IPC MEETING ON UNESCO, NOVEMBER 21, 1984, 3:30 P.M.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 81
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 2, 2010
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: November 21, 1984
• Content Type: MEMO

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
United States Department of State
Washington, D. C. 20520
November 21, 1984
TO NSC Mr. Robert Kimmitt (8431924)
CIA -
USIA - Mr. C. William LaSalle (8431926)
Executive Registry
84-49SA
SUBJECT IPC Meeting on UNESCO, November 21, 1984, 3:30 p.m.
The second meeting of the IPC charged to evaluate reform in
UNESCO will be held in Room 7240, Main State, November 21,
1984, at 3:30 p.m. This meeting will continue the discussion
begun November 9 focusing on the degree to which reform has
been achieved in UNESCO and the post-withdrawal planning needs
as outlined by the Chairman. The proposed agenda is attached
(Tab A`.
The following background materials are provided for your
consideration:
- draft Executive Summary and Conclusions of UNESCO
Monitoring Panel (Tab B);
- State Department analysis of 1984 UNESCO reform efforts
(Tab C);
- recently expressed views of allies (Tab D);
- proposed UNESCO Alternatives Program (Tab E).
Additional materials may be provided subsequently as they
become available.
Co
Charles Pill
Executive Secretary
spepcHT
DECL:OADR
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL COMMITTEE (IPC)
UNESCO
November 21, 1984, 3:30 p.m.
Main State, Room 7240
1. Approval of Draft November 9 Minutes
2. Review of Additional Materials:
- Draft Monitoring Panel Executive
Summary and Conclusions
- UNESCO Reform Analysis
- Views of Allies
- UNESCO Alternatives Proposals
3. Post-Withdrawal Planning:
- Public Diplomacy (International
and Domestic)
- Future U.S. Relations with UNESCO
- Observer Mission
- Strategy to Encourage Reform
4. Third IPC Meeting Planning
CONFIDENTIAL
DECL:OADR
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
CONFIDENTiAL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This Panel has been charged by the Secretary of
State with the task of monitoring the changes, if any,
by UNESCO during 1984. We were asked to do so in the
light, particularly, of three fundamental concerns of
the United States: that the interests of minority
groups of countries be protected; that UNESCO return to
its original purposes as defined in its Constitution;
and that an appropriate balance between Western and
statist approaches be restored.
In summation: while there was considerable
discussion and some incremental movement in the
direction of these three fundamental concerns of
the U.S., there was no concrete change.
During 1984, as a result of the U.S. announcement
of its intention to withdraw, there was more talk of
reform in UNESCO then there had been for many years.
Some changes of an incremental nature were also made.
Some progress can be reported regarding U.S.
concerns in budgeting and management questions.
Follow-up and implementation have been recommended
but not yet institutionalized.
An open discussion of reform characterized
UNESCO meetings all during 1984, including the
Executive Board session in September-October.
Nevertheless, the Monitoring Panel was struck by
the diminished sense of urgency in these discussions
and their tentative nature.
Many of the concerns of the U.S. were discussed,
some were acted upon, and some were deferred. Some
basic concerns of the U.S. were acted upon positively:
-- agreement was achieved to recommend that the next
biennium budget be based on the present one (zero
budget growth).
CONFIDENTIAL
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
.y+ U JLN I IML
-- some U.S. concerns regarding management were
discussed. Some were approved in principle and
others were deferred. If such recommendations are
acted on and implemented, they should result in
concrete improvements in personnel recruitment,
career development, and a step in the right
direction toward the decentralization both of
the Organization and of decision-making within
the Secretariat.
-- the decision to prolong the life of the Board's
Temporary Committee (the chief vehicle for de-
liberation on reform at the intergovernmental
level) provides an opportunity for changes agreed
to by the Board to be monitored.
-- distribution of the General Accounting Office
report, together with the Director General's
extensive comments on it to Board members, may
lead to further review of management issues and
may strengthen the process.
In response to Western insistence on reform, some
difference in attitude on the part of Member States
and the Secretariat became apparent during 1984.
Under the UNESCO Constitution, some U.S. proposals
involving long-range and far-reaching change can be
acted on definitively only by the General Conference
in 1985. That the Executive Board made no recom-
mendations to the General Conference on these long-
range and far-reaching proposals is disappointing.
Many U.S. concerns were not acted on in
satisfactory fashion:
-- returning UNESCO to its core of constitutionally
mandated programs, implying a de-emphasizing of
politicized program elements, was addressed and
acted on only obliquely.
-- efforts to make the Secretariat of UNESCO an
impartial body and not an advocate for a
particular point of view were unsuccessful.
-- efforts to involve the private sector met with
very little positive response.
-- proposals for measures and mechanisms to protect
minority interests on key program and budget
issues were not received favorably nor acted upon.
'J~I i1
rl(t IJLNT'AL
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
-- proposals to re-establish the original relation-
ships between Member States, the intergovernmental
bodies and the Secretariat were acted on to a
degree. However, concrete and permanent mechanisms
to perpetuate and institutionalize atttitudinal
changes manifest during the year were not put in
place.
The Western Group exhibited considerable activity
and productivity in 1984. Common positions were
established on many issues. These positions empha-
sized primarily procedural and operational rather than
fundamental reform.
The developing countries caucus (the Group of 77
and the Non-Aligned Movement) in UNESCO accepted the
idea of the need for change with reservations although
there were important individual member exceptions.
The gradual acceptance of the U.S. seriousness of
purpose provided the basis for a thorough-going
exchange on a whole range of issues involving reform
put before the Board. Most developing countries
resisted fundamental, structural proposals, such as
those implying giving added weight to the voice of the
minority group of countries contributing the major
share of financial resources, or the creation of
limited-membership subcommittees whose purpose would
be to consider and if necessary, temporarily shelve
especially contentious, complex issues not considered
ripe for decision by the Board or the General
Conference.
The Soviet Union actively sought to undermine the
reform process calling into question the "real" motives
of those states proposing reform.
The Secretariat, which openly sides with develop-
ing states on most issues, continued to do so in 1984.
It displayed somewhat more inclination to heed the
Western views amd positions and to reflect sensitivity
to them. Much remains to be done, however, to restore
impartiality to the Organization's Secretariat.
[UNFJDENIIAL
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Overview of UNESCO Reform Efforts During 1984
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During 1984, the U.S. made a concerted effort, with our allies,
to bring about the kind of concrete, substantial and
deep-seated reform in UNESCO that we suggested was necessary
when we announced our withdrawal from the Organization last
December. We indicated at the time that such reform was the
sine qua non of any Presidential reconsideration of the U.S.
withdrawal decision. At the direction of the President, a blue
ribbon Monitoring Panel was assembled to survey UNESCO reform
developments during 1984.
The United States has, then, both promoted UNESCO reform and
watched for any evidence of UNESCO reform. The attached
document, Overview of Reform Results for 1984, catalogues
reform results this year. It does not duplicate the findings
of the Monitoring Panel. It is both an assessment of results
and a detailed description of our efforts to effect change.
Our efforts began early this year with the creation of a
Western reform group comprising the 24-nation Western
Information Group (IG), chaired by Ambassador Mourik of the
Netherlands. This group fed proposals to the UNESCO Executive
Board's 13-nation Temporary Committee on reform (TC). The TC's
reform proposals, as well as further specific reform proposals
advanced by the U.S., were considered at the fall session of
the UNESCO Executive Board, which approved the TC
recommendations and endorsed other changes put forward by the
Director General, but did not accept the U.S. proposals. The
basic thrust of our DR's was to build on recommendations that
the TC had already made.
Reform efforts this year can be summarized under the five
categories contained in the letter sent by Assistant Secretary
Newell to the Director General on July 13, 1984:
Safeguarding Minority Group Interests
One of our major objectives this year has been to devise a way
to protect minority group interests in UNESCO by reducing or
eliminating the possibility that major decisions could be taken
against the will of any geographic group, including the Western
group. We proposed a permanent drafting and negotiating group
(DNG) for the Executive Board to handle, and hopefully defuse,
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
contentious issues, a tightened DNG for the General Conference,
passage of a budget only with the support of members together
contributing over half the funds, and, as an evolution of the
last proposal, one calling for approval of the program and
budget recommendation by the Executive Board to the General
Conference by at least 85% of the Board. These were all
designed to ensure that, in major matters, the West was not put
in the position of having to agree to proposals with which we
fundamentally disagreed, while providing the same safeguard to
other geographic groups.
Our proposals were considered by the Temporary Committee, which
dealt at some length with the problem we had raised by urging
that all efforts be made to arrive at genuine consensus. It
did not, however, recommend mechanisms for doing so. When we
proposed two such mechanisms at the Executive Board, they
received no support.
II. Program Concentration and Depoliticization
Our criticisms of UNESCO's program focused on politicization, a
statist approach, and lack of program concentration. Some
progress was made in these areas at the Executive Board, with
some more constructive emphases having been suggested, some
contentious language having been eliminated, and some
guidelines for better concentration having been endorsed.
Nonetheless, the program guidelines are generally ambiguous
enough to allow for a variety of outcomes when the next
biennial program is finally assembled next year; and,
significantly, the Board did not recommend that any activities
be eliminated, as we had hoped, and called for reductions only
by inference, i.e., by recommending that certain competing
activities be given priority attention. This approach having
been taken, it is difficult at this point to predict the degree
to which our concerns will eventually be given effect.
III. Strengthening the Authority of UNESCO's Member Bodies
A major Western effort in 1984 has been to bring about a
reassertion of the authority of UNESCO's membership vis-a-vis
the Secretariat via a strengthening of the General Conference
and Executive Board. After making a number of minor but
constructive suggestions in this regard, the Board also made
recommendations for increasing the members' role in the
elaborating of the program. If followed through, these
represent progress. At the same time, we made several modest
proposals in this area during the year and at the fall Board
which were not accepted.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
IV. Management
We have long criticized UNESCO's management, and our concerns
were echoed and amplified in the draft GAO report that was
issued in September. The Director General made a number of
suggestions for improvement in the areas of personnel,
evaluation, and decentralization, which were endorsed at the
fall Board. The TC also made recommendations. We felt these
represented some progress but should go farther, and made
proposals in this regard at the fall Board, none of which were
passed. Our general complaint was that most management changes
lacked implementing mechanisms. These are to be supplied by
the reconstituted TC, whose work in this regard we await.
V. Budget
The Board's recommendation of a zero growth budget was perhaps
UNESCO's single most encouraging step in our direction
(although this advance was somewhat attenuated by a Third World
amendment which could conceivably have the effect of increasing
the budget later). Moreover, some non-discretionary costs were
absorbed in the regular budget and the Director General
appeared to indicate, by his silence, that he would absorb
other such costs as well.
In conclusion, the record indicates that, looked at in light of
UNESCO's own past performance, some improvement occurred.
Looked at, however, in light of the concerns we expressed last
December and the reform that would have been necessary to
satisfy those concerns, a large gap remains.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Overview of UNESCO Reform Results for 1984
An evaluation of reform in UNESCO in 1984 as it relates to U.S.
interests must be seen against the backdrop of our reasons for
withdrawal, the general concerns we expressed, and the reform
proposals we and others advanced during the year. Although we
refrained, as a matter of policy, from presenting UNESCO with a
list of conditions for a reconsideration of our decision, we
mounted a strong effort, starting early in the year, to gain
improvements in every area we had criticized. We were
instrumental, first of all, in launching the Western reform
group chaired by Ambassador Mourik, which sent the Director
General a strong letter in March describing areas needing
improvement and which became the West's vehicle for elaborating
reform proposals to be fed into the Executive Board's Temporary
Committee (TC) on reform, created at the spring (119th)
session. Secondly, we ourselves submitted a number of specific
reform proposals, both within the Western Information group
(IG) and at the Board's fall (120th) session.
Our contributions were made at several points. Secretary
Shultz's letter of December 29, 1983, described our concerns in
general terms. Our first specific proposals, comprising 11
items, were presented to Ambassador Mourik on March 1, and to
the Western Group March 5 (Paris 08713). The Western Group's
letter to the Director General of March 15, the product of a
common effort, also reflected our ideas. As of early April,
our proposals had been further refined by the Western Group to
a list of some 12 reforms (Paris 13003), which together
represented the most significant reforms which the U.S.
espoused. A number of these were suited to the agenda of the
spring Executive Board session, and were discussed there. (The
Western statements made at the Board formed the most
comprehensive body of raw material subsequently considered by
the TC.) Following the Board and in preparation for the TC, 13
specific U.S proposals were put forward. These in turn were
further discussed in the more formal statement of U.S. policy
which constitutes Mr. Newell's July 13 letter to the Director
General. This letter divided our concerns into five areas and
contained some specific suggestions -- generally reiterations
of, or variations upon, proposals made earlier. During the TC
sessions in July and September, we and others in our group fed
in our views to the TC via the UK, France, Iceland and Japan,
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
who were TC members. Finally, during the 120th Executive Board
in September/October, we submitted proposals in the form of
draft resolutions (DRs), formal statements, and detailed policy
initiatives while representing (with Iceland) the interests of
the Western Group in the drafting committee on the 1986-87
program and budget. Our draft resolutions sought to address
the concerns we had already expressed, with due account taken
of actions already undertaken by the TC and/or the Director
General.
Concurrently with, and resulting from, the heightened
consciousness of the need for fundamental reform which the U.S.
action had instilled in the Western Group, a number of key
Western nations addressed separate policy statements to the
Director General calling for reform, normally in the form of
letters from responsible ministers on behalf of their
Governments. Such statements were made by the UK, the
Netherlands, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Italy, Denmark,
Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland; similar views were
expressed orally by the FRG.
The purpose of this paper is to describe what reform has
occurred this year against the concerns we expressed and the
proposals we put forward. Our discussion will also include
mention of any progress or decline that may have occurred apart
from our proposals. Although not all of our proposals are
contained in Mr. Newell's July 13 letter, its five categories
of major concerns are comprehensive enough to embody all our
suggestions and we shall, therefore, use those categories to
order the discussion that follows.
I. Minority Group Interests/Strengthening Consensus
One of our major objectives this year has been to devise a way
to protect minority group interests in UNESCO by reducing or
eliminating the possibility that major decisions could be taken
against the will of any geographic group, including the Western
Group. Our initial suggestions contained a call for the
establishment of a permanent Executive Board drafting and
negotiating group (DNG) to consider proposals likely to divert
program activity to political purposes, and which would not
report an issue back to the Board except unanimously. We also
called for the passage of a budget (at the General Conference)
only with the support of members who together contributed a
large percentage, say 51 percent, of the funds. Mr. Newell's
letter, after describing this issue and our general objectives,
called for the introduction of a requirement for unanimity in
the DNG of the General Conference, the establishment of such a
DNG for the Executive Board, and the 51 percent requirement for
the budget as described above.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
At the 120th Executive Board, we formulated two proposals in
this area. The first (DR 16) called for the Board to entrust
complex program items to the Special Committee at the request
of five or more members, and for any such items to be postponed
to the Board's next session in the absence of agreement on a
recommendation on how to handle them. This DR was an attempt
to build upon what the TC had recommended, i.e., that the
Executive Board be able to entrust to its Special Committee
certain complex issues which required in-depth consideration
(TC recommendation B-14), and in response to discussions at the
Board within the Western Group.
Our second proposal called for approval of the program and
budget recommendation to the General Conference by at least
85 percent of the Executive Board membership. This was an
evolution of our earlier 51 percent proposal, which had been
criticized, among other things, for in effect giving voting
power to member states based upon the size of their assessed
contribution.
Outcome
The TC did not take up our suggestion of having the DNG of the
General Conference work on the basis of unanimity among
geographic groups, nor did it recommend establishing such a
mechanism for the Executive Board. Key Western Group members
considered that the de facto veto that this provision would
give the West could eventually work against us since it would
also be available to other groups including the Soviets -- a
consideration that led us to reformulate this proposal for the
fall Executive Board (see below).
Instead, the TC reaffirmed the importance of consensus and said
that, in its absence, a vote would be preferable to adoption of
a text based on ambiguity (TC recommendation C-6). At the same
time, the TC attempted to grapple with our concerns by calling
for the provision of "increased opportunities for consultation
among member states" (C-8) with a view to doing everything
possible to reach real agreement. Moreover, the TC said that
the Executive Board could "entrust to its Special Committee
certain complex issues which required in-depth consideration"
(B-14). This went in the direction of what we wanted, but with
the disadvantage that a referral to the Special Committee would
have to be made by the entire Board, whether explicitly or
tacitly, and thus would not necessarily constitute protection
for minority interests.
As far as our 51 percent budget voting proposal was concerned,
the TC did not recommend it. It did, however, recognize the
importance of genuine agreement in this area by saying that it
would be "highly desira = nvAeLryUfort to ensure that
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
the program and budget of the Organization are, as far as
possible, adopted by consensus" (C-8).
At the Executive Board, we again brought up proposals in both
these areas, as described above. Our proposal for an 85
percent program and budget recommendation vote, the most
far-reaching at the Board, ran into entrenched opposition, both
substantive and procedural, and was eventually not formally
submitted. The Third World saw it as a demand for a radical
change in the balance of power that could serve as a model for
similar changes throughout the UN system, and suspected it was
being offered in the certainty that it would be refused. Our
allies also reacted strongly, saying they agreed with our aim
but that more time and preparation were needed if we were to
succeed.
Our proposal for strengthening consensus (DR 16) was formally
submitted and extensively debated. The reaction was
exclusively hostile. In the end, satisfied that our proposal
had had a hearing, we acceded to a request to postpone its
consideration until the next Executive Board session.
Looking at the year as a whole, we can say that our concerns
were considered and some progress was made. The TC report and
recommendations give increased importance to reaching genuine
consensus (i.e., a "no objection" form of approval), and even
provide a new procedure, albeit inadequate, for handling
contentious issues via referral to the Executive Board's
Special Committee. If current practice is followed, this would
mean an automatic six-month delay in discussion of such
issues. Moreover, we have heightened UNESCO's sensitivity to
the need to grapple with the consensus problem, which will be
considered again at the Board's next session. One might
consider the degree of agreement on Mideast questions at the
120th Board, which observers say was the least contentious in
memory in this regard, as well as the agreement on a zero
growth budget (see below), as concrete recognition of the
importance of genuine consensus.
At the same time, it is equally true that we did not achieve
our objectives -- new procedures to safeguard minority group
interests including a budget voting procedure which would
prevent the large donors from having to accept a budget they
considered excessive.
II. Program Concentration and De politicization
U.S. criticisms of UNESCO's program have focused on
politicization, a statist approach, and lack of program
concentration.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Prime examples of politicization in the program are the
propagation of simplistic and unbalanced views on disarmament,
support for so-called national liberation movements, and
selectivity in attacking discrimination.
We have also objected to UNESCO's statist philosophy and
approach. While we see a role for the state in addressing
social and economic problems, we object to UNESCO'S tendency to
inflate the state's role in areas like free flow of
information, development and international trade, and its
tendency to propagate biases against the private sector. We
also object to the push for equal treatment of collective or
"people's" rights and individual human rights to the possible
derogation of the latter.
As for program concentration, we have emphasized the need to
concentrate on activities supported by all member states, to
stress practical activities as opposed to studies and
theorizing, to factor in review and assessment results, and to
include program options so members can make their own choices.
To address these problems, we introduced at the spring
Executive Board a DR calling for a return to UNESCO's core
areas. Subsequently, we replied to the Director General's call
for advice on the next program and budget with a detailed set
of recommendations, by sub-program, that included
recommendations on activities to be enhanced, maintained,
reduced or eliminated. Meanwhile, within the Western Group, we
urged "agreement on concentration of resources in those core
areas whose central importance is universally recognized, and
where the will for international action truly exists."
Finally, at the 120th Executive Board, we were on the ad hoc
working group, which drafted the guidelines for the 1986-87
program and budget, and we attempted to have our language on
concentration included.
Meanwhile, the IG, with ourselves as a participant, was
addressing the program concentration and prioritization issues
through a subgroup chaired by Lennart Watz of Sweden. The IG
fed into the TC a number of recommendations, the most important
of which are mentioned in the "Outcome" section below.
Finally, the Director General formed a working group on the
program, comprising UNESCO staff members, which made a number
of suggestions, some of which were incorporated into the DG's
proposals on the next program. After an initial hesitation,
the DG finally released the working group's report to the Board.
Program issues were addressed at the Executive Board's spring
session, in the TC recgmuwfQbt ~dYiffcql at the fall
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
session, and in the program and budget omnibus resolution
drafted and approved at the fall session.
The Executive Board's spring session dealt with, but did not
accept, the Western DR calling for a return to "core areas."
This proposal was rejected by a number of speakers in plenary
debate, and would have been defeated in a vote. At the last
moment, the Director General intervened to suggest the question
not be acted upon but given to the newly-constituted TC and
raised at the next Board session.
To assess the TC recommendations, it will be useful to review
them in the light of the most important of the IG suggestions,
which are underlined (and abbreviated for easier presentation).
-- Effective program concentration must continue to be a major
aim. TC recommendation E 1 5 "stresses the need...to pursue
vigorously efforts to increase program concentration ...by
grouping together related activities...[and] by seeking to
reduce the number of sub-programs and in particular of program
actions within sub-programs...." E(1)(6) "considers
furthermore that progress in this regard should be reported,
for example, in the introduction to the draft program and
budget."
Resources should shift from programs not supported by a
signficant number of states toward those to which all accord
high priority. TC Provision E 1) 8 recommends that the
General Conference use "degree of support" as one of the
criteria for determining sub-programs' and projects' degree of
priority.
-- The DG should rank order sub-programs in his draft
presentation to the Executive Board, using as ;T-basis his prior
consultations with members and views expressed at the preceding
General Conference. The TC did not make a recommendation in
this regard directly involving the Director General.
Provisions E(1)(7) and (8), however, without calling
specifically for rank ordering, recommend that the Executive
Board and General Conference both indicate the degree of
priority to be attached to sub-programs and projects.
-- Using the Director General's presentation, the Executive
Board should identify sub-programs to be given increased
funding, to be left the same, and to be reduced or
discontinued. Aside from its provisions on prioritization
(above), the TC did not address this recommendation.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
-- There should be fewer studies and they should be of more
relevance to the pro ram. This is addressed, by implication,
in provision E 1 8 , which lists criteria for prioritization
of projects as "urgency, usefulness, degree of support, and
efficacy." Provision E(2)(3) says attention should be paid to
studies in the context of their content, timetable, frequency,
complementary features and cost.
-- The Secretariat should present draft criteria for selecting
forms of action, to be considered by the Executive Board in
1985, approved at the 1985 General Conference, and used to
implement the 1986/87 program and to prepare the 1988/89
program. Provision E 1 12 "considers that clear criteria for
the selection of the most appropriate activities should be
drawn up...and that these criteria should, in so far as
possible, be taken into account in preparing future draft
programs."
-- The Board should reaffirm the decision of the 113th Session
that UNESCO standard-setting activities should concentrate on
areas in which consensus appears possible and the need for
universal norms is widely felt in the international community.
The TC did not address this recommendation.
As for action at the Board itself, the Board's recommendation
to the Director General on the 1986-87 program are set forth in
a long omnibus resolution that constitutes a set of broad
guidelines for the Director General to follow as he puts
together the next program. These guidelines represent some
progress from our point of view, although they also fail
adequately to address some program orientations we find
objectionable (see below for specifics). On a general level,
the Board's recommendations, although not exactly comparable to
previous such guidelines, differ from them in four respects.
First, they recognize the need to divert resources from
contentious activities by instructing the Director General "to
give particular attention to those activities which have been
shown to have a high degree of urgency, usefulness, efficiency,
and support" -- an echo of the TC provision noted above.
Although this concern has been expressed many times in official
statements, it has never been made an operational guideline.
Second, these guidelines are less political and ideological in
their approach. Earlier recommendations contained repeated
references to world orders (e.g., NIEO, NWICO) as the driving
forces behind most of UNESCO's activities. The 120th Executive
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Board resolution makes only one such reference -- to the New
World Information and Communication Order, which it defines as
an evolving concept - a.definition we favor. Nor, for the
first time, is there any reference to national liberation
movements. This does not mean these activities will
necessarily fade away. It does mean that those seeking to
insert such considerations into the 1986-87 program will not be
able to harken back to the Executive Board's guidelines for
justification.
Third, the guidelines give more emphasis to program management
by stressing the need for evaluation or reassessment of certain
activities, particularly intergovernmental conferences (in the
fields of science/technology and education) and periodical
publications (e.g., Impact). Previous resolutions have tended
to be incremental in nature, i.e., to ratify, or build
uncritically upon, the existing program, with little or no
concern for what might or might not be working well.
Fourth, and for the first time, the recommendations in several
cases include choices among various program options.
What the Board did not do was to act upon the Nordic resolution
calling for the categorization of programs according to their
degree of support, including eliminations. This was originally
a U.S. idea, and we strongly supported the Nordic initiative.
The proposal, however, was given short shrift at the Board, and
the Icelander who introduced it said he reserved his right to
bring it up again at the next stage in the cycle, the 121st
Board Session. The Nordics, who have pushed for program
prioritization and concentration since 1968, were quite bitter
about the non-consideration of their DR.
What follows is a closer look at what the omnibus resolution
had to say regarding the Major Programs, or aspects thereof, of
which we have been particularly critical. For comparative
purposes, we call attention in the discussion to the guidelines
formulated at the 108th Executive Board.
A. Major Pro ram I: Reflections on World Problems and Future
Oriented Studies
Although we understand the necessity of projecting the course
of future UNESCO program activities, we have criticized Major
Program I as too theoretical, costly, grandiose in scope, and
duplicative of existing studies. We requested in our
suggestions to the Director General on the Program that future
studies be focused within program sectors as integral parts of
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
the planning of each sector, and that Major Program I be
eliminated.
Outcome
The 120th Executive Board, to which the Director General
offered three options in deciding how to proceed with Major
Program I, endorsed the Program's continuation. In so doing,
the Board clearly rejected the U.S. preference.
B. Major Programs II, IV and V: The Education Sector
U.S. criticism of UNESCO's education activities has not been
major, with the important exception of our objection to the
politicization of certain of them. This politicization has
taken the form of education assistance through national
liberation movements and the introduction of political bias
into some education program content. UNESCO has engaged in the
education of "key personnel" of national liberation movements,
including the PLO. UNESCO assistance, in cooperation with
UNDP, to Afghanistan regarding a teacher training program
staffed exclusively by Soviets constitutes blatant political
abuse of a UNESCO program. Similar criticism can be directed
at programs which link directly to education such emotive
political issues as disarmament, government control of the
media, and collective rights which could undermine those of the
individual.
In Major Program V of the education sector, the U.S. placed
high priority on two programs: teaching of science and
technology, and vocational and technical education. We
objected to this Program's references to disarmament, the
media, and the "rights of peoples," as well as to its emphasis
on higher education for the needs of society as opposed to the
needs of individuals.
The 120th Executive Board's recommendations show some
responsiveness to U.S. concerns. While the recommendations of
the 108th Executive Board put education at the service of some
external goal -- peace, disarmament, international
understanding -- and involved assistance to national liberation
movements, these themes are notably absent from the current
recommendations. The 120th Executive Board also suggested a
shift toward pragmatic programs and the amalgamation and
deferral of certain activities.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Moreover, the current guidelines reflect U.S. priorities, e.g.,
the training of literacy and primary school teachers; the
training of educational planners and school administrators; the
teaching of science and technology; and vocational and
technical education. The guidelines did not recommend a
ministerial level conference on physical education and sport
(opposed by the U.S.), but instead deferred that decision to
the General Conference.
C. Major Program III: Communication in the Service of Man
This chapter's objective has for some years been to establish
an as yet not fully defined New World Information and
Communication Order (NWICO). Certain aspects of the NWICO
concept as elaborated in UNESCO threaten the free flow of
information and promote statist approaches in the
communications area that could lead to internationally approved
codes and standard-setting for communicators, including the
licensing of journalists and the ascription of
"responsibilities" to the media. UNESCO's adoption of the
Soviet-sponsored Mass Media Declaration in 1978 helped feed
Western concern that the communications program was
antithetical to Western interests. Although the West purged
the initial draft of its most objectionable paragraphs, which
would have instituted state controls on the media, and
introduced new language promoting the free flow of information,
the Soviets continue to press for the implementation of the
kind of anti-free press measures which they claim the
Declaration legitimizes. Concentration on NWICO issues,
through theoretical studies and other activities, also detracts
from needed action programs, such as training. Priority should
be given to practical communications programs of direct benefit
to the developing countries, and contentious programs should be
de-emphasized and their resources re-allocated.
Outcome
The Board's recommendations indicate some progress in our areas
of concern; however, several of the major recommendations are
ambiguous and could be consistent with various outcomes.
Paragraph 24 of the Executive Board's program guidelines is
equivocal. On the one hand it recommends that "high priority"
be given to program 111.3 (Development of Communication), the
approach we strongly recommended. The same paragraph, however,
also recommends maintaining the "present structure and balance"
of major program III, of which program 111.3 is a part. The
latter phrase appears to contradict, and therefore confuses,
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
what could have been a clearcut guideline for constructive
change.
Paragraph 25 of the guidelines calls for the research done at
UNESCO and elsewhere related to the democratization of
communication, access to and participation in communications,
and the right to communicate to be collected and its
conclusions analysed. We have protested these activities as
encouraging interference in the prerogatives of editors and
publishers or as extending rights that go beyond Article 19 of
the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Rather than
emphasizing new programs or initiatives on these themes, the
Executive Board recommends UNESCO focus on collating the work
already accomplished and on analyzing its conclusions. It is
not clear yet whether this is a temporary cessation only, or
whether it could result in re-evaluation and reordering of such
activities. It is a hopeful step as far as it goes.
This same paragraph reaffirms the idea of the NWICO as "an
evolving and continuous process," a concept we have long
advocated.
Paragraph 26, on UNESCO's role in matters relating to the
working conditions of communicators, indicates that UNESCO's
involvement in these matters should be limited to supporting
the initiatives of professional associations. This language
supports the U.S. view that such matters as ethical codes and
measures for journalists' "protection" should be left to
communicators themselves. (It should be noted that UNESCO's
involvement in helping to plan and finance the 1985 Mexico City
conference on working conditions for journalists seems to have
lessened, in part in reaction to Western protests that such
activity exacerbates Western concerns that UNESCO is promoting
anti-free press activities.)
Paragraph 28, which attaches special importance to Program
111.3 and the International Program for the Development of
Communications (IPDC), puts a welcome emphasis on training and
lends needed administrative support to the IPDC.
Paragraph 27 continues the implementation of the Mass Media
Declaration (although it does not put "special emphasis" on the
follow-up to the media declaration as did similar guidelines at
the 108th Executive Board). Such activities could lead to
actions which would impose state controls on the media.
In general, the guidelines on Major Program III include some
encouraging changes in emphasis raising the possiblity of
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
constructive changes in practice. The stress on Major Program
111.3., for example, is one positive step. The most
contentious components of the Program (paras. 25, 26 and 27),
however, remain. It will take careful follow-up of these
guidelines, leading to the reduction or elimination of these
objectionable activities, to produce a communication program
broadly in line with U.S. interests.
D. Major Program VIII: Principles, Methods and Strategies of
Action for Development
The U.S. has recommended that this Program be substantially
reduced, primarily because it has evolved into an effort to
emphasize state planning in the development process and exclude
the private sector. The Program challenges the role of free
enterprise, and indicts transnational coporations as
detrimental to development.
Outcome
The Board's resolution responds to some of our concerns. It
calls for closer coordination between the Program and the work
of other UN agencies, the creation of pilot projects, and
priority to be given to training personnel to strengthen
members states' development planning and evaluation
capacities. The recommendation makes no reference to the role
of private enterprise. This does not necessarily mean that the
1986-87 draft program, when it appears, will treat the private
sector in a way we would wish.
E. Major Program XII: The Elimination of Prejudice,
Intolerance, Racism and Apartheid
Our principal criticism of this Program has been its
concentration on racism and apartheid, with only incidental
attention paid to discrimination based on other grounds. We
have advocated the specific inclusion of discrimination based
on ethnic, religious and political grounds in all programs to
combat prejudice and intolerance.
We have also advocated the diversion of resources away from
unduly theoretical activities that are unlikely to have any
real effect in eliminating prejudice, to action-oriented
programs of direct practical benefit.
We have called for the elimination of Sub-program XII.3.4,
"Cooperation with the National Liberation Movements Recognized
by the Organization of African Unity," which endeavors to
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
improve the means of information and communication at the
disposal of national liberation movements, and provides
financial contributions for the organization of scientific
meetings to influence public opinion on their behalf.
Finally, we opposed a suggestion that Major Program XII should
be merged with Major Program XIII, which addresses the wider
field of Peace, International Understanding, Human Rights and
the Rights of Peoples.
The Board's guidelines say that Major Program XII's activities
should be expanded to cover all forms of discrimination. This
is particularly gratifying in view of the Director General's
1983 refusal to recommend this course of action on the
reasoning that prejudice and intolerance on grounds other than
racism are implicit in the Program and need not be addressed
specifically. It is important that this decision now be
followed up to ensure that it results in concrete program
activities.
The recommendation to regroup Sub-program XII.l.l ("Study of
the theoretical and ideological bases of prejudice, intolerance
and racism") and Sub-program XII.1.3 ("Research on policies,
institutions and practices conducive to intolerance and
racism") with a view to ensuring the unity of theoretical
studies and applied research appears to indicate that our
criticism of vague and impractical programs is being
addressed. A further recommendation to regroup the four
sub-programs of Program XII.2 is also a positive step. (We
recommended that two of these programs be eliminated and two be
curtailed.) It remains to be seen how closely the final
re-grouping resembles our recommendation.
We are pleased that Major Program XII will retain its integrity
and present structure. We have no objection to the
recommendation that its activities be coordinated with those of
Major Program XIII.
Major Program XII.3 includes programs to combat racism and
apartheid which we favor, as well as Sub-program XII.3.4,
"Cooperation with the National Liberation Movements."
Initially, the Executive Board's guidelines in this area read:
"[the Executive Board] considers it particularly necessary that
in the light of the vocal attention given to this item the
activities forming part of the struggle against apartheid
(Program XII.3) should be continued in view of UNESCO's
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
specific role in that field." The final draft reads only:
"Considers that the need to combat apartheid be given vocal
attention (Program XII.3)." This appears to be an attempt to
soften a failure to accommodate our objection to Sub-program
XII.3.4.
F. Major Program XIII: Peace, International Understanding,
Human Rights and the Rights of Peoples
We have opposed studies and discussions of disarmament, the
arms race, and the danger of nuclear war, as well as their
alleged effect on development, which have been inserted into
Major Program XIII projects dealing with other issues. While
the pursuit of peace is a concern of UNESCO, we have insisted
that UNESCO should contribute to peace through its activities
in education, science, culture, and communication. Our IG
colleagues were virtually unanimous in their opposition to the
same projects we oppose, particularly to Sub-program XIII.1.2.
Our principal aims for Major Program XIII have included
emphasizing the importance of fundamental human rights that are
universally recognized and opposing the elevation to equal
status of undefined and vague ideas such as the right to
development and other "rights of peoples."
While we have advocated effective programs for the teaching of
human rights and for the development of international
understanding, we have opposed the use of education and the
media for purposes of political indoctrination.
We have supported the continuance of the Committee on
Conventions and Recommendations procedures for receiving and
examining complaints of human rights violations within UNESCO's
sphere of competence.
We have been strong supporters of the program for the
elimination of discrimination based on sex.
The Executive Board guidelines state that, in the activities of
two of the four programs which comprise Major Program XIII,
prominence should be given to exchanges of information and the
preparation of synoptic studies concerning work done by various
outside groups on research concerning peace, conflicts,
disarmament, threats of war, especially nuclear war, human
rights and the rights of peoples, and to the promotion of
research capacities in these areas (para. 86). This could be
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
seen as a refusal to drop activities we consider extraneous and
disruptive. At the same time, it appears to constitute an
effort to confine UNESCO's activity in those areas to a review
of work done by others, a step in the right direction.
In paragraph 87, the resolution urges continued close
cooperation and coordination with the UN, particularly with its
Department of Disarmament Affairs and the UN Institute for
Disarmament Research. We have insisted that disarmament as
such is outside the scope of UNESCO, and within the proper
domain of the UN. While this paragraph could be a reassertion
of UNESCO's determination to deal with disarmament, it could
also represent an effort to set the stage for sending
disarmament matters to an agency that is expressly set up to
deal with them.
In recognizing the role that the social and human sciences can
play in the elucidation of the relations between human rights
and the rights of peoples (para. 88), the resolution appears to
accept our insistence that a distinction should be made between
them, and that the rights of peoples should be defined. This
paragraph also draws attention to Sub-program XIII.2.2, the
Effective Exercise of Human Rights in Specific Social and
Economic Conditions, which we support strongly. However, its
wording is sufficiently general to allow for a broad range of
consequences, to the extent that the endeavor should be watched
closely in the future.
Provision is made for the continued implementation of the
Committee on Conventions and Recommendations procedure for
examining communications concerning alleged human rights
violations within UNESCO fields of competence, on the
understanding that further recommendations will be made at the
next session of the Executive Board, if necessary (para. 89).
We are pleased that the procedures will be continued.
The resolution calls for intensification of the implementation
of the Plan for the Development of Human Rights Teaching and
for greater support for the Associated Schools Project, which
we support. Impractical projects which we recommended for
elimination in this Sub-program are not mentioned.
We are not enthusiastic supporters of the World Congress on
Youth and International Youth Year (para. 95). Plans to
provide for follow-up activities are among the projects we
recommended for elimination.
We are very pleased that priority is recommended for the
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
participation of women in political, economic, social and
cultural life (paras. 95-97), and we are glad to see the
recommendation that special attention should be directed to
activities concerning offenses against women.
This section's last item (para. 98) is the most significant,
calling for a panel of counselors to assist in the preparation
of Major Program XIII for 1986-87 while seeking the broadest
possible support from member states. This appears to open this
contentious program to possible revamping, a welcome step in
our view. The DG is to select these counselors, and past
experience in similar situations shows a tendency to select
persons whose points of view are similar to his own. At the
same time, we ourselves are being given an opportunity to
suggest an American participant, as we did with the DG's
working groups on management during the summer.
Most of these recommendations can be taken as an offer of
accommodation to representations we have made concerning major
Program XIII. However, they are tentative in nature, and only
their development and implementation will disclose whether or
not the Program emerges in conformance with our position.
III. Strengthening of Authority of UNESCO's Governing Bodies
A major Western effort in 1984 has been to bring about a
reassertion of the authority of UNESCO's membership vis-a-vis
the Secretariat via a strengthening of the General Conference
and Executive Board. This issue is described at length in the
U.S./UNESCO Policy Review of February 1984. A number of our
specific proposals aim in this direction, as does an entire
section of Mr. Newell's July 13 letter.
Our reform proposals in this area can be categorized as follows:
A. Those which would enable the membership to call the
Secretariat to account on its functioning and decision-making.
Our specific proposals in this regard were:
-- a broadened mandate for the External Auditor;
-- question and answer sessions with Assistant Directors
General (ADGs) before the Executive Board;
-- clearer definition, by the Board, of the responsibilities of
the DDG and the ADGs in their contracts;
--more frequent and longer private sessions of the Executive
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Board and an extention of the subjects covered.
B. Proposals which would enhance the independence of the
Executive Board:
-- a policy forbidding revolving-door employment for former
Executive Board members in the Secretariat.
C. The proposal that the Executive Board and General
Conference have a stronger voice in the biennial Program and
Budget, including the real abiliy to change or eliminate
programs in the draft C/5.
Outcome
The TC dealt extensively with the governing bodies, making 19
recommendations on improving the General Conference and 17 on
improving the Executive Board. A number of these are
exhortations to make meetings more effective. They concern,
for example, improving preparations of the General Conference,
lightening its agenda, and reducing documentation submitted to
it.
More important were recommendations bearing on the role of the
Executive Board and the General Conference in their oversight
of the program. Recommendations B-12 and 13, for example,
suggest that the program document (the so-called C/5) be
"examined in depth" by the Executive Board's Program and
External Relations Commission and, where appropriate, by its
Finance and Administrative Commission, and that "the Executive
Board should consider means of ensuring that the Board's
recommendations on the draft C/5 are utilized more effectively
by the General Conference."
As concerns the General Conference, recommendation A-12 invites
the Director General to consider including a choice of
proposals for the General Conference in the draft C/5, a
welcome innovation which the Director General in fact
commenced, on a limited basis, in the Draft C/5 submitted to
the 120th Board. Also for the General Conference, the TC
recommended ways of strengthening the acceptability of draft
resolutions before their submission to the plenary (A-15-18).
These efforts to develop real consensus show a recognition of
our concerns. At the same time, they do not afford the kind of
assurances we have requested that minority views will be
respected.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
The proposed question and answer sessions with ADGs before the
Executive Board were accepted by the Director General at the
119th Executive Board and implemented at the 120th session,
although not without resistence. The DG first said questions
should be put to him in plenary and finally agreed to the
sumbission of written questions, three days in advance, to the
ADG's before the Program commission with the possibility of
follow-up questions. The fact that the Board persisted
nonetheless appears to inidicate it is taking its
responsibility seriously. In the end, these sessions were
useful, and the beginning of a process which, if pursued, could
over time increase the real impact of the Board on the program.
At the 120th Executive Board, the U.S., the UK, France, and the
FRG co-sponsored two draft resolutions that dealt with
particular proposals not treated by the TC. The first (DR 17,
also co-sponsored by Iceland) requested the General Conference
to amend the financial regulations so as to allow the Executive
Board to request the External Auditor to carry out specific
examinations. It was challenged on the technical point that it
sought to pre-empt the constitutional role of the General
Conference and to amend the financial regulations. It was
ruled inadmissible. The second draft resolution (DR 19),
concerning a mandatory interval that must elapse between
membership on the Executive Board and employment by the
Secretariat, was deferred, without debate, until the next
Executive Board session. The DG stated he could not implement
it, even had it passed, as it impinged on the prerogation of
sovereign states to propose candidates for posts in the
secretariat.
Proposals for the clearer definition of the responsibilities of
the DDG and the ADGs, and changes in the nature of the
Executive Board's private sessions were not the subject of TC
recommendations, nor were they pursued by the U.S. at the
Executive Board. The U.S. of its own accord decided not to
pursue increased use of the secret ballot, the reaction to
which had not been favorable.
IV. Management
Deficiencies in the areas of personnel management and
recruitment, evaluation, and decentralization have long been
targets of U.S. criticism. Such deficiencies were described in
detail in our U.S./UNESCO Policy Review of February 1984 as
well as in the letters of other countries to the Director
General.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Mr. Newell's July 13 letter identified several management
practices in need of reform. In the personnel area, we urged
the speeding up of the recruitment process and a reduction in
the use of consultants for work that could be done by UNESCO's
own employees. The July 13 letter also called for an improved
evaluation function -- first efforts toward which would include
fully implementing existing guidelines and effectively using
existing resources. Finally, the letter stated that
decentralization of UNESCO was necessary, and that the UNESCO
1986-87 program should "promote more initiative and adaptation
at the regional and local levels."
At the 120th Executive Board, the U.S. was a sponsor of three
draft resolutions concerning management reform. The first
(DR 18) requested the Director General to ask the JIU to
undertake a study of the possibility that decentralization
might improve the effectiveness of the Organization, and to
submit a plan of action on the implementation of the study's
recommendations to the 121st Executive Board. The second
(DR 20) noted the Director General's announced intention to
strengthen the central evaluation unit and proposed specific
procedures under which the unit should operate. The third
draft resolution (DR 21) requested that the Director General,
having announced his intention to perform a study on types and
duration of personnel appointments, focus on a solution to the
problem of the repeated renewal of fixed-term contracts.
Our management concerns were addressed by the Director General,
the TC, and the Executive Board. At the 119th Executive Board,
the Director General announced his intention to establish five
consultative working groups, four of which concerned
management: on recruitment procedures and staff management, on
budgeting techniques and budget presentation, on evaluation
methods and techniques, and on public information. On the
basis of these working groups' reports, the Director General
prepared his own report on "initiatives" to improve the
functioning of the Organization. His initiatives included
measures he had taken or intended to take on his own authority,
recommendations submitted for the opinion of the Executive
Board, and recommendations which required the assent of the
Executive Board or a decision of the General Conference. The
results of the working groups and the report of the Director
General's initiatives were available to the TC during its
consideration of personnel and evaluation questions (i.e., the
TC's second session). The TC then reported independently to
the Executive Board on its recommendations on measures to
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
improve the Organization's functioning. The Board, in separate
resolutions, endorsed both the Director General's initiatives
and the TC's recommendations. The U.S. welcomed these measures
and joined the consensus on their adoption. At the same time,
we believed they did not go far enough in certain areas.
Accordingly, we proposed draft resolutions of our own in those
areas.
The following are the results of these efforts in the main
management areas.
With regard to personnel, the Director General took several
steps:
-- he introduced a number of measures to speed up the
recruitment process;
-- although acknowledging the problem of fixed-term contracts,
the Director General merely proposed a study concerning the
types and duration of assignments;
-- the Director General defended the Organization's use of
consultants as efficient for the Organization's needs but
indicated he would try to reduce the practice nonetheless.
The TC noted with satisfaction the Director General's decisions
on an expedited recruitment procedure and endorsed his
initiative for a study of the types and duration of
assignments. The TC made no specific recommendation on the use
of consultants.
At the Board, the U.S.-sponsored draft resolution (DR 21)
concerning fixed term appointments was deferred, without
debate, until the next Executive Board session.
On evaluation, the Director General proposed strengthening of
the Central Evaluation Unit, appointing an evaluation officer
in each program sector, and extending the Project Management
Information System. All these measures were welcomed by the
TC, which stressed the importance of clearly defined functions
for the Central Evaluation Unit (without providing that
definition). While meeting some U.S. concerns, the actions
proposed by the Director General and the TC seemed to fall
short of the commitment the U.S. believed necessary for
implementation of a strong evaluation program, and we
introduced a DR in this regard, co-sponsored by the UK, France,
and the FRG. This draft resolution (DR 20) was deferred,
without debate, until the next Executive Board session.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Decentralization was treated by the Director General in his
initiatives report, which identified eight major areas in which
he had taken or envisaged making changes. Among his proposals
were steps to further previously-begun efforts to decentralize
regular program and operational activities. He made specific
recommendations to increase staff mobility between headquarters
and field offices and to broaden the role of regional offices
in staff recruitment and management. He also announced the
establishment of an Intersectoral Decentralization Committee,
comprising the Assistant Directors General, to coordinate the
implementation of decentralization measures and to submit
recommendations to the Director General. The TC recommended
that decentralization be pursued in accordance with relevant
decisions of the 103rd Executive Board and guidelines set forth
at the 21st and 22nd General Conferences. The TC invited the
Director General to formulate an action plan indicating the
type of activities to be decentralized during the period of the
Medium-Term Plan for 1984-89. The TC also called for a study
of results already achieved in enabling Regional Offices to
share fully in the design and execution of the Organization's
activities. The TC also stated that "the Regional Offices
should gradually be given responsibility for operational
activities carried out by the Organization at national,
subregional and regional levels; this entails an increased
transfer of responsibilities, resources and posts from
headquarters to field units."
These proposals are in keeping with the U.S. view, but because
of the complexity of the relationship of headquarters' staff to
field staff, and the potential for damage to the Organization
if decentralization is approached incorrectly, the U.S.
believed that the JIU should undertake a study and present to
the 121st Executive Board a plan of action for the most
efficient distribution of responsibilities within the
Organization. The U.S. position was reflected in a draft
resolution, co-sponsored by the UK, that was deferred without
debate to the 121st Executive Board.
V. Budget
A major U.S. objective this year has been an Executive Board
recommendation to the General Conference of zero real growth
and significant absorption of non-discretionary cost increases
for UNESCO's 1986-87 program and budget -- an objective on
which the major Western contributors (the Geneva Group) have
remained united.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Another objective, endorsed by the Geneva Group, has been to
induce UNESCO to clarify and improve its budgeting techniques
and format. (Specific proposals advanced in this regard are
detailed below.)
Finally, although this is not strictly speaking a reform issue,
we have tried to ensure the prompt return of monies owed member
states from the Part VIII currency fluctuation account
accumulation -- both now and as a precedent for similar returns
in the future. This is a step UNESCO has been unwilling to
take this year. We had good, although not unanimous, support
on this issue from the Geneva Group.
Outcome
Budget Growth. An Executive Board resolution called on the
Director General to prepare the 1986-87 program and budget on
the basis of the 1984-85 budget ceiling. Adhered to, this
directive will result in zero net growth budget for 1986-87.
The resolution also requested the Director General to present
to the next session of the Board a separate list of possible
projects for the least developed countries, to a maximum level
of two percent of the 1984-85 budget base, without specifying
whether such projects would be funded, or, if so, how. (Third
World representatives, in negotiations with us, privately
called this a face-saving device.) By arrangement with G-77
representatives, the U.S. said in plenary that we (the Geneva
Group) in accepting this paragraph also stood by our previously
stated positions with respect to zero growth. In the case of
the U.S., the previously stated position was unequivocally in
favor of zero growth and thus opposed to any interpretation of
the paragraph favorable to financing such additional proposals
by any means other than existing resources or extrabudgetary
funds. In reply, the G-77 representative (India) said his
group took note of our statement. The Director General did not
intervene. Following the conclusion of the Board, the US
member wrote to the Chairman of the Board reiterating our
position.
With respect to mandatory increases, the Geneva Group felt that
"significant absorption" had been achieved. The $1 million
reserve for draft resolutions, for example, was absorbed within
the budget base. And even though the Board chose not to
require absorption of other costs amounting to some $400,000,
the Third World representative (Pakistan) asked the Director
General to absorb these costs to the maximum extent possible --
to which the Director General, by his silence, appeared to
agree. (Privately, the Director General had told several
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
delegates that, if asked from the floor, he would agree to
absorb these costs.)
Budget Presentation. The Director General, in his
"initiatives," accepted the following recommendations of his
Consultative Level Working Group on Budgeting Techniques and
Budget Presentation. They respond to U.S. concerns for
improved budgeting techniques and presentation.
-- application of the principle of the constant dollar, the
value of which will remain at 6.45 French francs or 2.01 Swiss
francs per dollar;
-- adjustment of inflation costs occurring in the current
biennium on the basis of the cost level at the end of 1985;
-- retention of Part VII (Appropriation Reserve) to cover full
1986/87 anticipated inflation costs;
-- computation of Part VIII of the budget (Currency Fluctuation
Reserve) on the basis of the UN operational rate of exchange
prevailing in the month preceding the month when the 23 C/5
document is finalized;
-- establishment of $391,168,000 as the 1984-85 constant dollar
total in order to facilitate comparison with the corresponding
parts of the proposed 1986-87 budget;
recommendation that the Director General prepare the 23 C/5
(program and budget) document along the lines of the specimen
contained in Part IV of document 120 EX/5, i.e., using two
volumes -- one relating primarily to program matters and the
other to budgetary, financial, and related statistical
matters. Volume II will also contain statistical data showing
the effects of budget recosting and showing sectoral
distribution of inflation and currency fluctuation costs. This
should improve the budget presentation and increase member
states' understanding of the breakdown of budgetary allocations
for the activities funded.
Return of Currency Fluctuation Account Monies. The U.S. and
the majority of the Geneva Group hoped that the Board would
request the Director General to return to member states the
$80 million remaining Part VIII Currency Fluctuation Gains
promptly, i.e., in 1984. The UK, supported by ourselves, tried
to provide for a change in the next appropriation resolution.
Instead, the Board settled for requesting a study by the
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Director General. The Board's action, however, will not
prevent the U.S. from deducting our share of the (1981-83)
currency fluctuation surplus from our 1984 assessment.
IO/CU:LA.WrightJr. & Staff:hh
Doc. 0280C/Archive 0025C
Revised 11/20/84
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
Following are documents conveying recent
opinions of our allies on U.S. withdrawal
from UNESCO:
Sweden
Spain
Denmark
United Kingdom
Western Information
Group meeting 11/9
Canada
Singapore
Netherlands/
Switzerland
Netherlands
(Mourik paper)
State reporting cable
Memcon
State 342646
State 343461
Paris 43063
Ottawa 07265
Singapore 12127
Paris 42448
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
IO/CU:FGHANDLEY:HH
11/20/84 EXT. 23619 WANG 0311C
I0:JCBERGAUST
IMMEDIATE STOCKHOLM, COPENHAGEN IMMEDIATE, OSLO IMMEDIATE,
LONDON IMMEDIATE, REYKJAVIK IMMEDIATE, HELSINKI IMMEDIATE
NESCO
E.O. 12356: N/A
TAGS: UNESCO, UN, AORC
SUBJECT: SWEDISH NOVEMBER 20 DEMARCHE ON UNESCO
1. IN MEETING BETWEEN SWEDISH EMBASSY OFFICIAL PER
KETTIS AND DAS JEAN BERGAUST, KETTIS REITERATED SWEDISH
VIEW THAT WE OUGHT TO DELAY OUR WITHDRAWAL FROM UNESCO
BY ,A YEAR. WE REPLIED THAT WE WERE STILL ANALYZING THE
YEAR'S RESULTS BUT WE WERE SO FAR NOT OPTIMISTIC ABOUT
THE DEGREE TO WHICH REFORM HAD OCCURRED. WE SAID THE
MONITORING PANEL REPORT WOULD LIKELY CONFIRM THAT
SIGNIFICANT REFORM HAD NOT BEEN ACHIEVED BY UNESCO.
2. WE ALSO EXPRESSED APPRECIATION FOR THE NORDICS'
HARD WORK IN THE REFORM PROCESS AND FOR THE NORDIC DR
ON PROGRAM CONCENTRATION. WE NOTED THE IMPORTANCE OF
CONTINUED PRESSURE FOR REFORM WHICH, IN OUR OPINION1
WOULD BE WELL SERVED BY OUR WITHDRAWAL IF THAT IS THE
DECISION.
3. IN WHAT HE CALLED PERSONAL REMARKS, KETTIS INQUIRED
ABOUT THE U.S. ROLE IN THE RUMORED UK DECISION TO
WITHDRAW. WE RESTATED OUR POSITION THAT WE HAVE ACTED
INDEPENDENTLY AND LEAVE OTHERS TO ACT INDEPENDENTLY AS
WELL. YY
JCB
FGH
GJN
LAW
,nc6fi7J ' 3 J
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 11NOFFTrTZXT. mD7\T.TCr rm-r,N
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1 -
MEMORANDUM
The Embassy of Spain has the honor to refer to the possible
decision of the United States Government to withdraw from UNESCO
by the end of this year, a subject it has had the occasion to
address on previous occasions.
In this regard, and following instructions of its Government,
the Embassy of Spain takes the liberty of expressing the concern
felt by the Spanish Government over the possibility that such an
action will be carried out.
The Spanish Government is of the opinion that the possible
withdrawal of the United States from the abovementioned interna-
tional organization could be apt to cause confusion among inter-
national public opinion, especially among the Third World countries,
considering the governing role the United States plays in today's
world.
The Spanish Government fears that the solidarity among the
different countries forming the western world could be affected
as a consequence of a measure which, furthermore, could lead UNESCO
to a shifting toward radical positions.
As a result, the Spanish Government takes the liberty of
expressing the opinion that it would be very advantageous to
seriously achieve the necessary reforms so that UNESCO might
continue to perform the role that corresponds to it. Such reforms
would, of course, be supported by Spain from within that international
organization.
For those reasons, and to avoid that any possible U.S.
withdrawal from UNESCO bring an end to the reform efforts currently
in progress, the Spanish Government would look with satisfaction
upon the United States' considering the possibility of continuing
as a member of an international organization for which the United
States' collaboration may be of paramount importance.
Washington, D.C., November 20, 1984 rrSn 17
e o
"IASN~~
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 . Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
I0/rU:FGHANDLEY:SR
11/19/84 EXT. 21534 WANG 0306C
IO:GJNEWELL
EUR/NE:AMCKEE {INFO}
IO/CU:LAWRIGHT,JR.
IO:JCBERGAUST
PRIORITY PARIS
PRIORITY COPENHAGEN, LONDON PRIORITY
PARIS FOR NESCO
E.O. 12356: N/A
TAGS: AORC, UN1 UNESCO
SUBJECT: DANISH DEMARCHE ON UNESCO, NOVEMBER 19, 1984
1. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY BERGAUST MET THIS
MORNING, AT THEIR REQUEST, WITH DANISH EMBASSY
OFFICIALS ULRIK FEDERSPIEL {DCM} AND JORGEN LARSEN
{PRESS COUNSELOR}. SAYING THEY HAD NO DIRECT
INSTRUCTION, THEY REQUESTED OUR VIEWS ON UNESCO FOR
POSSIBLE USE DURING THE EC-10 FOREIGN MINISTERS MEETING
SCHEDULED NOVEMBER 20. WE EXPLAINED THE U.S. POSITION
AND THE DANES MADE SEVERAL INTERESTING POINTS.
2. ON THE QUESTION OF A POSSIBLE DELAY OF U.S.
WITHDRAWAL FOR A YEAR, THE DANES NOTED THAT THERE WAS
INTEREST, AMONG SOME OF THE EC-1D, IN A COLLECTIVE
DEMARCHE TO URGE SUCH A DELAY. IN THEIR OPINION, THIS
WOULD BE A MISTAKE SINCE IT WOULD RELEASE PRESSURE ON
UNESCO FOR REFORM AND RESULT IN LESS POSITIVE REFORM
ACTION IN 1985. ON THIS POINT, THEY NOTED THEIR
AGREEMENT WITH THE UK WHILE RESTATING THEIR INTENTION
NOT TO WITHDRAW REGARDLESS OF UK DECISION.
3. CONCERNING THE IDEA {EXPRESSED TODAY -- NOVEMBER 19
-- IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL} THAT THE EUROPEANS MIGHT
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
LIMITED OFFICIAL '.11E I 71
ENCOURAGE A DELAY FQ A YEAR '3Y OFFE :Iil~; TO SU31IT
COORDI'JATED LETTERS OF 'UIITHDQAIJAL, THE DANES SAID THEY
4A) NOT CONSIDE ED T'.JIS OPTION. SHOULD ATTEMPTS )E
: ADE TO 1?CVELOP SUCH A "PACKAGE," THEY SPECULATED IT
J'O'JLD CXT?EIELY DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE C04!'DI'-JATED
ACTIO'! 'JITHII'J THE LT.'1ITED TIME AVAILABLE. DE'lr1A K
IT!'EL '", TF.iCY SAID, 10:_1LD FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO
1OnILI'c THE PUBLIC AND PARLIAMENTARY SUPPORT NIrCESSARY
TO CE?JERATE A LETT'? OF UITHD9AWJAL?
4. IN CLOSING, T'IE DA'JES EXPRESSED INTEREST IN OUR
PL A'IS FOR UNESCO ALTERNATIVES AND A'JY INFOr IATION IJE
HAD ON J'IESCO' S PLATS FOR THE PERIOD FOLLO!JTNG THE U.S.
`JIT?,D?A"AL FE ~r:'S?TCL STATED CATEGO",ICALLY THAT
-SAD DECIDED TO GIVE NO REPEAT NO INCREASED
TO UNESCO AFT: A U.S. JITHD.'.A'fAL. YY
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
IJCliart cei1.c uJ ituce I tLtGRAM
PALE Al STATE 343461
ORIGIN 10-15
CIAE-00 NSAE-O0 SSO-00 NA-08
/042 R
DRAFTED BY IO/CU:LAWRIGHTJR:NH
APPROVED BY 10:GJNEWELL
I.0:JCBERGAUST
EUR/NE:SKISH
0 2000262 NOV 84 .
FM SECSTATE WASHOC
TO AMEMBASSY PARIS IMMEDIATE
AMEMIASSY LONDON IMMEDIATE
E. 3. 12356: DECL: OADR
TADS: UN, UNESCO, AORC
SUBJECT: UK DEMARCHE ON UNESCO
1. UK HEAD OF CHANCERY JOHN KERR CALLED NOVEMBER 15 ON
10/CU OFFICE DIRECTOR WRIGHT TO CONVEY STATUS OF UK
DELIBERATIONS ON UNESCO AND TO ASK ABOUT OUR OWN
DELIBERATIONS.
2. SPEAKING ON INSTRUCTIONS, KERR SAID THAT UK
MINISTERS IN LONDON HAD NOW HAD PRELIMINARY DISCUSS)ONS
ON UNESCO AND THEIR PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION WAS TO
SUBAIT A WITHDRAWAL NOTICE BEFORE YEAR'S END. A WEEK
AGO, SAID KERR, CERTAIN UK EMBAS:IES WERE INSTRUCTED TO
ASA MOST GOVERNMENTS WHETHER, IF THE UK SUBMITTED A
LETTER, OTHERS WOULD JOIN. REACTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
NEGATIVE. THIS WAS NOT, HOWEVER, SEEN AS A STRONG
REASON FOR NOT PROCEEDING WITH A UK LETTER. ON
PERSONAL BASIS, KERR SAID HE DOUBTED THAT MINISTERS'
CONCLUSION WOULD BE CHANGED; SPECIFICALLY, HE FELT THAT
AN APPEAL BY COMMONWEALTH CTMMISSIONERS, AS FORESEEN IN
ARTICLE OF "THE GUARDIAN" OF NOVEMBER 15, WOULD LEAVE
THATCHER AND HOWE UNMOVED.)
3. STILL SPEAKING ON INSTRUCTIONS, KERR SAID UK FELT
REFORM IN 1984 HAD GONE QUITE WELL -- NOT AS WELL AS
HOPED, BUT BETTER THAN FEARED. HE CHARACTERIZED REFORM
AS HAVING GONE 50 PERCENT OF WAY. LONDON NOW THOUGHT
THAT BRITISH LETTER WOULD BE BEST WAY TO KEEP PRESSURE
ON UNESCO FOR REFORM WHILE SAFEGUARDING BRITISH
POSITION IF SUFFICIENT REFORM FAILED TO MATERIALIZE.
4. SPEAKING NOW ON PERSONAL BASIS, KERR SAID HE
THOUGHT FOREIGN SECRETARY HOWE BELIEVED GENUINELY THAT
THERE HAD BEEN PROGRESS IN UNESCO, BUT GENUINELY WANTED
LOTS MORE. HE THOUGHT HOWE ASSUMED THE U.S. WOULD NOT
SIMPLY DECLARE VICTORY AND RETURN TO UNESCO, BUT THAT
WE MIGHT BE PRONE TO CONSIDER OPTION OF STAYING ANOTHER
YEAR. HE THOUGHT HOWE FELT THAT, IF WE DID DELAY A
YEAR, PRESSURE FOR REFORM IN UNESCO MIGHT ACTUALLY
SLACKEN AS UNESCO BREATHED A SIGH OF RELIEF AND THINGS
MIGHT RETURN TO NORMAL. KERR CONTINUED THAT THE SINGLE
BEST ENGINE FOR REFORM WOULD BE THE 25 PERCENT
BUDGETARY LOSS WHICH UNESCO WOULD FACE AFTER A U.S.
WITHDRAWAL. THIS WOULD FORCE UNESCO TO GET DOWN TO
SERIOUS SPECIFICS.
5. STILL SPEAKING PERSONALLY, KERR SAID HE THOUGHT UK
WOULD PUT IN A WITHDRAWAL LETTER AND GO ON WORKING FOR
REFORM IN UNESCO. HE FURTHER THOUGHT THAT HIS
GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT TRY TO PERSUADE THE U.S. TO
CONFIDENTIAL
POSTPONE ITS DECISION. AT THE SAYE TIME, UK WOULD HOPE
THAT WE WOULD GO ON WORKING FOR REFORM IN UNESCO EVEN
FROM OUTSIDE, AND THAT A U.S. AIINCUMCEMENT OF FINAL
WITHDRAWAL WOULD MAKE SOME MENTION OF OUR CONTINUING
INTEREST IN THE ORGANIZATION'S REFORM.
6. KERR NOTED THAT CERTAIN OF OUR ALLIES WERE GEARING
UP TO TRY TO PERSUADE U.S. TO STAY IN UNESCO ANOTHER
YEAR. BONN, HE SAID, HAD TOLD UK IT WANTED TO SPEAK
WITH SECRETARY SHULTZ, AND THERE .AS TALK OF A COMMON
EC DEMARCHE. HE NOTED THAT EC A115AS3ADORS, AT THEIR
REGULAR MEETING HERE NOVEMBER 19, HAVE?UNESCO ON THEIR
AGENDA, AND ARE PROBABLY GEARING LP TO APPROACH US IN
THIS REGARD.
7. HAVING SAID HIS PIECE, KENN ASKED TWO QUESTIONS.
FIRST, WHAT WAS TIMING'OF U.S. DECISION? SECONDLY,
WOULD OUR DECISION BE INFLUENCED BY A UK LETTER OF
WITHDRAWAL? KERR ADDED THAT AI.SWER TO LATTER QUESTION
WOULD NOT CHANGE UK'S MIND. LONDCN WAS SIMPLY'
INTERESTED IN OUR REPLY.
8. ON TIMING, WRIGHT REPLIED THAT WE HAD ALWAYS
FORESEEN AN ANNOUNCEMENT IN FIRST TWO WEEKS OF
DECEMBER, AMD HE SAW NO REASON TO ALTER THAT FORECAST
DESPITE FACT THAT WE MIGHT NOV BE RECEIVING UNESCO
MONITORING PANEL'S REPORT A WEEK CR SO EARLIER THAN
EXPECTED. WITHOUT FURTHER CHARACTERIZING ITS
CONCLUSIONS, WRIGHT SAID HE UNDERTS600 PANEL'S REPORT
WAS STRINGENT BUT FAIR.
9. REGARDING QUESTION OF WHETHER OUR EVENTUAL DECISION
WOULD BE INFLUENCED BY A BRITISH LETTER OF WITHDRAWAL,
WRIGHT SAID HE COULD NOT GIVE AN CFFICIAL RESPONSE TO
THAT QUESTION BECAUSE MATTER WAS BEING CONSIDERED AT
LEVELS MUCH HIGHER THAN HIS OWN. SPEAKING ON PERSONAL
BASIS, WRIGHT SAID THAT, IF OUR DECISION WERE TO
WITHDRAW FROM UNESCO, AS SEEMED LIKELY, IT WAS UNLIKELY
THAT BRITISH LETTER OF WITHDRAWAL WOULD CHANGE THAT
DECISION.
10. COMMENT. KERR'S "PERSONAL' COMMENTS WERE ANYTHING
BUT HAPHAZARD OR OFF TOE CUFF, BUT APPEARED WELL
REHEARSED. WE SUSPECT TREY WERE CUITE AUTHORITATIVE.
SHULTZ
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 N,j
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
CONFIDENTIAL S/S-0
Department of state INCOMING
PAGE 01 PARIS 43163 131551Z 8471 088443 SS03228
----------------------------------------------------------13/1555Z
INFO 10-91 /801 A4 BW
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAGE 01 PARIS 43063 131551Z
FRG, SWEDES, AND -- IN LESS SPECIFIC TERMS --
INFO OCT-00 COPY-81 ADS-00 AID-99 INR-I0 EUR-99 OIC-02
CIAE-00 COMP-91 NSAE-00 SSO-00 HA-08 L-03 TRSE-18
OMB-01 INRE-00 USIE-00 TCIP-03 /844 W
------------------355514 131553Z /46
0 131541Z NOV 84 ZFF4
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO SECSTATE WASHDC NIACT IMMEDIATE 1189
E.O. 12356: DECL: OADR
TAGS: UNESCO
SUBJECT: UNESCO: WESTERN INFORMATION GROUP MEETING,
NOVEMBER 14
REF: STATE 333990
1. THIS IS AN ACTION MESSAGE; SEE LAST PARAGRAPH.
2. REFTEL RECEIVED ONLY AFTER NOVEMBER 9 WESTERN
INFORMATION GROUP MEETING HAD TAKEN PLACE. U.S.
PRESENTATION AT MEETING WAS, HOWEVER, CONSISTENT
WITH GUIDANCE IN PARAS. 2-3 OF REFTEL. MAJOR POINTS IN?
PARAS. ONE AND FOUR (NAMET!Y, THAT WE WILL CONSULT
WITH EUROPEAN ALLIES PRIOR TO PUBLIC ACTION; AND THAT
U.S. WITHDRAWAL, SHOULD IT TAKE PLACE, WILL BE FOR
PURPOSE OF FURTHERING REFORM AND WITH EXPLICIT
INTENTION TO REJOIN UNDER IMPROVED CIRCUMSTANCES) ARE
SIGNIFICANT, AND WE SMALL MAKE THEM AT NEXT
INFORMATION GROUP MEETING, CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR
IE:EI A.M., WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14.
OTHERS JOINED DUTCH AND SWISS; ALL VOICED STRONG THEME
THAT WESTERN GROUP HAD PROVEN SOMETHING TO ITSELF BY
THE EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPACT OF ITS JOINT EFFORT DURING
1984. MANY SEEMED TO BE SAYING, RHETORICALLY,
THAT, IF THE RELATIVELY LOOSE WESTERN UNITY OF 1984
COULD PRODUCE WHAT IT HAD, HOW MUCH MORE COULD THE
GROUP DO IF IT REALLY GOT DOWN TO CASES AND WORKED
TOGETHER IN THE MONTHS AHEAD? SUGGESTIONS ABOUT U.S.
ACTIONS TENDED THUS TO BE COOPERATIVE, RATHER THAN
CONFRONTATIONAL, AND TO GO BEYOND SIMPLE CALCULATION
OF SIZE AND WORTH OF REFORMS THUS FAR; INSTEAD,
EMRBICAMA,IM1K TI FEEL TWAT 1981 HAS OPENED All
OPPIIIRTWiTT FOR MUCH WIDER COOPEIATION ANI INFLUENCE
TWO* NRB' PORE!KN, ANO TWAT TACTICAL AGILITY IS
AMP? M Off IMAL ITT 1S ORION NEEDEB. IIE MR. I EMOIST
THIS THEME TO N TIE NAJOR UNDERPINNING OF FURTNEI
EUIMSM IUNUINTATIBNS TO NO, 007H HERE AM
ELSEWHERE."
6. ACTION REQUESTED: ANY FURTHER GUIDANCE DEPT MAY
WISH TO OFFER FOR WESTERN INFORMATION GROUP MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, INCLUDING RUNDOWN ON MONITORING PANEL
MEETINGS, VIA NIACT IMMEDIATE CABLE TO ARRIVE PRIOR
TO OPENING OF BUSINESS THAT DAY.
3. WE SELIEVE IT WOULD ALSO IE USEFUL TO GIVE
EUROPEANS AN OUTLINE OF MONITORING PANEL ACTIONS, AND
REPORT, AT TIE NOVEMBER 14 MEETING.
4. THE NOVEMBER 9 INFORMATION GROUP MEETING DID NOT
PRODUCE ANY SURPRISES: EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER STATES
GENERALLY GAVE CAUTIOUS ASSESSMENTS OF RECENT BOARD
SESSION, STRESSING THAT A BEGINNING HAD BEEN MADE ON
REFORMS, PARTICULARLY VIA THE TEMPORARY COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS, PLUS CONTINUATION OF THE COMMITTEE
ITSELF. NONETHELESS, THE NORDICS, IN PARTICULAR
DENMARK, WERE DISAPPOINTED THAT CONSIDERATION OF
THEIR N ON CONCENTRATION AND PRIORITIZA710N HAD BEEN
PUT OFF 04.1.0 THE MLCFIC RUIN EYI CONSENSUS DKr..dHE
BUDGET AT THE ENO OF JAL, 04641101N. ZERO GROWTH BUDGET
INSTRUCTION WAS WELCOMED, WITH MOST SHARING OUR VIEW
THAT PARAGRAPH CALLING FOR DG TO PRESENT A LIST OF
PROJECTS FOR NEEDIEST COUNTRIES UP TO 2 PERCENT OF
BUDGET TOTAL IWITH FINANCING UNSPECIFIED), WOULD
BECOME FOCUS FOR MAJOR POLITICAL EFFORT BY DG AND HIS
ALLIES TO CIRCUMVENT ZERO GROWTH CEILING. AMB.
MENTIONED THE DOUDOU DIENE PRESS CONFERENCE, WITH
ATTENDANT HANDOUTS STATING, INTER AL IA, THAT THE 2
PERCENT WOULD BE ON TOP OF THE U.S. DOLS 391 MILL101.
5. SEVERAL MEMBERS, INCLUDING DUTCH AND SWISS
(SEPTEL) REITERATED VIEW THAT U.S. $HOULD STAY WITH,4HE
PROCESS.TNMUGH NEXT YEAR'S GENERAL CONFERENCE. WHEN
AMB. QUERIED, HOWEVER, HOW PRESSURE COULD BE
MAINTAINED AND/0R INCREASED IF THE U.S. STAYED IN
AND, PERHAPS, NO OTHER GAVE NOTICE, AMB. HUMMEL
RESPONDED HE 1.AS NOT CERTAIN WHETHER, IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, STAYING ONE MORE YEAR OR LEAVING WOULD
BE MOST EFFECTIVE. HE FELT THAT WESTERN COORDINATION
AND, THUS, PRESSURE HAD NOT BEEN STRONG ENOUGH.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15 CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
ACTION INCOMING
r/ CONFIDENTIAL TELEGRAM
Department of State
PAGE 01 OF 82 OTTAWA 07265 08 OF 62 0918182
ACTION 10-15
THAT THE GOC ACTIVELY ELABORATE ITS VIEWS WITH
DEVELOPING ON THE EB NATIONS, SPECIFICALLY THOSE
FROM THE CARIBBEAN AND AFRICA, WITH WHICH IT MIGHT
WIELD INFLUENCE. ALSO, WE OBSERVED THAT FRANCE,
WHICH HAS A SPECIAL ROLE AS UNESCO HOST COUNTRY,
APPROPRIATELY MIGHT BE APPROACHED WITH A DETAILED
EXPOSITION OF GOC THINKING. GIVEN THE KEY ROLE OF
DG M'BOW, A STRONG CANADIAN STATEMENT TO HIM ON
THE NEED FOR MEANINGFUL REFORM WOULD BE PARTICULARLY
USEFUL AS WELL, WE NOTED.
INFO OCT-08 COPY-81 AOS-88 AID-08 INR-10 EUR-00 OIC-02
CIAE-00 COMP-01 NSAE-00 SSO-90 NA-08 L-03 TRSE-01
OMB-01 INRE-06 USIE-00 TCIP-03 /044 W
------------------070640 0918201 /52/53
0 0917321 OCT 84
FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9000
INFO AMEMBASSY PARIS IMMEDIATE
USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
E.O. 12356: DECL: OADR
TAGS: UNESCO, CA
SUBJECT: 120TH UNESCO EXECUTIVE BOARD: DEMARCME ON
CANADA TO URGE REFORM
REFS: (A) STATE 294315, 18) FOULGER/HANDLEY TELCON
- 10/04/84, (C) OTTAWA 7133
2. SUMMARY: THE RECENT STRONGLY WORDED LETTER FROM
CANADA'S EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER JOE CLARK TO
UNESCO DIRECTOR GENERAL M'BOW INCREASES FURTHER THE
PRESSURE FOR REFORM WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION. WE HAVE
URGED THAT CANADA USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVENE
ACTIVELY AND USE ITS INFLUENCE TO ADD TO THE MOMENTUM
FOR REFORM AT THIS CRUCIAL EXECUTIVE BOARD SESSION.
U.S. UNESCO DELEGATION MAY WISH TO FOLLOW-UP WITH
GOC AMBASSADOR IAN CLARK. BEFORE THE U.S. TAKES
THE FINAL STEP OF WITHDRAWAL, THE GOC REQUESTS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE U.S. BILATERALLY AND
REVIEW THE SITUATION IN UNESCO. THIS IS AN ACTION
MESSAGE: SEE PARAGRAPH 11. END SUMMARY.
3. ON OCTOBER 5, WE PRESENTED U.S. VIEWS ON UNESCO
REFORM (REF A), TO EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DIRECTOR GENERAL
RICHARD TAIT (CULTURAL/PUBLIC INFORMATION BUREAU)
AND UN AFFAIRS POLITICAL SECTION HEAD JIM PUDDINGTON.
AS DISCUSSED WITH THE DEPARTMENT (REF B), WE INCLUDED
THE FOLLOWING AS THE FIRST TALKING POINT IN OUR NON-
PAPER TO REFLECT EXTAFF MINISTER JOE CLARK'S RECENT
LETTER TO M'BOW.
- THE UNITED STATES WHOLEHEARTEDLY WELCOMES MINISTER
CLARK'S OCTOBER L LETTER TO DIRECTOR GENERAL M'BOW
WHICH IN A FORTHCOMING FASHION DETAILED THE NEED FOR
REFORM AND CANADA'S COMMITMENT TO IMPROVING UNESCO'$
OPERATIONS, MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAMS. THAT LETTER
REPRESENTS AN IMPORTANT AND TIMELY CONTRIBUTION TO
THE REFORM EFFORT NOW UNDERWAY AND REINFORCES OUR
SHARED DESIRE TO SEE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
ORGANIZATION. THE U.S. LOOKS FORWARD TO CONTINUING
CLOSE CONSULTATIONS WITH CANADA BOTH IN PARIS AND
OTTAWA TO ENCOURAGE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
LASTING REFORM MEASURES WE BOTH RECOGNIZE AS FUNDAMENTAL
TO IMPROVE UNESCO'S EFFECTIVENESS. END TEXT.
4. WE EMPHASIZED THE TIMELINESS OF CLARK'S LETTER IN
VIEW OF THE CURRENT CRUCIAL UNESCO EXECUTIVE BOARD
SESSION CONSIDERING THE REFORM OF THE ORGANIZATION.
WE NOTED THAT OTHER ES MEMBERS, MINDFUL OF CANADA'S
THOUGHTFUL APPROACH TO THE ISSUE, WOULD GIVE GREAT
WEIGHT TO THE FORTHRIGHT VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE
LETTER. AS SUGGESTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, WE ACCORDINGLY
5. TAIT EXPRESSED APPRECIATION FOR THE U.S. VIEWS
AND COMMENTS ON THE MINISTER'S LETTER TO M'BOW. HE
REMARKED THAT THE LETTER WAS A DELIBERATE STEPPING UP
OF PRESSURE BY THE GOC BASED ON THE EVALUATION THAT
THE SITUATION IN UNESCO IS SUFFICIENTLY GRAVE TO IMPERIL
THE ORGANIZATION'S SURVIVAL. UNLESS THERE WAS A
REALIZATION OF THE NEED FOR CHANGE,HE SAID, CANADA
WOULD NEED TO ASK ITSELF WHETHER UNESCO IS THE
INSTITUTION SUITED TO ACHIEVE THE GOC'S PURPOSES.
HE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE LETTER WAS OPEN-ENDED AND
DELIBERATELY DID NOT SET A DEADLINE.
6. WITHOUT RESPONDING SPECIFICALLY, TAIT TOOK NOTE
OF OUR SUGGESTIONS FOR POSSIBLE FURTHER GOC ACTION
AT UNESCO. UNFORTUNATELY, MANY OF THE DEVELOPING
NATION REPRESENTATIVES AT THE PARIS HEADQUARTERS
APPEARED TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN AGENDA, HE OBSERVED,
WITHOUT MUCH COMMUNICATION WITH CAPITALS.
PERSUASION IN MANY INSTANCES THUS WAS DIFFICULT AT
BEST. ON THE OTHER POINT, IAN CLARK, GOC AMBASSADOR
TO UNESCO, WAS TO HAVE DELIVERED THE MINISTER'S
LETTER TO M'BOW ON OCTOBER 4. TAIT WAS UNABLE TO
CONFIRM WHETHER AMBASSADOR CLARK MADE A SUPPORTING
ORAL PRESENTATION TO THE DG. HOWEVER, HIS OPENING
STATEMENT AT THE EXECUTIVE BOARD HAD BEEN EXPLICIT
ON THE QUESTION OF REFORM, TAIT SAID. IN ADDITION
TO THE MINISTER'S LETTER, AMBASSADOR CLARK'S
INSTRUCTIONS AT UNESCO DERIVED FROM THE GOC'S JULY 27
LETTER COMMENTING ON UNESCO'S 1986/1 BUUGET WHICH,
TAIT INFORMED US, ARE FAIRLY SPECIFIC. (SINCE
AMBASSADOR CLARK APPARENTLY HAS SOME TACTICAL LEEWAY,
U.S. UNESCO MAY WISH TO REINFORCE OUR DESIRE THAT
HE USE THE MINISTER'S LETTER TO MAINTAIN AN ACTIVE
CANADIAN ROLE IN THE REFORM DISCUSSIONS.)
7. IN SOME RESPECTS, TAIT OBSERVED, THE WEST ITSELF
BORE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR UNESCO'S SORRY STATE.
FOR ONE THING, THE PROCESS OF WESTERN CONSULTATION
AT UNESCO WAS NOT WHAT IT SHOULD BE. THE LARGE
INFORMATION GROUP DID NOT LEND ITSELF TO COORDINATING
OVERALL STRATEGY OR SPECIFIC TACTICS. SOME THOUGHT
THE U.S. MIGHT BE GIVEN TO FORMING IN PARIS SOMETHING
SIMILAR TO THE GENEVA GROUP TO GIVE FOCUS TO THE
WEST'S EFFORTS, HE SUGGESTED. THIS WOULD BE MOST
EFFECTIVE IF DONE AT A SENIOR LEVEL, PREFERABLY
IN PARIS, AN APPROACH WHICH HOPEFULLY WOULD ENGAGE
THE FRENCH. TAIT RECALLED THAT AT A SEPTEMBER
MEETING ON UNESCO HELD IN WASHINGTON, APPARENTLY
THE FRENCH HAD NOT ATTENDED AND IT WAS ESSENTIAL
TO DRAW THEM INTO SERIOUS DISCUSSION.
8. TAIT REMARKED THAT THE U.S. DECISION TO WITHDRAW
GAVE ALARMING POTENTIAL TO SOVIET PROPAGANDA EFFORTS,
AN OPPORTUNITY THE USSR SEEM PREPARED TO EXPLOIT.
THE SOVIET'S HAVE PRESENTED AT UNESCO A LONG
DOCUMENT WHICH REFUTES WESTERN ARGUMENTS FOR REFORM
POINT BY POINT. THE PAPER ACCUSES THE WEST OF
ATTEMPTING TO TURN BACK THE CLOCK AND REWRITE THE
UNESCO MANDATE IN LINE WITH THE WESTERN VISON, HE
SAID. PRESENTATIONAL ASPECTS OF WESTERN VIEWS WERE
MT I fFNT I AL
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
CONFIDENTIAL INCOMING
TELEGRAM
Department of State
PAGE 02 OF 02
IMPORTANT, AND THERE WAS THE THREAT OF A BACKLASH
WHICH THE SOVIET COULD AGGRAVATE FURTHER IF THE
WEST APPEARED TO BE LAYING DOWN AN ULTIMATUM.
HE CONCLUDED THAT THE U.S. DECISION THUS HAD FAR-
REACHING IMPLICATIONS IN THE LONG TERM FOR OTHER
WESTERN NATIONS WHO WILL BEAR THE BRUNT OF REACTION
IN UNESCO WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF THEIR MAJOR ALLY.
9. FOR THESE REASONS, TAIT CONTINUED, CANADA
STRONGLY HOPES THAT THE U.S. WILL TAKE A HARD LOOK AT
ITS PARTICIPATION IN UNESCO BEFORE TAKING THE
IRREVOKABLE FINAL STEP. HE COMMENTED THAT CANADA
AND THE U.S. AGREE FUNDAMENTALLY ON THE NEED FOR
DEEP REFORM BUT HAVE DIFFERING VIEWS ON THE PACE
AT WHICH IT MIGHT BE ACHIEVED. HE EXPRESSED THE
OPINION THAT WE CAN BEST HOPE FOR SOME DEGREE OF
REALISM ON THE BUDGET AND CONSENSUS ON MANAGEMENT
IMPROVEMENT TO COME OUT OF THE CURRENT EB SESSION.
HOWEVER, PROOF OF COMMITMENT TO LASTING REFORM
WILL NOT BE APPARENT UNTIL THE 1985 SOFIA
GENERAL CONFERENCE. IN THE GOC VIEW, TAIT SAID,
THE BEST SOLUTION WOULD BE FOR THE U.S. TO EXTEND
ITS PARTICIPATION FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR, TIED
TO RIGID CONDITIONS OF DEMONSTRABLE REFORM
IMPLEMENTATION. SUCH AN APPROACH WOULD KEEP THE
PRESSURE ON AND ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE
REFORM EFFORT TO PRODUCE TANGIBLE RESULTS.
10. FROM CANADA'S PERSPECTIVE, IT IS ESSENTIAL
TO GIVE CAREFUL THOUGHT TO THESE CONSIDERATIONS,
TAIT SAID. AFTER THE EB IS OVER AND 80TH COUNTRIES
HAVE EVALUATED THE RESULTS, THE GOC HOPES THAT THE
U.S. BEFORE MAKING A FINAL JUDGMENT WILL CONSIDER
SERIOUSLY HOLDING BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH
CANADA TO DISCUSS THE UNESCO SITUATION, TAIT
CONCLUDED.
11. ACTION REQUESTED: GUIDANCE ON WHETHER DEPARTMENT
IS PREPARED IN PRINCIPLE TO HAVE A BILATERAL ON
UNESCO AT A MUTUALLY AGREEABLE TIME AND VENUE AFTER
THE CONCLUSION OF THE EB.
ROBINSON
CONFIDENTIAL
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1 ' Q M NG
Department of state
PAGE 01 SINGAP 12127 0811492
ACTION IO-1
INFO OCT-00 COPY-01 ADS-00 ONY-00? /016 W
------------------176252 081937Z /41
R 080949Z NOV 84
FM AMEMBASSY SINGAPORE
TO SECSTATE WASHOC 1089
C 0 N F I D E N T I A L SINGAPORE 12127
10 FOR ASSISTANT SECRETARY NEWELL ONLY FROM JAMES MICHENER
E. O. 12356: DECL: OADR
TAGS: AORC, SN
SUBJECT: UNESCO
1. TELEPHONE TO COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, IF NEWELL IS
IN THE DRAFTING MEETING THERE.
2. BY SHEER ACCIDENT, I HAD CONVERSATION WITH A MAJOR
SINGAPORE OFFICIAL WHO SAID:
3. "THREE YEARS AGO WE IN SINGAPORE WANTED TO LEAVE
UNESCO, BELIEVING THAT IT HAD STRAYED TOO FAR FROM ITS
BASIC COMMISSION. OUR JUDGMENT WAS OPPOSED BY OUR
REPRESENTATIVE IN PARIS WHO ARGUED THAT THE INTERNATIONAL
AGENCIES SERVE AS THE FRONT LINE OF DEFENSE FOR SMALL
NATIONS. WE ACCEPTED HIS COUNSEL AND DID NOT RESIGN.
THAT WAS A MISTAKE, FOR IN THE INTERVENING THREE YEARS
WE HAVE SEEN UNESCO STRAY EVEN FARTHER FROM ITS
ASSIGNED RESPONSIBILITIES. IT IS WASTEFULLY
ADMINISTERED, CAPRICIOUSLY PROGRAMMED AND ARBITRARILY
OPERATED IN ITS DAY-TO-DAY WORK. WE NOW WISH THAT WE HAD
PROCEEDED WITH OUR RESIGNATION THREE-YEARS AGO. OBVIOUSLY,
WE APPLAUD THE AMERICAN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT YOU ARE
WITHDRAWING AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL ABIDE BY YOUR DECISION.
TO DO SO WILL HELP US ALL RESTRUCTURE THIS VALUABLE
ORGANIZATION. TO REVERSE DECISION NOW WOULD MAKE.YQU A
LAUGHINGSTOCK AND WOULD DAMAGE THE EFFORTS OF THE REST
OF US TO MAKE UNESCO A MORE USEFUL ORGANIZATION. IF YOU
WITHDRAW AS STATED YOU WILL START THE REFORMS WE NEED."
4. AT THIS POINT I SAID THAT IF WE DID WITHDRAW, I
WOULD BE AMONG THE FIRST TO START PLANNING AS TO HOW WE
COULD REJOIN A REFORMED UNESCO. MY CORRESPONDENT
REPLIED FORCEFULLY: "DO NOT BE HASTY. I FEAR THAT YOU
CAN ACCOMPLISH NOTHING WHILE DIRECTOR-GENERAL M' BOW IS
STILL IN COMMAND. HE IS DICTATORIAL, VAIN, ARBITRARY
AND A POOR ADMINISTRATOR. I HAVE NO HOPE FOR UNESCO
WHILE HE REMAINS IN POWER." WHEN I POINTED OUT THAT THE
UNITED STATES HAS STUDIOUSLY REFRAINED FROM CRITICIZING
THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL PERSONALLY, BECAUSE OUR FIGHT IS NOT-
WITH HIM BUT WITH THE OPERATIONS OF UNESCO, MY
CORRESPONDENT SAID: "MAYBE SO. THE ROT LIES WITHIN THE
SYSTEM. GROSSLY INFLATED SALARIES, PREPOSTEROUS
PERQUISITES, A STAFF MANY OF WHOSE MEMBERS HAVE NOT
ENOUGH TO DO, AND A LACK OF PRINCIPLED DIRECTION. THE
WAY EMPLOYEES LUXURIATE IN PARIS, DOING NOTHING, IS AN
INTERNATIONAL SCANDAL. IN THE INTERESTS OF EVERYONE YOU
SHOULD GET OUT AND STAY OUT UNTIL REAL REFORMS HAVE BEEN
ACCOMPLISHED."
ROY
TELEGRAM
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
CONFIDENTIAL
Department of State
p
PAGE 01 PARIS 42418 Of OF 02 0718361
ACTION 10_15
INFO OCT-00 COPY-01 ADS-09 AID-00 INR-10 EUR-00 SS-10
OIC-02 AF-00 SCL-91 CIAE-00 NEA-06 NSCE-00 ARA-09
NSAE-00 SSO-00 HA-08 L-03 EAP-96 INRE-01 USIE-06
TCIP-03 /049 W
---------121755 6718312 /46 41
0 971901Z NOV 84
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0808
INFO AMEMBASSY BERN
AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
E.O. 12356: DECL:OADR
TAGS: UNESCO
SUBJECT: WESTERN VIEWS OF UNESCO REFORMS, AND NEXT
STEPS
1. DUTCH AND SWISS AMBASSADORS (MOURIK AND HUMMEL),
BOTH VALUED At - I OBSERVERS, RETURNED FROM
CONSULTATIONS IN CAPITALS THIS LEEK WITH FOLLOWING
THOUGHTS.
2. HUMMEL, WHO HAS THIS YEAR GENERALLY TAKEN THE
HARDEST LINE VIS-A-VIS THE ORGANIZATION AND ESPECIALLY
VIS-A-VIS DIRECTOR GENERAL M'BOW) FOUND THE EXECUTIVE
BOARD'S STATEMENT OF 190G-E7 PROGRAM GUIDELINES, AND ITS
NO-GROWTH BUDGET CECISICU, "SURPRISINGLY" POSITIVE.
THE PPOGRAII GUID~':CE IS FAR' FROM IDEAL, CONTAINING STILL
THE I'.INDS OF U'CFUCE ANC PCLITICIZED ELEMENTS WHICH WE
HAVE CRITICIZED, FJT III CG'rl?ARISOI4 WITH ANALOGOUS DE-
CIS%ONS HE PE'_LS :=ECU HJIS TWELVE YEARS HERE, IT PRO-
,ICE' .4 I'- I; C': :n 1J EU!LD 1`0THER PROGRESS. ITS
,IF'.,ES CI C"..:! 'wFTI:'JLKi'-Y STAININ.;, IN HIS
VIEW: MJCH OF T"E SLOGAIIEERIIIG ABOUT NEW WORLD ORDERS,
DISARMAMENT, Ct_LECTIVE RIGHTS, AND SO ON, HAS BEEN
DROPPED, AID IN ITS FL3CE IS STFO'IG LANGUAGE ABOUT PRO-
GRAM CO!!CENTFi11'O'!, SETTING OF PRIORITIES, AND EVALUATION
-- ALL l0!i T:';0:15 GEESTEF!I GOALS. HUMMEL FOR THE FIRST
TIME CU:LE%iL'; Tr-; THE IS OCGHT TO STAY THE COURSE
'4Cfn i,N CIF>T vF=%'S ~E!F: uL C.^,!lFf FrIICE, IN ORDER TO CAPI-
ZE Ci .C.IIE'VED SIv FAR.
3. HUM1!EL SA':C THE CHINESE AMBASSADOR HAD SOUGHT HIM OUT
RCCEI:TLI TO MGHE IT CLEAR THAT CHINA'S ACTION DURING THE
60,.PD MEETING III FAVOR OF PROGRAM CONCENTRATION AND
LESS ATTENTION TO POLITICALLY CONTENTIOUS ITEMS HAD BEEN
EXTRECSLY DIFEGES T C0"Vi14CING THE WEST, ANC
E'.,, 1 L'I II.. _ L'IA .:;';CO CCJLC CE REFORIEC. HUMMEL
FEELS THE CHINESE AGE AERY APDRFHENSIVE ABOUT u POSSIBLE
WII!OFALL F011 SCVIET POLICY IF WE DEPART, AND THUS HAD
UECIUED TO MRr,E A MrJGR EFFORT TO 6RING G.BOUT CHANGE.
4. F'rIi..LL'Y, O'~OTED MARGAF OF YUGO:LAVIA (CHAIQMAN
CF THE EXEFIIT1;1 FC-F.C 55 CH !!r, CR REFORM,COMMITIEE)
? I' , TH,T T,I :T :C ~E :TGCI~GL1' FFESSITS THE
I:
:W, .'Dl., 'If':- YL.E= -'IS C'HER:, TI':F IT
LE _. ORTI'.i -T THE ECIC,S, 'NAB lr':.T ,HE Ui
L .,: ' Ot'E lr.' T: -T : T E 11 -E R ;'A, CR .3, BUT TN..T
IN ;; C;P?C!'"''x.555 SHJU'.D IT;+EIUotI FCR ANOTHER YEAR,
WITHCA.'II:G AT TIE E!!D OF 1905. HE NOTES THAT THE DG
HAS BEEN FIT'TII:; "HE S-ME FOINT ACTC:T IN MEETINGS WITH
:OIIE OF HI; GUF~C^TERS. H...MEL FIND: THIS COMIC: EN-
THI: I,S!! C'I 'YE T-R' C 'AE TO'Y ET; A'IF THE DG FCR All
C' C;,117 11,111, 1, FMT4
F,.':FT;: TC i,.'3 HE EEL 5555, IS L::I CJICO!:E
.INCOMING
TELEGRAM
Ir
WHICH WILL GIVE THE US A FURTHER PERIOD OF DOMINATION
OF THE ORGANIZATION'S PROCEEDINGS, AS WE NAVE HAD THIS
YEAR.
S. DUTCH AMBASSADOR MOURIK REPORTS THAT HIS ANALYSIS
OF THE SITUATION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS, (PARIS 35879
NOTAL), NAVE BECOME THE BASIS OF DUTCH GOVERNMENT
POLICY. ARGUING AS NE DOES FOR AN EXTENSION OF US I
PARTICIPATION THROUGH THE GENERAL CONFERENCE AT THE END
OF 1985, HE RECOGNIZES THAT A COMMON WESTERN POSITION
........ -....j
IV In.a LrrLYI ^ILL .1 111n-. .V Vnnn. --,.j
THE US THAN INDIVIDUAL NATIONAL STATEMENTS OF POLICY.
NE SAYS A SERIES OF CONSULTATIONS ARE UNDERWAY AMONG
GOVERNMENTS WHICH SNARE THE DUTCH VEIW, CITING FRANCE,
ITALY, THE FRG, THE NORDIC FIVE, AND BELGIUM. THE K
HAS BEEN RELUCTANT TO JOIN THE OTHERS THUS FAR, WHIN
MOURIK ATTRIBUTES AT LEAST IN PART TO A BRITISH WISH
TO REMAIN "INDEPENDENT-, AND TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN POLICY
LINE, AS THEY HAVE DONE SINCE THEIR APRIL LETTER EXPRESS-
ING WILLINGNESS TO CONSIDER WITHDRAWAL. NO CONVENIENT
AND COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK EHISTS FOR THE CONCERNED
GOVERNMENTS TO HAMMER OUT A COMMON POSITION; FOR WANT
OF ANYTHING BETTER, CONSULTATIONS THUS FAR HAVE PRO-
CEEDED III THE EC-10 CONTEXT, WITH SIDE DISCUSSIONS WITH
NON-COMMUNITY MEMBERS. BUT MOURIK HOPES THAT FURTHER
PROGRESS WILL BE MADE IN THE LATTER PART OF THIS WEEK,
WITH A FURTHER MEETING OF THE TER, AND FINALLY A MEETING
OF THE ENTIRE WESTERN GROUP ON NOVEMBER 9. ONE PROPOSAL
WHICH HE SAYS HAS A GREAT DEAL OF CURRENCY AT THE MOMENT
IS THAT OF CONVENING A HIGH-LEVEL MEETING OF CONCERNED
COVERIIME14TS (INCLUDING THE US) BEFORE THE FINAL US
DETERMINATION OF ITS POLICY; HE BELIEVES THAT WE ARE
LIKELY TO BE PRESENTED WITH A SPECIFIC WESTERN PROPOSAL
FOR SUCH A MEETING SHORTLY.
6. MOURIK ACKNOWLEDGES THAT MUCH OF THE FOREGOING IS
VAG7E, AID POINTS THAT OUR CO"VERSATIG'I TCOK PLACE IN
MIDSTREAM. HE WILL STAY IN CLOSE TOUCH, EUT PARTICULARLY
WANTED US TO KNOW THAT SOMETHING IS AFOOT AMONG CUR
WESTERN PARTNERS, AIID THAT THERE IS A GOOD DEAL OF
DETER'IINATIOII TO GET TO US PROMPTLY WITH A RESPONSIBLE,
CONSTRUCTIVE AND COMM1011 WESTERN VIEWS.
r,TI
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 N I -. ./I , t j i 1 C n/
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
rANIFLc PEARL 4 C 11/22/94 1?0153 PP.I"'TA'R: LC
84 PARIS 35870
CONFILENTIAL / EXDIS ZR ONLY
CONFITITNTI kL -
PPGF 21 PARIS 35879 Z1 OF 02 22:41:.2
A''TION 10-15
IM) OCT-00 ^OPY-?l AL'S-22 SSO-2P ONY-Z7 /015 w
0 2PQ941Z FEF F4
------------------257175 2?1422Z /51
Fm A`^EMPASSY PARIS
fO SEOSTATE WASHDC I'IMFDIATE '22?
C 0 N F I D E T I A L SECTION 2l OF 22 PAF,IS z597a
NESCO
FOR IO/aSST SrC ";F'A'LL ONLY
F.C. 1??y5? DFCI.?OADR
TAGS: UVESCO
S'?JFCT: TM5TCH AMBASSADC?'S VIFW7 ON US WITaDRAw!
1. '?UTCH AM?PSSATTOR ~IOURI ; PROVIDED US SI:PTF^ISFL 17
WITH ??IEF PAPER (TEXT PELOW) GIVI"'G JIS VIEON P. F.
TuINIS STAND, AFTER ALMOST NINE MCNTHS OF DEVOTED a:OR
0?! HIS PART IN FAVOR OF REIORM ANT) CHANCY WITHIN UNESCO.
AFTF?? SOME APPAF?NT INITIAL APFREHEN"IOt:. ?E A^-*EEr THAT
I SHO'TLT) PASS THIS TO YOU. uF CLEARLv DC . S NJO'T ?ANT TO
p^ar TTIMSELF QUOTED IN THE PAPE?; HE I1Prc7S T::AT THESr
PERSONAL TuOTTGETS WILL ':Z F PHOTECTFr ABSOLUTELY.
2 YOLT !'JILL NOT!' T'AT MOT11I{ TA'-S AS :t ORSOSSIBLE,
TuF CASE IN 'n'?I"H T?F U,' FINDS ArEQUATE PEASON IN THIS
YEAR'S C34NGFS TO RT'MAIN, ~`HILE T--,r US LEAVES. IT
W^'JLr DIFFICTJ'_T TO OVERSTATE THE tAMAG'{ HE SEFS,
I"' THIS cCFNARIO. TO' (A) 3ROAn ',#STEGN COJESION VIS-A-
VIS rHr SOVIETS; 'P) Ti-- POSSIBILITY FOR R"AL REFORM
HrRF -- ANT POSSIBLY FLSFWHFRY IN TjE U!.! SYST=v --
W7ICTI O'TR '_NTTIAL DECISION ^RtAT'FL; AND 'C) ALL OTHER
C^~'FIPF'"TI AL
CGNFIDFVTIAL
PAGE 72 PARIS 5E70 21 OY ?2 2214152
rJNFCC^ ~s^"FER STATES. THROUGH TrI GLOP IF'ICATIO' ViICH
W07LD ?r HrkPE'_) 'TPON M'
BOW FOR ,AV'IN FCU 3T, rI7Iryr,
A"T' CON^TTEaFD THY WEST. I AGREE M ITH TRY FIRST T-,::'O
POINTS, MORE OR LESS; I AM NCT CERTAIN ABOUT THE TdIRD.
'DOW. TVFN IN THIS SCENARIO. ;JO TL^ STILL ?.E THE ON:
U" ACENOY HEAD TO "LOSE THE U!" . AND I AM NOT SURE HE
WO- L^ !TsR LIVE TEAT DOW SUCCESSFULLY, EITHER I"'
EIS OWN MIND ^D I THE PRECEFTI.OV 2t OTHER !,?ATIC'JS.
I^!OTTT'1IN.G TH)SF .170 MOST STFADIASTL`: SUPPORT HIM. IN
A"!Y EVENT, "-OUD I7 'S CGk' "ERNS AR '7 VERY R_r L; COULD FE
P.^CT1RkTF; AN'` DESERVE OUR ATTENTION.
3. F'(-IN TEXT ^'''URI? PAFMR:
"Si! S^?TtIVeTE ^.'3CT?JTS ON TEE STATE GF
TT " S C O AFFSIKS IN
(4 TI SCL SSI OR' NON-PAPER" )
RF DC WE ST4ND?
-1` IT IS NOT VERY LI{FLY THAT THY RESUTLTS OT THE
CONFIDF"'TIAL ~ EKDIS O: ONLY
r F
1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
DANIFLS PEARL A C 11/75/84 12213 F?INTER: LC
84 PARIS 3567'
CCNFIrFNTIAL 1 FZLIS OR ONLY
TEMPORARY COMMITTEE AND THE DG'S PROPOSALS WILL 5. TISFY
TTC DFMAN!nS FOR RFICRMS. THEY FALL SHORT OF FUNDAMENTAL
CHA"!GFc OF A STRUCTURAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CH-'.RAOTER
ANn '-nl NOT OFFEK SUFFICIENT SPFEGUARPS IN RESPECT OF
POLITICISATION. IT AS TO MF RECOGNIZED THAT SUCH
F'TvTA~+~'~'T9? GHA~:CES COULD NOT FE FORMALLY BROUGHT
A'DCITT IN 5 YEAR '~I?FN THERE IS NO SESSION OF THE GENERAL
COr'FEzr NCF:.
ONE ALSO HAS TO DEAR IN MIND THAT MOST CHANsFS PROPOSED
BY T?F TC ANr THE rs ARE OF AN INTENTITNA_L OR ^FCLApA-
('0VFIrrn1TIAL
CO' FIDFNTIAL
P A -F
?3
PAP I S 35879 71 OF 02 20141`2
TIP!
CH
RACTY . T37IR IMPLEMENTATION IS TO '01 HO'PE',
FOR.
RUT
IS NOT ALTOGETHER CERTAIN. A FURTHER ESTABLISH-
MTK'T
Or
RESPONSI''ILITIFS AND SUPsRVISIN"r MFCFA'\ISM STEMS
To ?F NrCESS AR Y .
C T'E US TO RESCIND ITS DECISION 10 'ITAW IP3''
77 Cl THE AFORF,MvNTIOtiF'''' CHNOES 0L'LD
'T"'ESOO ON T 'P
T'r '?FFODM. RATHER MEAN ASTI',I^ THEM TO ?UY A rIJ IN A
P,)..r.
_IT TS. ON TF- 'JT'?ER =A"'D, F'OT ALTOGF'THET 'T'LI?="LY
T=AT "rr TT. MIsL"' MIND THE. NF3OTIATING RESULTS. T30U'GH
FAR ''PO" ov irEP.L . S ;'7FICIF'ITLY SUBS^ANTIVTT TO sIVF U`FSCO
T'IF `FNEMIT OF TIE DD'J'3T. TJE tTr NEGOTIATI"G LL7L'L HAS
FROM TH'' RT'sINNING PFrN LO'A'FR THAN THE AMF I^_AN ONE: NO
T-'r-v .NTS IN T'rE rONSTITUTIO'IA.L FIELD ANr LESS STRESS
ON POLI'"I^ISATICN THE SAFE3TJARDINs OFYT HE RIGHTS
OF THE FaYIyr, MI' O?ITY.
'R.
'47ti RT' WO'TLr THIS LFAD US
TO?
-3)
IF LOTu HYPOTHESES 'r?'ERF
RIGHT - AND I MUST AI:1IT
T'AT
I r''EL TO PF ON FIR^!FR
GROUND WITH THE FIRST ONE
T''nM
WITH THE LkTTFR -
THEN
'9F WOULD AT THE FN' CF THIS
Yr??
'OF IN A SIT'TATION
'W'HERE
THE US +JOJID LFcVE THE
,~
"
OR^ANISPTION AND THY' U?.
'RCT'I.r STAY IN.
(AND
FROrFSIEPS
)
OTEE3
-4' THr, cITUATIOk' ',;HERE THE US w'O'LD FE THE ONLY MT`^BER
SATE TO LVAVF UNES0O WOULD. dUITE APART FROM THE DIRECT
CONFTrvNTIAL
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
DANIFLS PEARL A C 11/9S/B4 122154 FRINPrR: LC
84 PARIS 3587O
C0 CCNFIrENTIAL / FxDIF On ONLY
~'FIrTMTIAL -
PAJF 21 PARIS 35379 e? OF 02 227?502
ACTION IO-15
It'FO OCT-?!e CCPY-P1 ADS-?2 SSO-e2 ONY-22 '716 W
O 290941Z S.P 84 ------------------245657 2?1421Z /51
y' AMrMRASSY TAHIS
TO SFCS"APF 'ti'ASHDC IMMEDIATE 7139
C 0 N F I D r 1! T I A L SECTION ?2 OF 22 PARIS 7_?87-1
Nl CO
F^? I0/AFST SEC k'FWELL ONLY
F.P. 112115: T' CL:OArR
TA' 5: ?1'ESC`)
FTTFJF^T: TUTC AMEA5SA1) OP 'S VIE'~ 01 1'S W'ITT`RA'.'A.L
AT INrI1FC^' MAT '=;IAL AV FINA! CIA.L CCNFT~UE?JCES. EF
TuF W')R ST FOS S I?LF OF ALL, DL^AUSi,
---A) TAE DEFORM MnVF'MENT WOJLr LOOSE T?ACTICALLY ALL
M,-1'v741"!TM, Tor ONIY PARTY DTMANDIN3 F'?NDAYF'JTA.L CHAN FS
HAT'IN LEFT THE FIELD, AND THP OTHERS HAVING C:.TAI!JE'i
M'O; T Or THrIP (LOWER LEVEL) DESIDr RATA.
---T` Tvr P0SITIO!' CF TH' DG WILL BE
GOO'S ILERA hLY
S-RrN^;urNF?1. HF '?!ILL Br ABLE TO "'A{F PFOPL! "ELIFVE
Tz"""T TT I.-;Ac HE SAW TO IT THAT THE J7 STAYED IN. AN^
THAT IT 'VkS ONLY T T INTRANSIsENNT ATTITUPE OF THE LTS
W='I^H P?EVFN:Tvr HIM FROM vAINTAININ THE IN'TE3:ITY OF
THE ORGANISATIC"'. HIS PRESTIGF IN THE THIRD ~;ORLD
W^TTID F^ FTRFkr?r^~'r ?.D, - ICH OCULD HAVE FAR REACHING
CO"!SFnrTFNCFS I,, 13E7.
, e!'TO' S'WILL. "F COURSE, TE INTENSIFIED by F ALTO?r. F)
C0N'FI'`FNTIAL
"CSTI ' " TI AL
P-~F C2 P'9IS 35-79 2' 0? e2 22?7-52Z
.~. -4^I'' T' PREVENT THIS SITUATION FROM DF'JELOFING.
-~) CIVFN TLE' ryNGEpS DESCRIBED IN PA RACRAPr 4) IT
Sr3`-IS I'1P_Rs.TIVr TO PRFVFNT THIS FXTREMFLY NiGATIVE
rr.TTLnpMFNlT. NF^ATIVE FOR THE ORGA"ISATIOr.. FOD ALL ITS
Rr`"AI"ING ME"ISFRS AND FOR THE US, BECAUSE THE FIRST
WC-TT D T ^3MF IMPRISONED IN A QUASI-REFORM A"1r Tap
IATTPP MI?^HT FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO REFN!TPR THE OR,A:NI-
SATION ON THEIR OT'N TERMS FOR MANY YEARS "3 COKE.
-3) THr ONLY WAY TO AVOID THAT SITUATION WCULI', AS
I SEF IT, RRE A PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL PY THE US FROM
ITS PRE'FFNT POFITION. I.F. A DEFERRAL OF THE DECISION
TO END ITS `1FM3ERSHIP BY ONE YEAR. THIS S30iTLT` EN BLF
' ' E ITS AND OTHERS TO ACTIVELY PTTSH FOR REALLY F'JNEAMEN-
TAL rHAN'(F? IN T-77- ORGANISATION, TO FE APPROVED BY rHE
or ^irNrRAL CON:rRrNCT', A POSSIBILITY WHICH `WOULD aF
CUT SHORT PY ITS rFPARTTJR . IT WOULD KFEP PRESSURE
0N! THY D -.NT WOULD PREVENT HIhi FROM POSING AS `THE DE-
FE?1DrR Or 'TNFS OC' C INTT RI TY.
CONE ITPENTIAL % FpDIS OR ONLY
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
DANIELS PEARL A C 11/2e/84 127154 PRINT'FR: LC
84 PARTS 3r-379
CONFIDENTIAL / ESDI S OR ONLY
-7) OPVIO7SLY ONE' COULD HARDLY EXPECT TUE. US TO TAKE
TITIS STEP WITHOUT RE^FIVIN3 SOMETHIN3 IN RETURN. CNE
MIGHT TuIN{ I`' THIS CONTEXT OF A GISTYTRE FROM THE PART
OF THE OTHER MEMBERS pY AI CFPT I N'G THE IDEA OF A ST AND-
STILL ON THOSF ISSUES WHICH ENTAIL MOST OF EXISTING
POLITICISATION. A SORT OF 'ENTLEMFN'S AGRFF`"FNT BETWEEN
(MJORITIES ^F) GEOGRAPHICAL GROUPS.
-9~ ANCTHFR SUPPORT FOR A CHANGE IN TGIF US ATTITUDE
W^UL7 OF COURSE OCCUR IF T=IE FRITI SH GOVERNM?N'T WOULD
COME TO THE CCN^LUSION THAT REFORMS OBTAINED L'JRING
THIS TEAR WERE ON T?E ONE HANr PROMISING, BUT CN TEE
C0~'FITPF"TI AL
CONFIDENTIAL
P53F 23 PARIS 35972 02 OF 02 2Z?250Z
OT?F? HAND NOT SUFFICIENTLY SUBSTANTIAL IN ORDER TO
E"'PFL! IT TO COMPL^TELY 'WITFr ' a .W ITS NOTICE. '.r;ITH
OT'-'rV 'W'C?DS, IF THE UT TOO gCULD LEFFR ITS DECISION
.
FY 0"'E YEA'
P "-RI F . MIr-SrPTF`MBFR 1294. END TF'{T
A'iFRNF
CONPIrE~"!TIAL
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
UI Ln
INI
U)
W
f
n
O
U
c')
U)
C
0
a-
.rUI
~-)
H
O
E-i
E
U
U)
>
EI
0
z
E
U)
z
a
0
U
w
0
O
H
a
a
E-4
s-
l
U)
W
z
a
-~
Z
) A
Z
a
H U1
~
0
O
H
O
4J
M C .
+~
H 0
r~
r-
4
H
ri
A H
0
rn
Q
'n
O H
E-+ E
U
H
Cl)
w
U
#
U)
wra
U
O
H
u
__
U
w
>
if,
r~
> a
wU)
cn
U)
~U)
w
U) C7
43 Z >
H a
c
0
1J
N
w
Z
0
r-+
.
Ln
1 +
a ?ri
C9 a
z>
Q
c
0
4.)
AO
W H
E-+
Z<
O
O
Ei
c0
A
(0
r-
Z Ei
(0
O
< C7
U
Z
U
D UO
U
Z Z
x H
'a
Ln
a
w
V
U)
r-I
rT4 0
C1
U V)
W W
'D
wA
E?+Z
as
w
r-I
0
w
0 co
Ei
w
P4 Z
Z
W
o A
U w
U) A
w Z
Z W
a
U
c
a'
?r,
H
U
w
U)
A
W
a
U
a
.I
U -n
WOD
U) I
d'
W OD
H Q1
a -4
a
UI
c
(D
?.?I
O w
W Z
M k
COO
U
ai
?'-
A #
#
U
V1
A
Z
U
V)
Ln
N
E
Z
U
U)
1O a
U) U) 04
U
')
AO
W U
U) w
r-I
(IS
W
z
X H
a
0 4
"1
0 %
?r?I
0
rt
???I
ww
z
a4
U
U
U
CL U)
U
x U)
U
0
Z
P4
0
'
0
a~
0
U >
0
U)
C4
U)
LO
U)
a U)
dP c O
N 'a' O -4
I r? 4j
I 4- (c
# td U
U 7
OD # c av
O .?.
dP E c
M n
E ?ri
+ r-1 0
- + U'a
CD
r
O dP .,-4
N
I r-1 a c
.--I N
U
U'
E O
E w
.- 4 `s? ?'
01 U)
.. . wO 0
I a. 0, -4
I +-
0 U
?.-4 ?r?
4.) c d'
> U E \
E
a 'D O r-4
a U \
O
a In U) r -I
4-- 11
U U U U
W a a I-
r-1 r?-I '.O
r-I r-I dP W 4-I r-I
`n ro rI In a a O
-?+ r1 N LI
ri "~ N ? U'
4J + DO # Z
to - r-I #
Z +
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
0
ri
In
1
N
r-4
N~
N
.,1
U
N w
0
N
#
-1
r-1
N
0
N
1-{
Lrl
f:
lO
U
10
,_{
N
Q
r'
O
N
N
U)
r
>
N
.-1
*
Q
CIA
iR
al
fz0
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
r
40
n co N 'D N O
N 14 '4 ,-~ N I O
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
N
Ra H~ w
U H H O
0 >
to
H
to
44
U
0
4-)
G
41
.rq (a
+
U
b
fd
~0
N
\ rUI
rl
.-I
rl
I
N
H ~ N
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
i
In LO
I d'
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
-- a
ru 4) 4) r-I
' . 0
roo $
8 C) C \
E -
R --~ 'C 0E
m N Un o,
. ? ? ?
N
M
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
1W
I
?rl
41
i?~
o~
M
Q?.'1
~
v
j~J
d
w
0
~
U)
00
Ln
.-1 U
N
?
O N
U
G4
? N
N
C/J
Q1 N
z
04 O
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
tn Ln
N N
.-1 Ln N O
0
e+~
-a
cr
co
ca -4 u
H ?~ O N
4\
M f~ I r-I
-4 C14
U
? N
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
In
I Ln
r4
ri
H H
U p
gel
'i N 111 I ~D
in N N
ri Ln N
HEM
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
U
r-1 a)
-1 4J
4J >
(0-1
4)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
41 4J
IN
191
b
v
(0?rq
W
1J
-4
S.4
1)
4.3
>
C
4.)
>
(13
-4
U
(13
-14
r4
4..)
U
0
r1
01
J~
f(f
4
H
O
00
LL
Lf1
r
Ln
r.lr
4
U
.
ri
r-1
00
O \
QI
H
N
(Y, O
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
fh N I LL
14 _; 14
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
W
((I)
a a Z
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
e
0 N a4
a 0 Z E
U a) (a
C7 0 Z w 0 0 la
4.) 00 43 b) 01
0
0 W >r 0 W W >( m W
.,J '0 4) 41 11 '0 U ro 04
> to > c
41 ld r- 4J.4 ld 7 4)
N V-( O m W W U
(n? U) m c
1d w r-1 ld y W 4-1 .Q; 4)
dJr. 0r4r4 dJ M 0-4?. 0 g.?. ?rl
I O (U?r-l I O cc CD U)O U
C O ld U E C 11 O 11 U O 1 D CD U)
.,4 0 4) ?.- ?~ 4) 0 4) ?r1 O 4) "1 0
I W 01111 I> - W tP 1- 440 -- 4)
WO v) 0r-( m 00 m 00 u)UCD c
'0 In c ri ? 'o U Ln rl In C H O r(
C 00 (a 0 ri r- f0 O N to W 1w ld
O -W 14 a! iR O -W 14 4) - 1d H -W (a
ON -- E ' - - - rX4 4J - E+ U' P 04 -- E
r-
0
c c ?r1
o o r-I
?r( r-1
r-I r-4 -r(
r-1 r-l E
E E ~r
N .~ O
r-i .0 .C '0
as a) r-l dJ ?r?I
U 1.1 Rf -r( w
?r( 0 (a^ C 3 (a
r-l 0)4.) W 1-1 C 0 I
(a 0 - a) O ?r( ''O ?r?I
ld r?4 '0 Z 11 -rI 4J 4) E
Z O4) -&-j (0Ca)
4J W4J W W 0 w U)
as O(a(a4)O 14W
c r-I 4) ?r?1 ?r( 4)U ?
.--I 4) d.) d?.) JJ f-. '0
as s..1 4) ?.-4 -.-I C 0 ?r(
W C C. > E H U 1+
a) O m d.j ?rl (a
U ?.-4 JJ dJ Y ld to
U W U (0 4)
to 4) Ora ?4 M ?r?(
O C?n la r= C U) U)
W 1. o W W U dJ C a)
a) - 1 9 E -r?I C 0 0
w 4J 0, -r?( 1.1 I .~ 4) ?rl ld
r. 'a0(a o3EO+
'o ~ :3 3 0 W Q) 0
E .0 d.! r'4 E CT ld W
(a C (a W 0+ C (a (a a)
0 U) --4 i --4 E N 0 O to
4) 4j01d0W U OEU U)
U (a IQ (a la, m 1d M -..4 d.)
04 c (a 4) 004 4) 0 r(
4) I -d E m 0 -r1 U 0
?rl O C r.4 \ m m y! -4 w w '0
U 00 O 04 U (a 4) to (a O dJ C
W ?r( ?rl 4.) % dJ U 0 (0
W 4j u (a 'U C ?r+ W ,0
4) (a W '0 1d ld 4) D 4) -r+
d.) m '0 C ?11 to 4) Si 0 ld E (a
w ro 7 ?r('0 N JJ 4) r4 O 4)
(0 4 r?q ro ld y,) to to r?I Old 4 U
W N C 0 Aj :3 3 EV 3J'0 0
? (0 H O C 1+ O H >y (a r -
C -- U?r+ 0 4J N -x 3 (a (n
r? i
'0 (a
W 4) 4.-
a) O ca U)
_UC (a
U -4 to d.) 0
4-I > G C U
(0 1d U W 4)
v(1)xEcc
WU)W C 04J
a) 0
G4 C (a $4 .. '0
(a d-1 -rl U C
va)(o>1.1
1) U A C (0
EU C 4) co (a
-4 '-I (a v a) Z
.-l (a v c ~+
U.0 U --i a)
00 1.1 '0 .C
'O r-i (a C dJ
rI U' r-l E (a
1d (a S.-1
0V C44 "4)
O O r- ro
4J -4 -4
4) (a 41
m O~
.C 1+ (a 4) 1d
JJ 01 C ?r4 (0 W
(V 1d'OEE
1d 4.1 4) 0 a)
0 C4J 4J r-4 4J
W H C m (a u)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
>,1
i-e Ia to
cE O00a-r4
Oro ?,.4 'a a U
U U) w r- 1., ?ri
O 1.4 Q+ ?r?, I., O C
H W O JJ W J~
04 I,., .?r ?o U) U
o a y C C tr w
4J to vI (0 ?r, C aJ
O U .?-4
I C44 O4) C 4J
c W?., 11(W10U)
E U N .,., C ?r,
I ra w N ?.4 U ro 4
C
N C 04 . J O )
't7 O U) C cc c W
U ro al W 0 ?r?
4) 0 S-, l., 0 ?r1 O
G. Cn JJ 0 O w 4.) m
O ?r1 ? U C 'a
W H U1 ?r1 -4 C
0 tnCwroro
4J JJ -ri ?r?, 4J 4J N
ro U ra --4
-, ?~ W aJ r?4 0
II~.~ .C G ro C .C
0 4J w W E 4-I E E a) r- O ?~ '--I -U
C a E c c JJ ra O ro C-rl J (UL
O ra O ?rr C> W W 0 Ui ro s?+ 3
r, 'c: w > Q1 U) O CJ1 > W C W
W U M .+-) -r, 0.0 O .r., >+ -l C E
c~ i-i0r--4 ?? aC:W> WW(U
4J ?r, ra I?a w ? -4 E a W 0 a C w -J
E WaEw.cra E?- Woc 01
cE to C0Qi $4 E (V 4J J -r+WO
0 WU)O 0 0) Wsa0CW C C>
U W > 0 4J c MW c o?- JJa
C U ?~ 4J tT s-, U ) CO - , A E ?r+ ? -I CO
0 0 > 3 0a >4 ro41 C w w W'v (n
aJ O V. O C t o w U ) O roc ?r+ C I;
4J.c raOW--+roW EWWE04Jroro
(U04 EU) cWrnN >??I 04-4 W
04 ro ?ra W C U C W U C > 44 x> - O
f + r-I a ' toroO ro U?rlH c 0 W?r1 U)O
U Q~ U W C .: --4 4.) W 4J W
-r+ O U l u U) 'D U -r, W
4J C 'O C 0 to x i-+ E M W E C (a 't7 .C
>?+ (a r-4 -r, W W W 0 C W ro 0 4J
b W $4 > w r-4 0 to 1.) 0 -.-, --4 E .Q
04 0 0-r, 0 (a ro -4 Nr-I wA 41 (0 W
0 3a >4-) 0 C >,c9 0 0 0 w >10
cn to ?r? (a ?r4 to U) X: 4 W) 01 4
a r1 W 'a 4J > C W ?- Ia4 E 0 0 4J
ra .c C 0 4- ro 0 U) to W a4.+ 0) >~
'0 1.1 1J ro W O W E O W ?C W O M-4 ro
C W CO 4J W Y 0 JJ W r-I >=
W ? ? W W C 0 1 - 1 . 0 4 to W U 't3 U
W E W U W ? H w (0 4J .u C U) > --4 ra
0 C C C A w ?rI -4 W W=
4J i, w W C 0?-'--4 0 W rO ,., ro 04
U
tr a) ?r+ 0 ?.?I U1 r-I b r- C r0 ro --I
C> 4J U 4J W 't7 C9 C O 0 '0 %., W
W 0 $4 U) U) (0 0 C O 0 ?rl ro >, a) -r,
s?., tT 0 W tT 14 ra 'D JJ aJ O 4J
aJ W CL C to ro W .C C = -4 C C
to W 040 OA 0 CC 4J U Ia r4 U r-I ro W
4.) 0 W O 0 N 1) ro ?.-I 0 r?4 -rl CC W -rI
? C U) 0 0 w w (a 64 .C U 0 C 0 U
v'--4 --Ow 04W A rn3 0a 3 1TO M
U
04
I.1
rn
0
ro
v
U
0
I-,
0
W
0
W
E
ro
>
w
U
.-4
U)
ro
U)
>,
~ro
>
U) W
>
'D 0
--4
>ro
0 4J
8+ro
a'a
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
ca
4
0
4J
z
cr
H
z
4J
w
hi
m
a
41
I
o
0
U
C
o
a+
w
o
ro
z
I
.
a
U)
u )
ro
C
o
o
ON
4
7
- .
0
w
-
V
41
C
0
U
0
O
?.?I
C)
.-I
O
.-I
C)
C
O
Lc)
N
N
(L) V
.C
U r-
w
o w
U)
?, Z ro
?.-4 a)
0 0 0 4J
4.3
ro
r~
GD 0 W
'C U
C 0
0 ri ?.4
41 -- - C
w 0 C
0 ?.- '-4 0
CO .?I ??I
h 4 r?4 0 w
d Z ?.?I 4J ?.?I
4 4 v) E 41
C O D 4J C
C\ ?-I C 4)
ro cn ? ca ??+
h w '-I h U
E-4 0 -- 0 V]
C
0
r-i
ri
?.4
E
OD
.1
C
N tL
ro >,?,
C
C r-I
4a CC
0
44 0
.-1
0 ?.a N
?-I
4J a)
o
r/
)-, ?.- ?rI
o
E
a) 'a 4.
O
wrO??+
-
to
( 0g>
C ?r/
o
o
r?1
ro $4 4J
tr1
--
h 0 U
0-
--
Ei 44 0
--
N
43 U) ra
W C
U ro
$4
(0 ?r?0?? v .-IC
Q) .C 4J N U - a)
0- . 13 to - C 4J -.I a)
to 4J 4J U) a) U) (L) C U U U)
a) C a) s I a) . I .I U) y
s, v C ca C ro C U a %4
?.I t,U 0 U) roa)0
a) >I O (a >?+ N C 44 U 4J
COa) O0^, .4 ro?.?IVI
h, 0. Q, E a Q, 4a ?.I LI . 4-I h
~??~ CC E O Ca Q+ h C a+ 'a O 4J
C Ea)(L) h astoCro0 40 CC Cl)
o) w rn Q ???I I -?a to .-I ro CO ro
C 44 0 ro ?r1 4J C C I,., h
Qa 0 ro ro IS hi v 4J E (0 ?.I r-I a) 44
o 0 a) U a C4J C a) > a) (CS (0 --4 C
-4 C O J; -I O ro a) N w $4 U 4J ?.4
a) 0 w U ) L4 (1) ?r1 $4 E Q) 4J r -
> 41 > ?.-I ?.-I a) h 41 01 a) ra U) co) 0-4
N 4J 4-I h E a) ca a) O C C 44 . >, w ro
ra Ca O 7 4 J : C 4J (0 ' ra 0 0 C C 44 C
4J 0 04 I V. C 0 U Q, 0
U) ?r1 U C C U) Ln - .?I ro 'a C $4 N ?.?i
(1) O O $4 ?.I 0 O E -4 '0 0 to a) C 4J
U .-I h a) 4J ?r4 .-I C h V. ?14 v C 4J ro
hi a 0 ra ro cn 4- a) ro to 4J (n 4J C
x O C a a) ?-I U 0 a) 4J
0 v () C a) C 3 W ?? E s?+ C (0 4-4
U) b Jr 4J = U) () 0 -.?I 0
a, a,~+>C 1000E hi h 0)
~+ C O O (0 44 (1) U) ?r1 a) CL (n O C C 4J
4J 't144 'a 0 C 0 Q., 4J N 44 0 -?+ C
a) ro C C I.4 14 O W .-I C ??+ Je
C a) E >4 (a CC 4J a) ).-, >, (a ?rI 4J 4J W E
?-I Ad 4J a) hi U ?-I 4J U) A i-I h ro O Q,
LI roro -.IA C OC(0 004 0h30
ro E > 0 (is 040 s., '0 C r - 4- 1 4 044) r?
Z 0-.I?.I X 04U 0?.+ CC 0 U 04 04 0) a)
04J4J hi 4J EA u) 0 00 >
? EiCU( cnUro~>?+ ??I U)00 a)
-- ?r1 ro U v~ .~ ?.+ C a ro _ U z '0
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
>
cr
??~
a)
.~CtA
C
tTOO ro C
>I
W
C N 0
U)
-d QS
?r4 W r-1 ?ri
U
00
W
W > y1
44 r-4
W-44.1 (0
4-1
0
.0
W C C N
ro
w ?rl r,
(
C ?r+ ?rl
x
(A.o.G
3
?4 C
C!)
-+
Z O O
W
CT'L7 .C ro
O
s.1 ro
C
C C 4.)
Z
w
vow
W
Wro.+~+
C^
cr+
Pd
O
W
x
HO
ro2O
O
C!) U)
o.
U
O
O
$4
O
D W ~L ?-1
ro
W
1.4 o
En V O
0
O
?r1 14 CO
Q
o .
Z0 %
w
O1.)Or-
44 CD
W -4 CD
o
-0 3 0
O
U -I O
C14
O
.-4 rq
Gc~ M
(Y Q, --4
A
r-1
W U 1-I 0'
cn
Z --
QC--
Z a --
Z
D
-W
--
Cn00W
Z U) w 1.1
W
0
U
0
0
C]
O O
O O
(Il c
-
c)
u ro ro
.r4 w3
4J O = a)
( 4-) 0 C
O E U. W a to
-l 1.1 U) C $a .C CT W
1.1 O U) a) L) C U
row W a) -r? 4
co
ro r+ C U o~c O C v
v
-rl U 4-1 1.1 4?1 .14 0
U
( (a w
C
>1 1-1 4-1 C W 1?+ a)
a)
O O O W U) ?rl 4.) 4J s..1
?rl
O W U O
0
1-I 4J o ?r1 U1.0 '0 r I
U)
O 'D C E 41 C -r1 C ro
C W O ro ?rl w m U
0'
S~ ro s?+ E C 4J .-I
C
?rl
o 04 04W--4 ca-- 0+
w
i-+ a) O O( 0 U O
U U' -I O W 1.1 U $4 -1
W
?r+ ?rl a) 4J C 4-1 ro O
W
Z 0> ?rt 0 v -,-
C
?r1
.C W '0 1 V 41 O A
0 U'U0C WO
rn
a) ( 1.4 (a b 1.1 11
C
O O U C U
a)
c w rl C ro W ?rl
a 4 . ) _ E
a)
CL 0 ???I ?? 4J
.C
fC 0 1d ?r+ W J.) >?/ W
11
>y 41 0 4.1 0M CT W =
O W ( 1?( 1.1 O 1J
4-1
U) 1J O U >i W O
0
U a) 4 U) -4 QS O C 0 W
?r+ C C a) rA O O O C 0
C
4J .O ?rl 04 ri 0 ?14 0 0 Q+
ro ??i CT C 4 0 U W C U) ?rl C
E W 1.1 W ro c O O a) 4. W ?r1
1.4 r-4
J.1 11 .C r'1 = ?rt
0
4
0.0
C (p U) U ro N 4J 4J
E
U
a)
LW (0
0 1.( 4.1 W C a! 0' ?r1 1.1
0
O
W
C 3
O 4J -r4 J.d 0 O C> W
$4
W
C
W
Co ?-1 14 a) ?rl 4J
Q
.?l
1;
0 '0 W CT 7 14 ii C
0
U1
? W
ES w C r. . W O 41 U W
H
C
O
M
-0 ro y- W Q N ro O
a
W
w
0
+)
a)
Q
0
r-1
a)
>
a)
'v
V
ro
^
0'ro
C r-1
?-
C U
-1-1 ?rl
(o >
L( s
4J Z
U
r -
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
V4 N
w U)
z z
0 0
JJ
U) U)
a
C ~..
0
W w
w w
o o
w w
U) U)
C C a
ro b w
H h H
C
0
.--1
O ?r4 O
O O
O
Lt)
O N O
LO O
r- r1 d'
a)
U
a) 0
?.-( 1J
U
U) U)
'-I ?r1 C I
?.1 1
E U)
(o'O
s.rC
044
W U -'d 040
O 4J U
CT (C -+ W
c c~ oz
0 4.) x
(Cl 4J ??-I --( U)
wto (Cl
Ov
W Q) C a) .0 0
.4) N (o (o
a~U w(ov arl
-4 0 Q.-? 4 CL
iJ r1 .r1 4J 04 a) (h
0 01 U -,1 w -+ .--I
4.4 Cl. C ?.1 >
0 ?r?I JJ -r4 H Q~
>1 >-4 JJ >1
CQ1 a)(oO U~~--I 01
00 ?C0.(o 4-J (CC a
-4 -1 A.) W 4J 0
41 0 01V U 0 H ?-4 U
0 C C C -4 JJ a%
E., .r+ a) row Q ? -I (+'1
0 U 4 ??4 a) 0 -100
w () 4J a) 1J V) JJ LL o
a 1J V) 01 C V1 /o
(o a, a) ? .-~
. 'n ? c ?,1 . --I w z
o4 (Co -I E to u N . . -I E- 3 0,-4
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
r-I 4j
U) r0 U C
c0 C C C N~
O r N O E '-1
-4 a(0
d) +~ t0 U O C
U (0 L' U) r-I w
N m ra -4 > O
?r1 W C C (0 (D '7
U O ?rl f0 ?r1 ra
U) C U N
U) ?r1 r-I 0
E U
ri U c0 0
(!~ ^1 C
t0 ?r1 $-i ?r1 .--I )
?r1 $4 1J U W Z ?r1
U 0 O O D U
O 4J ft U) ?r1 U)
N C C. aJ w
w U U C w ri
> $4 W Z f0
C r0 JJ E U ?r1
4j ?4 N Qa U
U) C 0 %O
W W W ?r1 -4 U) U)
0 0$4 NQ)
C > 1..1 r-I
C C O N Z 0
O U) O --4 ?r1 V LJ C
?r1 Q) ?r1 4) O O
1J JJ r-I (U %=-4
O ?.- 10 t0 JJ N 14 4J
E ri W ?r1 C v 4) ro
0 M 4J O U U) C
1.1 ?r1 CL C E C 10 >,.1
L4 U O N 7 G) 1..1 v
U) W.4J U ?4V-14J
.-4 aOOUCC
r-I 'O -- QI10 U) ?.-1 I
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
>4 C
N O ?,.i %.1 C
44 0
C 41 0
?4 C C] O
0 ?rl 4) O H 0
14 ~4 ~1 4J . f!
O O4)rd
C. O V)
U U W O
H ra
H r-1
E E
N rV
tf3 -Ee
C
0
? ri
>1 ?4)
U C U
ro 0 C C
1-1 ?r?4 C O
(1) +1 44 C !4
11 (10 U) C a)
H JJ ro 4J rd ~+ 0)
U) C ?r4 11 0 ?.-1
c O (n Wry a
0- ro (D a
a) E11 041'd 44
4J 0rorcro(d U) 0
ro roc4lE
(d ro C C -,.1 +( -ri E
~1 1??I H O 1?1 C ro a
a) a) ?H ?Q a) )-( 0
4 - ) H r4
o (d(daa a)
+1 -1 U 0 d >
,C C ra r-1 C (1)
U) C U) ro C a) (d ro
+1 .,.i .,.(W (d > U)
1.1 -4 4) C a) E
40.1 N )4-1 ((a r UU)) ro ?0 4J 4i
4-4 > a) 4) :3 Z W aJ U)
U'-4 ?r( C? QQ,04 U ro 44 0 0)
44 (d CT C
ors ,, 044 c N ro C C
- 4J it 0 -r1 0 W 0 0
1) l( 1d 44 ?r1 r(
8.4 C C a) ( 5-. 4) 4.)
0r1 -r(m4Ja)(0 >1 a) Oro.
01 (d E 0 r-4 E U ,.C E U
as >?+(o4)U(0 (d U) 0
cn c ~ rn rn a) x 04 4)
0 0 0) 0 4-1
? 4) H s-1 C N -r ?r?(
a1?.
In
C
v
>.~ma)
U C) N
C U ?ri
?r1 ?ri r-I
> ro
C 0 4 C
a) 0 ?ri .u (1) O
U) ro -r+ 4J U) ?,1
ro 11 U v 1s
(1) )4 ro ~7 U ri (1)
ro 4) U >1 C ro )/
ro a tr ( ) c
ro ro ro c 4)rorn -r+ 4)o
0 C 14 C a) .,.1 U) r-?1 C U) -r+
of (Ij roa) a) -r, U) -r+4Ja,
.14 r-( 4-1 r-4 0 4.4 U) ~1 ro U) it N
4) U) d U) N a ro d d )-1 C 0 (n 0 ?H
( a) ?ri m ,C ?-' C 4a N ro r?-1 r-1 4) ro C r4
r-1 -r4 4-1 Q) 01 ,0 0 C r-1 (d u rd rC rd
a) 4) C C -H U) -.- 41 a) 0 C C S-1 r-1 a) 4
?ri a) ,.i (.- )-1 4J 0 ,C 0 ?ri 11 rt 4)
U) JJ U) rd a) O U -4 U) U 44 C
Li O 4a r-1 4J -r, .rJ m in - r i ? r-1 O a)
0 4 , 0 Q) 0 0 -r(0 to U) c C U
> ,, a--' 14 0 0) a) a) -- -ra rc (n a)
-4 44 % 41 U M 04 04 C44.4 U) E U U)ro
0 0 0 c (n c ?r? 08.+ 0 ro a) a)
0 a) ?r1 r-1 .0 ro 4 11 0 d +1 C ro
-ri E rri (d N rd a C ?r4 C a)
C C 4-1 a (1) ro ?r-4 3 a) 4J ,.4 ro r?7 > 4-i
m --4 (d 0 U C 4 Ora )-1 0:3 (d /a) r. - r1 o
?r'1 0 U r-1 C (d -r1 r-( -r( U 1) C ,0 (d 1J
(1) ?r1 C (k) (d C 4 rd a) ?ri 0 A U (n
w (d ro > > a -r1 a) C ,C 1.1 41 ?r1 ?r1 m a) 4J
0 ?4 W a) ro ?ri 4-4 (d 4.) .r.i U) L' LI a 44
C
44 1) ro (d (L) a) C Id b .,4 4-1 a)
r 1 N ,C V) U) C ,C --I U U ,C a)
a)
ro a) - a) ra )-1 4J C 4) -r1 4) C (n
a) > +J ,C C (d -r1 C Al rti a) 3: ru
4 0 C 4J (0 r-I ''U C a) 41 a) U) (L) c 0 0 ?
U w ?ri 0 C -ri F. C rd
Q) a 44 U) C 0 (t$ 4)?r( -1 4-1 r-?
E 0 C O 44 4.4 U) Oro 4 )> 4
?ri 41 0 (n a) 4J CC E 4J ,sr C 44 U 11 0
U) C C ?r-( ,0 a d +1 0 (d C ?r1
a 0 a) 0 11 C () (L) ro 0 0 +1 v a)
0 ,0 4) E -r?1 C ?ri U) +1 r0 C 3 ?11 to 44 ?r+ ,C (V
r4+( Z 4)+1 (lo)rd (dN 4U 0U4w
a) ?r?1 CO 11 0 ?r-( .a.l ?rl C >i a N 0 .,., a -r( 4J
> a) a) E ~1 (n 4 rd a) 4) ?rI a) E -?1 a 4a aJ (n
aJ d+ > 0 0) a ?ri (d aL C 'c tr 0 4) C 44 (L) -,i
' N 0 0 )?1 C U) U 5-1 a) N (d 1+ E U) a) a) C
o ( 0 a (d 4+ O C 0 (1) E
E- O C E-' (d W 4 ?ri ?r1 H rC o ro
v UI U ?A - U O 4J U 4-) r-1 - +1 1) b
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
4
H
\ 1J
01 ^ C ~
ro a 0 A
?'+C
44
O _ -44 O
N
w
N m
?.4 r?I O
W S ?,i O
a%
U)
z
U U
4140 CO
ro
,i
.,A .- 0 tf1
a
44 44 -
11 UN
U
0 04 0
m r_ -W
O 0
C.~ 0 C
,-I 0
H?I ??4 ro
?,4 ,-I -
4J
U m
O
OHO
.-I
(0
-4 J-'
C
O 4 0
-
U
Sd 1d
C
Ln
rc:
C
U 0
UV) O- HWafns
1-+O
(0 ~4
o >,+ a
+) Ew
C 0
ro v
)-, U 'L7 1J
?~ -4 C E
C C ro ~+ C ~
00m
co E N w .r.,
1-I 't3 U 4- r-4
Ei ro C M rd 0-
,10 C U rd m
c r-4 4J -4 :3 4-)0
O 0 m C'LJ m A
.,4 0 ?4 C v 04
lJ a m ro
ro U m rl w C ,C I
m (0 04 044- fro
4-) 4-4 Z
U) ' '-+ r-I >T 41 3 0
r+ N ro rd c: -4
> 0 ' U ) 1)
0 0 0 0 E ro
E >,+ ?,i C -'4 rd u
Q 6C 0C4j (V cua1 V
/~ -40 W?+a0 G)
04 -4 1) w W W^~
?r4 w 4.) 1?, 41 04
. 0 U G) 0 'O m 0
m w a 'O w C C '0 041
>r >.a -1 ro ?-b 0
b ~
0 C
C
U) 0
.?a w 4
ro C 1-, -- O 0 !., ?,-4
-a C ?,i1J4)1J -4
ch a ro -- 4-) U E U) E-
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
4J
mU
1.( H
?r4 )?1
I~ 0
m 04
W a En ca
42 a 0 0
ro
U) tr
0 >
b 0 0
O4JJ H
C
-, .- 0
C C -r?1
o o 0 H
.r-1 ?r1 ?r?1 H
,--1 H H
H H H
Lr)
f7 H H O
ro ro H 4J H 0 a) S4 H (I 0 rd ?r1 Q. >
u w (d W 4.) .14 b a) N u r. .0 ro
H E ?r?1 0 C N -iJ H - ~J X ro (0 b .c
~" ro a 14 4-1 a s (C 4) it r. )-1 U) 4 J a)
a F. tr u c: r. 04-1 0 >1 ?r?1 a) N Ic
U 0 a) 0 a 41 0 O a) 0 ?r-1 0 yJ 41 .2 H U
Q) -1-1 N >a 'O 0 .2 to E ?r4 4j ?r?1 N s.1 >~ H
E+ aJ (V w ?H H C a) a) 4j (C N U u (C to
ro (d .C
ro a Q1 > a ?14 t) ro u O ae ?r1 ?r?1 a) E C 3
b U J 1 (a 0> H 10 (d O O +J 1.1 N Jd S?1 44 r 1
c 0 u >.+ a C C 0 10 (a 0 (C (d 0 a tr U
ro >C C04rONro (a > a)41 3 Au g-+(L)
.r.( yJ U) E U) a H C ;J b ?r1
0
r1
H
H
? r1
E
Ui
O
N V)
as
H 'O b
? 0 a H a
x14.1 N C ro (C yJ
C C +J C - 4J
V -r+ N 0 0 ?a H ?r? N ?r?1
C a -r1 C ?r?1 a ro H a E
ro C i4 - 1J 3 4J N H g o
ro ro ro 0 a s ?r4 4J
N H 4J H N U 0,- E C . >I
a a U a C O C C U) H N C H
H 4 )1 0 > 0 ro u 41 tr ?r+ a
ro +J a w -r?1 - -I E 0 (1) C a) Cr
tr U ?r-1 > ;J b ?1J - ~J 4 a) O) rC (n )4
C ?r1 N -r1 N 1~ 41 (d H 41 C ro^
?r?1 C )4 1J (C (C -J C 4) ro r. N C N O H al
C L a) C S-1 ?-4 a) .r.1 ?r?1 ?-1 0 H 44 ---I C
1 U 41 > L1 44 N 4J E H >`1 ?r1 H O 4J C --4
ro a 0 ?~ a C O N 04 ? -4 -1 N >`( 4J .14 (o a C
w 4J Q) 04 ?r1AC 0A Nsa U) . >1HaC
E 1 E 0 a -H H (d a s N O N dJ Z A (V
10 >t 0 4-4 a) g b ,C 04,0 ?r( a H
H C0 au0CC >G) Cu of H H0 (1)04
H tr -H 0 V a N b H L1 O H b 0 E 1.1 H
it r. 0 3 4J C C N 44 C (C 0 Lfl a 1.( ?r1 a) +J ro
C -14 4J (C ?11 G) 0 (C +J 44 O iJ U 44 C C
0 C NN NC ,~ a W to (0OZo
.14 a C -- 4J a- C ?r?1 C .J a C O N N a 0 ?r?1
+J , 0 >Y O N 0 )10 N 0 tr H E 0 O H ri 11 N U yJ
(C 1J -?+ U (C N C I: ?r?1 C C 04 -4 4J ? 1 b H U 1J (C
O tr 4.J ro w a -.?1 H A 4- ?,i U 0 4J C C ro C U C C
0 C (C >?( 41 C C O O C ?r?1 H (C N (C ?r?1 ?r?1 ?~ 7 (C S -H
Q) u w O +) 0 -14 N b A 41 0 (C t) > 0 U W GU) 0 O 'O O
4J 'O ?r.1 O a !.1 U ? -4 1.1 1.1 4 a b E- a ro 04 E4 )-1 C N
to a H -~ M 4J N 3 04 ;J - b W -- E E U) - 414: 4a
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
N 4?I
C u C 0
0 ? r( I?I
4J C
rd 4J rd
E a)
a) ro O >4
4J (d
~-4 4J
>1 N H
~4 a rd
ro rd I4 C
4J 0 H
b H I ?,-4 C U)
w FC C O
U 0 fa 1 r.4 (a H
C U) Q
-I O
a)> roa)U 0
41 .,-1 -,-4 W C 4 C
H U) Q Q W H W
C r-
0 0
.1r ?H
1~ ~
C
O (N
-
4j
0
>1 N 4J m E
tP I C C C a)
O C b 0 U) N b O r0 +J
r-I 0 E ?.-4 x r - 4 a) U- 4 C JJ
0 C N H W LI I-I (d ?r I ?r, 4J (1~ W
C 0 ~-I 4-) Orb O 0
-H a) rd a) w .u
O rd 4J s4 C E +) C
a C (V 0 -,-4 Ia rd it -,q A
+) O 0 W b 0 a) E a)
-rr I?( 44 I?I O w C
rb 4) TI N +) C 4 O C
c (Z a) ~4 -4 co C 0
rd C b 4-I (a a) N
w N C 0 H r?( Cl I?I
(d
O C
s-I b
0
>
3 O
C
Q) 4
N
0
+) .,a
>
0
E ?,-r
0) a)
C
v +)
?H
-r(
a
4J
C ?r+ U
C
C (0
4)
Cl
N
a) w b
H
U
U
(a
to
tT C
E
4J W
C >11
U
b
C -r+
N
C
H
O ro m
C
0)
.14
N
b a)
rd
C a) O
C
rb
c:
N
ro C
a)
O rr~
0 r-4
0
a)
(a a)
b u
N
U 41
a)U -r, - - CCa)E 0 -r?a)O --I ,-I(T a)wU
m ?ra E N 41 41 (a rd w a) ?r+ l41 C +) w b 1-1 (d rd O C
u C 4) a) ~4 C C c +) 4J a) (V c (a 0 - x () +) ? r 1
-rI -r, rd N a) .1 H 04 u a) U) b w c: u u N C w N
E C O x c: >r U , ?r( a) b >r a) -H 0 a) ,C N C
b ro u)-,4 9-I a) H a) ?r+ N C C E 41 ro u l ,-I w u a) 0
a a) ~ C rd 0 4 a) C rb x N a) w c: C E W () .r4
v N 11 ?r?I I-I 4 > a) ?,-4 a) a) I4 N a) a) ( 4 b C b ?ri N
?.-I rd C ++ C a) ,C rd C 0 t T N 41 H ?- 'C (0 ?r?( 0 a) > C
J-.) -+ E ?r?I 0 O ro s w +) C 3 C -H (d (0 O O C 4J ?rd N I.+ b
rd a) (d N ?r+ .j J-) (0 4j ?r+ ro -r4 1a -H x 0 I?I 4J U a) 04
E 4) ro 5 U N 0 N a) a a) 4.) 5 a) w a) -r+ O b >`+ N x
c c.1.) -rH C 4J ' O44 N n C Nro a +) 44 N N u a)
and +r b C 4(0-H A ?r+C0 rd a) 4J N CC u ^
a) E ,-r rd 0a (a 14 ri N x b 5 r4 C () O ro 0) u C N
u Oa)rdE x >xE-H ~+E m Q. -14 a)(1)4-I ua)CC04)
C u u c: a) a) tr (L) 5 rd b a) a) 04 CO ,9 FO 0 H (d ?ra a)
a) C o ,C C 0 I-I C U +) w N (d 4 7 Ia (d rb C +) -W U)
it 0) ?r+ 4-) ro a 3 O' - N 0 >, ro +) 04 C C m b ro
O -H tT (d C N U 4 O ro C >, ra C C C N 0 b M U
U) ,C O a) E rd b a) I?( C rd N C b O (a ?r r ro - .-+ U) C rc
N N I-I I-I C C nI d u O C C (n a rb
4-I -r+ rb 1) +) r+ -H C -.?+ rd C r4 4 ?? (d a) a) rd a) ro
o .--I C 4 C C I U (d s-I sa o 41 0 rd C a) U -r ( a) a)
0 U rd a) C C -,"I a) a) -1 (d ?r1 C a) ro r. 4) rb >4 C
t T b b E N r+ 0 C rd +) E C >r +) 0 E b N (a ?," I ?r, 0 -r4
C ?N x 'b a) a) x F -,-I O C N 4 b - 44 4M .14 a) .-+ E d?) U) > U? -) b
?r?I N I?( C u > I?I W +) I?I rd ?ri E ro -ri E Cl > 0 (d N 5 0 -1 b I?I
,c a 0 0 C 0 0 rO (0 4J C C Ia I-I N I`I a) O C I?( ?r+ a) I.( CE +)
u 3 u a) w 3 C. O O C -H ?r4 0 o N o L( -H 0) N> 0411-1 N
rd 0' .,-1 04 C C Q) 0 E 4I w 0 b u-( a 0 U -.-' u U) c
a) Er000 Ea) EN '0r-4?r,rd rdc ur-4C E05-I coa,CO
F C .-) N H C W 0 4- it a H - U-, lfl H E-r a C 4) +) ..r U
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
0 U CL
q;r
w
00
aw
z 4J
ro
U) 0
0
0 a)
r-4
?.4 0
4J CC
U
AS -4
0
Oa
to
rn
w
C7
z
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
'v r?1
0 w
a~. w C ~+ C C A)
4.) C C F 1 90 U
N E dJ O O 4~j -,I 4j
JJ 0 4J Q) 4J 4J ?rl W .,.4
E-4 a)a 41 4)> CCEU
U C UQ aJ W
O ?rl ?..1 aJ
O \
r-4 44 ca (C U
(a C O a) a) rl 44
0 -O JJ U 04 90 V-1 C 0
?1.1 4J C a, 90 Z v
0 0?1U .Cf.i 04J
>
> E t-i ?r1 E-r U U Z
4J 0 $4 4J
'0 $4 a) )4 w O ?-4 '0 U ?rl
a) N 90 ?rl 4.) - r-1 ?r/ 1) w 4J 0 C O 0 'D ?rl 1J 0 Z N
3 HU a CC
ax f-132: H
44 aJ -- 4A- -,4 JJ
0 U) \ C \ C -r1
rl V) 0 >
C J : a) ?-I a) U ?, 1
r-1
90
U
JJ ?. f 4J
C C C
90 '0 J : Q)
U Q) U
U) U)
W Q) .4.J >
01 r-1
C C '0 0
0' 90 C C >
r1 '0 90 0 C
U) C ..4 -.~
Q) (n yJ
>1 E J : 90 f-i
'-1 U) )+ 90 U C 0
?'+ Q) 0 -a !~ Q) -4 4-)
+.1 0 a)C> 04)0
O w C w 90 90 0 U) -rl
-4 a) 0 a a) 4J 0 ,.)
4J Q+ ?'4 f-+ U) U a) 90
90 O r-I rn -rl JJ >
C -+ r-1 C CD U) t7) 90 s-1
L?1 a, ?r1 ?.?1 O > Q)
U) E C o90 rlN
4j U --4 % . >J a)
C ?rl - (p O .-4 to a)-+
?rl s.~ ? 1a Ln (a a)
0 ?-1 1J M U ?,4 44
0 11 O a) l) -4 -,-l
-r1 '0 '0 - 90 '0 JJ U JJ
4J C N > 4) 90 90 C
90 O a) f-i U O
O ?,..1 a) C O 01 r-1 ^J
.0 r-1 O y) to 0 O C 90 E '0
090 ?W Q) 4.) '-?..1C ..~v
f I S-( O a) 1.1 U) CD C O JJ 01
:3 Ln a W ?.1 0 ?11 -rl
J.) N 0 N 9001
-I C A . C ((U i w
0 -1
C 1J
O C
W 90
01
(n QC)
?C '0
U U) 90 C
U) C
>+ O O
(4-4 -14
E N
0 a) 0 U
?C O C
U)1J O 90
O a) V E
aJ C 44 0
-rI 90 1J 0 44
> 90 w
Q)
0 a4J) a
90 U -r1 (0 44
~
IN O
N a) C
w 90 w O
90 O .u r1
vX w %4J
$4 0 90 N 90
U U a! N
C H 4-1 to -?-I
r 1 0 104 C
$+ 90 C 0 01
O -~ 0 O -?1
44 U) U1 ? 4 to 0
O Q) 4j 4.) JJU a) 044
C ~U)
L-I Z JJ E (a ?rl N o,
O 1J Os-i Ca,C
04-1 -?4 W Q ?r1 U -r1
a- E a 90 -+aJ
O 4J E '0 I+ a)
(nCO ?C E-4 0a)
ri U) C
va)0
C ?.?1 ?r1
C'0 4J
0 =1
U) 41
E
-a to $4
O 0
04 (L)44
W C
4J (0 ?rt
C O
Q) 44
E ?0
am
0 'O aJ
0 C
> 4J
a'E
'0 o
r-1
.4 01m
(UC>
$4 -r1 a)
= C 'O
1) ?rl
~>wU
U ;J a)
U .-1
44 44 ?rl
0 0> 0)
a
CO U) U
-+ ?r1 a\
4J >I Md'
?r1 90 N N r-1 ao
90:3 0w O
> r-1 tq a) Lo
E 1 90 ?r1 ;J U' ?-1
> > C Z
? W '0 a) 4 o
Ln v 90 t.) 3 r-1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
0 U 1J
U ?r1 a
U) C
-u
z m lJ
a~ a Em
-~ o C
U U r-t A
RC 1 \ a H
+ C H r-I tT .:
V] O C
A I H -rt
U) C
. -rt
W AS
. 4.1
C) c)
(M C)
O O
.
O O
(n to
M M
C C
o o r
-r( ?rt 0
c .-t ri
0 r-4
O -4 ?r?4 ?rt r-1
CD - E E -?-(
o r~ E
rt (n LO
O E I'D kD t!1
C)
N M O O
-4 44
tC >r O
4.1 a) r-I 1J
JJ U 4a U
CC t0 a) to
0 Q) ru C: r-4 cc Q)
m W O 'v r-4 0 ^, m >y
U ? -4 (a -I U (L) S??t JJ
-4 10 (0 N 4J -4 dJ -4
w a) r?1 tT 4J (a 4.1 (0 O to
4I w (a 0 JJ 'O a) v (0 -rt a)
aJo 0 4i3 -r1CU 04 04 >
C W to 4J 3 >1 0 a >`+ ?rl
a) a) a) 'v to w 0 - \ a, c
E m -t m ?rt I 41 CO to m U 4.- c7 ;J Z
044-) .a (3) J-( -r+ U -I tT s?+ C V) I
0 U R JJ .-I tT .c A (0 c .II (1) D JJ U)
(1) 04-4 > C H a -4 -?4 -rt O E }?+ C
-n to r-t ?.?t ?rt S-1 r '-I .J 04 (0 0 ?rt
> 0 0 .~ 4J C W a) a) U 0 Jr. 1J
a) 44 a) U rt 0 'v 4J .-1 ' a'- w m to
A 04 CO) 104 (C -.-t (ts U C N a) 0 ?r?t
C (a w m > E C 0 > I x
a) ri 0 u) }J yJ C 0 ?r-t a) (L) +t a)
.s.' m -?-( C -14 41 r-{ a) 4J 'v C tT
4J 44 4) $J H U) C Q+ (a ? U (0 a) C C
a) m AS 0 C -r-t U m -rt > m E -??t ?rt
W 4J 4J u ) '7 0 (0 0 - - 1c> .,a C .. r-
0 (0 U) r-4 ? .?t -a 4J C O 4a 4-( 0 m H m
4-4 -4 a) 4i 4J 4.) X. -r4 a) 04-4 ?r4 AS 04
?r1 .. C JJ 0 as a) U 1J m 4J r-t 44 ?rt
E n 4J C yJ U r-1 (4 a) (a w (0.0 aJ C
(d L+ 4 U ?rt (0 J.) U C O U (0 U)
4+ CO (0 a) C C 0 ?.4 0 ?ri JJ k) C
tT C Q) JJ U) 0 C W C ???4 C C U) a) U) f??(
0 0 C E -11 010 C JJ 0 (1) a) -r( a) m
w ?r1 1J a) a) E m c E rts ?-t E aJ r-t aJ E
11 mm 4J 0m ?r?aEE (0 E4)4.) (a C(0
to 0 a) (a U a) i u 0 -??( C 0 4- -t C ?,i 44
r+U U4t > Q) 44 (a -IU0 (13 U4JE >?+ tT
r1 1 a .,.1 rI0 4) :5 w a E a0
iJ 3 u a) 4-( .-?t O C C )C C a) O 0 C 4/~-t
0 O 111 H a U U) 0 -??t W ?rt 4a U '7 to W
(-+E aC
E ???t
0 ?m
r-1 U N ^, r1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86MOO886ROO0900080007-1
H
H H A
U) W H
U)
H
r0
4)0
>4
0
04
m w~
4-+
4J -4 r-4 m rd
c: IT -'+ a)
a) C U) O ,C
O) 0 ro
U H ?r, m U) C
m rd 4-) U C 0
N?rr U a-r+
Ciro it ?,-4
rc: I U CUUa
a) 64)?11 0
C O w O
? + tT U .-1 E U
C a) 8 a)
rd ,C rd U
1 U >a C -4
a) 11 C w
() 4) rd r. --+
>T r--4 0 C 4J
rd E ?r, ?.4 a) H
C lT U
a) U t
ro o > :3 C -
a, U) W t0
r-1 4J V.
rd 0 a) H U) 0
U .., , b ?r?r
+ro 0 s.rro4J
(V w V.
a?+ 04 4J U
u--~ 0.-4 0C
a) > 0 :3 )-r ro
H E+ U U rd a)
C a+
0 rd m
(V TI
rn - C
C CT r0
r .,.4 C
rd 4.+ 0
a) 0) -4
(0 4.)
4a .0 U rd
0 Cro 0
C 0 0 0
0 0 m ).1 44
?'?r ?., 4i A C
V) 4j u -,4 U
c 0 0 M -4
(a u?r,C110
Q, 0 -4 C -4
m ro N m a)
a)a:3 0 0
3
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86MOO886ROO0900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
0
o .. C oa
(000 0 44 b ??;c Z >i0
O o0 O- 0) 0 0 U 1+ 4)
040 00 4J W- 4.) W 0 0 r-4 14
.rq (n Ooo 4 4) w0 roro
w ~+ f A -0 4 J4 40 0) u 4) ,n o C ro
ro ro U) 4)'- ?r C O ro ri .~ a?) -r4 O 0 C
$ 4) > - 4J H - C - > EF a - -14 10
au ?r44) 0 U) 0 4Js4U 0 .14)
44 ?r4 C A u 0 Crf0 44 (0 4) ro 0 ro(n
4 4) u?r., 0 H (0Lr) Z(nra Cr4 Z
44 "q w > C-0 44 - (0E
0 C U Q 1+ O 0- O, ro 0
0U) raai U) 041 0) ~H OZ (L) U) 04-)
4) 4) >1 ro - 4) 4 0 u ?r1 4) ++ (0
44 ;+ 14 C a C(0 44 4) (o w u Ei
O (TJ 0 w s-I W o as ro?ri ++ W
U w -40 a r. 4) a+ Ca > C O
ro , 41 0 H (0 4) 0 roHroro a (044
w to ?rI (0 W U) w c ~4 )?1 (n C C -r1 4) s.+ C
E+ o~.] Zc): o 0H04 Era (0(a 4 cn 0H
0
0
H 0 0
H H
E: r-
E
(0 -rt (n 14 0 +) ?rt 4)
C Oi ES +) :7 f-i it 3
o C (0 U) (0 U C U)
? -4 ? r 1 0 in 4)E 4) w 4) >.
0 r. C
00 ro 0
E .-4 .-I C 0
0 U) C 1) 4) (0 ?r4
44 .1-4 4J E: U) U) (0
4j a 0 ro w s
U) U) -r+ 0 ro 4) 0 ~1 (1) 1-I
C ~+ H ?H C E: 44 (04-) O
(0 4) r, l- (0 C C ro C 44
?r~ (T .0 (0 U ?,..4 C." a C.
(0 (0 Q1 >1 O (a rZ -4
(0 C 011 - i 1-i ro r-+ 4) 0
O fa (0 (0 U(0 (0 m u ro
rd . E U -,-4 Sa - U C
S.1 ?11 4 J ,O U) ? -4 rl (n (0
01 r-I C r-I 1.1 ?r1 4) 0) (a
0 0 (0 (0H > O C
.i 44 ?,-4 C 04 -r1 H 0 ,C U)
LL 011 0 4),C o -ri 6
td r1 C ?r1 44 U ~+ 0 4) A U
(0 rt 0 C 01 U ro c: r, V1 ?rl
1-i 4) 1J it 0 C C ?r1 +J C >
o 4-) ro C 01E: 4) a(0 (00 44
44 Z :3 r- Q4 -4 44 04-4 Q)
s?1 (00 ?-I ro u U 0 9 1.) U)
H 0 u C Cry U)?ri O (0
44 ? 0) (0(0 44 C U U ro
H m ro ,C C C -r+ 0 ?r1 C
(a 4J 4.) r?+ 4) 4)O 04-) ?r4 to Z (0
4 N 4) 01 +) ?-l ? -4 C 4-+ +.)
4) 0-40 C(04)4)4) 0CE U)
04r4 3 4)C (0(0 -r' x 0 04
4) 04 (13 W ?4 E 0 0 F., O O
O a -r+ro +) ro 4) 4 0 w W u:3
Cl) cnoa ) ) 4- 0 aa) W
4 r-40
0)
+ r-~ 4)a) N 0 c: c: b (') (U a4?) ) a
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1
Page 2
4. Development of Third World national and
$1.2 million
Transfer of funds to:
regional library/information/archives
infrastructures
USIA
($600,000)
AID
($400,000)
Peace Corps ($200,000)
II. International Copyright Program
5. Promotion of international instruments on $500,000 Funds-in-trust to the
copyright and neighboring rights; training; Intergovernmental Cote
development of infrastructures; and promotion of the Universal Copyright
of access to protected works relating to Convention
copyright
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/15: CIA-RDP86M00886R000900080007-1