Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09PARISFR767
2009-06-09 14:35:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Mission UNESCO
Cable title:  

UNESCO AVOIDS IGNITING A ROW OVER CULTURAL PROPERTY

Tags:  SCUL UNESCO JA CH IN 
pdf how-to read a cable
UNCLASSIFIED UNESCOPARI 06090767 
VZCZCXRO4379
RR RUEHAP RUEHFL RUEHGI RUEHGR RUEHKN RUEHKR RUEHMA RUEHMJ RUEHMR
RUEHPA RUEHPB RUEHQU RUEHRN RUEHSK
DE RUEHFR #0767/01 1601435
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 091435Z JUN 09 ZDK
FM UNESCO PARIS FR
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
INFO RUCNSCO/UNESCO COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS FR 000767 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO JA CH IN
SUBJECT: UNESCO AVOIDS IGNITING A ROW OVER CULTURAL PROPERTY
DISPLACED DURING WWII - FOR NOW

Ref: Peay e-mail report (19 March 2009)

UNESCOPARI 06090767 001.2 OF 002


UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS FR 000767

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO JA CH IN
SUBJECT: UNESCO AVOIDS IGNITING A ROW OVER CULTURAL PROPERTY
DISPLACED DURING WWII - FOR NOW

Ref: Peay e-mail report (19 March 2009)

UNESCOPARI 06090767 001.2 OF 002



1. Summary. At its 181st session in April 2009, UNESCO's Executive
Board barely averted a dramatic and politically damaging showdown
over the issue of cultural objects displaced in connection with the
Second World War (WWII). At the core of the dispute was whether the
Board should adopt or endorse a disputed Draft Declaration of
Principles relating to such cultural objects, as modified at a March
2009 intergovernmental meeting of experts (the "Draft Declaration").
More than 60 years after the tragic events of that war, a number of
Asian and European States at UNESCO remain pitted against each
other, demonstrating that the wounds of World War II are still not
fully healed. Thanks to a draft decision tabled by the U.S., the
disputing delegations were finally able to reach a procedurally
"neutral" compromise. However, it will serve only to defer this
issue until the fall of this year when the UNESCO General Conference
will have to face an unavoidable and difficult substantive decision
on fate of the Draft Declaration. End Summary.


2. In an almost surreal replay of WWII tensions, UNESCO's Executive
Board found itself in April once again trying to find an elusive
consensus on whether to adopt or endorse the Draft Declaration, or
face the prospect of a divisive vote over that document. The
principal antagonists in this struggle were (once again) Germany,
Poland, Russia, Japan, and China, recently outspokenly supported by
India. At a March 17-18, 2009 inter-governmental experts' meeting
(see ref report),the March 2007 version of this document was
carefully reviewed and modified only slightly by four
consensus-based, non-substantive amendments to the preamble of the
2007 text. This revised version, now referred to as "the March 2009
text," was the focal point of discussion during the 181st Board
session.


3. Two or three days before the closing session of the Board,
Russia, Germany, and the Asia-Pacific group (ASPAC) began informally
circulating draft decisions to test reactions among the key
interlocutors (including the U.S). The U.S. Mission sent such draft
texts back for the Department's reaction, and all were found to be
seriously wanting and unacceptable to the U.S. As tensions

increased and time began to run out, China became more outspoken in
urging that the Executive Board should formally endorse the March
2009 text and ask the General Conference to formally adopt it. In
short, China seemed prepared to provoke a vote on this issue.


4. On the closing day of the 181st session, a large, open-ended
working group (chaired by the Executive Board Chairman Yai) met in a
desperate effort to reach a solution. In addition to the U.S.,
other delegations that participated in that meeting (many at the
ambassadorial level) included: Argentina; Brazil; the Czech
Republic; China; France; Germany; India; Italy; Japan; Norway;
Poland; and Slovenia. Delegations negotiated intensively over an
hour. Finally, on the basis of a "procedurally neutral" draft
resolution text (see para 7 below) prepared by the U.S. Mission's
Legal Adviser, the group agreed to a consensus outcome.
Specifically, the Executive Board would neither adopt nor endorse
the March 2009 text, but rather ask the DG to submit it to the 35th
General Conference "for decision." This approach and the supporting
draft decision were reported to the plenary and quickly adopted
without further debate.


5. Comment. Considerable relief was expressed by Ambassadors and
others as they left the meeting room, many offering kudos for the
key role the U.S. played in helping to broker a consensus outcome.
With few exceptions, however, conflicting substantive positions
regarding the desirability of adopting the March 2009 Draft
Declaration have not changed over the past two years. And, they are
not likely to change much between now and this fall when the General
Conference will have to decide this issue. The Chinese ambassador
has warned us, nonetheless, that China is seriously considering
asking for adoption of that text -- by vote if necessary. The U.S.
will therefore once again have to devise a strategy aimed at doing
its utmost to prevent the WWII issue from tearing UNESCO asunder.


6. Comment continued: China's increasingly strident insistence
(now vociferously supported by India) that the Draft Declaration be
adopted, even over the objections of others (e.g., Japan and
Germany) is complicating the situation greatly. Another worrisome
complication is the increasing involvement in this issue of
countries like India and Turkey. Both are seeking to have the Draft
Declaration adopted not to obtain cultural objects lost in
connection with WWII, but largely because the Draft Declaration
contains a single preambular paragraph which notes that "the return
of cultural objects to their countries of origin is a major concern
of many countries." This innocent-sounding phrase ("the return of
cultural objects to their countries of origin") is actually code for
"the time has come to begin returning many cultural items now found
in museums in many Western countries that were taken by force,
during the colonial period, or otherwise illicitly, and that should
now be returned to their countries of origin." It's still too early
to comment definitively, but the Mission believes that the "return
to their countries of origin" concept at UNESCO is building
momentum, much as "cultural diversity" did at the beginning of the

UNESCOPARI 06090767 002.2 OF 002


decade. It is fairly predictable that, regardless of how the Draft
Declaration issue is ultimately resolved, this new "return to
countries of origin" concept is one with which UNESCO will be
increasingly grappling, and one the U.S. will need to carefully
monitor and seek to contain as it evolves.

ENGELKEN