UNESCO: EQUITABLE GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION IS PARTIALLY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 007461

SIPDIS

STATE PLEASE PASS USPTO
STATE PASS LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
STATE PASS SMITHSONIAN - RICHARD KURIN

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO KPAO
SUBJECT: UNESCO: EQUITABLE GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION IS PARTIALLY
ASSURED FOR INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE TREATY BODY

REF: PARIS 04963


1. Summary. The United States participated as an Observer State at
the Special General Assembly of States Parties to the Intangible
Cultural Heritage Convention (the Convention) at its meeting held on
November 9. The Special GA elected 6 additional States Parties as
members to the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC),the policy-making
body that oversees the Convention's implementation. This brings the
Committee's membership to its full complement of 24 members, as
provided for in the Convention. The Special GA also took steps that
now ensure that each of UNESCO's six regional groups will hold at
least 3 seats on the Committee, though some currently hold more.
Left unresolved is the question of whether there will be a ceiling
on the maximum number of seats each region will be permitted to
hold. The Special GA decided to defer that issue until the next
regular session of the General Assembly of States Parties to the
Convention, scheduled for June 2008. Group I States (mostly Western
European that, under one formula, would have received only two
seats) received an unexpected gift of one additional Committee seat,
thanks to the Africa Group which voluntarily gave up one of its 6
seats to Group I - on an exceptional basis - in order to foster
greater geographical balance in the composition of the entire
Committee. End Summary.


2. As reported in reftel, at the First General Assembly of States
Parties in June 2006, 18 States Parties were elected to the
Committee. Because the number of States Parties to the Convention
had increased to more than 50 since that time, the States Parties
were obliged, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Convention, to hold a
follow-on General Assembly to elect six new States Parties to the
remaining six Committee seats. The Special GA was chaired by its
Vice-Chair, the Brazilian Ambassador, in the absence of the Algerian
elected as the chair in June, Foreign Minister Bedjaoui.


3. BowHefore the balloting was allowed to take place, however, a
long debate ensued on how to address two important issues left
unsettled at the June GA - (a) whether there should be an agreed
minimum of 3 seats per regional group and (b) whether there should
be a ceiling on the number of seats per regional group. The
Asian-Pacific Group (headed by India) led the charge urging deferral
to a later date the issue of an upper limit on seats per regional
group. This was widely supported by most other delegations.


4. Delegations were then unexpectedly informed by the Gabon
Ambassador (speaking on behalf of the Africa Group (Group V(a)) that
that group had decided on an exceptional basis to relinquish
voluntarily one of its seats for the benefit of Group I, with the
caveat that in doing so, its decision should be understood as having
no bearing on how the GA ultimately decides the question of whether
an upper limit on seats per regional group." This was greeted with
applause and a round of compliments for the Africa Group's
magnanimity.


5. The Assembly then proceeded to carry out the election of the six
new members, preceded by clarification for the record of how many
seats per regional group would be filled. As agreed, Group I would
gain one seat; Group II, one seat; Group III, one seat; Group V(a),
two seats; and Group V(b) one seat. The successful candidate
countries were: France (Group I); Belarus (Group II); Bolivia (Group
III); Central African Republic and Mali (Group V(a)); and Syria
(Group V(b)).


6. The remaining important item of business was to decide which 12
Member States on the Committee would be selected by lot to serve an
initial term of only two, rather than four, years as foreseen by
Article 6 of the Convention. It was decided that two members of
each regional group would have terms limited from 2006-2008, while
the remaining members would serve a full four-year term until 2010.
Those selected by lot for two-year terms were: Group I (Belgium and
France); Group II (Bulgaria and Romania); Group III (Bolivia and
Brazil); Group IV (China and Japan); Group V(a) (Nigeria and
Senegal); and Group V(b) (Algeria and Syria).


7. Article 6 of the Convention provides that "The election of States
Members of the Committee shall obey the principles of equitable
geographical representation and rotation." UNESCO's practice has
more often than not adhered to the norm of equitable geographic
representation in the form of balanced geographical representation.
This approach has tended to attach less importance to the uneven
number of States per region and factors such as how many States per
region at a given time may be parties to a given Convention. In the
context of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, however,
there has developed a strong groundswell, particularly among the
Group II and Group IV countries, to diverge from that practice in
deciding on representation on the all-important, rules-making and
decision-making Inter-Governmental Committee.


8. Comment: Slow ratifications of this Convention in Group I among
Western European countries have placed that regional group at a
distinct disadvantage vis-`-vis other regions that currently stand
to wield significant power on the Committee. The mood surrounding
elections to the Committee has clearly set it off, unfortunately, on
a highly politicized footing. The African Group gesture toned this
down just a bit by ensuring that Group I will have at least 3 seats
during this crucial start-up phase of the Committee's
decision-making and work. However, the still unresolved issue of
whether there will be a ceiling on the number of seats per regional
group still threatens to further politicize this new UNESCO treaty
body. The potential for adverse spill-over effects on other nascent
UNESCO treaty bodies (such as the Committee to be established under
the 2005 so-called Cultural Diversity Convention when it enters into
force) cannot be discounted. This would be unfortunate not just
within the UNESCO context but also elsewhere within the UN system
where other treaty bodies are also being negotiated and/or being
established. The outcome of this process therefore deserves to be
closely followed, particularly as we move toward inter-agency
reflection on whether the U.S. should look afresh look at the
possibility of joining the ICH Convention. The U.S. will field a
small observer delegation to the First Meeting of the IGC that meets
in Algiers November 18-19. A report on that meeting will follow.
KOSS