Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06PARIS7562
2006-11-28 12:46:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Paris
Cable title:  

UNESCO: JOINT EXPERT GROUP DEBATES RIGHT TO EDUCATION

Tags:  UNESCO SCUL PHUM LAW 
pdf how-to read a cable
null
Lucia A Keegan 11/29/2006 09:30:59 AM From DB/Inbox: Lucia A Keegan

Cable 
Text: 
 
 
UNCLAS PARIS 07562

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

DISSEMINATION: UNESCOX
CHARGE: PROG

APPROVED: AMB: LVOLIVER
DRAFTED: POL: MAPOINTER
CLEARED: DCM: ACKOSS, EDU: SGLOVEJOY, LEGAL: TMPEAY

VZCZCFRI255
RR RUEHC RUCNDT RUEHGV
DE RUEHFR #7562/01 3321246
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 281246Z NOV 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3393
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1031
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2540
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 007562 

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS

FOR L/UNA - DAVID SULLIVAN
FOR ECA - TOM FARRELL, MARIANNE CRAVEN
DEPARTMENT PASS DEPT. OF EDUCATION - ROBIN GILCHRIST
AND STEPHANIE WHELPLEY
DEPARTMENT PASS USAID - JOE CARNEY

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: UNESCO SCUL PHUM LAW
SUBJECT: UNESCO: JOINT EXPERT GROUP DEBATES RIGHT TO EDUCATION


UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 007562

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS

FOR L/UNA - DAVID SULLIVAN
FOR ECA - TOM FARRELL, MARIANNE CRAVEN
DEPARTMENT PASS DEPT. OF EDUCATION - ROBIN GILCHRIST
AND STEPHANIE WHELPLEY
DEPARTMENT PASS USAID - JOE CARNEY

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: UNESCO SCUL PHUM LAW
SUBJECT: UNESCO: JOINT EXPERT GROUP DEBATES RIGHT TO EDUCATION



1. Summary: Experts from UNESCO's Committee on Conventions and
Recommendations (CR) and the Committee on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights (CESCR) convened the fifth Joint Expert Group
Session on the right to free education at UNESCO Paris on November
17, 2006. During discussions on the framework for the right to free
education, Group members acknowledged diverging views on whether the
term "primary education" or "basic education" should be used. Group
members also debated mechanisms to monitor state compliance with
legal obligations pertaining to the right to free education. The
desired outcome of the meeting was to create a recommendation to
submit to the CESCR and the UNESCO CR. End Summary.


2. The debut of the session focused on the analysis of the current
legal framework related to free education, as well as the
elaboration of a future plan of action to monitor state compliance.
An expert from the CESCR noted that the legal framework for the
right to free education exists through the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as other normative
instruments. She urged that it is now time to begin assessing
compliance as many developing countries still struggle to meet their
legal obligations.


3. Throughout the session, CESCR experts repeatedly highlighted the
necessity of state party compliance with their legal obligations as
dictated by the Covenant in Articles 13 and 14. Dr. Alfred Fernandez
of OIDEL, an NGO operating in the sphere of the right to free
education, argued that education is not about meeting needs, but
about respecting the law. In reaction, DCM Koss, who was attending
as an observer, argued that for UNESCO, it is paramount that the
focus rests on UNESCO's strengths: promoting capacity building and
sharing best-practices. In this way, UNESCO is giving member states
the tools needed to successfully achieve free education, as opposed
to focusing on useless repercussions of not complying with their
legal obligations under the Covenant. CESCR experts countered
saying that while this aspect is important, legal obligations are
the relevant flip side of the coin that must also be addressed.



4. Experts from UNESCO and the CESCR debated what levels of
education this international right should entail. UNESCO Basic
Education Division Head, Mrs. Ann Therese Ndong Jatta, argued that
"primary education" should be the term of reference. However, the
independent legal advisor noted that the Dakar Goals for the
Education for All (EFA) campaign use the term "basic education," a
term increasingly used within UNESCO. Experts from both sides agreed
that free "primary education" as a right would be most acceptable as
it would be the term most likely to garner consensus. In addition,
this is the term used in the ICESCR, the document having an actual
legally binding effect.


5. Stemming from this discussion, CESCR experts reiterated that at
the fourth session, they requested an international consultation (to
include experts, UNESCO member states, and state parties to the
Covenant) to draw up definitions for primary, basic, and compulsory
education. Although Mrs. Ndong Jatta was able to provide information
on the levels generally encompassed in primary and basic education,
debate continued throughout the day on the need to have an
international consultation to create clear, consensus-based
definitions. A date for the consultation was not decided, and the
process for creating definitions is ongoing. Mrs. Ndong Jatta
assured Group members that she will discuss the idea with Peter
Smith, Assistant Director General for Education.


6. Portugal argued that UNESCO National Commissions should be
included in the monitoring of state compliance. However, Mrs. Ndong
Jatta countered that in many states, National Commission
representatives are often government officials from the education
sector. She noted that a conflict of interest could arise if
National Commissions were relied upon to help ensure state
compliance with international legal obligations.


7. The primary objective of the session was to create a
recommendation, to be presented to the CESCR and to the UNESCO CR,
concerning future action to achieve free education and to construct
monitoring mechanisms. Building on the suggestion made by Mrs. Ndong
Jatta, Group members agreed that in the recommendation, the first
recommended step for countries should be to evaluate their own
budgets to gauge available funds that can be reallocated to
education. She then argued that the second step should be to
identify vulnerable groups to whom free education would be the most
beneficial. This discussion unfolded within the context of seeking
to establish realistic goals keeping in mind the difficulties
encountered by Malawi and Kenya as they made the transition to free
education. Mrs. Ndong Jatta reminded Group members that a national
plan of action for free education for each state is not necessary as
the Dakar Goals for EFA already require UNESCO member states to
formulate such a plan. She insisted that the national action plans
for EFA should be utilized as platforms for free education as well.
The recommendation has not yet been published, and will undergo a
period of consultation and editing between Group members before
being submitted to the CESCR and the UNESCO CR at the 176th
Executive Board.


8. The next session, to take place in May 2007, will address the
ongoing elaboration of definitions on primary, basic, and compulsory
education to create a framework for what levels should be included
when seeking to establish free education, as well as who should be
responsible for guaranteeing access once it is made available. The
next session will also begin addressing the non-discrimination
aspect of the issue.


9. Comment: As happens so often, UNESCO's approach to a real-world
problem is legalistic. Moreover, as also frequently happens, a
large number of states have made legal commitments they cannot meet.
Fortunately, the secretariat agreed with the U.S. observer's view
that practical capacity building is more important than legal
sanctions. Unfortunately, this will probably not deter those who
are determined to examine this problem through a legalistic prism.
End Comment.
OLIVER