Cablegate: Usunesco: Guidance Request: Discussing The
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS PARIS 005921
FROM USMISSION UNESCO
STATE PASS USTR BALASSA
IO/UNESCO FOR JANE COWLEY
EUR/ERA FOR PETER CHASE
L/EUR FOR PETER OLSON
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SCUL ETRD EU CJAN UNESCO
SUBJECT: USUNESCO: GUIDANCE REQUEST: DISCUSSING THE
PRELIMINARY DRAFT CULTURAL DIVERSITY CONVENTION WITH
REF: PARIS 5116
1. (U) As reported ref, the UK Perm Delegate to
UNESCO, Ambassador Timothy Craddock, suggested that
USG lawyers meet with lawyers from EU member states
so that the USG can better understand why the EU
Member States have concluded that the preliminary
draft Cultural Diversity Convention does not damage
the financial and trade interests of EU Member
States. Craddock emphasized that this would not be
a negotiation but an information session that enable
a better understanding of view.
2. (U) We have suggested the date of September 16
and request that US Mission Geneva Senior Legal
Advisor T. Michael Peay, and an appropriate
representative of the U.S. Trade Representative's
Office be part of the team representing the USG.
3. (U) We see potential value in maybe having the
Japanese delegation at such a meeting for additional
leverage value. A senior lawyer from the Japanese
foreign ministry will be in Paris on the 16th.
4. (SBU) We would welcome detailed instructions
that address a range of procedural and substantive
issues. As an initial matter, should the U.S.
delegation seek to expand the scope of the meeting
to go beyond the EU's stated premise? Should we
seek to inform the EC that, in order to be
meaningful, the meeting must also address U.S.
problems with the current text and explore what
might be possible to convert it to a more consensus-
based text? Toward that end, after hearing their
presentation, should we explore specific, Washington-
cleared textual revisions that would arguably
protect both our and their financial/trade
interests, without calling the discussion a
"negotiation"? What should we aim to achieve as
the desired outcome from the meeting, insofar as
enhancing protection of U.S. interests over and
above the current convention text?
5. (U) We would appreciate Washington's
consideration of these questions in formulating