UNESCO EXECUTIVE BOARD BODY PLANS TO TEST NEW CONSTRAINTS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS FR 001999 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: UNESCO PHUM SUBJECT: UNESCO EXECUTIVE BOARD BODY PLANS TO TEST NEW CONSTRAINTS ON OBSERVING ITS PRIVATE SESSIONS UNESCOPARI 10311999 001.2 OF 002 ¶1. Summary. Strong U.S. leadership was needed at the UNESCO Executive Board's September 30-October 17, 2008 session in order to vindicate the right of any Executive Board Member State to "observe" the private meetings of any subsidiary body of the Board, even if that Member State is not a formal member of that subsidiary body. This right to attend such sessions is well established in UNESCO's practice and grounded in Rule 30.5 of the Executive Board's Rules. The latter provides that: "Any Member of the Board . . . may take part in the work of subsidiary bodies to which it does not belong. In such cases, and in the absence of any contrary decision by the Board, it shall not have the right to vote." Rule 30.5 recognizes that Executive Board Member States have the discretion to observe subsidiary body proceedings. In so doing, this rule implicitly affirms an important institutional principle -- the equality of States that are members of a governing organ of a UN agency (such as UNESCO's Executive Board). Despite strident opposition by several Executive Board delegations, including Cuba and South Africa, the resolve shown by the United States (with Canadian support) led to adoption of a decision that has the potential to ensure continued respect for the underlying principle reflected in Rule 30.5. Whether this theoretical potential materializes in practice in ways that we will find acceptable can only be known when the decision is actually implemented, most likely beginning with the April 2009 spring session of the Board. End Summary. ¶2. At its spring 2008 session, the Board decided to inscribe an item on the agenda of its autumn 2008 session to address a controversy as to whether Executive Board Member States could be prevented from exercising their right to observe the private meetings of the "Committee on Conventions and Recommendations" (i.e., informally referred to as the "CR"). The CR is a subsidiary body of the Board composed of 30 (thirty) of the 58 Executive Board Member States that are elected to serve as the formal members of the Committee. The CR has public sessions, but it meets in private session only when examining human rights complaints (called "communications") that have been lodged by individuals or NGOs against Member States of UNESCO. (These complaints must fall within one of the fields of UNESCO's core mandate, i.e., violations of rights relating to education, science, culture, freedom of expression and opinion). CR examination involves question and answer exchanges (on a country-by-country basis) between the CR Committee members and representatives of a respondent concerned state regarding the alleged human rights violation(s). The CR also explores and suggests possible steps the government concerned could take to correct those violations. These exchanges are inherently sensitive and therefore require that all Executive Board Member States who are present respect the confidential nature of this process. This respect has been consistently ensured over time. As a matter of general practice, most Executive Board Members have voluntarily refrained from attending CR private sessions as observers, despite their right to do so under Rule 30.5. Yet, on occasion, there have been a few States that have observed the private sessions (Indonesia, Canada, and the United States, at three different sessions). Moreover, a few States have wished to attend but were impeded from doing so (Norway during the 179th session and the U.S. and Malaysia during the 180th Board session). ¶3. It was only when the United States, as a Board Member but non-CR member, decided to observe the CR's private proceedings at the spring 2008 (179th) Board session that the availability of this right suddenly became controversial (for some members of the CR). This was no doubt due in part to the fact that the U.S. observed, among others, cases involving Cuba, Iran, and Myanmar. When Cuba and South Africa voiced strong objection to the United States' presence in the room, the CR Chairman vindicated our right under Rule 30.5 to be present to observe. In view of those developments, the first item of business that the CR took up at the just concluded (180th) Board session was the "The Question of the Participation of Observers in the Private Meetings of the CR." ¶4. Hardliners on the CR (e.g., Cuba, India, Mexico, Russian Federation, and South Africa) urged that the CR shut down henceforth any further possibility for Executive Board Member States non-CR Members to observe CR private sessions. There was, however, considerable pushback or hesitation from a number of countries, led by Portugal and France, who argued that the undisturbed track record of productive CR proceedings demonstrated that concerns about observers being present are overblown and that in any event the CR could not ignore the core principle enshrined in Rule 30.5. In view of this sharp divergence of views, the Chairman (German Amb. Overfeld) embarked on an initiative to find a viable solution. Ambassador Oliver had several informal discussions with him that had the effect of stiffening his resolve to reach an outcome that the UNESCOPARI 10311999 002.2 OF 002 U.S. could live with, or face a possible public debate and vote on this sensitive issue. Ambassador Oliver stressed to him repeatedly (and to other Ambassadors sitting on the CR) that the dispositive issue is not the presence or absence of observers, but rather the commitment of all fellow Board Members who attend the private sessions, observers included, to ensure full respect for the confidentiality of the private deliberations that take place. ¶5. In the end, the decision, in effect, acknowledges the possibility of Executive Board Member State observation of private CR sessions, albeit with one important modification, i.e., henceforth observers, after observing the question and answer session with the government concerned, will be invited to leave the room when the CR begins its own internal private discussions about what next steps to take in a given case, including the specific elements that should be included in the decision concerning that case. A critical quid pro quo which enabled the U.S. to go along (at least provisionally) with this outcome was the Chairman's assurance on the record that "Obviously, in implementing this decision, all CR chairpersons will bear in mind Rule 30.5 of the Executive Board Rules of Procedure when asking the Committee to consider a request" by another Executive Board Member State to observe the CR's private sessions. The essence of this statement was drafted by the U.S. delegation. ¶6. The decision on this matter was adopted by consensus and without debate at the Executive Board Plenary session on October 16, and can be found in document 180 EX/63. Following adoption of that decision, Ambassador Oliver was given the floor so that she could make the following statement for the record: Begin USG Explanation of Position (EOP) The United States has followed closely the discussion of document 180 EX/63 and has listened with great interest to the CR Chairman's report. - We particularly welcome the reassuring statement in his report reflecting the intent of the Chair to bear in mind the fundamental principle enshrined in Rule 30.5 of the Executive Board Rules of Procedure in considering requests to observe private CR sessions, when submitted by Executive Board Members States who are non-CR Members. - On the basis of that statement, the United States has joined consensus for final adoption of the decision for 180 EX/63. - I ask that this statement be fully recorded in the records of this meeting. End USG EOP. ¶7. Comment: The United States (and Malaysia as well) had submitted a formal request to the CR Chairman to observe the CR's private sessions at the most recent session, but we were unable to do so because the issue of observation was being debated within the CR and was not finally resolved until a draft decision was crafted during the final days of the Board session after all private CR meeting had concluded. However, the Mission intends to pursue this matter with care and diligence to ensure that the likes of Cuba, South Africa, and Russia do not succeed in precluding other Executive Board Members States from ever again observing the CR's private sessions. Towards this end, we intend to submit another request to observe (probably a month before the spring 2009 session) to see whether the Chairman and the CR membership are willing to abide by the letter and the spirit of the compromise reached. If there is another effort to block us from observing, we will seek Department guidance, with a view to ensuring respect for the underlying principle and the decision just adopted. Interestingly, the Egyptians approached the U.S. delegation the day before the full Board's consideration of this matter to say that they had given further thought to the principle the U.S. was defending and had come around to seeing things our way. That too remains to be seen, in the event there is a later challenge to our or another Board Member's right to observe. Finally, if the U.S. (as we expect) is elected to the CR at the fall 2009 UNESCO General Conference, that will place us in an even more influential position to defend this principle and to ensure the proper application of the decision just adopted in document 180 EX/63. End Comment. OLIVER