UNESCO: MARTI PRIZE

C O N F I D E N T I A L PARIS 000850

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: 02/09/16
TAGS: CU VE UNESCO
SUBJECT: UNESCO: MARTI PRIZE

REF: (A) Paris 8487 (notal),(B) HAVANA 304 (notal)

Classified by DCM Andrew Koss, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).


1. (C) As a result of Mission inquiries, additional
information has been obtained about the chicanery behind the
awarding of the Marti prize to Hugo Chavez. It has become
clear that it was deliberately orchestrated slap at the
United States by individuals in the UNESCO secretariat
working in cahoots with certain delegations. The prize, one
of 35 given by UNESCO, was first awarded in 1995 during the
US absence from UNESCO. It is funded by the Cuban
government; the winner receives $5,000. This is the first
time the prize has been awarded to a political figure.
According to the prize rules, the purpose of the prize is
"to promote and reward an activity of outstanding merit
that, in accordance with the ideals and spirit of Jose Marti
and embodying a nation's aspiration to sovereignty and its
struggle for liberty, contributes, in any region of the
world, to the unity and integration of countries in Latin
American and the Caribbean."


2. (U) According to contacts at UNESCO, six of the ten
nominations received by the secretariat proposed Chavez.
Those six were nominations from Cuba, Panama, Brazil,
Argentina, Uruguay and Venezuela. The jury included the
South African writer, Nadine Gordimer, an amcit--Ivan
Shulman of the University of Illinois (note: UNESCO did not
follow its procedures when it asked an amcit to participate
and did not notify the delegation or the National
Commission),representatives of the Cuban government, the
newly arrived Uruguayan ambassador to UNESCO, Armando Hart
Davalos, and academics from Benin, France and Cuba. The
jury did its work exclusively by correspondence and all
members voted for Chavez.


3. (C) Jim Kulikowski (protect),an amcit who would normally
clear all correspondence, including the nomination, going to
the Director General, tells us that he was bypassed and
never saw the paper before it reached the DG. Other sources
tell us that no UNESCO DG has ever rejected a unanimous
recommendation for a prize and that DG Matsuura has made it
a firm policy not to change recommendations of independent
juries. He adopted this policy in the face of pressure
placed on him by China when a Chinese journalist was chosen
as recipient of the Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom
Prize. That pressure included threats by the Chinese to
leave UNESCO if the prize was awarded to a Chinese citizen.
(Comment: Clearly this was a bluff as Chinese national now
serves as chairman of the Executive Board.) Other
recipients of the Cano prize have included Cuban,
Zimbabwean, Burmese and Syrian journalists.


4. (C) Comment: Whatever his policy about not overturning
prize decisions, the DG made a terrible political call. He
could have easily overturned this nomination by pointing out
that this prize had never previously gone to a political
figure. The administration of the Marti prize is under
UNESCO's division of Social and Human Sciences which remains
populated by a number of long-term anti-American staff. In
the wake of the cultural diversity saga, it appears that
there are still countries at UNESCO looking to score
political points against the United States. We would like
to know if the ambassadors of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and
Panama were freelancing, as often is the case at UNESCO, or
were operating under instructions. The DG now seems to be
very embarrassed by this and arranged for the head of the
UNESCO Havana office to be out of the country the day of the
event, which explains the absence of UNESCO officials at the
ceremony the day of the event.
Oliver