With America rebuffed in a UNESCO vote, will the US walk out again?

PARIS – Not all the nasty squabbles dictated by politics and spite are in our dear Philippines.

Last Monday I attended the all-day 33rd session of the UNESCO General Conference at the organization’s headquarters in the Place de Fontenoy here in Paris. Since my wife is Secretary General of UNESCO (Unicom) in the Philippines and is here as an Ambassador, involved in the sessions alongside our Ambassador to France, Hector K. Villarroel, Permanent Delegate to UNESCO, I hesitate to express my vulgar and undiplomatic views. But like most sessions in the United Nations itself, and all of its agencies, it was a crushing bore.

Delegate after delegate, some of them Cabinet Ministers, even Prime Ministers from their own countries, was given an "intervention" (time to make a mini-speech) by the chairman of the Conference, a courtly gentleman from Mexico, and by golly, all the pompous pap that issued from them, while eloquently delivered, in time dozed me off into dreamland. Hope I didn’t snore.

In Monday’s session, of course, they were giving the dirty finger to the United States, in polite terms naturally being… uh "diplomats" – Sus, I got the impression that the UNESCO is an anti-American Club. It was palpable. You could feel it vibrating through the packed auditorium. (The "Philippines" is sandwiched, by the way, between Portugal, Poland and Peru, then Pay-Bas, The Low Countries, usually meaning the Netherlands and Belgium). The "P" countries, however, were hardly pipi.

In any event, it seemed, from the Mexican chairman down to the Latin American and some other delegates, much of the discussion was in Spanish (by gosh, why did Cory strike out Spanish from the college curriculum?), the rest was in French, but English somehow managed to hold its own. The instant translators were excellent, if you needed to use your earphones.

Our Ambassador Villarroel, although very fluent in French himself, opted to speak in English when his turn to "intervene" came up. (Next year, we ought to send our Vice-President Noli de Castro to confuse them – there are no UNESCO translators for ABS-CBN Tagalog.) Nonetheless, I believe Kabayan would wow that smooth-talkin’ bunch. Diplomacy is the art of confusing both friend and foe, in my estimation.

Although this writer got somewhat well-acquainted with UNESCO since Precious was, after all a two-year member of the Executive Board in Paris in 1986-1987 (we had an apartment near Victor Hugo in the 16eme arrondisement), I never got used to the huffy atmosphere that permeates the corridors of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. UNESCO, admittedly, has great prestige and does tremendous work in its chosen fields of education – and, in particular, the protection and "improvement" of Heritage sites around the world.

But, by golly, all the flowery and self-congratulatory speeches that are delivered there by the KSP (Kulang sa Pansin) representing their various countries. This year is especially significant since the General Conference which takes place biannually is celebrating the UNESCO’s 60th anniversary. It has attracted 2,000 delegates and participants including several heads of state and governments, as well as Cabinet Ministers.

Yesterday for instance, Thailand’s Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra addressed the assembly, followed by the President of Portugal, Jorge Sampaio.

The hardworking, charming Director-General Koichiro Matsuura of Japan, whom we hosted in Manila when he came to launch Press Freedom Day there in 2003, was reelected for another four-year term.

* * *

The big battle in the chamber, on the other hand, was regarding the "Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Contents and Artistic Expressions." This sounds harmless and even useful by name, but methinks it contains a number of booby-traps that can be utilized as cudgels to batter at unwary nations by accusing them of cultural aggression or "invasion" or of destroying native cultures, et cetera. The wordy document had been worked over by a committee for a number of years, it seems, and now the clubby UNESCO delegates were determined to steamroller the draft into an adopted Convention.

The only obstacle was the United States, which has been protesting it needs more time to study the measure, debate its objections to certain clauses and provisions and seek amendments. In effect, the delegates last Monday groused, "No way, USA!" (Who’s this Super Power trying to "impose" on us who’re superior in intellect, culture, and yeh, "diversity of culture" – forgetting, perhaps, that as a Nation of Immigrants, the "orig" among them, the darned Estados Unidos de America may have the most cultural diversity of all.)

Frankly, although I don’t want to be tagged an Amboy, I admired the courageous "intervention" delivered by US Ambassador Louise Oliver, a personal appointee to UNESCO of George "Dubya" Bush. (Does she come from Texas or therebouts?)

The lady Ambassador in clear tones reminded the body that the US had returned to UNESCO membership only two years ago, after an absence of almost 20 years. (The US had resigned from UNESCO in anger and disgust at the constant anti-American, literally pro-Soviet tone of then Director-General Amatar M’Bow, from Senegal, who had dominated UNESCO for more than a decade – even converting the top floor of the Fontenoy building into his private living-quarters Penthouse.) Even the efforts of the succeeding D.G., Federico Mayor of Spain, had failed to entice the indignant USA, and its financial "support" back into UNESCO. Finally, when Bush became President, he relented and even sent his First Lady, Ms. Laura Bush, to give the "I-Have-Returned’ speech and hoist the Stars and Stripes up on its flagstaff to snap in the breeze among the flags of the other UNESCO member-states in front of the building.

Now, will the Yanks and Texans haul down that flag again and leave the UNESCO in high dudgeon after last Monday’s rebuff?

In the session hall, their delegate Amb. Louise Oliver had argued the US delegation had only been given a copy of the Cultural Diversity draft last mid-April. Studying it, they had, she said, noted some clauses objectionable to them in the information and communications segments. The proposed Convention also seemed to be pitting "one culture against another." There was, she maintained, a lack of clarity, such as in the definition of what constituted cultural aggression (or was it transgression?)

There was, she complained, too much "desire for speed". She asserted: "We have been told that we came too late to this table," and that it was too late to amend or delay the draft. "Not a single comma can be changed!" Ambassador Oliver recalled she had been told.

"This is not acceptable to us, and should not be to all of you," she declared. "The matter is too serious for us to ignore our responsibility!"

There was dead silence in the assembly – resentful silence more accurately, when she finished her remarks. "The US hardline stand," one delegate said to me, "is a goner. America will be defeated." I quipped: "And, in turn, UNESCO may have to prepare for America to be gone, too – doing a repeat pull-out as it did 20 years ago."

"Why?," one indignant delegate asked me.

"Because," I retorted, "President Bush, with so many troubles of his own, even domestically, is in a bad mood these days."

When the voting came Monday evening, it was doomsday as predicted.

Of the UNESCO membership, 151 delegates voted "yes" to ratify the Convention, only two voted "No," the US and Israel.

Indeed, in the session hall, only the Israeli delegate had given an "intervention" to support the US and ask for amendments to be discussed further. The Philippine position was to join the Club and vote "yes," too. As Villarroel put it in his speech that "the overwhelming majority has made its voice heard. They want the Convention, flawed as it is… The Philippines joins the Group of 77’s declaration calling for its urgent adoption." He did express a caveat: "Because a Convention once adopted takes a life of its own, the Philippines understands concerns expressed in some quarters that the Convention might be used as a carte blanche to impose protectionist measures in contravention of existing trade rules and regulations."

In truth, what do potential protectionist measures consist of? Will some countries invoke the Convention to curb the mushrooming of Starbucks (i.e. there are 140 "Starbucks" coffee shops in Spain already, added to the ubiquitous MacDonald’s, Haagen Dazs and Coca-Colonialism, sanamagan. Someday, every city in the world will look the same, with the same Pizza Huts, Dunkin’ Donuts, and Kentucky Fried Chicken). Oh well. Let them fight it out in the diplomatic field. But don’t forget, wars are started over the most trivial matters. In South America, I recall, one was provoked some years ago over a Football Game.

Such a "war" concluded in UNESCO last Monday with poor America taking a beating. In fact, I agree with harassed Ambassador Oliver. Why stampede such a Convention into adoption? Since it is a Treaty, it will now have to be brought back to each respective country for ratification by each government. In our land, it is the Senate which ratifies or rejects. I suspect this will take forever. The Senate is too busy with other matters to even pass an Anti-Terrorism Law. It is busily investigating everything, from NorthRail to Jueteng to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Only two countries "abstained," one of them Australia. The other, in my haste to meet the deadline, I forget.

Just another day in the life of UNESCO. Whatta lot of flap over protecting "cultural diversity." As an Ilocano, my attitude is not diverse. It’s singular: Saluyot, Bagoong, and the Ilocano Nation.

* * *

THE ROVING EYE . . . It’s cold in Paris again. "Indian Summer" is gone and it’s overcoat weather. But last night was still radiant. The Eiffel Tower blinked like Christmas lights, as it does every hour on the hour. The River Seine flowed on serene. The Champs Elysees thronged with shoppers and rubber-neckers. Paris will always be Paris – and will always be too expensive.