Cablegate: Unesco-Discussion of Rotation Causing Consternation
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
151651Z Jun 06
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 004095
SIPDIS
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS
SENSITIVE
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EU UNESCO
SUBJECT: UNESCO-DISCUSSION OF ROTATION CAUSING CONSTERNATION
1. (SBU) Summary: Sharing worries about a threat to the status quo
and the potential of a "rogue" proposition rising to open discussion
and a possible vote, key donor nations from several electoral groups
met for the first time to discuss their views on rotational
representation on UNESCO bodies. The consensus was that a
potential danger exists if any proposal from the "informal contact
group" on rotation organized by the General Conference President is
permitted to reach the Executive Board. A vote by smaller nations,
unified to seek greater representation on the Executive Board, would
likely succeed, turning out major donor states. Resentment is also
growing again the EU's heavy-handed policy of embedding ambassador's
from non Executive Board member states into the delegations of EU
members on the Board. End Summary.
2. (U) Japanese Ambassador to UNESCO Sato held an informal
"consultation" on the subject of rotation with Ambassadors from
Russian, Brazil, India, France, and representatives from the United
States, and China in his Miollis offices on June 8.
3. (SBU) French Ambassador Gueguinou made the first comment, saying
that each geographic electoral group must find solutions for itself.
He indicated that, of course, France wants to be present
permanently on the Executive Board, and later told DCM Koss that he
anticipated a "clean slate" in 2007 and no problems for French or US
re-election in 2007.
4. (SBU) DCM Koss stated clearly that it would be premature for the
United States to discuss rotation as we had just finished a 20-year
rotation off the board.
5. (SBU) Russian Ambassador Kalamanov said that the principle of
rotation will kill all committees. Using the United States as an
example, he said that not having the US elected to the International
Hydrological Committee, when it clearly provides most of the
expertise, is ridiculous. Regarding the Executive Board, he said
that it is important to maintain the status quo.
6. (SBU) Brazil's Ambassador, Macedo Soares, said it was noteworthy
that the President of the General Conference, Oman's, Musa Bin
Hassan, who has over 20 years experience at UNESCO, chose to convene
an "informal contact group" on the subject of rotation. The
Ambassador said that the chairman's decision was intended to send a
message and was not the result of a lack of judgment or
inexperience. Others described the Omani as "committed to the
principle" of rotation, and noted that he has the small states
unified behind him on the issue.
7. (SBU) The Brazilian Ambassador said that the danger is that this
informal group could potentially put "something on the table,"
though he doubted the President would permit it to get that far. On
the issue of rotation, he said that if the electoral Groups start
making formal rules, it could set precedents for the other Groups.
He went on to say that within Group III (Lat Am/Caribbean) the
decision to split the Group into two parts for voting was an
unfortunate choice and has made things difficult.
8. (SBU) The Indian Ambassador said that within Group IV, there was
a debate on the issue of rotation, but no meeting of the minds. She
said that a large number of the countries were opposed to rotation.
She added that there is no benefit in forcing a rotation on states
that have already proven their credentials in the organization.
9. (SBU) She expressed concern that if the General Conference
President's "informal group" came up with a "fait accompli" and
forced a vote on rotation it would be dangerous, because they would
win. She again reiterated that it is imperative that the contact
group not come up with a decision, because it will be adopted. She
finished her remarks by saying that we face a potentially dangerous
period ahead, as others will try to force the issue.
10. (SBU) French Ambassador Gueguinou agreed, saying that the
electoral groups must decide for themselves on the subject of
rotation. He added that in the case of the UK and Germany (which
have decided to rotate between themselves on the Executive Board)
that their agreement is one only between the two countries and does
not bind the other group members in any way.
11. (SBU) Indian Ambassador Mukherjee said that their decision, in
fact, strengthens the hand of those who say there should be two-year
term limits. When the Indian Ambassador asked if there was a
gentlemen's agreement within Group I to support the UK/German
rotation, French Ambassador Gueguinou said, no, that was not the
case.
12. (SBU) When the Japanese Ambassador asked if representatives from
the African or Arab group should be included in future meetings, the
Russian Ambassador said that the issue was too sensitive, and that
he would not attend if they were invited.
13. (SBU) On a separate issue, the Russian ambassador also expressed
displeasure with the EU practice of "imbedding" ambassadors from
other delegations in the delegations of EU members that belong to
the Executive Board. The French ambassador was clearly annoyed by
the statement and refused to engage. (Comment: This issue that we
reported on earlier, is clearly not going away. EU members seem to
be ignoring the resentment certain states are harboring about their
behavior.)
14. (SBU) Comment: Rotation is clearly a sensitive issue that big
states at UNESCO are trying to dance around. All those who attended
the meeting agreed that it's an issue that must be carefully
managed. Brazil had a scare at last fall's General Conference when
it was re-elected to the Board by a scant margin. None of the big
members are anxious to see that happen again. End Comment.
OLIVER