WHILE GOI STILL MIFFED AT UNESCO DEFERMENT,

UNCLAS NEW DELHI 002009 SIPDIS STATE FOR IO/UNESCO E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: UNESCO SCUL SUBJECT: WHILE GOI STILL MIFFED AT UNESCO DEFERMENT, FEELINGS OF "U.S. BETRAYAL" LOOM LARGER ¶1. (SBU) Summary. At the July 8 UNESCO World Heritage Committee meeting in Quebec, the International Council on Museum and Monuments (ICOMOS) advised the committee to defer India's nomination -- the River Island of Majuli in Assam -- because of questions surrounding its authenticity, safety, and the project proposal. A few minutes prior to the vote, MEA Joint Secretary (Americas) Gaitri Kumar phoned to register GoI concern about the ICOMOS vote. On July 9, MEA (UN Economic and Social) Joint Secretary Manjeev Puri informally expressed GoI unhappiness about the U.S. delegation's seconding of the secret ballot that denied inscription for India's site. On July 21, Puri summoned PolCouns to express formally GOI disappointment with the U.S. delegation's actions and convey a feeling of betrayal that the USG would not support its nomination, which he said would come at no cost to the U.S. After Polcouns explained the problems with the project proposal and noted the Indian ambassador's focus on extraneous items at the July 8 ICOMOS meeting, Puri appeared resigned to pushing the site's nomination at a later date. End Summary. ¶2. (SBU) During a July 21 meeting with Joint Secretary Manjeev Puri, Polcouns explained reasoning behind the U.S. delegation's decision to second Australia's call for a secret ballot to determine if India's nomination would be inscribed to the World Heritage List. Puri acknowledged the International Council on Museum and Monuments' (ICOMOS) concerns regarding the site's authenticity, safety, and project proposal; however, he maintained that it is "common knowledge" that technical issues play only a minor role in the selection process while politics is the main determinant of which sites are inscribed. Puri expressed astonishment that the situation had "gone so far," adding that Indian DCM Jassal had discussed it with a senior official in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs without hearing any USG objections. He further explained that the government of Assam had prepared for the nomination for years and that the people of Assam have great interest in the matter. He complained that the inscription would have been "no sweat off of anyone else's back," especially not the U.S.', and only India would have borne the financial burden. ¶3. (SBU) Polcouns agreed to provide a brief non-paper explaining the reasons behind the ICOMOS decision. He also explained that India's Ambassador may have harmed her case by stressing a political justification for the inscription. Puri revealed that the Ambassador had called him from the breakfast room the morning of the vote -- shocked that the U.S. had become an "issue." Puri continued that he is not very familiar with the Ambassador, adding that he views the call for a secret ballot as highly irregular. Puri remarked that the U.S. and Indian ambassadors to UNESCO had always been on friendly terms and that they should have been able to "rise above personal animosities." ¶4. (SBU) Comment. While the GOI objected to the U.S. delegation's actions, Puri acknowledged that he did not know what had transpired on the sidelines of the Quebec meeting. The GoI appears resigned to wait 2 to 3 years for the next opportunity to put forward again the Majuli River Island as a possible World Heritage site. End Comment. WHITE