Japan and India, shared
privately with Mission Legal Adviser their firm intention to ask
their Foreign Ministry's Legal and IO policy offices to submit
timely written views to the Director General that will oppose any
UNESCO effort to legitimize the practice of ambassadorial delegation
switching. We said we would do likewise. They also shared that one
of the key factors motivating ASPAC's resistance to this practice is
its concern about the potential perverse effects this unusual
practice could have on their internal regional dynamics insofar as
"intra-region geographic balance" and intra-regional rotation and
representation on EB bodies are concerned.


10. (U) In a separate report back to L/UNA and others we will
comment on our differences with Legal Adviser Yusuf's interpretation
of Articles 36 and 37 of the GC Rules of Procedure on who has the
authority to convoke a meeting of the Legal Committee. OLIVER