Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08NEWDELHI2009
2008-07-22 10:55:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy New Delhi
Cable title:
WHILE GOI STILL MIFFED AT UNESCO DEFERMENT,
how-toVZCZCXRO3155 OO RUEHAP RUEHAST RUEHBI RUEHCI RUEHFL RUEHGI RUEHGR RUEHKN RUEHKR RUEHLH RUEHMA RUEHMJ RUEHMR RUEHPA RUEHPB RUEHPW RUEHQU RUEHRN DE RUEHNE #2009 2041055 ZNR UUUUU ZZH O 221055Z JUL 08 FM AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI TO RUCNSCO/UNESCO COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS IMMEDIATE 1280 RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2727 INFO RUCNCLS/ALL SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA COLLECTIVE RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 0726 RUEHQU/AMCONSUL QUEBEC 0011
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
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
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