UNESCO'S D-G URGES MEMBER STATES TO RATIFY THE 2001

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 007517 SIPDIS FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS SENSITIVE DEPARTMENT FOR IO/UNESCO FOR L/OES - BINIAZ FOR ECA - KOROUPAS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: SCUL KPAO UNESCO SUBJECT: UNESCO'S D-G URGES MEMBER STATES TO RATIFY THE 2001 CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF THE UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE ¶1. (U) Action requested: see paragraph 10 below. ¶2. (U) Summary. At a well-attended information meeting hosted at UNESCO's Headquarters on November 21, 2006, and personally chaired by Director-General Matsuura, the D-G issued an appeal to UNESCO Member States to move with greater speed to increase the number of ratifications from the current level of ten ratifications to the twenty needed to bring the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (CUCH) into force. He said it would be "harmful" and "paradoxical" if the CUCH were to become the sole UNESCO convention aimed at protecting cultural heritage that fails to enter into force - citing by contrast the recent entry into force of the 2003 intangible cultural heritage convention and the likely spring 2007 entry into force of the diversity of cultural expressions convention of 2005. He defended the CUCH as consistent with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and voiced his personal view that any amendments to the CUCH that States deem necessary should be done after its entry into force, not before. Department's response to UNESCO questionnaire on Convention requested at earliest opportunity. End Summary. ¶3. (U) On November 21, D-G Matsuura presided over a well-attended information meeting at which he urged UNESCO Member States to move quickly to scale up the number of the instruments of ratification of the CUCH to enable it to enter into force. In the D-G's formal statement (being provided separately to the Department by e-mail), he lamented that only 10 ratifications instruments have been received thus far. He contrasted that with the high number of ratifications instruments received for two other culture-related UNESCO conventions that were concluded after the CUCH (e.g., the 2003 intangible cultural heritage and the 2005 diversity of cultural expressions conventions). He characterized those three instruments as inter-related and mutually supportive. The D-G explained that States should endeavor to promote greater awareness of this convention. He claimed that cultural objects submerged in a State's Exclusive Economic Zone, its continental shelf, or on the high seas are currently not protected by any international legal instrument, whence the need for CUCH. He lamented the scope of looting that continues to take place through the use of increasing sophistication in diving and underwater extraction techniques, and with it the lost history and displacement of cultural heritage. ¶4. (U) The D-G recalled his close personal involvement in support of the negotiations shortly after he had begun his first term. He offered UNESCO's assistance to countries who wished to heighten awareness about the CUCH. He noted the role that existing Category II centers could play in this regard and said that new such centers should be established for training in the field of underwater cultural heritage. The D-G appealed to States parties to the CUCH to urge their neighboring States to join the convention. ¶5. (U) During the Q & A session that immediately followed the D-G's prepared remarks, the Nigerian Ambassador said that a study should be conducted to learn "why the Convention is so unpopular." He urged the Secretariat to prepare a report addressing perceptions ("real or imagined") regarding the Convention that are held by all UNESCO Member States. The D-G offered three personal reasons why he thinks the ratification rate is low: the Convention's complexity; legal problems that some States have with it; and lack of interest in the Convention at the political level. (Comment: An additional reason offered to Missionoff after the meeting by a senior secretariat officer (Carducci) is that treasure-hunting entrepreneur SIPDIS organizations are engaging in powerful lobbying against the Convention). End Comment. The Dominican Republic expressed its surprise that no Caribbean States are parties to CUCH, despite its importance for that region. ¶6. (U) Mission Legal Adviser (Peay) thanked the D-G for his clear explanation of why he had called the information meeting, endorsed the Nigerian proposal for a study of low ratification rates, and noted that such a study could shed even greater light on the underlying reasons. Missionoff then noted for the record the USG's position on the Convention. Drawing from two U.S. Delegation EOP statements made at the 2001 UNESCO meeting just prior to the Convention's adoption, Missionoff recalled USG's active participation in those negotiations; our favorable view of important aspects of the Convention text; our concerns regarding certain articles, including, inter alia, Article 9(1)(b)(i); our continuing desire to attain a broadly ratifiable agreement arrived at by consensus; and our hope that there will be a future opportunity to "revisit" the provisions that impeded the U.S. from becoming party to the Convention. ¶7. (U) In response, the D-G agreed that a more comprehensive assessment of Member States' views of the Convention is needed, recalled in that regard the January 2006 questionnaire he sent to all UNESCO Member States asking for their views on the CUCH, and noted that only 30 responses have been received to date. He therefore urged Member States to respond in greater number to the questionnaire. The D-G then offered his personal view that it would be difficult to re-open negotiations on elements of the CUCH before its entry into force, but he noted that the Convention would permit such review after entry into force. A senior secretariat member observed that the CUCH (Art. 30) does not permit reservations, which Missionoff used as an opportunity to intervene once again to note that conventions that prohibit reservations require an even greater effort by negotiating States Parties to reach consensus on the final negotiated text. Missionoff then read an excerpt from the USG EOP of October 29, 2001 in which the U.S. delegation had observed that a large group of States had "refused to participate in informal consultations convened at the suggestion of the Director General . . . that could have resulted in acceptable compromises on the remaining outstanding issues." ¶8. (SBU) In a subsequent private discussion, Indian Mission rep informed Missionoff that he had intended to make several points, including with regard to the incompatibility of the CUCH with UNCLOS, and thanked the U.S. for having done so. The Indian rep and the Canadian rep separately expressed interest in the modalities of possibly re-opening the CUCH text before its entry into force. ¶9. (SBU) Comment: Mission's suspicions going into the meeting (that the D-G is in his last term and is trying to leave as his legacy the entry into force of all culture-related conventions concluded during his watch) proved to be prescient as the likely motive for the D-G sudden call for an information meeting about this dormant convention. Whether his gambit will succeed is difficult to predict, but cannot be dismissed. Since only 10 additional ratification instruments need to be deposited with UNESCO in order to reach the low threshold of only 20 ratifications for entry into force, there is a distinct possibility we could observe the Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention become a legally operative instrument within the next year. ¶10. (U) Action Request: Mission previously provided text of UNESCO's Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention questionnaire to Department for its consideration. In light of the above report, Department is requested to consider submitting written responses to the questionnaire, as a means of: (a) ensuring that U.S. Government's views are considered in the secretariat assessment of the reasons why States are/are not likely to ratify the Convention, the obstacles and difficulties to ratification they perceive, and other issues raised in the questionnaire; and (b) reminding other possibly like-minded States that the USG has continuing substantive concerns with the Convention. Oliver