Currently released so far... 97115 / 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
2010/12/25
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
2011/05/09
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
2011/08/10
2011/08/11
2011/08/12
2011/08/13
2011/08/15
2011/08/16
2011/08/17
2011/08/19
2011/08/21
2011/08/22
2011/08/23
2011/08/24
2011/08/25
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
Consulate Kaduna
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 Ponta Delgada
Consulate Peshawar
REO Mosul
REO Kirkuk
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
US Delegation FEST TWO
UNVIE
UN Rome
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vientiane
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
AF
ADANA
ASEC
AFIN
AMGT
AE
AORC
AID
AR
AO
AU
ASEAN
AGOA
AFGHANISTAN
AFFAIRS
AMED
APER
ASECARP
APEC
AEMR
AS
AA
ANET
AFLU
ABLD
AL
ASUP
AJ
APECO
AMER
ABUD
AODE
AM
AFSN
AESC
AND
AG
ALOW
AROC
AVIANFLU
ATRN
ACOA
AEGR
AMGMT
AADP
AFSI
ACABQ
APRM
AZ
AIDS
ASE
AGAO
ADCO
ABDALLAH
ARF
AIDAC
ACOTA
ASCH
AC
ASEG
AGR
ACS
AMCHAMS
AN
AMIA
ASIG
ADPM
ADB
ANARCHISTS
ALOWAR
ARM
AUC
AINF
AINT
AORG
AY
AVIAN
AMEDCASCKFLO
AK
ARSO
ARABBL
ASO
ANTITERRORISM
ARABL
AOWC
AGRICULTURE
ALJAZEERA
AMTC
AFINM
AOCR
ABER
ARR
AFPK
ASSEMBLY
ASSK
AZE
AORCYM
AINR
AGMT
AEC
ACKM
APRC
AIN
ASCC
AFPREL
ASED
APERTH
ASFC
ASECTH
AFSA
AOMS
AORCO
ANTXON
ARC
AFAF
ADIP
AIAG
AFARI
AEMED
AORL
AX
ASECAF
AOPC
ASECAFIN
AFZAL
APCS
AMB
AGUIRRE
AEMRASECCASCKFLOMARRPRELPINRAMGTJMXL
AIT
ARCH
AMEX
ALI
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
AORCD
AVIATION
ARAS
AINFCY
ACBAQ
AOPR
AREP
ALEXANDER
ATRD
AEIR
AOIC
ABLDG
ASEX
AFR
ASCE
ATRA
ASEK
AER
ALOUNI
AMCT
AVERY
APR
AMAT
AEMRS
ASPA
AFU
AMG
ATPDEA
ALL
AECL
ACAO
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AORD
AFL
AME
ADM
ASECPHUM
AGIT
ABT
ASECVE
AGUILAR
AT
ABMC
ALZUGUREN
ANGEL
ASR
ANTONIO
BMGT
BEXP
BM
BG
BL
BA
BR
BTA
BO
BY
BBSR
BLUE
BK
BF
BTIO
BELLVIEW
BE
BU
BN
BH
BD
BC
BTC
BILAT
BT
BX
BRUSSELS
BP
BB
BRPA
BUSH
BURMA
BMENA
BESP
BIT
BBG
BGD
BMEAID
BAGHDAD
BEN
BIO
BMOT
BWC
BLUNT
BURNS
BUT
BGMT
BAIO
BCW
BOEHNER
BFIF
BOL
BASHAR
BIMSTEC
BOU
BIDEN
BZ
BFIN
BTRA
BI
BHUM
BOIKO
BERARDUCCI
BOUCHAIB
BORDER
BEXPC
BTIU
BTT
BIOS
BEXB
BGPGOV
BOND
BLR
CE
CG
CH
CVR
CASC
CU
CI
CD
CO
CDG
CB
CJAN
CPAS
COM
CVIS
CMGT
CT
CENTCOM
CNARC
CTERR
COUNTER
CHIEF
CDC
CTR
CBW
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CY
CA
CM
CS
CWC
CN
CITES
CF
CWG
CIVS
CFIS
CASCC
CROATIA
CONS
COUNTERTERRORISM
CASA
COE
CJ
CHR
CODEL
CR
CBC
CACS
CHERTOFF
CAS
CONTROL
CONDITIONS
CONDOLEEZZA
CITEL
CV
CLINTON
CHG
CZ
CON
CTBT
CEN
CRIMES
COMMERCE
CLOK
CRISTINA
CFED
CARC
CND
CTM
CARICOM
COUNTRYCLEARANCE
CBTH
CHINA
CSW
CICTE
CJUS
CYPRUS
CW
CAMBODIA
CENSUS
CIDA
CRIME
CBG
CBE
CMGMT
CAIO
CEC
CARSON
CPCTC
CEDAW
COMESA
CVIA
CWCM
CEA
COSI
CAPC
CGEN
COPUOS
CGOPRC
COETRD
CKGR
CFE
CQ
CITT
CIC
CARIB
CVIC
CLO
CAFTA
CVISU
CHRISTOPHER
CACM
CIAT
CDB
CIS
CUL
CHAO
CNC
CL
CSEP
COMMAND
CENTER
COL
CAN
CAJC
CUIS
CONSULAR
CLMT
CIA
CBSA
CEUDA
CAC
CROS
CIO
CPUOS
CKOR
CVPR
CONG
CONTROLS
CEPTER
CVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGKIRF
CDCE
DPOL
DEMARCHE
DHS
DR
DA
DISENGAGEMENT
DEMOCRATIC
DEFENSE
DJ
DY
DARFUR
DHRF
DEA
DTRO
DPRK
DO
DARFR
DOC
DRL
DK
DOJ
DTRA
DOMESTIC
DAC
DOD
DEAX
DIEZ
DEOC
DELTAVIOLENCE
DCOM
DMINE
DRC
DCG
DPKO
DOMESTICPOLITICS
DE
DB
DOT
DEPT
DOE
DHLAKAMA
DHSX
DS
DKEM
DAO
DCM
DANIEL
DEM
DAVID
DCRM
ETRD
EAGR
ETTC
EAID
ECON
EFIN
ECIN
EINV
ELAB
EAIR
ENRG
EPET
EWWT
ECPS
EIND
EMIN
ELTN
EC
ETMIN
EUC
EZ
ET
ELECTIONS
ENVR
EU
EUN
EG
EINT
ER
ECONOMICS
ES
EMS
ENIV
EEB
EN
ECE
ECOSOC
EK
ENVIRONMENT
EFIS
EI
EWT
ENGRD
ECPSN
EXIM
EIAD
ERIN
ECPC
EDEV
ENGY
ECTRD
EPA
ESTH
ECCT
EINVECON
ENGR
ERTD
EUR
EAP
EWWC
ELTD
EL
EXIMOPIC
EXTERNAL
ETRDEC
ESCAP
ECO
EGAD
ELNT
ECONOMIC
ENV
ETRN
EIAR
EUMEM
ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID
EREL
ECOM
ECONETRDEAGRJA
ETCC
ETRG
ECONOMY
EMED
ETR
ENERG
EITC
EFINOECD
EURM
EENG
ERA
EXPORT
ENRD
ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC
EGEN
EBRD
EVIN
ETRAD
ECOWAS
EFTA
ECONETRDBESPAR
EGOVSY
EPIN
EID
ECONENRG
EDRC
ESENV
ETT
EB
ENER
ELTNSNAR
ECHEVARRIA
ETRC
EPIT
EDUC
ESA
EFI
ENRGY
ESCI
EE
EAIDXMXAXBXFFR
EETC
ECIP
EIAID
EIVN
EBEXP
ESTN
EING
EGOV
ETRA
EPETEIND
ELAN
ETRDGK
EAIDRW
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
EPEC
ENVI
ELN
EAG
EPCS
EPRT
EPTED
ETRB
EUM
EAIDS
EFIC
EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM
EAIDAR
ESF
EIDN
ELAM
EDU
EV
EAIDAF
ECN
EDA
EXBS
EINTECPS
ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ
EPREL
EAC
EINVEFIN
ETA
EAGER
EINDIR
ECA
ECLAC
ELAP
EITI
EUCOM
ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID
EARG
ELDIN
EINVKSCA
ENNP
EFINECONCS
EFINTS
ECCP
ETC
EAIRASECCASCID
EINN
ETRP
EAIDNI
EFQ
ECOQKPKO
EGPHUM
EBUD
ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ
ENERGY
ELB
EINDETRD
EMI
ECONEFIN
EIB
EURN
ETRDEINVTINTCS
EIN
EFIM
ETIO
ELAINE
EMN
EATO
EWTR
EIPR
EINVETC
ETTD
ETDR
EIQ
ECONCS
EPPD
ENRGIZ
EISL
ESPINOSA
ELEC
EAIG
ESLCO
EUREM
ENTG
ERD
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EEPET
EUNCH
ECINECONCS
ETRO
ETRDECONWTOCS
ECUN
EFND
EPECO
EAIRECONRP
ERGR
ETRDPGOV
ECPN
ENRGMO
EPWR
EET
EAIS
EAGRE
EDUARDO
EAGRRP
EAIDPHUMPRELUG
EICN
ECONQH
EVN
EGHG
ELBR
EINF
EAIDHO
EENV
ETEX
ERNG
ED
FR
FREEDOM
FINREF
FJ
FI
FRELIMO
FOREIGN
FAA
FETHI
FAS
FTAA
FRB
FAO
FCS
FINANCE
FWS
FTA
FEMA
FDA
FLU
FRANCISCO
FBI
FORCE
FO
FARC
FK
FT
FCSC
FAC
FM
FMGT
FINV
FCSCEG
FARM
FERNANDO
FINR
FIN
FINE
FIR
FDIC
FOR
FOI
FCUL
FKLU
FMLN
FISO
FIXED
GM
GMUS
GG
GR
GE
GAZA
GT
GH
GZ
GJ
GLOBAL
GV
GABY
GOI
GA
GCC
GB
GY
GATT
GC
GUAM
GEORGE
GTIP
GOV
GOMEZ
GUTIERREZ
GL
GKGIC
GF
GU
GWI
GARCIA
GTMO
GN
GANGS
GIPNC
GAERC
GREGG
GUILLERMO
GASPAR
GERARD
GI
HK
HR
HUMANR
HUMAN
HO
HA
HUMANRIGHTS
HU
HHS
HIV
HUM
HRKAWC
HILLEN
HILLARY
HDP
HUMRIT
HSTC
HUMANITARIAN
HCOPIL
HADLEY
HURI
HL
HRETRD
HOURANI
HG
HARRIET
HESHAM
HI
HNCHR
HARRY
HRECON
HRC
HOSTAGES
HEBRON
HUMOR
HSWG
HYMPSK
HECTOR
HN
HYDE
HUD
HRPGOV
HIGHLIGHTS
ID
ILC
IS
IZ
ICAO
IMO
ITU
IR
IAEA
ICRC
IPROP
IT
IBRD
ISRAELI
IRAQI
ISSUES
ITRA
IV
IO
IGAD
IRAQ
IN
IMF
ICTR
ISCON
IADB
IDB
IEA
INR
IWC
ICCAT
ILO
INMARSAT
IOM
ICJ
IQ
ISPA
ITRD
IPR
INTELSAT
ISN
IAHRC
INTERNAL
IFAD
IICA
IHO
IRAN
IL
IRCE
IC
INTELLECTUAL
IRM
IE
ICTY
IDLI
IFO
ISCA
INF
INL
ISRAEL
INV
IBB
INFLUENZA
ISPL
ITER
ITIA
INRA
ISAF
IACHR
INTERPOL
IFR
IRS
INRB
IEF
ISAAC
ICC
INDO
IIP
IATTC
INAUGURATION
IND
INS
IZPREL
IACI
IEFIN
INNP
ILAB
IA
IMTS
ITALY
ITALIAN
IFIN
IRAJ
IX
ICG
IF
ITPHUM
ITA
IP
IACW
IK
IUCN
IZEAID
IRPE
IDA
ISLAMISTS
ITF
INRO
IBET
IDP
IRC
ISO
ICES
IRMO
ITPGOV
IQNV
IMSO
IRDB
IMET
INCB
IFRC
JA
JO
JP
JM
JCIC
JOHN
JE
JEFFERY
JS
JUS
JN
JOHNNIE
JAMES
JKUS
JOSEPH
JML
JAWAD
JSRP
JIMENEZ
JOSE
JKJUS
JK
JAPAN
KMDR
KPAO
KPKO
KJUS
KCRM
KGHG
KFRD
KWMN
KDEM
KTFN
KHIV
KGIC
KIDE
KSCA
KNNP
KHUM
KIPR
KSUM
KISL
KIRF
KCOR
KRCM
KPAL
KWBG
KN
KS
KOMC
KSEP
KFLU
KPWR
KTIA
KSEO
KMPI
KHLS
KICC
KSTH
KMCA
KVPR
KPRM
KE
KU
KZ
KFLO
KSAF
KTIP
KTEX
KBCT
KOCI
KOLY
KOR
KAWC
KACT
KUNR
KTDB
KSTC
KLIG
KSKN
KNN
KCFE
KCIP
KGHA
KHDP
KPOW
KUNC
KDRL
KV
KPREL
KCRS
KPOL
KRVC
KRIM
KGIT
KWIR
KT
KIRC
KOMO
KRFD
KUWAIT
KG
KFIN
KSCI
KTFIN
KFTN
KGOV
KPRV
KSAC
KGIV
KCRIM
KPIR
KSOC
KBIO
KW
KGLB
KMWN
KPO
KFSC
KSEAO
KSTCPL
KSI
KPRP
KREC
KFPC
KUNH
KCSA
KMRS
KNDP
KR
KICCPUR
KPPAO
KCSY
KTBT
KCIS
KNEP
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KNNB
KGCC
KINR
KPOP
KMFO
KENV
KNAR
KVIR
KDRG
KDMR
KFCE
KNAO
KDEN
KGCN
KICA
KIMMITT
KMCC
KLFU
KMSG
KSEC
KUM
KCUL
KMNP
KSMT
KCOM
KOMCSG
KSPR
KPMI
KRAD
KIND
KCRP
KAUST
KWAWC
KTER
KCHG
KRDP
KPAS
KITA
KTSC
KPAOPREL
KWGB
KIRP
KJUST
KMIG
KLAB
KTFR
KSEI
KSTT
KAPO
KSTS
KLSO
KWNN
KPOA
KHSA
KNPP
KPAONZ
KBTS
KWWW
KY
KJRE
KPAOKMDRKE
KCRCM
KSCS
KWMNCI
KESO
KWUN
KPLS
KIIP
KEDEM
KPAOY
KRIF
KGICKS
KREF
KTRD
KFRDSOCIRO
KTAO
KJU
KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW
KEN
KO
KNEI
KEMR
KKIV
KEAI
KWAC
KRCIM
KWCI
KFIU
KWIC
KCORR
KOMS
KNNO
KPAI
KBWG
KTTB
KTBD
KTIALG
KILS
KFEM
KTDM
KESS
KNUC
KPA
KOMCCO
KCEM
KRCS
KWBGSY
KNPPIS
KNNPMNUC
KWN
KERG
KLTN
KALM
KCCP
KSUMPHUM
KREL
KGH
KLIP
KTLA
KAWK
KWMM
KVRP
KVRC
KAID
KSLG
KDEMK
KX
KIF
KNPR
KCFC
KFTFN
KTFM
KPDD
KCERS
KMOC
KDEMAF
KMEPI
KEMS
KDRM
KEPREL
KBTR
KEDU
KNP
KIRL
KNNR
KMPT
KISLPINR
KTPN
KA
KJUSTH
KPIN
KDEV
KTDD
KAKA
KFRP
KWNM
KTSD
KINL
KJUSKUNR
KWWMN
KECF
KWBC
KPRO
KVBL
KOM
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KEDM
KFLD
KLPM
KRGY
KNNF
KICR
KIFR
KM
KWMNCS
KAWS
KLAP
KPAK
KDDG
KCGC
KID
KNSD
KMPF
KPFO
KDP
KCMR
KRMS
KNPT
KNNNP
KTIAPARM
KDTB
KNUP
KPGOV
KNAP
KNNC
KUK
KSRE
KREISLER
KIVP
KQ
KTIAEUN
KPALAOIS
KRM
KISLAO
KWM
KFLOA
LE
LU
LH
LA
LG
LO
LY
LANTERN
LI
LABOR
LORAN
LTTE
LT
LAS
LAB
LAW
LVPR
LARREA
LEBIK
LAURA
LS
LOTT
LOVE
LR
LEON
LAVIN
LGAT
LV
LAOS
LOG
LN
LB
MOPS
MO
MARR
ML
MASS
MZ
MR
MNUC
MX
MV
MCC
MY
MEDIA
MTCRE
MG
MCAP
MOPPS
MP
MI
MK
MC
MD
MA
MU
MASC
MW
MT
MEPP
MN
MTCR
MH
MEPI
MIL
MNUCPTEREZ
MMAR
MICHAEL
MUNC
MDC
MPOS
MONUC
MAR
MGMT
MAS
MEPN
MENDIETA
MARIA
MONTENEGRO
MOOPS
MSG
MARITIME
MURRAY
MUKASEY
MOTO
MCA
MFO
MEX
MRSEC
MMED
MACP
MAAR
MINUSTAH
MCCONNELL
MAPP
MGT
MARQUEZ
MANUEL
MNUR
MCCAIN
MF
MOHAMMAD
MOHAMED
MNU
MFA
MILITANTS
MINORITIES
MTS
MLS
MILI
MIAH
MEETINGS
MERCOSUR
MED
MARAD
MNVC
MINURSO
MNUCUN
MIK
MARK
MBM
MPP
MILITARY
MAPS
MNUK
MILA
MTRRE
MACEDONIA
MICHEL
MASSMNUC
MUCN
MQADHAFI
MPS
MARRGH
MRCRE
MTRE
MORALES
MAP
MCTRE
MHUC
MOPSGRPARM
MOROCCO
MCAPS
NL
NU
NS
NI
NPT
NATO
NO
NG
NATEU
NSF
NZ
NAS
NP
NDP
NLD
NGO
NEPAD
NAFTA
NASA
NEA
NGUYEN
NIH
NK
NIPP
NONE
NR
NANCY
NEGROPONTE
NRR
NERG
NSSP
NSG
NSFO
NE
NATSIOS
NFSO
NATIONAL
NTDB
NT
NCD
NTSB
NRC
NELSON
NAM
NH
NPG
NEC
NSC
NFATC
NMFS
NATOIRAQ
NAR
NZUS
NARC
NCCC
NA
NC
NEW
NRG
NUIN
NOVO
NATOPREL
NEY
NV
NICHOLAS
NPA
NW
NARCOTICS
NORAD
NOAA
NON
NTTC
NKNNP
NMNUC
NUMBERING
ODIP
OIIP
OPRC
OSCE
OREP
OTRA
OPET
OSCI
OVIP
OECD
OCII
OUALI
OPDC
OEXC
OFPD
OPIC
OFDP
OPCW
OECV
OAS
OM
OMIG
ODAG
OPREP
ORA
OIC
OEXCSCULKPAO
OIG
OASS
OFFICIALS
ORTA
OSAC
OIL
OIE
OEXP
OPEC
OPDAT
OMS
OES
OHI
OMAR
OCRA
OFSO
OCBD
OSTA
OAO
ONA
OTP
ORC
OAU
OXEC
OA
ODPC
OPDP
OVIPPRELUNGANU
OASC
OSHA
OPCD
OTR
OPPI
OPCR
OF
OFDPQIS
OSIC
OHUM
OSTRA
OASCC
OBSP
OFDA
OPICEAGR
OIM
OGAC
OTA
OTRAORP
OPPC
OESC
OCEA
OVP
ON
OPAD
OTAR
OCS
ODC
OTRD
OCED
OSD
ORUE
OREG
PHUM
PINR
PTER
PGOV
PREL
PREF
PL
PM
PHSA
PE
PARM
PINS
PK
PUNE
PO
PALESTINIAN
PU
PBTS
PROP
PTBS
POL
POLI
PA
PGOVZI
POLMIL
POLITICAL
PARTIES
POLM
PD
POLITICS
POLICY
PAS
PMIL
PINT
PNAT
PV
PKO
PPOL
PERSONS
PING
PBIO
PH
PETR
PARMS
PRES
PCON
PETERS
PRELBR
PT
PLAB
PP
PAK
PDEM
PKPA
PSOCI
PF
PLO
PTERM
PJUS
PSOE
PELOSI
PROPERTY
PGOVPREL
PARP
PRL
PNIR
PHUMKPAL
PG
PREZ
PGIC
PBOV
PAO
PKK
PROV
PHSAK
PHUMPREL
PROTECTION
PGOVBL
PSI
PRELPK
PGOVENRG
PUM
PRELKPKO
PATTY
PSOC
PRIVATIZATION
PRELSP
PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ
PMIG
PREC
PAIGH
PROG
PSHA
PARK
PETER
POG
PHUS
PPREL
PS
PTERPREL
PRELPGOV
POV
PKPO
PGOVECON
POUS
PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN
PWBG
PMAR
PREM
PAR
PNR
PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO
PARMIR
PGOVGM
PHUH
PARTM
PN
PRE
PTE
PY
POLUN
PPEL
PDOV
PGOVSOCI
PIRF
PGOVPM
PBST
PRELEVU
PGOR
PBTSRU
PRM
PRELKPAOIZ
PGVO
PERL
PGOC
PAGR
PMIN
PHUMR
PVIP
PPD
PGV
PRAM
PINL
PKPAL
PTERE
PGOF
PINO
PHAS
PODC
PRHUM
PHUMA
PREO
PPA
PEPFAR
PGO
PRGOV
PAC
PRESL
PORG
PKFK
PEPR
PRELP
PREFA
PNG
PGOVPHUMKPAO
PRELECON
PINOCHET
PFOR
PGOVLO
PHUMBA
PRELC
PREK
PHUME
PHJM
POLINT
PGOVPZ
PGOVKCRM
PGOVE
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PECON
PEACE
PROCESS
PLN
PRELSW
PAHO
PEDRO
PRELA
PASS
PPAO
PGPV
PNUM
PCUL
PGGV
PSA
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PGIV
PRFE
POGOV
PEL
PBT
PAMQ
PINF
PSEPC
POSTS
PHUMPGOV
PVOV
PHSAPREL
PROLIFERATION
PENA
PRELTBIOBA
PIN
PRELL
PGOVPTER
PHAM
PHYTRP
PTEL
PTERPGOV
PHARM
PROTESTS
PRELAF
PKBL
PRELKPAO
PKNP
PARMP
PHUML
PFOV
PERM
PUOS
PRELGOV
PHUMPTER
PARAGRAPH
PERURENA
PBTSEWWT
PCI
PETROL
PINSO
PINSCE
PQL
PEREZ
PBS
RS
REFUGEES
RW
RP
RELFREE
RO
REGIONAL
RIGHTS
REACTION
REPORT
RU
RENAMO
RIGHTSPOLMIL
REFORM
RM
REFUGEE
REL
RELATIONS
ROW
RREL
REGION
RATIFICATION
RBI
RICE
ROOD
RODENAS
RUIZ
RODHAM
ROBERT
RGY
ROY
REUBEN
RELIGIOUS
RUEHZO
RODRIGUEZ
RUEUN
RELAM
RSP
RF
RSO
RCMP
REO
ROSS
RPTS
RENE
REID
RUPREL
RMA
RI
REMON
RPEL
RFE
RFIN
RA
RAFAEL
RAY
RUS
RPREL
ROBERTG
RECIN
RAMONTEIJELO
SNAR
SP
SN
SMIG
SL
SOCI
SU
SG
SF
SENV
SZ
SOE
SCUL
SY
SO
SR
SYR
SE
SA
SW
SIPDIS
SCIENCE
SADC
SI
SCI
SOCIETY
SC
SAARC
STR
SECRETARY
SANC
SSH
ST
SNA
SGWI
SEP
SOCIS
SETTLEMENTS
SPECIALIST
SK
SHUM
START
STET
SCVL
SREF
SCHUL
SCUIL
SYRIA
SECURITY
SPCE
SYAI
SMIL
SOWGC
STEPHEN
SNRV
SKCA
SENSITIVE
SECI
SNAP
SPP
SCUD
SOM
SPECI
SMIGBG
SENC
SCRM
SGNV
SECTOR
SENVEAGREAIDTBIOECONSOCIXR
SENVSXE
SASIAIN
SACU
SENVSPL
SWMN
STEINBERG
SOPN
SOCR
SCOI
SCRS
SILVASANDE
SWE
SARS
SNARIZ
SUDAN
SENVQGR
SM
SNARKTFN
SAAD
SD
SAN
SIPRNET
STATE
SENS
SUBJECT
SFNV
SECSTATE
SSA
SPCVIS
SOI
SOFA
SCULKPAOECONTU
SPTER
SKSAF
SENVKGHG
SHI
SEVN
SANR
SPSTATE
SMITH
SCOM
SH
SNARCS
SNARN
SIPRS
SNARM
SIPDI
SCPR
SNIG
SELAB
SULLIVAN
SENVENV
SECDEF
SOLIC
SOIC
SPAS
SASC
SOSI
SEC
SEN
SENVCASCEAIDID
TU
TH
TW
TSPA
TRGY
TPHY
TBIO
TIFA
TS
TZ
TX
TSPL
TT
TK
TC
TINT
TERFIN
TERRORISM
TIP
TURKEY
TI
TECHNOLOGY
TNGD
TRSY
TRAFFICKING
TOPEC
TPSL
TP
TD
TR
TA
TIO
TREATY
TO
THPY
TECH
TRADE
TPSA
TG
TAGS
TF
TRAD
THKSJA
TVBIO
TNDG
TN
TBIOZK
TWI
TV
TWL
TRT
TWRO
TSRY
TTPGOV
TAUSCHER
TRBY
TRBIO
TL
TPKO
TIA
TGRY
TSPAM
TREL
TNAR
TBI
TFIN
TPHYPA
TWCH
THOMMA
THOMAS
TERROR
TRY
TBID
TPP
TE
THANH
TJ
TBKIO
UNGA
USUN
UN
UG
UNSC
UK
UP
US
UNCTAD
UNVIE
UNHRC
USTR
UNAMA
UNCRIME
UNESCO
UV
UNDP
UNHCR
UNCSD
UNCHR
UZ
USAID
UNEP
UNO
UNPUOS
UY
UNDC
UNCITRAL
UNAUS
UNCND
UA
UNMIK
USTDA
USEU
USDA
UNICEF
UR
UNFICYP
USNC
USTRRP
UNODC
UNRWA
UNOMIG
USTRPS
USAU
USCC
UNEF
UNGAPL
UNFPA
UNSCE
USSC
UGA
UEU
UNMIC
UNTAC
UNION
UNCLASSIFIED
USPS
UNA
UMIK
USOAS
UNMOVIC
UNFA
UNAIDS
UNCHC
USGS
UNSE
UNRCR
UNTERR
USG
UE
UAE
UNWRA
UNCSW
UNSCR
UNCHS
UNDESCO
UNPAR
UNC
UB
UNSCS
UKXG
UNGACG
UNREST
UNHR
USPTO
UNFCYP
USCG
UNIDROIT
UNSCD
UPU
UNBRO
UNECE
USTRUWR
UNCC
UNESCOSCULPRELPHUMKPALCUIRXFVEKV
VM
VE
VT
VETTING
VN
VZ
VIS
VC
VTPREL
VIP
VTEAID
VTEG
VOA
VA
VTIZ
VANG
VISIT
VO
VENZ
VAT
VI
VEPREL
VEN
WFP
WTO
WHO
WTRO
WBG
WMO
WIPO
WA
WI
WSIS
WHA
WCL
WE
WMN
WEBZ
WS
WAR
WZ
WMD
WW
WILLIAM
WEET
WAEMU
WM
WWBG
WWT
WWARD
WITH
WMDT
WTRQ
WCO
WEU
WALTER
WRTO
WB
WHTI
WBEG
WCI
WEF
WAKI
WHOA
WGC
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