Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09PARISFR211
2009-02-11 14:55:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Mission UNESCO
Cable title:  

MUGHRABI GATE UPDATE

Tags:  PREL UNESCO KWBG JO IS 
pdf how-to read a cable
TelegramC O N F I D E N T I A L UNESCOPARI 02110211 
VZCZCXYZ0002
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHFR #0211/01 0421455
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 111455Z FEB 09
FM UNESCO PARIS FR
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
INFO RUEHJM/AMCONSUL JERUSALEM
RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV
RUEHAM/AMEMBASSY AMMAN
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO
C O N F I D E N T I A L PARIS FR 000211 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 2/10/2018
TAGS: PREL UNESCO KWBG JO IS
SUBJECT: MUGHRABI GATE UPDATE

REF: A) 08 USUNESCO PARIS FR 001944
B) 08 AMMAN 3391
C) 08 TEL AVIV 2589


Classified by Charge Stephen Engelken for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

C O N F I D E N T I A L PARIS FR 000211

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 2/10/2018
TAGS: PREL UNESCO KWBG JO IS
SUBJECT: MUGHRABI GATE UPDATE

REF: A) 08 USUNESCO PARIS FR 001944
B) 08 AMMAN 3391
C) 08 TEL AVIV 2589


Classified by Charge Stephen Engelken for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).


1. (C) Summary: Tension over Middle East issues is high at UNESCO,
due in part to the emotions aroused by the Gaza conflict. Deputy
Director General Barbosa feels this will make it all the harder to
manage the Mughrabi Gate issue (reftel). There has been no change in
the situation since the issue nearly brought UNESCO's October 2008
Executive Board meeting to a standstill (REF A),and the sides remain
at loggerheads over the fundamental issue of who controls the site.
Israel is determined to prevent Executive Board Chairman Yai from
involving a large number of countries in negotiations on this issue
as he tried to do at the last Executive Board. Barbosa would like to
go farther and convince Yai (Benin) to withdraw the issue entirely
from the agenda of the April 2009 Executive Board session. Whether
Yai can do this will depend at least in part on whether or not the
situation remains stable. Should Israel begin construction of the
ascent without the agreement of Jordan or the Palestinians, it will
be virtually impossible to keep this item off the Board's agenda. End
Summary.


2. (C) Mission has recently discussed the Mughrabi Gate situation
with UNESCO's Deputy Director-General Marcio Barbosa (most recently
on February 6) and with Tibor Shalev-Schlosser International
Organizations Director at Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (on
January 28). We found both nervous about how to manage this issue at
the April 14-30 Executive Board session while emotions run high over
Gaza.


3. (C) Barbosa complained that the situation is essentially
unchanged since the last Executive Board meeting in late October.
Jordan cancelled a proposed "encounter" with the Israelis in November
in apparent protest at its not being allowed to have its own
engineers measure the site to prepare a precise architectural plan
for the ramp Jordan proposes to pay for and build. Israel has not
answered a December 2008 letter from the World Heritage Committee
making comments on the proposed Israeli design. (On February 6,
however, Barbosa told visiting IO Acting A/S Warlick that the World

Heritage Center staff believe that Israel's latest design proposal
falls within the scope of the rules of the World Heritage
Convention.) There may be little new to discuss at the April Board,
Barbosa feared.


4. (C) Barbosa observed that the real dispute is not over the shape
of the ramp but who builds it. Changes in the design of the ramp may,
therefore, not be enough to satisfy Jordan. Barbosa admitted that he
does not know what to do now. If this becomes an argument over
control of the area rather than the design of the ramp, UNESCO is in
a bind. This goes beyond its mandate. We are approaching the end of
our ability to help, Barbosa lamented.


5. (C) Schlosser saw things similarly. He told Charge on January 28
that the question UNESCO can address is not who builds the ramp, but
how the ramp is built. Schlosser suggested strongly that Israel can
be flexible on the design of the ramp but not on control of the site.
He noted that there is a "big difference" between the plan now being
discussed and the one that had been originally submitted.


6. (C) Schlosser added that there is a third plan "in the drawer"
which takes into consideration concerns expressed by the World
Heritage Center and which he described as providing a "level of
flexibility to the maximum extent possible". Schlosser said that
Israel is still willing to meet the Jordanians, either with UNESCO or
bilaterally, but only on the condition that any visit to the site
would not result in the development of a separate plan. Israel will
never permit Jordan to build the ramp itself.


7. Both Barbosa and Schlosser wanted to avoid a repetition of the
last Executive Board when Chairman Yai tried to involve the regional
vice-chairs (India, Brazil, South Africa, Norway, Lithuania, and
Egypt) along with the U.S., France (then EU President),and Spain
(current World Heritage Chair). The result had been a confused
muddle. Schlosser reported that he had met Yai in late January and
had obtained his agreement to the following:

- That DDG Barbosa would take the lead in negotiations as a
"facilitator";
- That issues would be separated out between "political and
professional" (technical);
- That the Executive Board should stay within the parameter of
decision of the World Heritage Committee;
- That the text to be negotiated would be presented by the
Secretariat, and not drafted by one of the parties, and would be
based on previous decisions; and
- That negotiations would start as soon as possible after the Board

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 2/10/2018
TAGS: PREL UNESCO KWBG JO IS
SUBJECT: MUGHRABI GATE UPDATE

begins.


8. (C) Barbosa wanted to go even farther and have the Mughrabi item
removed entirely from the agenda of the next Executive Board. He
said he had approached Yai on this point already and urged the U.S.
to support the idea. Asked for his opinion, Schlosser agreed that a
postponement would be acceptable to Israel. When reminded that this
would mean the issue would be discussed at the World Heritage
Committee meeting in late June in Seville, Schlosser said he would
prefer to have the discussion in that Committee whose remit is purely
technical. The fact that Israel currently sits on the World Heritage
Committee and does not have an Executive Board seat also helps make
World Heritage a better venue from Israel's perspective. Schlosser
warned, however, that the Jerusalem Planning Authority might make
some decision with regard to the site between now and April that
would make it hard for UNESCO to argue that the situation is
unchanged.


9. (C) Comment: It is hard to blame Barbosa for trying to have this
difficult item removed from the Board's agenda. We will find an
occasion to tell Yai we support Barbosa. We are not, however, very
optimistic this gambit will succeed. It will be hard for Yai to
ignore the fact that the Board at its last session asked for a report
on the issue at the next session. Any change on ground, of course,
would make it virtually impossible for Yai to remove the item.


10. (C) Comment Continued: What is most important is to ensure that
all sides have a negotiating framework they can accept. We must hope
that Yai genuinely implements the points he and Schlosser agreed. We
are not confident he will, however, since several influential states
like India have been trying to find an opening to play a role on this
issue and Yai is clearly interested in cultivating their support.

ENGELKEN