

Currently released so far... 51122 / 251,287
Articles
Brazil
Sri Lanka
United Kingdom
Sweden
00. Editorial
United States
Latin America
Egypt
Jordan
Yemen
Thailand
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
2011/05/01
2011/05/02
2011/05/03
2011/05/04
2011/05/05
2011/05/06
2011/05/07
2011/05/08
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
2011/05/13
2011/05/14
2011/05/15
2011/05/16
2011/05/17
2011/05/18
2011/05/19
2011/05/20
2011/05/21
2011/05/22
2011/05/23
2011/05/24
2011/05/25
2011/05/26
2011/05/27
2011/05/28
2011/05/29
2011/05/30
2011/05/31
2011/06/01
2011/06/02
2011/06/03
2011/06/04
2011/06/05
2011/06/06
2011/06/07
2011/06/08
2011/06/09
2011/06/10
2011/06/11
2011/06/12
2011/06/13
2011/06/14
2011/06/15
2011/06/16
2011/06/17
2011/06/18
2011/06/19
2011/06/20
2011/06/21
2011/06/22
2011/06/23
2011/06/24
2011/06/25
2011/06/26
2011/06/27
2011/06/28
2011/06/29
2011/06/30
2011/07/01
2011/07/02
2011/07/04
2011/07/05
2011/07/06
2011/07/07
2011/07/08
2011/07/10
2011/07/11
2011/07/12
2011/07/13
2011/07/14
2011/07/15
2011/07/16
2011/07/17
2011/07/18
2011/07/19
2011/07/20
2011/07/21
2011/07/22
2011/07/23
2011/07/25
2011/07/27
2011/07/28
2011/07/29
2011/07/31
2011/08/01
2011/08/02
2011/08/03
2011/08/05
2011/08/06
2011/08/07
2011/08/08
2011/08/09
2011/08/10
2011/08/11
2011/08/12
2011/08/13
2011/08/15
2011/08/16
2011/08/17
2011/08/18
2011/08/19
2011/08/21
2011/08/22
2011/08/23
2011/08/24
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Antananarivo
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Alexandria
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embasy Bonn
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Brazzaville
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangui
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Belfast
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Cotonou
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chiang Mai
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Chengdu
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
DIR FSINFATC
Consulate Dusseldorf
Consulate Durban
Consulate Dubai
Consulate Dhahran
Embassy Guatemala
Embassy Grenada
Embassy Georgetown
Embassy Gaborone
Consulate Guayaquil
Consulate Guangzhou
Consulate Guadalajara
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Hong Kong
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kolonia
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Krakow
Consulate Kolkata
Consulate Karachi
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Lusaka
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Lome
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy Libreville
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Leipzig
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Mission Geneva
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Mogadishu
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maseru
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Merida
Consulate Melbourne
Consulate Matamoros
Consulate Marseille
Embassy Nouakchott
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Nuevo Laredo
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Consulate Nagoya
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Praia
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Moresby
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Podgorica
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Hillah
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Surabaya
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy Tirana
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
Consulate Thessaloniki
USUN New York
USMISSION USTR GENEVA
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Mission CD Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
UN Rome
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vientiane
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
AMGT
ASEC
AEMR
AR
APECO
AU
AORC
ADANA
AJ
AF
AFIN
AMED
AS
AM
ABLD
AFFAIRS
AMB
APER
ACOA
AND
AA
AE
AADP
AID
AO
AL
AG
AORD
ADM
AINF
AINT
ASEAN
AORG
ABT
APEC
AY
ASUP
ARF
AGOA
AVIAN
ATRN
ANET
AGIT
ASECVE
ABUD
AODE
ALOW
ADB
AN
ADPM
ASPA
ARABL
AFSN
AZ
AC
AIAG
AFSI
ASCE
ASIG
ACABQ
ADIP
AFGHANISTAN
AROC
ADCO
ACOTA
ANARCHISTS
AMEDCASCKFLO
AK
ARABBL
ASCH
ANTITERRORISM
AGRICULTURE
AOCR
ARR
ASSEMBLY
AORCYM
AFPK
ACKM
AGMT
AEC
APRC
AIN
AFPREL
ASFC
ASECTH
AFSA
AINR
AOPC
AFAF
AFARI
AX
ASECAF
ASECAFIN
AT
AFZAL
APCS
AGAO
AIT
ARCH
AEMRASECCASCKFLOMARRPRELPINRAMGTJMXL
AMEX
ARM
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
AORCD
AVIATION
ARAS
AINFCY
ACBAQ
AOPR
AREP
AOIC
ASEX
ASEK
AER
AGR
AMCT
AVERY
APR
AEMRS
AFU
AMG
ATPDEA
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AORL
ACS
AMCHAMS
AECL
AUC
ACAO
BA
BR
BB
BG
BEXP
BY
BRUSSELS
BU
BD
BTIO
BK
BL
BE
BMGT
BO
BM
BX
BN
BWC
BBSR
BTT
BC
BH
BILAT
BUSH
BHUM
BT
BTC
BMENA
BOND
BAIO
BP
BF
BRPA
BURNS
BUT
BBG
BCW
BOEHNER
BOL
BASHAR
BIDEN
BFIN
BZ
BEXPC
BTIU
CPAS
CA
CASC
CS
CBW
CIDA
CO
CODEL
CI
CROS
CU
CH
CWC
CMGT
CVIS
CDG
CTR
CG
CF
CHIEF
CJAN
CBSA
CE
CY
CB
CW
CM
CHR
CD
COE
CV
COUNTER
CT
CN
CPUOS
CTERR
CVR
CVPR
CDC
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CONS
COM
CACS
CR
CONTROLS
CAN
CACM
COMMERCE
CAMBODIA
CFIS
COUNTERTERRORISM
CITES
CONDOLEEZZA
CZ
CTBT
CEN
CLINTON
CFED
CARC
CTM
CARICOM
CSW
CICTE
CYPRUS
CBE
CMGMT
CARSON
CWCM
CIVS
COUNTRYCLEARANCE
CENTCOM
CAPC
COPUOS
CKGR
CITEL
CQ
CITT
CIC
CARIB
CVIC
CAFTA
CVISU
CDB
CEDAW
CNC
CJUS
COMMAND
CENTER
COL
CAJC
CONSULAR
CLMT
CBC
CIA
CNARC
CIS
CEUDA
CHINA
CAC
CL
DR
DJ
DEMOCRATIC
DEMARCHE
DOMESTIC
DISENGAGEMENT
DB
DA
DHS
DAO
DCM
DAVID
DO
DEAX
DEFENSE
DEA
DTRO
DPRK
DOC
DTRA
DK
DAC
DOD
DRL
DRC
DCG
DE
DOT
DEPT
DOE
DS
DKEM
ECON
ETTC
EFIS
ETRD
EC
EMIN
EAGR
EAID
EFIN
EUN
ECIN
EG
EWWT
EINV
ENRG
ELAB
EPET
EIND
EN
EAIR
EUMEM
ECPS
ES
EI
ELTN
ET
EZ
EU
ER
EINT
ENGR
ECONOMIC
ENIV
EFTA
ETRN
EMS
EUREM
EPA
ESTH
EEB
EET
ENV
EAG
EXIM
ECTRD
ELNT
ENVIRONMENT
ECA
EAP
EINDIR
ETR
ECONOMY
ETRC
ELECTIONS
EICN
EXPORT
EARG
EGHG
EID
ETRO
EINF
EAIDHO
ECIP
EENV
EURM
EPEC
ERNG
ENERG
EIAD
EXBS
ED
EREL
ELAM
EK
EWT
ENGRD
EDEV
ECE
ENGY
EXIMOPIC
ETRDEC
ECCT
EUR
ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID
EFI
ECOSOC
EXTERNAL
ESCAP
ETCC
EENG
ERA
ENRD
ECLAC
ETRAD
EBRD
ENVR
ECONENRG
ELTNSNAR
ELAP
EPIT
EDUC
EAIDXMXAXBXFFR
EETC
EIVN
EDRC
EGOV
ETRA
EAIDRW
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ESA
ETRDGK
ENVI
ELN
EPRT
EPTED
ERTD
EUM
EAIDS
EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM
EDU
EV
EAIDAF
EDA
EPREL
EINVEFIN
EAGER
ETMIN
EUCOM
ECCP
EIDN
EINVKSCA
ENNP
EFINECONCS
ETC
EAIRASECCASCID
EINN
ETRP
ECONOMICS
ENERGY
EIAR
EINDETRD
ECONEFIN
EURN
ETRDEINVTINTCS
EFIM
ETIO
EATO
EIPR
EINVETC
ETTD
ETDR
EIQ
ECONCS
ENRGIZ
EAIG
ENTG
EUC
ERD
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EEPET
EUNCH
ESENV
ECINECONCS
ETRDECONWTOCS
ECUN
FR
FI
FOREIGN
FARM
FIR
FAO
FK
FARC
FAS
FJ
FREEDOM
FAC
FINANCE
FBI
FTAA
FM
FCS
FAA
FORCE
FDA
FTA
FT
FCSC
FMGT
FINR
FIN
FDIC
FOR
FOI
FO
FMLN
FISO
GM
GERARD
GT
GA
GG
GR
GTIP
GH
GZ
GE
GB
GY
GAZA
GJ
GEORGE
GOI
GCC
GMUS
GI
GLOBAL
GV
GC
GL
GOV
GKGIC
GF
GWI
GIPNC
GUTIERREZ
GTMO
GANGS
GAERC
GUILLERMO
GASPAR
HR
HA
HYMPSK
HO
HK
HUMAN
HU
HN
HHS
HURI
HUD
HUMRIT
HUMANITARIAN
HUMANR
HL
HSTC
HILLARY
HCOPIL
HADLEY
HOURANI
HI
HUM
HEBRON
HUMOR
IZ
IN
IAEA
IS
IMO
ILO
IR
IC
IT
ITU
ID
IV
IMF
IBRD
IWC
ICAO
ICRC
INF
IO
IPR
ISO
IK
ISRAELI
IQ
ICES
IDB
INFLUENZA
IRAQI
ISCON
IGAD
IRAN
ITALY
IRAQ
ICTY
ICTR
ITPGOV
ITALIAN
IQNV
IADB
INTERNAL
INMARSAT
IRDB
ILC
INCB
INRB
ICJ
ISRAEL
INR
IEA
ISPA
ICCAT
IOM
ITRD
IHO
IL
IFAD
ITRA
IDLI
ISCA
INL
INRA
INTELSAT
ISAF
ISPL
IRS
IEF
ITER
INDO
IIP
IND
IEFIN
IACI
IAHRC
INNP
IA
INTERPOL
IFIN
ISSUES
IZPREL
IRAJ
IF
ITPHUM
ITA
IP
IRPE
IDA
ISLAMISTS
ITF
INRO
IBET
IDP
IRC
KMDR
KPAO
KOMC
KNNP
KFLO
KDEM
KSUM
KIPR
KFLU
KE
KCRM
KJUS
KAWC
KZ
KSCA
KDRG
KCOR
KGHG
KPAL
KTIP
KMCA
KCRS
KPKO
KOLY
KRVC
KVPR
KG
KWBG
KTER
KS
KN
KSPR
KWMN
KV
KTFN
KFRD
KU
KSTC
KSTH
KISL
KGIC
KSEP
KFIN
KTEX
KTIA
KUNR
KCMR
KCIP
KMOC
KTDB
KBIO
KBCT
KMPI
KSAF
KACT
KFEM
KPRV
KPWR
KIRC
KCFE
KRIM
KHIV
KHLS
KVIR
KNNNP
KCEM
KLIG
KIRF
KNUP
KSAC
KNUC
KPGOV
KTDD
KIDE
KOMS
KLFU
KNNC
KMFO
KSEO
KJRE
KJUST
KMRS
KSRE
KGIT
KPIR
KPOA
KUWAIT
KIVP
KICC
KSCS
KPOL
KSEAO
KRCM
KSCI
KNAP
KGLB
KICA
KCUL
KPRM
KFSC
KQ
KPOP
KPFO
KPALAOIS
KREC
KBWG
KR
KTTB
KNAR
KCOM
KESS
KINR
KOCI
KWN
KCSY
KREL
KTBT
KFTN
KW
KRFD
KFLOA
KHDP
KNEP
KIND
KHUM
KSKN
KOMO
KDRL
KTFIN
KSOC
KPO
KGIV
KSTCPL
KSI
KPRP
KFPC
KNNB
KNDP
KICCPUR
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KDMR
KFCE
KIMMITT
KMCC
KMNP
KSEC
KOMCSG
KGCC
KRAD
KCRP
KAUST
KWAWC
KCHG
KRDP
KPAS
KTIAPARM
KPAOPREL
KWGB
KIRP
KMIG
KLAB
KSEI
KHSA
KNPP
KPAONZ
KWWW
KGHA
KY
KCRIM
KCRCM
KGCN
KPLS
KIIP
KPAOY
KTRD
KTAO
KJU
KBTS
KWAC
KFIU
KNNO
KPAI
KILS
KPA
KRCS
KWBGSY
KNPPIS
KNNPMNUC
KNPT
KERG
KLTN
KPREL
KTLA
KO
KAWK
KVRP
KAID
KX
KENV
KWCI
KNPR
KCFC
KNEI
KFTFN
KTFM
KCERS
KDEMAF
KMEPI
KEMS
KBTR
KEDU
KIRL
KNNR
KMPT
KPDD
KPIN
KDEV
KFRP
KTBD
KMSG
KWWMN
KWBC
KA
KOM
KWNM
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KRGY
KNNF
KICR
KIFR
KWMNCS
KPAK
KDDG
KCGC
KID
KNSD
KMPF
KWMM
MARR
MX
MASS
MOPS
MNUC
MCAP
MTCRE
MRCRE
MTRE
MASC
MY
MK
MG
MU
MILI
MO
MZ
MEPP
MCC
MEDIA
MOPPS
MI
MAS
MW
MP
MEPN
MV
MD
MR
MC
MCA
MT
MIL
MARITIME
MOPSGRPARM
MAAR
MOOPS
ML
MA
MN
MNUCPTEREZ
MTCR
MUNC
MPOS
MONUC
MGMT
MURRAY
MACP
MINUSTAH
MCCONNELL
MGT
MNUR
MF
MEPI
MOHAMMAD
MAR
MAPP
MNU
MFA
MTS
MLS
MEETINGS
MERCOSUR
MED
MNVC
MIK
MBM
MILITARY
MAPS
MARAD
MDC
MACEDONIA
MASSMNUC
MUCN
MQADHAFI
MPS
NZ
NATO
NI
NO
NU
NG
NL
NPT
NS
NA
NP
NASA
NSF
NEA
NANCY
NSG
NRR
NATIONAL
NMNUC
NC
NSC
NAS
NARC
NELSON
NATEU
NDP
NIH
NK
NIPP
NR
NERG
NSSP
NE
NTDB
NT
NEGROPONTE
NGO
NATOIRAQ
NAR
NZUS
NCCC
NH
NAFTA
NEW
NRG
NUIN
NOVO
NATOPREL
NV
NICHOLAS
NPA
NSFO
NW
NORAD
NPG
NOAA
OPRC
OPDC
OTRA
OECD
OVIP
OREP
ODC
OIIP
OAS
OSCE
OPIC
OMS
OFDP
OFDA
OEXC
OPCW
OIE
OSCI
OM
OPAD
ODPC
OIC
ODIP
OPPI
ORA
OCEA
OREG
OMIG
OFFICIALS
OSAC
OEXP
OPEC
OFPD
OAU
OCII
OIL
OVIPPRELUNGANU
OSHA
OPCD
OPCR
OF
OFDPQIS
OSIC
OHUM
OTR
OBSP
OGAC
OESC
OVP
ON
OES
OTAR
OCS
PREL
PGOV
PARM
PINR
PHUM
PM
PREF
PTER
PK
PINS
PBIO
PHSA
PE
PBTS
PA
PL
POL
PAK
POV
POLITICS
POLICY
PO
PRELTBIOBA
PKO
PIN
PNAT
PU
PGOVPREL
PALESTINIAN
PTERPGOV
PELOSI
PAS
PP
PTEL
PROP
PRELAF
PRHUM
PRE
PUNE
PIRF
PVOV
PROG
PERSONS
PROV
PKK
PRGOV
PH
PLAB
PDEM
PCI
PRL
PRM
PINSO
PERM
PETR
PPAO
PERL
PBS
PETERS
PRELBR
PCON
POLITICAL
PMIL
POLM
PKPA
PNUM
PLO
PTERM
PJUS
PARMP
PNIR
PHUMKPAL
PG
PREZ
PGIC
PAO
PROTECTION
PRELPK
PGOVENRG
PATTY
PSOC
PARTIES
PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ
PMIG
PAIGH
PARK
PETER
PHUS
PKPO
PGOVECON
POUS
PMAR
PWBG
PAR
PGOVGM
PHUH
PTE
PY
POLUN
PDOV
PGOVSOCI
PGOVPM
PRELEVU
PGOR
PBTSRU
PHUMA
PHUMR
PPD
PGV
PRAM
PARMS
PINL
PSI
PKPAL
PPA
PTERE
PGOF
PINO
PREO
PHAS
PAC
PRESL
PORG
PS
PGVO
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PINT
PRELP
PREFA
PNG
PTBS
PFOR
PGOVLO
PHUMBA
PREK
PHJM
POLINT
PGOVE
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PECON
PEACE
PROCESS
PLN
PEDRO
PF
PGPV
PCUL
PGGV
PSA
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PGIV
PHUMPREL
POGOV
PEL
PBT
PAMQ
PINF
PSEPC
POSTS
PAHO
PHUMPGOV
PGOC
PNR
RS
RP
RU
RW
RFE
RCMP
RIGHTSPOLMIL
REFORM
RO
ROW
ROBERT
REACTION
REPORT
REGION
RELATIONS
RAY
ROBERTG
RIGHTS
RM
RATIFICATION
RREL
RBI
RICE
ROOD
REL
RODHAM
RGY
RUEHZO
RELIGIOUS
RELFREE
RUEUN
RELAM
RSP
RF
REO
REGIONAL
RUPREL
RI
REMON
RPEL
RSO
SCUL
SENV
SOCI
SZ
SNAR
SO
SP
SU
SY
SI
SMIG
SYR
SA
SW
SF
SR
SYRIA
SNARM
START
SPECIALIST
SG
SNIG
SCI
SGWI
SE
SIPDIS
SANC
SELAB
SN
SETTLEMENTS
SCIENCE
SENVENV
SENS
SPCE
SPAS
SECURITY
SENC
SOCIETY
SOSI
SENVEAGREAIDTBIOECONSOCIXR
SEN
SPECI
ST
SL
SENVCASCEAIDID
SC
SECRETARY
STR
SNA
SOCIS
SADC
SEP
SK
SHUM
SYAI
SMIL
STEPHEN
SNRV
SKCA
SENSITIVE
SECI
SCUD
SCRM
SGNV
SECTOR
SAARC
SENVSXE
SWMN
STEINBERG
SOPN
SOCR
SCRS
SWE
SARS
SNARIZ
SUDAN
SENVQGR
SAN
SM
SFNV
SSA
SPCVIS
SOFA
SCULKPAOECONTU
SENVKGHG
SHI
SEVN
SH
SNARCS
SNARN
SIPRS
TBIO
TW
TRGY
TSPA
TU
TPHY
TI
TX
TH
TIP
TSPL
TNGD
TZ
TS
TC
TK
TURKEY
TERRORISM
TPSL
TINT
TRSY
TERFIN
TPP
TT
TECHNOLOGY
TE
TAGS
TRAFFICKING
TJ
TN
TO
TD
TP
TREATY
TR
TA
TIO
TECH
TF
TRAD
TNDG
TWI
TPSA
TWL
TAUSCHER
TRBY
TL
TV
THPY
TSPAM
TREL
TRT
TNAR
TFIN
TWCH
THOMMA
THOMAS
TERROR
TRY
TBID
UK
UNESCO
UNSC
UNGA
UN
US
UZ
USEU
UG
UP
UNAUS
UNMIK
USTR
UY
USUN
UNEP
UNDC
UV
UNPUOS
UNSCR
USAID
UNODC
UNRCR
UNHCR
UNDP
UNCRIME
UA
UNHRC
UNRWA
UNO
UNCND
UNCHR
USAU
UNICEF
USPS
UNOMIG
UNESCOSCULPRELPHUMKPALCUIRXFVEKV
UR
UNFICYP
UNCITRAL
UNAMA
UNVIE
USTDA
USNC
UNCSD
USCC
UNEF
UNGAPL
USSC
UNMIC
UNTAC
UNCLASSIFIED
USDA
UNCTAD
USGS
UNFPA
UNSE
USOAS
UE
UAE
UNCHS
UNDESCO
UNC
UNSCS
UKXG
UNGACG
UNHR
UNBRO
UNCHC
UNFCYP
UNIDROIT
WHTI
WIPO
WTRO
WHO
WTO
WMO
WFP
WEET
WS
WE
WA
WHA
WBG
WILLIAM
WI
WSIS
WCL
WEBZ
WZ
WW
WWBG
WMD
WWT
WMN
WWARD
WITH
WTRQ
WCO
WEU
WB
WBEG
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 06PARIS5276, U.S. DELEGATION REPORT: 30TH SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #06PARIS5276.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
06PARIS5276 | 2006-08-03 16:59 | 2011-08-24 00:00 | UNCLASSIFIED | Embassy Paris |
null
Lucia A Keegan 08/04/2006 10:02:34 AM From DB/Inbox: Lucia A Keegan
Cable
Text:
UNCLAS PARIS 05276
SIPDIS
cxparis:
ACTION: UNESCO
INFO: AMBU POL ECON AMB AMBO DCM SCI
DISSEMINATION: UNESCOX
CHARGE: PROG
APPROVED: DCM:AKOSS
DRAFTED: NPS:SMORRIS
CLEARED: POL:DOSTROFF
VZCZCFRI462
RR RUEHC RUEHC RUCPDOC
DE RUEHFR #5276/01 2151659
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 031659Z AUG 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0104
INFO RUEHC/DEPT OF INTERIOR WASHINGTON DC
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 PARIS 005276
SIPDIS
INTERIOR FOR NPS -- STEVE MORRIS
COMMERCE FOR NOAA -- ART PATTERSON
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO LH
SUBJECT: U.S. DELEGATION REPORT: 30TH SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE
COMMITTEE, VILNIUS, LITHUANIA, JULY 8-16
¶1. Summary: The World Heritage Committee, the 21-nation governing
body of the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, held its 30th
Session in Vilnius, Lithuania, July 8-16, 2006. The Committee added
eighteen cultural and natural sites to the prestigious World
Heritage List and also decided to remove five sites and add two
others sites to its List of World Heritage in Danger. The new sites
bring the total number of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List
to 830. In addition, the Committee approved the extension of two
existing sites.
Highlights of the meeting included:
- The Committee reviewed twenty-nine proposals for the inscription
of new sites to the World Heritage List. Of these seven were for
natural sites, twenty were cultural sites, and two mixed sites.
- The Committee responded to the question of climate change impacts
on World Heritage Sites. In response to petitions received from
NGOs requesting the addition of five sites in different regions
around the world to the Committee's List of World Heritage in
Danger, the Committee did not place the sites on the Danger List but
instead adopted the recommendations of its expert working group
which focused on helping participating nations develop strategies
for adaptation and monitoring of climate change at World Heritage
Sites worldwide.
- Of particular interest to the U.S. Delegation, the Committee
accepted benchmarks for the eventual removal of Everglades National
Park from the Danger List and approved formal statements describing
the significance of each of the 20 U.S. World Heritage Sites.
- The Committee adopted a proposal aimed at reaching a better
understanding regarding the meaning of Outstanding Universal Value,
the Committee's threshold for judging the global significance of a
site.
- The Committee agreed to an extended period of study on the
outcomes of the first-cycle of Periodic Reporting and possible
adjustments to the process before beginning the next cycle. The
Periodic Report, a process in which State Parties report information
on the status of their World Heritage sites and their implementation
of the Convention, takes place on a 6-year reporting cycle.
- In a departure from its usual practice, the Committee took votes
on controversial topics twice. At the request of the US delegation,
the second vote was conducted by secret ballot and resulted in the
Committee deciding to defer a cultural landscape nomination of a
site in Southwestern France. This was the first secret ballot
conducted in 30 regular and 7 extraordinary sessions of the
Committee.
- A management audit of the World Heritage Centre, the Convention's
Secretariat was requested by the US Delegation and unanimously
SIPDIS
agreed to by the Committee.
- The U.S. Delegation was praised by many delegates and observers
for the constructive role it played in the decision-making process
and for its commitment to strengthen the quality of the World
Heritage Program.
End Summary
¶2. U.S. Delegation
The U.S. delegation included Department of the Interior Deputy
Assistant Secretary Paul Hoffman, U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO Louise
Oliver, Deputy Director of the National Park Service Don Murphy,
National Park Service Acting Chief of International Affairs Stephen
Morris, and International Cooperation Specialist Jonathan Putnam.
¶3. Voting
In a departure from its long-time practice of making decisions by
consensus, the Committee twice took votes on controversial issues.
Tension was evident early in the meeting as the Committee reviewed
State of Conservation reports for the 34 sites on the List of World
Heritage in Danger. The debate grew particularly contentious over
the Algerian site of Tipasa which Algeria and several delegations
representing developing countries believed should be removed from
the Danger List. Other delegations felt that removal of the site
was premature since Algeria has not yet satisfied all the corrective
measures, or benchmarks, agreed upon when the site was placed on the
Danger List. The debate highlighted the need for the Committee to
be more specific in the language of its decision in laying out what
particular actions it expects State Parties to complete before a
site can be removed from the Danger List. After seeking a legal
opinion on what constitutes a two-thirds majority vote and a
determination that the motion for removal from the Danger List had
not gained the required majority, the Committee deferred
consideration of the issue for a day to allow tempers to cool.
Ultimately, the Committee reached a compromise in which the site was
removed from the Danger List with the condition that unless the
remaining benchmarks are reached by next February the site will be
re-inscribed on the Danger List at the next Committee meeting. (A
similar conditional approach was used for the inscription of an
Omani site, the Aflaj Irrigation Systems, which was also somewhat
controversial. The decision in that case calls on the State Party
to submit to the Committee by February 1, 2007 a management plan and
confirmation of legal protection for the site.)
The other vote followed a long debate on the French nomination of
the cultural landscape of the Causses and the Cevennes, occupying
several hundred thousand acres of southwestern France. The Advisory
Body recommended referral of the site for a number of reasons, but
several Committee members, swayed in part by the site's association
with the persecution of French protestants during the 17th century,
argued for inscription. The State Party was asked several times
whether or not it would accept a referral or deferral allowing it
the opportunity to bring back to the Committee a revised nomination
in up to 3 years time, but the French Ambassador declined the offer
in no uncertain terms stating his government's interest in having a
clear decision from the Committee either inscribing the site or
deciding not to inscribe it. The Ambassador also made clear that
the French government would not bring the nomination back in the
event of a decision to refer or defer it. Whether fairly or not,
the response from the State Party was seen by a number of Committee
members as a sign of French intransigence and unwillingness to meet
the Committee half-way. The inability to reach a consensus on the
matter resulted in the second call for a vote, one in which the U.S.
delegation requested voting be done by secret ballot. The results
of the vote made clear the lack of a two-thirds majority favoring
inscription and facilitated the Committee decision to refer the site
back to France for additional information. The Committee's decision
to reject immediate inscription of the French nomination was seen by
some as an unusual turn about to the more common deference extended
to the French government, which hosts UNESCO's headquarters in
Paris.
¶4. Climate Change
In 2005, several environmental NGOs submitted a petition to the
World Heritage Committee requesting that four World Heritage sites
(Australia's Great Barrier Reef, Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal,
Belize's Barrier Reef System, and Huscarn National Park in Peru) be
included on the List of World Heritage in Danger due to threats from
global climate change. At the 29th Committee meeting in Durban in
2005, the Committee responded to this petition by requesting the
World Heritage Centre, the Convention's Secretariat, to organize an
expert working group on the impacts of climate change on World
Heritage, which was held in Paris in March 2006. Immediately prior
to the March experts' meeting, another petition was submitted to the
Committee requesting that the Waterton-Glacier International Peace
Park be put on the List of World Heritage in Danger due to climate
change impacts there.
The expert working group produced a report on "Predicting and
Managing the Effects of Climate Change on World Heritage" and a
"Strategy to Assist State Parties to Implement Appropriate
Management Responses" which were presented to the Committee. The
strategy recommends preventative actions, corrective actions and the
knowledge sharing by and between site managers and other
stakeholders.
In Vilnius, the draft Committee decision endorsed the
recommendations of the expert working group, but did not
specifically address the issue of the NGO petitions. The U.S.
therefore offered an amendment, approved by the Committee, which
stated that decisions to list properties on the Danger List will be
made on a "case-by-case basis" and in consultation with State
Parties and the Advisory Bodies.
The Committee's discussion on this issue was comparatively low-key.
Peru expressed an interest in developing an alternative to the
Danger List for dealing with Climate Change impacts (eventually
incorporated into the Decision), and Israel wanted some more
explicit references to the Kyoto Protocol (ultimately rejected by
the Committee).
On Monday, July 10 (before any decision had even been made), the BBC
was reporting that the United States was "blocking" efforts to get
the Committee to call for reductions in global carbon dioxide
emissions. The U.S. delegation made a statement expressing the
United States' concern over this erroneous report, and called on all
present to be more careful in their communications with the media.
The Chair took the floor and strongly supported the U.S. position.
Some other key components of the Committee's Decision on Climate
Change include:
- The World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies were requested to
develop proposals for the implementation of pilot projects at World
Heritage sites that would develop best practices for implementing
the Climate Change Strategy;
- The Centre was requested to work with Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) to include a chapter on World Heritage in the
IPCC assessment reports;
- The Centre was requested to prepare a policy document on Climate
Change to be presented to the General Assembly meeting in 2007, to
include considerations on legal issues pertaining to the role of the
World Heritage Convention vis-`-vis Climate Change; linkages to
other conventions and UN and other bodies; and alternatives to the
List of World Heritage in Danger to address climate change impacts
at World Heritage sites.
¶5. World Heritage Sites in the U.S.: Everglades
The Committee approved benchmarks regarding the environmental
restoration effort ongoing for many years at Everglades National
Park which will facilitate the Committee's consideration of removing
the park from the List of World Heritage in Danger on which it was
placed in 1993. The benchmarks are specific, ecologically based
measures that are achievable within the next several years, long
before the restoration effort itself will be complete. The
Committee's official advisor on natural heritage sites, the World
Conservation Union (IUCN), met with Department of the Interior and
National Park Service officials at the park in April to develop a
consensus proposal on the benchmarks for the Committees
consideration. Adoption of the benchmarks, signals the Committee's
confidence in the efforts the U.S. is taking in addressing the
problems facing the site.
¶6. Name Changes and Statements of Significance for U.S. World
Heritage Sites
With little debate, the Committee approved a series of
"housekeeping" measures pertaining to U.S. and Canadian sites,
including minor name changes for several U.S. sites as well as the
adoption of a formal statement of significance outlining the
specific reasons why the site was inscribed on the World Heritage
List. The housekeeping issues were identified in the Periodic
Report for North America adopted by the Committee at last year's
meeting in Durban. The statements, in a standard format, provide a
rationale for how the site meets the specific criteria under which
it was listed and, will serve, from now on, as an important
reference for site managers and the Committee itself regarding
threats facing the site's outstanding universal value.
¶7. Outstanding Universal Value
The Committee continued its discussion regarding the concept of
outstanding universal value and how it has been applied by the
Committee over the years. The discussion was a follow-up to a 2005
meeting of experts in Kazan, Russia as well as to the Committee's
review and discussions of the Kazan report at its last session in
Durban. The discussion was given added relevancy by the Committee's
debate on several nominations reviewed earlier in the meeting which
highlighted the widely disparate views among its members on what
constitutes outstanding universal value.
The Committee's decision on this item requested the World Heritage
Centre to compile a compendium of case studies outlining how each of
the criteria for inscription had been successfully applied over time
as well as a proposal for a training program on this topic for new
Committee members. The decision also calls on the Centre to propose
a new format for tentative lists of potential future nominations by
State Parties to the Convention as well as a meeting of experts to
develop criteria for determining adequate protection and management
for proposed sites, the format for State of Conservation reports,
and, most importantly, standards for establishing and measuring
benchmarks for conservation and removal from the Danger List. The
latter recommendation grew out of the difficult discussions on the
Algerian site proposed for removal from the Danger List (see item 3,
above) and others in a similar situation.
¶8. Working Methods of the Committee
In contrast to prior sessions in 2004 and 2005, at this meeting the
Committee did an excellent job, under the guidance of its very
capable chair, the Lithuanian Ambassador to UNESCO, Ms. Ina
Marciulionyte, of keeping to its agenda and completing all of its
business before the close of the meeting. The Chair adopted several
improvements that had been recommended in the past as a way of
improving time management of the Committee's meetings, including the
starting and ending the meetings on schedule, the use of a timer to
limit speakers, and keeping to a minimum statements of
congratulations and repetitive interventions making the same point.
The Committee discussed the need to have the General Assembly of
States Parties play the more substantive role in providing policy
guidance to the Committee, a role to which it is assigned by the
Convention, but which is hasn't been providing due to the fact that
its sessions are now dominated by the elections of members to the
Committee which take up the better part of two days. In a bid to
improve this situation, the Committee decided to add one full
meeting day every two years devoted to issues to be presented to the
General Assembly which meets biannually in conjunction with UNESCO's
General Conference. It also asked the World Heritage Centre to
propose a new more efficient system for elections which would allow
the General Assembly time during its meeting to consider substantive
issues. The Centre is directed to present its proposal both at next
year's Committee session for comment and in final as a proposal to
be adopted by the next General Assembly in October 2007.
¶9. Pause in Periodic Reporting
With the presentation and adoption of the European region's Periodic
Report at its 30th session, the Committee has now adopted in a
staged process similar reports from all regions of the world and
fully completed the 6-year worldwide periodic reporting cycle
started in 2000 with the Arab States. Amending its decision adopted
last year in Durban (at the request of the U.S. and Canada) to take
a one-year pause before commencing anew with a 2nd cycle of Periodic
Reporting, the Committee agreed to extend the pause to two years to
allow greater time to adjust the reporting process and redesign the
format for the report. Its decision on this item empowers a small
working group made up of Committee members, the Advisory Bodies, and
the Secretariat to simplify the periodic reporting questionnaire as
well as developing a format for progress reports on periodic
reporting with clear objectives, benchmarks and results that
facilitate global comparison and evaluation. The U.S. supports
simplifying the periodic reporting process.
¶10. Management Audit
During the discussion on performance indicators for World Heritage
and as part of a review of the World Heritage Centre's budget, the
U.S. Delegation requested that prior to developing a strategic plan
for the Centre and a program for 'results-based management' an
external management audit of the Centre be conducted. It has been
more than 5 years since the last audit was done. The U.S. motion
was adopted by the Committee.
¶11. New Chair for Committee's 31st Annual Session
The Committee elected New Zealand as Chair for its next session to
be held in Christchurch, New Zealand, June 23-July 1, 2007. Also
elected as raporteur was John Pinkerton of Parks Canada, as well as
Benin, Japan, Norway, Cuba, and Morocco as Vice-Chairpersons making
up the Committee's Bureau.
¶12. General Observations and Recommendations
Many delegates and observers commented on the marked increase in
regional factions which developed at the Vilnius meeting, partly as
a result of blatant public political lobbying. Many of the debates
on whether or not to remove or place a site on the Danger List, on
the inscriptions of new sites, and even on rather minor procedural
questions, broke down along the "North-South" divide, with India,
Kenya, Benin, and Tunisia the most regular representatives of the
"southern" perspective. This, essentially, was that the Committee
needs to be more lenient with State Parties, particularly in the
developing world, both in procedural matters (like submitting their
forms on time) and in much more substantive questions (whether or
not a site truly is of Outstanding Universal Value or not). These
State Parties worried that many countries with sites on the Danger
List saw that as a black mark which hindered conservation efforts,
for example, and that the "under-representation" of developing
countries on the World Heritage List means that the Committee should
be more accommodating to nominations from that part of the world.
Meanwhile, the "northern" perspective, most frequently voiced by
Netherlands and Norway, was that the Committee has spent a lot of
time developing criteria and guidelines and that these should be
followed strictly to avoid undermining the credibility of the
Convention and the Committee.
The United States was praised by many (mostly behind the scenes) for
the constructive role it played in many of these debates. The
calling for a secret ballot during the debate on the Caussess and
the Cevennes nomination, for example, defused an increasingly
contentious Committee. The U.S., which has long argued that the
Committee should be more focused on the conservation of existing
sites rather than the inscription of new ones, also offered an
amendment to take a "pause" in the inscription of new sites in 2008.
While the amendment was withdrawn, there appeared to be
considerable interest by other State Parties in this idea, at least
with possible modifications (e.g. allowing only countries with no
existing sites to nominate).
Other recommendations discussed informally by the U.S. Delegation to
improve the effectiveness of the Convention and the Committee
include:
- The Committee should consider having some of the reports on sites
on the Danger List be for "no discussion" if conditions have not
changed in the past year
- There should be an "Introduction to World Heritage" for new
Committee members
- The Legal Advisor should be in the room at all times
- The raporteur should have the ability to put amendments on the
large screens so that all Committee members can read them (with
changes clearly highlighted)
¶13. Other Business
During the course of the week, the U.S. Delegation met with other
delegations on a variety of related topics. For example, the
Mexican Delegation initiated discussions on the possibility of a
future joint World Heritage nomination focusing on the monarch
butterfly migration between Mexico, the U.S., and Canada. The U.S.
Delegation agreed to consider this possibility in the context of
ongoing cooperative projects with Mexico and Canada. Another brief
discussion took place with the New Zealand Delegation who urged the
U.S. to participate in efforts to bolster the implementation of the
World Heritage Convention in the Pacific region, which is
under-represented on the World Heritage List and has many new State
Parties which are only now beginning efforts to develop tentative
lists and inscribe sites.
Peay