The Battle for the Top Job at UNESCO

UNESCO was created in 1945 immediately after WW II profiting by the negative elements the war unleashed. The objective was to create an environment to conducive to eschewing wars to resolve conflicts and promote peace around the globe. If one goes back to the first principles, one would find that the great minds that gathered to deliberate on its creation picked up the essentials from great civilizations, notably, from the oriental wisdom.

The idea imbedded in UNESCO’s principles, is the targeting of man’s mind which was central to everything. So they declared that “wars are conceived in man’s mind.” The idea was much older; it was imbedded in the thoughts of Gautama Buddha, the greatest son of India, several centuries before the birth of Christ. The opening verse in ‘Dhammapada’ which has been translated into many languages from ancient times, contains some of the wisdom the Master(Sattha) taught. It opens its first Chapter (Chitta –vagga) on ‘Mind’ with the words: “Mind is the forerunner of all states; mind is the chief; and everything is the result of mind’s work………”.

I have reason to believe that the Indian Savant Dr. Sarvapillai Radhakrishnan had much to contribute to this ideal which the UNESCO later adopted, with others agreeing, to focus on as the defining tenet of objectives of UNESCO. That is from where they decided to start in trying to set up a future organization which would promote conditions which lead to eschewing of war as a means of settling bi-lateral and international or even internal problems of a nation.

Stepping down to specifics from the sublime, the forefathers identified four categorical areas to work on, namely, education, the mother of all sciences (read disciplines), Science and Culture for the promotion of specific programme activities of the globe. In the 1970s, ‘Communications’ was added on as a main field of activity born largely out of the height of the Cold War when restrictive policies followed by the then Soviet bloc of countries on expression, freedom of the artist (read writers) and the media came under close review (McBride Commission) and debate.

Despite all that euphoria, as this writer watched, the field of ‘Communications too became another money-guzzling bureaucratic wing of the organization. It did not take too long, however, for the very principles of the organization to be placed in limbo, to be pulled out only when rhetoric was demanded.

Member countries whose number surpasses that of the UN, and the membership of many of them in it ante-dates their entry into the former, e.g., Sri Lanka, often saw UNESCO as a source for employment for many of their nationals in the vast Secretariat, not necessarily the foremost and competent, but the mediocre job seekers; and to send a big delegation once in two years for its General Conference. The organization has today become the largest money-devouring international organization for its mere up-keep, not second to the UN. Its staff outlines the parameters for member countries to work out their individual national policies. Here lies the greatest danger. Nations with their own agendas of neo-colonialism of the mind which the forefathers expected to emancipate, try to use it as a vehicle to promote heir ideals. That is essentially what a close analysis the organizations work over six decades would reveal.

All is not lost, however. At the General Conference held once in two years to consider the short and long term plan of activities and the budget for the coming two years – a typical bureaucratic activity by the energetic Secretariat despite its shortcomings, are thrown open for suggestions by member states; and the final debate at the General Conference which often results only in cosmetic changes to ideas already embodied in the Secretariat’s plans has all the trappings of democratic consultations. In reality, the bureaucrats control the thoughts. Reels of literature and texts of speeches by the Director General and others in the hierarchy are thrown out in defence of the Plan. It is very much like presentation of the budget in national Parliaments but without the prospects of defeating the Plan/Budget. Compromises are made and consensus arrived at which often mean only cosmetic changes in programmes/ budget. The idea of “zero-growth” a contradiction in terminology was an innovation of the organization in 1970s when faced with a huge resource crisis.

The scramble for posts both in the Secretariat as well as the higher echelons like the Executive Board and the post of Director General and others point to attempts at influencing the trend of thoughts –at times, a cultural domination’. Powerful countries often edge out others. The dominance the West had in the appointment of the Director General is an illustration. Another classic case is the domination of more powerful countries in filling posts in the controlling body, the Executive Board. For example, India dominates the seats allocated to the Asia/Pacific Group Executive Board. To counter this, the ASEAN has organized itself as an unofficial sub-group and always ensures a representative of it is elected. Pakistan sometimes manages to get in with the support of Muslim countries.

Smaller countries in Asia/Pacific, and notably, South Asia, get edged out. South Asia then has the most despicable record not honoring the principle of rotation in respect of elections to important bodies in UNESCO. It was called the “Quarrelling Seven” by others, notably, the ASEAN members which often refused to touch South Asia even with a barge pole because of its quarrelling record at UNESCO. Even the opportunity of the election of an Asian Director General (from Pakistan) was lost in 1987 because of the underhand work of the Sri Lankan representative who ignored the government’s decision and worked for the election of the opponent purely for personal reasons. That was nothing secret and was publicly announced from the rostrum by the Permanent delegate himself. That was the UNESCO counter part of Sri Lanka’s Falkland vote at the UN supportive of the U.K.government!

In contrast, the African Group has the most emancipated approach where it jointly follows the principle of rotation. Even the country most deficient in human and intellectual resources is given a chance.

Director-General Stakes

Much water has flowed since under the seven bridges of Paris not only washing down the sins of the great City, where “Saints once came marching in” to the Church of Notre Dame by the Saine. UNESCO itself has “transformed” itself, better say, “down-graded,” from the sublime thoughts that went into its making. Today, as it is often the case in recent times, the big battle is on for its premier stakes, the election of the next Director General. That is not the only such event. UNESCO turns into a real battle field once in every two years for elections to the Executive Board, its prime decision making apparatus, and other lesser Committees.

I myself watched the game for ten long years at UNESCO, as a vocal member of the Asian Group, Group of 77 and Non-Aligned Group (as its Chairman from 1976 onwards), entering the fray on three occasions on behalf of the Sri Lankan candidature for the Executive Board. I became a familiar figure in UNESCO circles so much so that even after I left the assignment at UNESCO to concentrate on my work as Ambassador to France, my assistance was sought for campaigning for Dr.Nissanka Wijeyeratne for the Executive Board which he won with an unprecedented majority. Even the group of so called ‘conspirators’ (complot) whom the Algerian Newspaper, L’Actualite,’ identified as scheming against the then incumbent Director General, Amadou Mahtar M’Bow, among whom a Sri Lankan UNESCO official was named, sought my support for the candidature of Dr.Federico Mayor, whom the group was ‘secretly’ sponsoring against M’Bow, which I refused though I had no representational duties at UNESCO then. Both Dr.M’Bow and Dr. Mayor, the dark horse, as he was called, were my very close personal friends.

Besides, I was under instructions to support the Asian candidate from Pakistan in the ways I could. I had no influence over the Permanent Delegate to UNESCO.

That election also saw a vicious whispering campaign through the Secretariat against Pakistan’s former General highlighting his so called misdeeds in East Pakistan’s war of liberation. The reasoning, it seemed, was that the Secretariat did not want a task-master at the helm. Shirley Ameresinghe too was disliked by the UN Secretariat for the same reason. The Secretariat wants to work at their own pace and the staff wants to travel around, not alone but often with their families; and also build up dynasties at these organizations – father to son or daughter!

The above discussion should show how UNESCO has moved away from the principles which dominated the thoughts of its founding fathers and the organization itself has turned out to be a virtual battle ground, not intellectual but of baser elements of mankind.

The scenario today is not any different from what I saw a little over twenty years ago. It has even turned worse since. At the election of the present incumbent, Koichiro Matsumara against whom Sri Lanka foolishly presented her then Ambassador to France/ Permanent Delegate to UNESCO, Dr.Senaka Bandaranyake even before he could familiarize himself with the corridors and lobbying rooms at UNESCO headquarters, was one of the biggest mistakes the Chandrika Kumaratunga government made. It defies all rational understanding why so much resources and energy were wasted to receive just two votes in the first round, reduced to a single vote later. The battle had to be fought at UNESCO itself and not in world Capitals which several Sri Lankan delegates visited. It was not that Dr. Bandaranayake’s academic credentials were wanting but the memory of UNESCO does not fade easily even after tens of years. So, Sri Lanka had to face the consequences of the doings of its own Permanent Delegate years earlier.

Above all, UNESCO Executive Board had laid down higher criteria for candidates which as they stand today include:

• leadership and proven administrative and management skills;

• a strong commitment to all the objectives of the Organization;

• a visionary and active approach to the role of UNESCO in the community of nations;

• good knowledge of the United Nations system;

• commitment to the highest moral and ethical standards;

• strong communication skills so as to develop effective internal and external communication strategies, vision and objectives for the Organization;

• empathy and sensitivity to civil society as an important UNESCO constituency by utilizing, as appropriate, the existing structures and in particular the National Commissions for UNESCO."

John Daily improving on Tony Fleming has defined other criteria for election to this high post all of which cannot be stipulated here. On general criteria he included, demonstrated effective action for the promotion of peace, demonstrated effective action for the promotion and conduct of dialogue among diverse cultural groups. Among skills in international diplomacy, he included demonstrated effective action in assisting in social and economic development in an international context. Among organizational skills, the ability to manage and reform a large complex intergovernmental organization, demonstrated by education and experience; and ability to interface with and motivate global networks of individuals and organizations, especially the educational, scientific, cultural and other intellectual networks working with UNESCO.

These are very high standards indeed which no single candidate might possess at any time. But one must not be deluded that these alone are the criteria that govern elections at UNESCO now. Recent indications as I saw from ring side in 1987 as Ambassador to France (but not to UNESCO then) are that gossip, character assassination, scheming at high level and media hit-man-ship form a big syndicate in the game, while the last election of the Director General saw big money speaking. How much a candidate’s government could infuse into UNESCO’s dwindling coffers to keep its staff in the Secretariat comfortable has become a major criteria. The Russian Federation’s candidate this time, Deputy Foreign Minister (?), Alexander Yakonovenko, comes with a tens of Million dollars support for the organization!

More significantly, during its sixty four year existence, the European geographical group has had virtual monopoly of holding the post of Director General on six occasions with the same person being re-elected several times. In contrast, East Europe has had never been represented; while Afro-Arab group was represented once (two consecutive terms); Latin America once, and Asia/Pacific once (the incumbent Director General). These points to the serious imbalance in the election, which is heavily tilted towards the West. Is this an indication that there are no competent persons outside the western world to hold this responsible office? Alternately, is it an indication of the malaise in the voting mechanism, centered in the Executive Board which itself is tilted to the West? I think there is more to it. The organization displays symptoms of a serious global cultural conflict.

The present battle at UNESCO

The battle field array this time where nine candidates representing four geographical regions had submitted nominations, now reduced to eight as the Algerian candidate has been prevailed upon to withdraw in favor of the Egyptian, again shows the European interest in making another bid but the nomination comes from the small subgroup of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. The East European group which is no longer politically homogeneous has two candidates in Bulgarian and Russian nominees; Latin America, one in Ecuador’s nominee. The African/Arab group has presented three candidates in Egypt’s, Benin’s and Tanzanian nominees but is likely to come to a compromise.

If Mr. Hosny of Egypt loses his credentials, as the media campaign against him and the opposition of some vocal members does throw him succeed in throwing him out of the ring, then Africa could claim the position. But the African claim comes too soon after Dr.M/Bow’ two terms which is still not out of mind. If equitable rotation is respected, which is not happening at the highest intellectual organization, then the East European claim deserves consideration, followed by that of Latin America. Why Ambassador Koichiro Matsumara, the present incumbent is not running for a second term is a puzzle. Has the effect of the global economic down turn affected Japan’s ability to support him as it did lat time?

Of all these eight candidates, Farouk Hosny, the Minister of Cultural Affairs of Egypt for more than 20 years had not only stolen the limelight well in advance as the most formidable contender despite his lesser academic excellence but has attracted the hostility of the Western press and websites which have gone to town to denounce him as a suitable aspirant to the high post. It did not take long for the grape-vine to stat its usual game. Both his personal qualities and record of anti-Semitism in relation to the Jews and Israel have been highlighted. The Time Magazine in a report dated September 5, stated “Though long considered the favorite to win the position of Director General at the …… (UNESCO) in Paris, Hosni's chances of winning that role later this month have been hit by an international campaign launched earlier this year. It began with a boom last May, when French writer Bernard-Henri Lévy, Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel, and French film director Claude Lanzmann authored an editorial in Le Monde accusing Hosni of being a "dangerous man" who'd been responsible for a series of "insane declarations" regarding Israel and Jews…..”.

Leading French newspapers, “Le Monde” and “Liberation” are in the forefront of the attack while The Time magazine and others have taken over from there and several hundred articles and features, not to speak of blogs have appeared denouncing his candidature.

However, behind the dark clouds of this international media campaign exhibiting both open hostilities and subtle journalism, which shows signs of intensifying, a silver lining could emerge.

However, the role of the international media, especially that of France in influencing the outcome of elections at UNESCO should not be underestimated. It was the strong media campaign that played a big role in ruining the chances of Amadou M’Bow that ruined his chances of running a third time.

At home, Hosny is being flayed by both intellectuals and others, his too soft position towards Israël coming under heavy flack. Last year, 26 Egyptian thinkers were reported to have denounced his “humiliating submission to Israel’s abuses for a personal gain”, after Farouk Hosni had given an interview to an Israeli daily. Presently, despite the adverse media campaign which has contributed to reduce Hosny’s early lead in the race he appears to enjoy the confidence and strong support from his government. Despite this ever growing opposition to him, M Hosny is said to think he has the support of 32 countries out of 58 in the Executive Board, the others not having made their choice yet. So the opponents in the media are determined to intensify their campaign.

It is the role of the government of Israel which had at one time opposed his candidacy which has to be watched. The withdrawal of Israeli opposition to him, according to the report in The Time magazine, (September 5) was due to President Hosni Mubarak who wants an Egyptian as the head of a U.N. body as a matter of national pride, exerting diplomatic pressure on the U.S. and France to back Hosny. It observes also that geopolitics is also probably behind the attitude of hard line Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has said he would not block Hosni's election. The Magazine concludes that the move is likely to be part of an array of horse-trading necessary to find an eventual Israel-Palestinian peace agreement all Middle Eastern nations will adhere to.

The U.S. which holds much leverage at UNESCO with her ability to deny it funds and deprive it intellectual resources, as it resorted to under the administration of Dr.M’Bow, has more than an ordinary say in the election. The West generally follows suit. These undercurrents which are not apparent to an ordinary observer more often than not, determine the final outcome.

UNESCO, as far as Director-General stakes are concerned, is one where all human frailties combine and compete to make their sinister contribution. What tragedy! The noble philosophical thoughts which guided the organization’s founding fathers are nowhere to be seen today. One could ask what lessons the member countries could learn over larger stakes through its programmes when the organization itself deviates from the more virtuous side of human behavior and descends to the lowest ebb on the election of its top bureaucrat. The strange thing, however, is that everything settles down once the Director-General stakes are over and the organization routinely dispenses its tasks of programs as if nothing untoward happened to disturb it. Some latent resilience in the organization despite all its negative nature, I suppose!

- Asian Tribune -