

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 05PARIS329, UNESCO "CULTURAL DIVERSITY" CONVENTION
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. #05PARIS329.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
05PARIS329 | 2005-01-18 18:19 | 2011-08-24 00:00 | UNCLASSIFIED | Embassy Paris |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 16 PARIS 000329
SIPDIS
USMISSION UNESCO PARIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SCUL PGOV PREL EU ETRD UN
SUBJECT: UNESCO "CULTURAL DIVERSITY" CONVENTION
NEGOTIATIONS: FULL STEAM AHEAD FOR SOME, DESPITE LACK OF
AGREEMENT ON BASICS
REF: 2004 July Draft Convention Prepared by Expert
Committee (July 2004 Draft Convention)
¶1. Summary. Adopting a Convention on Cultural Diversity at
the October 2005 UNESCO General Conference remains the
apparent goal for some key UNESCO members, despite the sharp
differences on fundamentals shown during 14-17 December
Meetings of Working Group ("Drafting Commission") charged
with suggesting revisions to the July 2004 Draft Convention.
Under UNESCO rules, this timetable seems to require
distribution of the final UNESCO Secretariat report to
Member States by 3 March 2005. (Paragraphs 1-14.)
Interventions at Drafting Commission meetings showed
disagreement about the scope of the Convention, whether it
should focus on the commercial aspects of culture; whether
it should take precedence over current international
obligations, including WTO obligations; and the proper ambit
of intellectual property law. (Paragraphs 15 to 53.)
Interventions also expressed equally sharp differences on
basic procedural matters, including modalities for
representation of EU Member States, the scope of the
Drafting Commission's mandate and the format of its report.
(Paragrpahs 54 to 69.)
End summary.
Background
------------
¶2. The UNESCO-sponsored negotiations concerning a possible
Cultural Diversity Convention are based on a formal
Resolution (Reso. 32C/34) adopted at the Thirty-Second
Session of the UNESCO General Conference, held in October
¶2003. (Note. The General Conference, which includes
representatives of all 190 UNESCO Member States, meets
biennially and is the highest policy-making authority in
UNESCO. End note.) By Resolution 32C/34, the General
Conference:
Invites the Director General to submit to the General
Conference at its Thirty-Third Session a preliminary
report setting forth the situation to be regulated and
the possible scope of regulation action proposed,
accompanied by a preliminary draft of a convention on
the protection of the diversity of cultural contents
and artistic expressions.
(Note. General Conference Reso 32C/34 was preceded by many
other official UNESCO statements generally concerning
Cultural Diversity (e.g., the November 2001 declaration on
Cultural Diversity, an 11-12 December Ministerial
Declaration following a UNESCO-sponsored Meeting of Culture
Ministers; a 14-15 June 1999 Statement of an Expert Group
(organized in collaboration with the French UNESCO
Commission and supported by the Canadian and French
Governments) and a March-April 1998 Intergovernmental
Conference on Culture and Development. End note.)
¶3. Pursuant to normal UNESCO procedures, an Expert
Committee, comprised of fourteen experts from different
Member States, was convened. It submitted the July 2004
Draft Convention (Ref ), which was followed by a 20-24
September Intergovernmental meeting of UNESCO Member State
representatives ("First Intergovernmental Meeting").
¶4. At the First Intergovernmental Meeting, UNESCO Member
State representatives elected Kader Asmal, a respected South
African jurist and long-time law professor at Dublin's
Trinity College, as Chair of the process to assist the
UNESCO Director General compile a report to submit to the 3-
21 October 2005 General Conference per Reso. 32C/34. Artur
Wilczynski, a Canadian diplomat based in Quebec, was elected
as the Rapporteur.
¶5. Per Asmal's guidelines, representatives were allowed to
make only a limited number of interventions, each generally
no more than five minutes long. These interventions
revealed disagreement on fundamental matters, such as: the
scope of the Convention (e.g., whether "cultural content"
such as matters touching on language and religion should be
included), definition of terms (e.g., whether "cultural
diversity" and "cultural goods and services" should be
defined at all, and, if so, how), the role of government in
settling policy affecting cultural matters, and whether
obligations in this convention would supercede those in
current international law.
¶6. The First Intergovernmental Meeting also established a
November 15 deadline for submission of Member State formal
comments on the July 2004 Draft Convention. A second
Intergovernmental meeting was scheduled for 31 January-12
February 2005 (Second Intergovernmental Meeting.) Despite
the lack of agreement on essential components of a
convention, a Drafting Commission was appointed and
instructed to begin work on 14-17 December.
¶7. The Drafting Commission is made up of representatives
from 24 countries. UNESCO's six geographically-based
electoral groups each selected four representatives to serve
on the Drafting Commission.
Group 1: Finland, France, Switzerland, USA
Group 2: Armenia, Croatia, Hungary, Russia
Group 3: Barbados, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador
Group 4: China, India, Japan, Korea
Group 5a: Benin, Nigeria, Madagascar, Senegal
Group 5b: Algeria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, United Arab
Emirates
The Timing Conumdrum, or Why Drafting a Convention Comes
Before Agreement on What Should Go Into It
--------------------------------------------- --------------
¶8. The timetable for the Drafting Commission's work seems
driven by the expressed desire of some influential UNESCO
Member States to adopt a Convention on Cultural Diversity at
the 3-20 October 2005 General Conference. To do this under
UNESCO Rules, the Director-General's final report be sent to
Member States seven months in advance of the opening of the
General Conference, or by 3 March 2005.
UNESCO rules, Section E, Article 10, Rule 3 provides:
On the basis of the comments and observations
transmitted, the Director-General shall prepare a final
report containing one or more texts, which shall be
communicated to Member States at least seven months
before the opening of the session of the General
Conference.
Introductory Niceties, Election of Chairman and Rappateur
--------------------------------------------- -------------
¶9. UNESCO Director General Koichiro Matsuura's 14 December
opening remarks urged the Drafting Commission to express its
work in "clear legal language" and to identify choices where
irreconcilable differences appear. He said that the revised
Convention and invitations to the Second Intergovernmental
Meeting would be sent out to Member-States just before
Christmas.
¶10. In his introductory speech, Chair Kader Asmal said that
the Drafting Commission had before it a three-pronged
challenge: refining the concept and definitions of the
Convention; meeting the political challenge of articulating
the rights and obligations set forth in the Convention, and
transforming the conceptual and political ideas into legally
sufficient language.
¶11. Mounir Bouchenaki, the Assistant Director General for
Culture (the top culture official in UNESCO) spoke briefly,
explaining that under UNESCO rules, a Category 2
Intergovernmental meeting, such as the September 2004
meeting, may create Working Groups, such as the Drafting
Commission. The Drafting Commission did not need to adopt
rules, but it should elect a Chairman and Rappateur,
Bouchenaki concluded.
¶12. The Swiss delegate then nominated a Finn, Jukka Liedes,
whose name had first been circulated in connection with the
Drafting Commission Chairmanship in the lead up to the First
Intergovernmental Meeting. The Senegalese Ambassador
objected to the Liedes nomination, saying that his country
should have been consulted, and proposed the name of a
candidate from Benin. (Comment. This seemed to come as a
surprise, as the Finn had been regarded as the only
candidate. End Comment.) After a coffee break, the Finn
was accepted by general consent as the Chair and the
Beninese as the Rappateur.
¶13. Wilczynski, the Quebec-based Canadian diplomat who was
selected as Overall Rappateur at the First Intergovernmental
Meeting, sat by the side of the Beninese Rappateur reporter
during all sessions, made interventions on issues of
process, and took copious notes. He seemed largely
responsible for drafting the text of the alternate options
discussed by the Drafting Commission 15-17 December and
helped write the Secretariat's report of the proceedings of
the Drafting Commission.
¶14. Liedes announced a proposed schedule that anticipated a
review of the entire July 2004 Draft Convention by the end
of the 14-17 December meetings. He noted that the Drafting
Commission could be "reactivated" during the Second
Intergovernmental Meeting. He ruled that observers from
Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) and Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) would be given the floor only if time
allowed. (Note. The Drafting Commission's pace fell behind
the Chair's proposed schedule and observers from NGOs and
IGOs, which had submitted several hundred pages of comments,
did not speak at all. Member States who attended as
observers were also not allowed to speak, contrary to
expectations, which caused some bad feelings on the part of
these States about the work of the Drafting Commission. End
note.)
Second Part of First Day: Title, A Few Other Items
Discussed
--------------------------------------------- --------------
¶15. After a skirmish about representation of EU Drafting
Commission members (see paragraphs 54-57), the Chair turned
the discussions to the title, noting that Member States had
submitted some twenty proposals and that this would be the
Commission's first exercise in streamlining. (Note. Most of
the proposals in the formal written submissions contained
one or more elements of the July 2004 Draft Convention
title, which follows the wording of Reso. 32C/34 and reads:
"A Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural
Contents and Artistic Expressions." End note.)
¶16. The USG explained its view that the word "protection"
was ambiguous in that it could refer either to traditional
trade protectionism, quotas, etc. Therefore, the USG
advocated substituting the more affirmative concept of
"promotion." Others (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Brazil,
Switzerland, Magadascar, Benin, India, Yemen and the United
Arab Emirates) suggested leaving "protection," but adding
"promotion." The French rep referred to the suggestion in
Canada's written submission to substitute "preservation" for
"protection." This suggestion was included several times in
"options" for discussion at the Drafting Commission.
¶17. There was also disagreement about "cultural contents
and artistic expressions."
France maintained that "cultural expressions" was a
more precise and manageable concept and should be used
in the title and throughout the document. China and
India supported the French view.
The United Arab Emirates opposed this formulation and
pointed out that "cultural expressions" resulted in an
exclusive focus on commercial matters.
Brazil insisted that the idea of cultural contents be
included in the title.
Saudi Arabia and Switzerland advocated "cultural
contents and expressions," but the Saudi added that the
October 2005 General Conference would have to approve
the elimination of "artistic," since the October 2003
General Conference Resolution specified "cultural
contents and artistic expressions."
¶18. Magadascar suggested "cultural diversity," noting that,
in common parlance, one referred to the "cultural diversity"
convention. Japan, Ecuador and the United States also
supported "cultural diversity." (Note. Ecuador later
offered "preservation and promotion of cultural diversity in
all its expressions." End note.) In an apparent reference
to the October 2003 General Conference discussions, however,
the Saudi noted that the General Conference had already
rejected the "cultural diversity" formulation for the title.
¶19. The Chair suggested that the final report should
articulate three possible formulations. However, when he
attempted to say what those were, he produced five, then
realized he could not limit it. The final report included
16 options. (Note. Intertwined and contentious issues
appear repeatedly in the July 2004 Draft Convention. Thus,
as the Drafting Commission representatives moved through the
text, they often took up an already-much-discussed topic,
albeit perhaps from a slightly different angle. During the
third day, 16 December, the Chair adopted a suggestion that
the Drafting Commission make up a list of "horizontal"
issues for presentation to the Second Intergovernmental
Session. That way, States would not have to repeat the same
objection every time a particular issue appeared in the
text. At the conclusion of the Drafting Commission meetings
on 17 December, however, the Chair withdrew the list after
Drafting Commission members could not reach agreement on its
components. See paragraphs 65-69. End note.)
¶20. Upon resumption of the session after lunch break,
Member State reps agreed to leave the title to the end of
the sessions, after contents of the draft Convention itself
would have become clearer. This was followed by an
abbreviated discussion of whether the annexes should be
dropped, per the many written comments that generally
recommended eliminating the annexes. After it became clear
that would be no quick agreement, the Chair moved the
discussion to Articles 1 (Objectives) and 2 (Guiding
Principles).
Disagreements Continue-About "Cultural Expressions"
--------------------------------------------- --------
¶21. During the afternoon session of the first day, the
Saudi delegate reiterated his objection to the phrase
"cultural expressions," which is used throughout Article 1,
again saying that it was as an impermissible narrowing of
the "cultural-contents-and-artistic-expressions" mandate of
Reso. 32C/34, as it constituted the directions of the
General Conference. (Note. In response to a later Saudi
objection along the same lines, Assistant Legal Advisor Tom
Donaldson said that Legal Advisor Yusuf, after reviewing the
matter, had opined that the report of the Drafting
Commission's need not track the terms of the October 2003
General Conference Resolution. End note.)
About "Cultural Goods and Services" (Article 1b)
--------------------------------------------- ------
¶22. France, appearing to quote the EU Member States' joint
written comments, said "recognition of the specific dual
(cultural and economic) nature of specificity of cultural
goods and services" was a critical part of the Convention.
Lebanon, Senegal, Brazil, Barbados, Croatia and Switzerland
concurred. Croatia referred to the long history of the term
"cultural goods and services" in UNESCO documents.
¶23. The USG explained that its formulations used the terms
"culture" and "cultural diversity," thereby emphasizing the
importance of cultural vehicles in daily life in broad
terms. The USG formulation did not employ the term
"cultural goods and services," which, in the USG view, is an
unworkable concept, since every human product reflects the
culture of its creator. The Algerian and Japanese
representatives supported the USG formulation. When the
Chair asked for a show of hands, the USG, Japan, India, UAE
Saudi Arabia, China and Benin supported the USG formulation,
while fourteen supported the original text, which employs
the "cultural goods and services" terminology. (Note.
Beginning the second morning, per the Chair's request, the
Secretariat distributed "options," which it drew from the
SIPDIS
formal Comments submitted by Member States. The Chair
solicited a show of hands at the conclusion of the
discussion of a particular section, and counted the votes,
saying that this was in order to "gauge support" for the
various options. At this stage of the proceedings,
countries were voting for more than one option. Discussions
about working methods reported paragraphs 54 to 69 below.
End note.)
¶24. The Japanese rep introduced a new phrase into the
debate: "cultural activities," which, like the USG
formulation, focused on the process whereby culture is
integrated into daily life. The GOJ rep said that this term
did not overlap with trade law terminology and emphasized
that it would permit a Cultural Diversity Convention to
develop in harmony with other international obligations.
¶25. The Japanese delegation did not have the opportunity to
explain the idea at any length, however. The Japanese had
missed the deadline set for formal written comments and
therefore the Secretariat had not included the Japanese
suggestions in the "options" set forth on the materials it
distributed. Apparently motivated in part by this
practical consideration, the Chair ruled that the GOJ
suggestion would not be considered. (Note. Japan has since
distributed widely written and electronic copies of its
suggestions. End note.)
¶26. Throughout the remainder of the sessions, the Japanese
interventions almost invariably referred to the GOJ "regret"
at not being able to explain the concept of "cultural
activities" further and to the GOJ intention to re-introduce
the concept of "cultural activities" at the Second
Intergovernmental Session.
About "Cultural Policies" (Article 1c)
-----------------------------------------
¶27. Saudi Arabia, citing its position in favor of
strengthening the sovereign rights of states, supported the
third option which "reaffirmed the sovereign rights of
States" to maintain and adopt "policies and measures" that
the State "deems appropriate" to protect cultural diversity.
(Note. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates
consistently advocated strengthening the role of the State
in setting cultural policy. From time to time, they
articulated this position as an "Arab" position, and Egypt's
formal written comments emphasize a strong State role. End
note.) China and Korea's interventions cited notions of
state sovereignty in supporting the primacy of the State in
settling cultural policy.
¶28. The USG stated its support for Option Six, but with
the reservation that it should not include the word
"protect." The Secretariat later issued a revised draft,
which removed the word "protect" from the Option Six.
¶29. France, saying it spoke on behalf of EU States, said
that affirming the state's role in maintaining, adopting and
implementing cultural policies was at the core of the
Convention. France then moved to amend the third option,
which it also apparently viewed as the most forceful
statement, to include the word "implement" and stated its
support for the version as amended. Strong support for the
French amendment was expressed by Benin and Senegal. (Note.
The Chair's gauging of the measure of support at the end of
the debate on this section showed 15 countries in support of
Option Three. End note.)
¶30. The USG said that `sovereign rights" would not need to
be reaffirmed, a position that Ecuador supported, noting
that UNESCO Member States, as sovereign countries, already
possessed the rights set forth in option three and that it
would support option one, which "recommended and encouraged"
states to take certain measures. (Note. Interventions
questioning whether the wording of certain provisions was
fully compatible with the concept of sovereign states
characterized later interventions concerning Article 2
(Principles). End note.)
And so on
----------
¶31. Article 1 (d), concerning government's role in
encouraging cultural exchanges, brought forth a discussion
on whether government should "create conditions" that would
lead to such exchanges (USG; Russia) or "establish a
framework." At the end of the discussion, the Chair's
measurement of support revealed that both formulations
received about the same amount of support.
¶32. Article 1(e), which calls for a "wider and more
balanced" exchange between "cultures and civilizations,"
drew interventions focused on the possible trade
connotations of "more balanced." The USG and Senegal, among
others, wanted to omit "more balanced" so as to remove the
trade/commercial implications; France said "more balanced"
was part of the point; while Costa Rica and others favored
diluting the trade flavor by adding references to a culture
of peace. Saudi Arabia urged the deletion of
"civilizations." The Chair, again counting hands, said that
omitting "civilizations" and the adding "culture of peace"
received "widespread" support, while the elimination of
"more balanced" received limited support.
¶33. Article 1(f), which requires signatories to "foster
respect" for diversity of cultural expressions "at the
national and global levels," occasioned some discussion
about the term "foster," with some advocating "affirm."
Introducing a theme that would be sounded several times over
the next few days, some intervenors pointed out that local
government plays an important role, especially in federal
systems of government. The original language of Article 1
(f) received "widespread" support, per the Chair's count,
after the addition of "local" to the latter phrase.
¶34. Article 1(g), concerning "global partnerships.
fostering the capacity of developing societies" to support
cultural diversity, drew a detailed intervention from the
Brazilian rep, who emphasized the connections between
cultural and economic development. The Indian Ambassador
suggestion to change "societies" to "countries" was
accepted, but her suggestion that capacities in both
developed and developing countries should be strengthened
was not. Others noted with approval the "partnership"
element. The Chair counted a show of hands and concluded
the original text with the substitution of "countries", had
"widespread" support. (Note. The USG made an intervention
about the word "protect," which was used in several of the
options, but agreed to forebear from raising the issue
again, in view of the growing sentiment to compile a list of
"horizontal issues" at the end of the Drafting Commission
sessions. End note.)
More of the Same in Discussions of Articles 2 (Principles),
3 (Scope) and 4 (Definitions)
--------------------------------------------- --------------
¶35. After lunch break on the second day, 15 December, the
Chair turned the discussions to Article 2 (Principles).
The interventions generally repeated points made earlier,
with some additions. The words "free access" (Principle
Three) generated discussion about Intellectual Property
Rights (IPR) implications. There was strong agreement in
the room that the convention should not be used to create a
"right of access" to specific cultural expressions, given
the possible IPR implications (Ecuador, France, Japan,
Senegal, USG, Switzerland) though India pointed out that
this convention could be used to create this right. (Note.
India's formal written comments, however, take the position
that this Convention should not affects its rights and
obligations under existing international obligations. End
note.)
¶36. Concerning Principle Five, the Chair agreed with the
USG position, noting that that the word "right" should not
be used to describe a concept that has not yet been
established as a "right." (Comment. This was one of the
few substantive comments the Chair made, but it did not seem
to deter many reps from approving new applications of the
word "right." End comment.)
¶37. Regarding Principle Six (Principle of International
Solidarity and Cooperation),, there was some discussion of
the US comment that a principle should not be written with
mandatory language ("shall) but Costa Rica, India and France
insisted strongly that this principle should be written as a
mandatory obligation. The GOJ noted that the term
"industries" required clarification, but Brazil strongly
argued that "industries should be referenced because they
are the very entities in need of assistance in Brazil.
According to the Chair's count, 17 States voted in favor of
retaining "shall" and "industries.")
¶38. Elimination of a contentious comparison between bio-
diversity and cultural diversity (Principle Seven) received
general support.
¶38. The third day, 16 December, began with discussions on
Articles 3 (Scope) and 4 (Definitions, including: "culture,"
"cultural diversity," "cultural expression" "cultural goods
and services" "cultural industries" and "cultural policy").
Interventions generally repeated points previously made, but
there were some notable or new points. In the discussion
of "cultural goods and services" and "cultural industries,"
reps:
Generally took the view that the terms could be
defined. (Note. The USG and Japan were exceptions.
End note.)
Favored eliminating "have or may generate intellectual
property rights" from the definition.
There was strong support for elimination of Annex 1, a
"non-exhaustive" list of "cultural goods and services."
Brazil, France and Senegal argued, however, that the
Drafting Commission did not have the authority to
delete any text (though in substance France agreed it
should be deleted). The Chair agreed and announced
that none of the annexes would be deleted in his
report.
¶40. In the discussion of "cultural policies:"
The Chair pointed out that one option specified that
the policy must have cultural matters "as its
predominant aim," while all other options read "address
or affect any aspect of cultural expressions." The
Chair noted that the broader formulation would likely
be difficult to interpret and apply. Drafting
Commission members, not including the USG, nonetheless
generally indicated preference for the broader
language, however.
Japan expressed "great concern" about possible overlap
between this Convention and the 2003 Intangible
Heritage Convention (IHC). (Note. Devising procedures
to sort out the overlap between the 1973 World Heritage
Convention and later UNESCO documents, in particular
the IHC, was an important agenda item during the just-
concluded 6-11 December 2004 World Heritage Committee
(WHC) meeting. The Japanese, who play an important
role in activities across UNESCO's spectrum, are both
members of the WHC and vigorous supporters of the IHC
and have consistently expressed concern about fitting
the IHC into the panoply of UNESCO normative documents.
End note.)
Drafting Commission members generally (but not
unanimously) favored eliminating Annex II, the "non-
exhaustive" list of cultural policies.
¶41. In discussions on other definitional terms, some
favored eliminating as unnecessary terms not used in the
operative sections of the July 2004 Draft Convention
("culture," "cultural capital" and "cultural diversity").
India, supported by others, noted that "cultural heritage"
was more appropriate than "cultural capital," which had an
overly commercial connotation. That line of analysis,
however, resuscitated Japanese concerns about possible
confusion between this Convention and the Intangible
Heritage Convention and 13 members voted to delete the
definition of cultural capital.
¶42. In the discussion of "cultural expressions," the Chair
recognized "substantial support" for both the original text
and Option 4, the USG proposal. There was no support for
Option 2, Canada's written submission. Nonetheless, the
remarks from the Drafting Commission Report note limited
support for Option 2, "some" support of Option 4, and
"strong" support for the original.
¶43. The Chair's firm announcement that the Drafting
Commission would create a list of "horizontal" terms for
presentation to the Second Intergovernmental Sessions came
during the discussions on definitions. (Comment.
Thereafter, it seemed that many reps, including the USG,
tried to focus on new points, on the apparent understanding
that concerns already expressed would be included on the
list of "horizontal" terms. End comment.)
Questions About Nature of Rights and Obligations (Articles 5
through 10) and Consistency with Existing International Law
--------------------------------------------- --------------
¶44. USG interventions and its formal written comments
requested that the phrase "consistent with other
international agreements" be inserted at various points in
the statement of rights and obligations so as to clarify
that the Convention would not run contrary to current
international law. Several other intevenors (e.g., Japan,
Russia, India and Barbados) noted the importance of this
issue.
¶45. Russian interventions at several points emphasized the
ambiguity of the phrase "existing" legal obligations.
Existing when? At the time the General Conference adopts
it? Or when individual States ratify it? Or when the
document of accession is filed? If either of the latter
two, then the reference to "existing" would be different for
each signatory, which would make application of the
Convention very difficult indeed. Moreover, what about
future obligations, including future obligations in the WTO,
the Russians wondered.
¶46. The problem about consistency with current international
obligations was especially apparent in discussions of
"measures which in an appropriate manner reserve a certain
space for domestic cultural goods and services" (July 2004
Draft Convention Article 6.2 (a)) and "public financial aid"
(July 2004 Draft Convention, Article 6.2 (c)). The Chair
appeared to indicate that consistency with international law
would be treated as a "horizontal" issue.
¶47. In other matters concerning Articles 5 and 6:
China and South Korea advocated changes that would
emphasize the sovereign power of the Member-States.
(July 2004 draft Convention Article 5)
Russia objected to the reference "both within their
territory and at the global level" (July 2004 Draft
Convention Art. 5.1), pointing out that the obligations
of a state are necessarily different within its borders
than outside them.
¶48. The final day, 17 December, began with interventions
concerning Article 7 ("Obligation to Promote the Diversity
of Cultural Expressions"). The wording ("States Parties
shall provide...) sparked concern about the addition of
substantial legal obligations, especially when combined with
seemingly expansive phases, such as: "access to (domestic)
cultural expressions" and "cultural .goods and services
representing cultural diversity." Ecuador and Japan
concurred with the USG suggestion to replace "shall provide"
with softer terms, perhaps "undertaking" or "endeavoring to
create conducive environments."
¶49. Others, such as the EC Commission rep who took France's
chair for this discussion, voiced concern about possible
inconsistency with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Law.
He later noted to poloff privately that IPR Law was
"delicate" and "complex" and that IPR references in
"operative" statements were therefore "risky." He told
poloff that the EC would prefer that any reference to IPR
law be moved to a hortatory section, where it would clearly
be without operational effect. This was the position of
most Drafting Commission members. Only a few voted for the
current text of Article 7.2.
¶50. Intervening from his position as Rappateur, Benin's
representative referred to concerns about the protection IPR
afforded to cultures in which creativity was often a
collective process, sometimes spread out over many decades.
He, along with several other African and Caribbean
intervenors, also stressed the importance of this section to
developing countries and asked that counterfeiting be added
to the language "strengthening of measures against piracy"
now set forth in Article 7.2(b).
¶51. Interventions concerning Article 8 ("Obligation to
Protect Vulnerable Forms of Cultural Expression") re-ignited
concerns earlier expressed by Japan and others about how to
define vulnerability and the creation of a potentially
unnecessary new institution. Ecuador, France and Japan
noted that this matter was of central importance and should
be referred to the Second Intergovernmental Meeting for
determination. India said that the protection of vulnerable
cultures was a national issue, not appropriate for
international bodies.
¶52. Interventions on Article 9 ("Obligation of Information
and Transparency") and 10 ("Obligation of Public Awareness
and Education") generally supported the goals, but some
(e.g., Japan) renewed objections the creation of
obligations. Barbados, apparently aiming to soften overly
preemptory terms "competent authorities in charge" in
Article 9, suggested substitution of "point of contact
responsible for information sharing," which seemed to be met
with general approval, as did a suggestion to soften the
terminology of the notification and record-keeping
requirements in Article 9(d). The discussion of Article 10
included well-received suggestions to substitute "awareness
building" for "public relations" and to include "regional"
organizations.
¶53. Interventions on the last article to be discussed,
Article 11 ("Responsibility and Participation of Civil
Society") generally emphasized the importance of civil
society, but noted that the word "responsibility" is
somewhat inapt, given that civil society was independent of
government and would not be a signatory to this Convention.
PROCEDURAL DISAGREEMENTS
Representation of EU Member States in the Drafting
Commission
--------------------------------------------- ------
¶54. During his first intervention, on 14 December, the
representative of France stated that he represented the
European Union Member States who were also members of the
Drafting Commission (Finland, Hungary and France). (Note.
Croatia, a EU applicant, was initially included in the group
of EU Member States, the French representative having
explained that "the single homogenous voice of the EU now
extends to Croatia and Romania," but Croatia began to make
interventions in its own name shortly after the meetings
began. End note.) Because of the internal distribution of
competence, the French representative explained, the
European Commission representative would also speak when
some areas were discussed.
¶55. Brazil, Benin, Japan and Costa Rica responded that it
was inappropriate to take up the modalities of
representation of EU Member States in the Drafting
Commission, but that they did not want the matter to hold up
the work of the Drafting Commission. Senegal and
Switzerland took a different view, saying that the entire
matter was an internal issue among the twenty-five EU member
countries and would not jeopardize the work of the Drafting
Commission.
¶56. During his first intervention on substance, the
delegate from France responded to the Chair's invitation to
speak by asserting that the EU had the floor. The USG, in
its next intervention, noted its respect for the right of
the French delegation to take guidance from the European
Union, but said that this was a meeting of Member States
selected to be on the Drafting Commission, and therefore the
European Union could not take the floor. The Chair agreed,
and for the remainder of the meeting, France spoke as
France, though it was clear they purported to represent the
European Union. Neither Finland nor Hungary made any
interventions.
¶57. EU Participation also became a problem during the
"voting" on language. Each participant was asked to raise
his or her hand to indicate which "option" (see below) his
or her delegation preferred. On several occasions, the
delegate from France would raise both hands (and on one
occasion even indicated three hands) because Hungary,
Finland or both were not in the room when the voting was
held. As this first happened in the evening, after many
hours of difficult negotiations and little progress, it
seemed that most delegates considered this as a joke. At
the end of the third day, however, the USDel realized the
Chair was counting these as votes. USDel immediately called
a point or order and asked the Chair if he was counting
France's vote twice. When the Chair admitted that he was,
since France was voting on behalf of Hungary who was not in
the room at the time, USDel objected. For the remainder of
the meeting, Hungary and Finland were consistently in the
room for voting, and the problem did not arise again.
Working Methods
Should Interventions Reflect National Interests? Or
Technical Drafting Issues?
--------------------------------------------- ------------
¶58. Throughout the Drafting Commission meetings, some
representatives (e.g., Ecuador, Barbados) noted with regret
that many interventions seemed to embody exclusively
national interests, not technical drafting ones. This, they
said, was not fair to the approximately 150 Member States
not represented on the Drafting Commission. Drafting
Commission reps also cited the lack of fairness when
recommending that all policy questions be referred to the
Second Intergovernmental Meeting.
Should Disagreement Be Shown By Brackets (USG Preference) or
By Variant Texts?
--------------------------------------------- --------------
¶59. At several points, the Chair talked about finding
methods to reflect the disagreement. USDel made several
interventions stating a preference for the use of brackets
instead of options, and stating the understanding that the
entire text and each option would be bracketed. On several
occasions, the Chair stated that the entire text and every
option was understood to be bracketed.
Chair Settles on Variant Texts
-------------------------------
¶60. Beginning with the second day, the Secretariat compiled
written comments into 6 or 7 options, grouping and combining
those written comments that were similar. However, the
Drafting Commission was not allowed to either revise the
options that were suggested, nor provide new text (this was
a problem for Japan, who had brought along substantial
changes to the text, to be submitted to the drafting group).
¶61. The Drafting Commission reps were asked to limit
comments to preferences between the suggested options, but
some offered comments on every option. In order to speed
things up, the Chair suggested a show of hands for which
options delegations "could live with." For the first day
of this technique (Day 2 of the meeting) members would
"vote" for any option they could live with - sometimes two
or three of the suggested options. By the third day of the
meeting, the group had fallen into the practice of "voting"
for only 1 option, thereby indicating their preference.
Some participants commented that they could support one of
several, but then voted in favor of only one.
¶62. Many delegations, including the US, objected repeatedly
early on to this process, pointing out that the Drafting
Commission had been selected to refine language, not to vote
on policy matters, and that voting was not fair to the
Member States not represented on the Drafting Commission.
As the sessions wore on, however, it seemed that Drafting
Commission members generally accepted the "voting"
procedure.
Language of Drafting Commission's Report
------------------------------------------
¶63. On the third day, the Chair produced sample language
that he planned to use to summarize the discussion. Despite
previous USG complaints about the use of voting, and a clear
statement of our preference for bracketing unagreed
language, the sample language included terms such as "the
majority of those present supported Option 3" and there were
no brackets.
¶64. In response to objections, the Chair later introduced
language that did not include any references to the level of
support expressed for any one option, only references to
comments made during discussion. Of the 24 member states on
the drafting group, only Japan, Saudi Arabia and USA
supported this text - nine other delegations complained that
it did not include the results of the voting. If the voting
was not counted, then what was the point of the drafting
group, as the options themselves could be compiled just as
easily by the Secretariat without the drafting group.
(Note. The format the Chair eventually used adjectives,
such as "some," "considerable," "limited" to identify levels
of support. No brackets are used. End Note.)
Identifying "Horizontal" Issues
---------------------------------
¶65. During the third day, in which discussions were still
focused on definitions, the Chair adopted the suggestion
that the Chair adopted a suggestion to make up a list of
"horizontal" issues for presentation to the Second
Intergovernmental Session, thereby obviating identical
objections every time a particular issue appeared in the
text.
¶66. In connection with the discussion about reflecting the
format of the "voting" procedure, Saudi Arabia and USDel
both made the statement that the success of the drafting
group was in highlighting the key issues, the so-called
"horizontal" issues, to be considered by the Second
Intergovernmental Meeting.
¶67. On the fourth and final day, 17 December, the Chair
introduced his draft of a list of horizontal issues." The
list:
Included terms such as "cultural contents;" "cultural
diversity" "cultural goods and services" and
"protection, preservation and safeguarding."
Referred to the choice between "States-Parties" and
"Contracting Parties," the latter formulation suggested
by France and also set forth in the EU Comments (Ref
C).
Noted that questions had arisen concerning the content
and placement of provisions concerning intellectual
property.
Set forth in general terms the question of whether
"shall" or "should" was the better term to use in
describing obligations under the Convention.
¶68. Drafting Commission reps, seemingly testy after three
full days of what seemed repetitive and not fruitful talks,
raised many objections.
France, said that "cultural diversity" was not a
horizontal issue, as it was only once in the July 2004
Draft Convention and had no "operational" function.
The USG response noted that the USG had tailored its
interventions on the assumption that "cultural
diversity," a key term in the USG vision, would be
submitted to the Second Intergovernmental meeting.
(Note. As the USG envisions it, "culture" and
"cultural diversity" would substitute for "cultural
goods and services," "cultural expressions" and other
problematic terms. End note.)
Brazil and Costa Rica objected to the inclusion of
intellectual property law.
Many reps pointed out that the use of "shall" versus
"should" was a policy choice, with different outcomes
depending on the particular provision under discussion.
¶69. In apparent response to the rapid-fire interventions,
virtually all of which found fault with the list, the Chair
withdrew the list.
¶70. USDel's last intervention expressed serious
reservations about the process used during the meeting and
the value of the product that would result. Senegal
concurred with USDEL and expressed appreciation that the US
had flagged these concerns. Benin added that the African
states had had high hopes for this meting, but that the
meeting had not achieved what they had hoped.
¶71. The sessions came to an end shortly thereafter, after
reps praised the Chair's hard work and his professional,
evenhanded and calm demeanor.
Oliver