This week, when the Executive Board of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) meets in
Paris, the delegates will be hoping to avoid discussing the
controversial “UNESCO-Obiang Nguema Mbasogo International Prize for
Research in the Life Sciences.”
The prize is controversial because Obiang, the president
of Equatorial Guinea, is thought to be one of the most corrupt
dictators in Africa. The State Department’s 2009 Human Rights
Report lists some of the reasons why: unlawful killings by security
forces, torture of detainees and prisoners, life-threatening
conditions in prisons, and judicial and government
corruption.
The Executive Board approved the prize in 2008. But last
June, UNESCO’s Director-General, Irina Bokova, gave the delegates a
message of “alarm and anxiety” in which she said she had “heard the
voices of the many intellectuals, scientists, journalists and of
course governments and parliamentarians” deploring the prize.
Fearing for the reputation of UNESCO, Ms. Bokova delayed awarding
the prize and asked the Executive Board to address the issue at its
October meeting.
Many of the delegates from UNESCO’s 193 member states had
hoped that this issue could be settled quietly, through diplomatic
consultations, so it would not have to be dealt with publicly at
the Executive Board meeting. Unlike the United Nations’s General
Assembly and Security Council, UNESCO avoids controversy whenever
possible.
Some delegates had also hoped that Equatorial Guinea’s
recent agreement with the Commission of the African Union to
establish the headquarters of the new African Center for Science,
Technology, and Innovation in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, would
cause Equatorial Guinea to lose interest in its UNESCO
prize.
Those hopes were dashed by Equatorial Guinea’s Minister
for Foreign Affairs, Pastor Micha Ondo Bile. In his September
speech before the UN’s General Assembly he demanded that UNESCO
award its prize without further delay. Bile took the occasion to
denounce “the manipulations and maneuvers of the new UNESCO
administration,” and “the unfair and irresponsible attitude by
certain figures and NGOs working against the laudable and
humanitarian initiative to create the UNESCO-Obiang Nguema Mbasogo
prize.” What nonsense!
THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION about why Ms. Bokova is reluctant
to award the prize. It was controversial from the moment it was
first submitted to the Executive Board, of which I was a member at
the time, serving as the U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO. In addition to
the U.S., other countries including Norway, and the EU countries,
particularly France, strongly objected before and during the debate
to naming the prize after Obiang, given his wretched record on
human rights.
However, because of widespread support by the delegates
from Africa and from other developing countries, including, most
especially, the then-Chairman of the Executive Board, the
Ambassador to UNESCO from Benin, our efforts failed to prevent the
Executive Board from adopting Equatorial Guinea’s
proposal.
UNESCO Executive Board resolutions are rarely voted on,
but are adopted by “consensus,” in which the U.S. has no veto.
Although countries can object during debates, a consensus is
generally achieved if there is a large and determined majority.
After a brief debate on the proposed Obiang prize, the Chairman
quickly graveled the resolution to a “consensus” adoption despite
the objections of the U.S. and other delegations.
In June, Director-General Bokova asked that consultations
be conducted in “a spirit of mutual respect and dignity for all
partners concerned….” That’s UNESCO-speak for do not offend
Equatorial Guinea. That means that if they discuss the prize at the
Executive Board meeting, they will try to do it carefully and
quietly, perhaps during agenda item 38, “Report by the
Director-General on the assessment of the effectiveness of the
Overall Strategy for UNESCO Prizes.” The proposed decision for that
item asks the Director-General to “pursue her efforts aimed at
improving the visibility and effective management of UNESCO Prizes
as a tool for furthering the strategic objectives, programme
priorities, and prestige of the Organization ….” Which, being
translated from the bureaucratese, means, if instituting a prize
will discredit UNESCO, don’t do it.
If the Executive Board is serious about using prizes to
enhance UNESCO’s visibility and prestige, it must reverse its
earlier decision and reject the Obiang prize. It should also
encourage Equatorial Guinea to spend the $3 million it has
allocated for the prize on improving the lives of the suffering
people in its own country — which ranks near the bottom of the UN
human development report, and where 20 percent of the children die
before reaching the age of five.
Ms. Bokova is right: UNESCO’s reputation is on the line.
If the Executive Board does not reject the prize at its October
meeting, it will forfeit the respect of the international
community. This should be an easy one, but the Executive Board’s
tradition of consensus and collegiality will make taking a
principled stand difficult. Will they do it? Don’t hold your
breath.
