UNESCO DIRECTOR GENERAL PARRIES WITH EXECUTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PARIS 000993

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KPAO SCUL AORC SOCI UNESCO
SUBJECT: UNESCO DIRECTOR GENERAL PARRIES WITH EXECUTIVE
BOARD IN QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION



1. Summary: On January 19, 2006 the UNESCO Executive Board
met for an information meeting with UNESCO Director-General
(DG) Matsuura. Members of the Executive Board were invited
to submit questions in advance of the meeting. Rather than
answer questions directly, the DG read prepared remarks that
highlighted activities since the November 2005 General
Conference. (Copy available from IO/UNESCO)


2. There were three topics that warrant special mention --
normative instruments, the G-8 Summit and Education Sector
reform. Although the DG stressed that there would be a
"pause" on normative instruments, he also suggested that a
convention on bioethics might be needed. The Moroccan
Delegate, Vice-President of the Arab Group, questioned
whether such a "pause" has been agreed to. The Canadian
Ambassador pressed repeatedly on what action the Secretariat
would take to encourage the ratification of the Cultural
Diversity Convention. Education-related questions used up
more than half the time allotted for questions and answers.
There was much interest in UNESCO's role at the G-8 Summit
in June 2006 and in UNESCO Education Sector reform.
Ambassador Oliver used the session to press for
accountability, including in the awarding of UNESCO prizes.
Other delegations took issue with the format of the question
and answer session itself, saying it did not facilitate
exchanges. End Summary.

-------------- --------------
The DG speaks - "I don't claim to have answered all your
questions."
-------------- --------------


3. In the DG's opening remarks, he used the 60th
anniversary of UNESCO as the backdrop to restate that UNESCO
is an irreplaceable organization with an all-encompassing
mandate, which is indispensable to the UN. The "exalting
paradox" of the tensions between the intellectual and the
technical, the global and the local makes UNESCO unique. In
the area of Education, the DG touched on the November
meeting in Beijing of the High Level Group on EFA. The
focus of that meeting was on literacy. UNESCO presented a
draft Global Action Plan for comment. The final plan will
be presented at the E-9 Ministerial Conference in Monterrey,
Mexico in February. More importantly, it was announced at
the Beijing meeting that EFA would be on the agenda at the
July 2006 G-8 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia. The DG
also spoke about the important work UNESCO is doing on
tsunami warning and mitigation systems. He stressed the

SIPDIS
absolute importance of cooperation among nations in sharing
data among the various systems.


4. The DG tried to put the best face on a recent setback
regarding UNESCO's role in the dialogue among cultures and
civilizations. In 2001, the UN General Assembly made UNESCO
the lead agency in this area. More recently, however,
UNESCO was not included on a High-Level Group on the
Alliance of Civilizations created by the UN Secretary-
General. The DG said this is a vast and complex field where
no one organization can pretend to have a monopoly.
Similarly, the DG touched on UNESCO's role after the WSIS
meeting in Tunis, stressing the role UNESCO will play in
cooperation with other UN agencies. The DG was pleased with
the recognition afforded UNESCO for its work and expertise
in post-conflict areas. The International Conference on
Education in Iraq highlighted the importance of education.
He also pointed to successes in Afghanistan. Finally, he
mentioned restoration of cultural sites in Kosovo -- where
the U.S. is the major donor.


5. On administrative issues, the DG noted that reform at
the UNESCO Office in Brazil is underway. The DG will make a
progress report at the April 2006 Executive Board meeting.
The DG made a plea to the Member States to fund the $25
million special account to support UNESCO programs. This
"reinforcement" makes up the difference between the budget
request of $635 million and the approved zero-nominal-growth
budget of $610 million. A set of guidelines on how to make
donations was distributed at the meeting (available from
IO). (Comment. The Education Sector asks for $16 million
in supplemental funds, all for priority programs. This is
somewhat typical of UNESCO Secretariat ploys - funding
nonessential programs and pet projects from the approved
budget and asking for supplemental funds to support
priorities. End Comment.) In closing, the DG made a pitch
for the vision and benefits of decentralization and reform
at UNESCO.


6. Regarding the pause in normative instruments over the
next biennium, the DG said UNESCO should focus on ratifying
and implementing recently adopted instruments. He
mentioned, though, that a normative instrument on bioethics
might be warranted in conjunction with the tenth anniversary
of the Human Genome Project.

-------------- --------------
Some Express Continued Support for Normative Instruments
-------------- --------------


7. During the question and answer session, it appeared that
the pause in normative instruments over the next biennium
does not sit well with several Delegations. Morocco
professed surprise at the DG's assertion that a pause had
been agreed, and said this issue should be addressed at the
Executive Board. In general, the DG responded that the
biennium would focus on programs, decentralization and
reform. Further, the General Conference did not direct the
Secretariat to develop any new instruments other than a set

SIPDIS
of non-binding principles regarding cultural objects
displaced during World War II. Finally there are a number
of normative instruments -- including in the cultural domain
-- awaiting ratification and implementation.


8. India also took exception to the pause in normative
instruments, voicing support for an instrument on the
protection of the rights of broadcasting organizations.
(Note: The U.S. position is that this issue belongs to the
World Intellectual Property Organization, not UNESCO. End
Note)


9. Indonesia expressed support for follow-up on the Jakarta
Declaration on basic education as a human right. This
declaration resulted from a conference of Indonesian
education specialists and UNESCO staff in December 2005. It
was unclear as to whether the Ambassador from Indonesia was
actually advocating a new instrument or simply follow-up
from the meeting. The DG expressed a need for discipline in
the process for initiating normative instruments. (Comment.
This needs to be a process where the agenda is driven by
Member States, not ministers for education from a regional
meeting. End Comment)


10. Canada intervened three times about ratification of the
Cultural Diversity Convention. The Canadian Ambassador
first asked about the UNESCO Secretariat's plans for the
ratification of the Convention. The DG responded with an
historical overview of the six conventions passed since 1968
that are awaiting ratification. Putting the Cultural
Diversity Convention on equal footing with other conventions
prompted a second intervention by the Canadian Ambassador.
He reminded the DG of the urgency felt by many Delegations
regarding cultural diversity. In his third intervention,
the Canadian Ambassador opined that UNESCO's role is not
simply to approve normative instruments at General
Conferences with no follow up. He asked the DG if he agreed
that passing conventions and not seeing them through is a
waste of time.


11. Comment. The Cultural Diversity Convention may have
taken the wind out of UNESCO's sails for the moment. For
the next biennium, the General Conference only called for
one non-binding instrument regarding cultural objects
displaced during World War II. Some delegations are now
backtracking and attempting to rewrite history concerning
their pet projects. The U.S. Delegation will insist that
this backtracking not gain momentum. Our strategy will be
to focus on programs and the positive aspects of UNESCO
actions. End Comment.

-------------- --------------
Education: Focus in G-8 Role and Sector Reform
-------------- --------------


12. Education took up more than half the entire session.
Two items dominated, the G-8 Summit and the proposed
Education Sector reforms. Although Delegations were
interested in UNESCO's role in the 2006 G-8 Summit, the DG
had few details and did not clearly define what role UNESCO
would play.


13. Regarding Education Sector reforms, the DG reinforced
the point that the reforms announced by ADG Smith at a
January information meeting, are limited to the
management/administrative aspects of the Sector. Programs
mandated by the General Conference and Executive Board will
not be altered. Rather, the goal is to make those programs
more effective. The DG urged Delegations with concerns to
engage in bilateral consultations with the ADG for
Education.


14. The DG was challenged by one Delegation on the decision
to move Anti-Doping in Sport from the Education Sector to
the Social and Human Sciences Sector without consulting the
Executive Board. He responded by saying that anti-doping
had traditionally been a social sciences topic. Further,
given the importance of achieving EFA goals, the Education
Sector did not need the additional distraction of anti-
doping. The DG went on to mention a memorandum of
understanding between UNESCO and the World Anti-Doping
Agency (WADA),who will run the program.

-------------- --------------
Science: A Plea From Africa for Tsunami Coverage
-------------- --------------


15. In response to the DG's extended plea in his opening
remarks for cooperation and sharing of data among tsunami
warning systems, African nations asked if the tsunami
warning systems could be extended to the African coasts.
The DG responded that this might be possible after those
areas most prone to tsunamis are covered by the system.

-------------- --------------
U.S. Questions: Pressing for Accountability and Discipline
-------------- --------------


16. The U.S. submitted four questions before the meeting
and Ambassador Oliver asked several questions during the
"debate." In general the U.S. questions concerned
procedural consistency and accountability and served as a
reminder that organizational discipline is part of the
overall reform process.


17. The written questions concerned the awarding of UNESCO
prizes in the wake of the decision to award the 2005 Jos
Mart Prize to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a question
the DG did not answer; use of the UNESCO name and logo; the
availability of a UNESCO calendar of events and timetable
for the medium-term strategy process. From the floor,
Ambassador Oliver asked about the relationship between
UNESCO and its affiliated institutions - field offices,
education institutes, NGOs, UNESCO publications and UNESCO
prizes. Specifically, how is each accountable to UNESCO?
In addition, why was the link between education, teacher
training and HIV/AIDS prevention not even mentioned in the
DG's remarks? Finally, she asked if the $1 million donation
from China, announced in Beijing, would go into the special
account for the $25 million UNESCO is looking to raise?


18. The question about the medium-term strategy (2008 -
20013) was one of the few written questions answered by the
DG in his remarks. He asserted that the questionnaire would
be sent out to Member States, National Commissions, NGOs and
IGOs by the end of February 2006. A series of five regional
consultations will follow in May-June and questionnaires are
due back to UNESCO by mid-July. Draft recommendations will
be available in August and a first draft of the new medium-
term strategy will be presented at the October Executive
Board meeting.


19. In terms of accountability, the DG mentioned a
forthcoming "accountability framework" but cautioned that it
would perhaps be best not to be "too stingy" with the UNESCO
name on publications. The DG agreed with the important link
between HIV/AIDS and education. The DG suggested that
Ambassador Oliver contact the Chinese Ambassador regarding
the $1 million. (Note: In the afternoon session the
Chairman of the Executive Board, who is the Chinese Minister
of Education, said the $1 million would be used for capacity
building in Africa. The funds will be divided between
training facilities, research, fellowships and operations.
The question about the special account was never answered.
We later learned that although the $1 million was announced
at a UNESCO meeting, it will take the form of bilateral aid
that does not involve UNESCO at all. End Note)

--------------
UNESCO Snubs
--------------


20. Comment: The stated support for normative instruments
by a few key Delegations is worrisome. But Member States
also focused on a series of "snubs" in the areas of
Education and Culture. These include: the fact that the
Education Sector was sited for not fulfilling its leadership
role in EFA by a UN Joint Inspection Unit report, and the
fact that UNESCO was not selected to participate in the UN
High-Level Group on the Alliance of Civilizations. The
debate at the question and answer session underscores Member
States' awareness of the need for UNESCO to be more
effective as an organization. Anxiety about UNESCO's
importance in the UN system seems high and this could cause
more member states to push for more normative instruments to
feel that they are making a difference. Meanwhile, the
Mission will continue to focus on program successes as the
best way to improve UNESCO's faltering reputation, rather
than on normative instruments, which as the DG stressed,
often remain un-ratified. End Comment.

OLIVER