PROPOSAL FOR A NEW UNESCO STANDARD-SETTING INSTRUMENT ON

UNCLAS PARIS FR 000760

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO PREL CU VE
SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FOR A NEW UNESCO STANDARD-SETTING INSTRUMENT ON
INDIGENOUS AND ENDANGERED LANGUAGES STAYS ALIVE BUT ITS NEXT STEPS

ARE UNCERTAIN

REF: (A) 08 PARIS 1029 (B) PARIS FR 693


1. Summary. UNESCO's Executive Board at its 181st session adopted
a decision that ignored three of its previous decisions that had set
the holding of an experts' meeting and a consultation with
indigenous peoples as key pre-conditions for further consideration
of a possible new UNESCO standard-setting instrument on protecting
indigenous and endangered languages. Despite U.S. objections that
doing so would move the process forward prematurely, the Board
decided to inscribe this issue on the UNESCO General Conference's
(GC) provisional agenda "for examination" when that body meets this
fall at its 35th session. The decision left unclear, however,
whether the GC would be expected at that time to approve the start
of negotiations on a draft text of such an instrument, or would be
expected only to agree that continued UNESCO reflection is needed on
several still unresolved but important issues, such as, among
others, whether such an instrument should take the form of a
declaration, recommendation, or convention. In view of this
ambiguity, U.S. vigilance and continued diplomacy will be needed to
help ensure that UNESCO's next steps on this very sensitive matter
are in line with the measured, more cautious approach suggested in
the preliminary feasibility study. End Summary.


2. In a rare display of balance and objectivity with respect to
UNESCO standard-setting instruments, UNESCO's Secretariat produced a
crisply analytical, informative, and cautionary preliminary study
regarding issues that needed to be addressed in preparing a proposed
international standard-setting instrument on protection of
indigenous and endangered languages. The analysis contained in that
study recognized that there already exists an abundance (not less
than 13) of relevant international instruments (of both a binding
and non-binding character) that contain provisions that can help
protect languages. Importantly, the study advised against taking a
rights-based approach in a UNESCO instrument on protecting
languages. Moreover, the study outlined the difficult choices that
must be made in deciding the purpose and scope of such a
standard-setting instrument. It underlined the need to defer to the
speaker communities themselves in deciding whether and how their
languages are to be revitalized and maintained. It even cast doubt
on the feasibility of drafting such an instrument that would be
binding. A key conclusion in the study was the desirability of
engaging in further systematic observation of existing
standard-setting instruments and the efficacy of national and
regional policies for protecting languages, before starting the
process now of drawing up a new instrument, advising against any
"rash" decisions about what strategy to follow.


3. Building upon these potent and sensible observations in the
preliminary study, the U.S. reminded the Board that this item has
been on its agenda since the 176th Executive Board session at the
request of Venezuela. From its inception, Venezuela had promised to
provide the necessary extra-budgetary funds to finance the experts'
meeting and consultation with representatives of the indigenous
communities regarding the desirability of a UNESCO standard-setting
instrument. It was clear to all, however, that Venezuela had failed
to honor its pledge, to date. We further reminded that at past
Board sessions, a number of delegations from diverse geographic
regional had joined the U.S. in lauding the wisdom of first holding
an experts meeting and holding consultations with indigenous
representatives, as key procedural pre-conditions, before embarking
down the path towards the adoption of a new instrument. Also, many
of those same countries (as recently as the 180th Board session) had
agreed with the U.S. that holding a real, face-to-face experts
meeting at UNESCO headquarters would also enable many delegations to
learn from those experts directly and in the process become better
informed about what such an instrument should pragmatically entail.


4. At the 181st Board sessions, delegations in their opening
remarks did variously express words of caution and the need for due
deliberation before rushing to move this proposal forward. These
included: Chile ("preliminary study needs clarification"); Cote
d'Ivoire ("supports the U.S., Norway and others"); Colombia
("framework of a new instrument should be prepared first by an
experts meeting"); Egypt ("many areas need clarification"); France
(questions the "value added" of a new instrument and urged holding
the "experts meeting soon"); India ("the preliminary study needs
supplementary consideration"); Hungary, Lithuania, Malaysia ("needs
further reflection"); Norway, Senegal, Tanzania (the "process is
incomplete"); and Thailand.


5. Brazil, however, became the single-handed spoiler. As it had
done from the beginning when Venezuela first proposed this idea,
Brazil took a very hard line and insisted that this matter could not
wait any further for an experts meeting to be held. Brazil also
requested a legal opinion from the Legal Adviser on whether the
failure to hold the experts meeting and consultation, constituted
legal impediments to sending forward a proposal to the GC to approve
negotiation of a new standard-setting instrument on indigenous and

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO PREL CU VE
SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FOR A NEW UNESCO STANDARD-SETTING INSTRUMENT ON
INDIGENOUS AND ENDANGERED LANGUAGES STAYS ALIVE BUT ITS NEXT STEPS
ARE UNCERTAIN

endangered languages. An assistant Legal Adviser, in response,
ruled that the preliminary study on the proposed instrument had met
the technical requirements of UNESCO's special rules of procedure
applicable to the preparation of certain UNESCO instruments.


6. The U.S. immediately challenged this legal ruling, asserting
that while the generic pre-conditions for approving new instruments
may have been met, the Executive Board had broadened the
preconditions with the requirement to first hold an experts' meeting
and a consultation with indigenous people. The broadened
requirements could not simply be ignored after repeated Board
approval. Unhappily, that adverse legal ruling suddenly turned the
tide in the room for a large number of delegations, including many
of the same delegations that had earlier voiced the need for caution
and further reflection. The U.S. - alone in objecting to the
validity of the legal ruling - was faced with choosing between
calling for a vote on this item or allowing the item to be adopted
over our objection without blocking consensus. In the press of the
moment, we chose the latter.


7. Comment: Regrettably, the kind of haphazard, undisciplined
decision-making reflected in the adoption of this Executive Board
decision is too often indicative of the many UNESCO Member States
who easily gloss over important substantive issues and related
considerations, in order to appear "politically correct." This
holds particularly true when emotive issues, such as protecting
indigenous and endangered languages, are involved. Consequently,
the preliminary study is now on its way to the General Conference,
but minus the benefit of what might have been learned had the Board
remained faithful to the pre-conditions of holding an experts'
meeting and consulting with representatives of indigenous people as
an integral part of the preliminary study process.


8. Comment (continued). It is not at all clear what the GC will
consider to be its most appropriate next step - give its blessing to
opening formal negotiations on a draft text or agree that continued
UNESCO reflection is needed on several still unresolved but pivotal
issues, such as (among others that were cited in the preliminary
study) whether such an instrument should take the form of a
declaration, recommendation, or convention. One small consolation
in the decision is that the U.S. was able to keep in a request to
the Director-General to take several important steps recommended in
the preliminary study and also to proceed with convening the meeting
of experts, including representatives of indigenous peoples, as
called for in several previous Board decisions. If that experts'
meeting takes place before the fall GC session, it will at least
enable the GC to make a more informed decision about how to act on
this proposal. If that meeting fails to take place, however, the
U.S. should seek (in concert with others) to use this important flaw
in the process to persuade the 35th GC session that the proposal is
not yet ready to move to the next stage, namely negotiations. If we
are persuasive, it would put off the project for another two years,
and fully allow delegations the needed additional time to reflect
and envision an appropriate instrument on this subject.


9. The Board's action at this session showing favor toward the
eventual adoption of a (binding or non-binding) instrument on
languages needs to be seen in a broader context, i.e., in tandem
with the Board's decision also taken at this session to endorse the
negotiation of a new standard-setting instrument on historic urban
landscapes (see ref (b)). Together, these two Board actions appear
to signal the effective end of a three-year moratorium at UNESCO on
initiating new standard-setting and normative instruments. They may
be ushering in a period of renewed UNESCO "legislative" activism, at
least within its core mandate of "Culture". For all of the above
reasons, U.S. vigilance and continued active diplomacy will be
needed to help ensure that UNESCO's next steps are fully in line
with the measured, more cautious approach suggested in the
preliminary study on this very sensitive matter of protecting
indigenous and endangered languages. End Comment.

ENGELKEN