UNESCO'S APRIL EXECUTIVE BOARD: DIRECTOR-GENERAL (DG)

UNCLAS PARIS FR 000670 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL UNESCO SUBJECT: UNESCO'S APRIL EXECUTIVE BOARD: DIRECTOR-GENERAL (DG) ELECTION PROCEDURES REF: PARIS FR 2008 1945 ¶1. Summary: As the May 31st deadline for the nomination of candidates to become UNESCO's next Director-General approached, UNESCO's Executive Board reviewed and modified some of the procedures followed in previous elections, in part, to give Member States more opportunity to hear the candidates' views on how they see UNESCO's role in the future, and also to permit direct but strictly limited questioning of the candidates by each geographic group. The Board also tinkered with the rules of procedure in connection with French/English proficiency, in response to an effort by the Egyptians to give greater flexibility to their candidate to answer in only one of those two official languages. At the same time, the French pushed hard to ensure that the new DG will be fluent in UNESCO's second working language. End summary. ¶2. The following provides a summary of the steps involved in the election process. Also, to help understand the decisions taken regarding changes in the procedure adopted by the Executive Board last month, we have included some of the background on the debate held during the spring 2009 181st Executive Board. BASIC PROCEDURE Relevant Documents: 180 EX/28; 181 EX/25; Constitution, Art. VI, Para 2; Rules of Procedure of the Executive Board, Section XI, Rule 58; Rules of Procedure of the General Conference, Section XIX, Rules 105 - 108. -------------- May 31, 2009: Deadline for the Chairman to "dispatch to Member States a letter inviting them to submit to him confidentially the names of candidates for the post of Director-General, together with full biographical details." (Note: According to Deputy Director of the Secretariat Governing Bodies, Michael Millward, because the May 31 deadline is set only in the Rules of Procedures, and not by the Constitution, in the event of a stalemate during the Executive Board's secret ballot vote, the Executive Board could potentially suspend or change the Rules of Procedure to permit new candidates to come forward to break the stalemate. End note.) -------------- By First Week of June 2009: Confidential communication by the Secretariat to the Members of the Executive Board and Member States of the list of names suggested. -------------- By June 8, 2009: Public announcement of the names of candidates. -------------- �0A; By August 1, 2009: "Chairman of the Executive Board will invite the candidates to submit to the Board the text setting out their vision for UNESCO. The text should not exceed 2,000 words in English or in French." -------------- September 7 - 23, 2009, "During the 182nd Session of the Executive Board": First, "The Board would interview the candidates before choosing the candidate whom it would recommend to the General Conference. The interviews with the candidates would be simultaneously video broadcast in Room XI, access to which would be limited to one representative from each Member State of UNESCO not a Member of the Executive Board." The duration of each interview will be a maximum of one hour. It will consist of two parts: First part: Oral presentation by the candidate, lasting up to 20 minutes. Second part: (a) The candidate will have up to 30 minutes in which to answer six questions from the Board; (b) Each electoral group of the Board will designate its representative) who will ask each candidate one question; (c) The questions, which should not exceed two minutes each, may be asked in any of the six working languages of the Executive Board, and the candidates will reply in English and/or in French; (d) The candidate will have a maximum of five minutes in which to answer each question. (e) The order of the interviews of the candidates and the order in which the electoral groups ask their questions will be determined by lots drawn at the first private meeting of the 182nd session." SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL UNESCO SUBJECT: UNESCO'S APRIL EXECUTIVE BOARD: DIRECTOR-GENERAL (DG) ELECTION PROCEDURES Then follows "consideration by the Executive Board in private meeting of the names put forward, pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure;" (Note: The only restriction or guidance put forth by the above rules regarding what qualifications must or should be respected in evaluating candidates is the fact that "biographical details are available." (Rule 58, Para 2, of the Rules of Procedure of the Executive Board) There is no need for the details themselves to be evaluated, however, according to the documents.) (Note: There were two attempts to "clarify" this part of the procedure. The Arab Group put forward vague language in an effort to maintain the option for the candidate to respond in either French or English during the interview process. The French delegation attempted to push for all candidates to demonstrate their fluency in French. Finally, the Executive Board adopted language that would permit either language or both to be used in answer to questions. End note.) On another point, South Africa asked that during the Board's "consideration" following the interviews, there be an opportunity to ask for clarification on points made by the candidates. While it was decided at India's urging that there would be no follow-up questions or opportunity for Member States to get further clarification directly from the candidates, it was left purposefully unclear whether such questions could be asked of other Executive Board members to elicit their understanding of the candidate's responses after the interviews. Finally, "The candidate to be proposed by the Executive Board to the General Conference would be chosen by secret ballot by the Board." (Note: This vote is mandated to be by secret ballot by Rule 54, of the Rules of the Board, with additional contingencies laid out in Rule 56. The procedure for this secret ballot, established in Rule 55, mandates that the candidate who wins a majority of valid votes cast - NOT a majority of Member States present - will be declared elected. "If no candidate obtains an absolute majority in the first ballot, further ballots shall be taken. Any candidate obtaining an absolute majority of the votes cast shall be declared elected. If after four ballots have been taken, no candidate has obtained an absolute majority, a final ballot shall be taken, restricted to the two candidates who obtained the most votes in the fourth ballot. The candidate obtaining a majority of the votes cast shall be declared elected." The Board would then "inform the General Conference of the name of the (single) candidate nominated by the Board pursuant to paragraph 4 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure and submit to the General Conference a draft contract establishing the terms of appointment, salary, allowances and status of the Director-General." -------------- October 6 - 23, 2009 (Prov.),The General Conference: Having received the Executive Board's nomination, "The General Conference shall consider this nomination and the draft contract at a private meeting and shall then come to a decision by secret ballot." (Note: The proposed agenda for the 35 th General Conference has blocked Thursday, October 15, 2009 for the DG election and appointment. End note.) "Should the General Conference fail to elect the person proposed by the Executive Board, the Executive Board shall submit another name within forty-eight hours." Upon confirmation of the Executive Board's nomination, "the contract (of the Director-General) shall be signed jointly by the Director-General and the President of the General Conference acting in the name of the Organization." The Director-General shall be nominated by the Executive Board and appointed by the General Conference for a period of four years, under such conditions as the Conference may approve. The Director-General may be appointed for a further term of four years, but shall not be eligible for reappointment for a subsequent term. -------------- BACKGROUND ON THE DEBATE REGARDING CHANGES IN PROCEDURE ¶3. There was a great deal of debate during the 181st Executive Board over the use of language during the DG candidate interviews, focusing primarily on the need for the candidates to demonstrate their fluency in French. The French delegation, several times during the course of this Executive Board, pushed very hard to ensure that French does not become a less than full partner with English as the Organization's working language, and insisted that the DG candidates do more than simply demonstrate their willingness to improve whatever basic level of French competence they may have. (Note: In our view, it would be possible to determine a candidate's SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL UNESCO SUBJECT: UNESCO'S APRIL EXECUTIVE BOARD: DIRECTOR-GENERAL (DG) ELECTION PROCEDURES knowledge of French during the question and answer "interview" by asking the candidate simply to "please respond in French.") ¶4. The Egyptians were very active in trying to sidestep language proficiency issues, in order to protect Farouk Hosni, whose French (and English) language skills have been questioned. We have heard varying accounts of his fluency in both languages. It is generally believed that his English is weaker than his French. ¶5. The Egyptians also attempted to put forward amendments to the Rules of Procedure that would have effectively eliminated the Board's post-interview deliberations regarding the candidates. It was suggested by others that their strategy might have been to cut off any deliberations that would give Board Members an opportunity to clarify among each other the answers they had just heard. It was also thought by some that Egypt might try to ask the Board to declare Hosni as candidate "by acclamation" following the question and answer interviews. At the end of the Executive Board, the whole issue of getting "clarification" during the Board's consideration of the candidates following the interviews was left vague. ¶6. The debate regarding the amendments began at the end of the day on Monday, April 20, and Egypt asked that it be continued the following day. Serbia, however, vehemently objected, as their Foreign Minister was scheduled to address the Board on the Tuesday, and didn't want the Egyptian debate to force a change of the Minister's plans. Serbia asked for a vote to have the debate take place on Wednesday. The request was seconded, and a vote took place. Egypt lost 43-15 and the debate took place on Wednesday. (Comment: In forcing a vote on a minor procedural issue, Egypt committed a serious error. Many delegations resented Egypt's inflexibility and punished it in the succeeding vote, which many here interpreted as an indicator of how a vote on the Egyptian candidate would have turned out if it had been held that day. End Comment.) ENGELKEN