US embassy cable - 05PARIS4375

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 004375 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
PLEASE PASS NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - STEVE MORRIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SCUL, AORC, FR, UNESCO 
SUBJECT:  USUNESCO:  PLANS TO RECOGNIZE LE CORBUSIER'S WORK 
AS UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITES PROCEED 
 
1.  Summary:  Twenty Le-Corbusier-designed buildings have 
been chosen to represent the architect's work in a possible 
nomination for World Heritage site status, according to Le 
Corbusier Foundations officials who spoke at a June 21 
informal UNESCO meeting.  (A Le Corbusier-designed building 
on Harvard University's campus is not included in the 
package.)  The World Heritage Site nomination process, 
however, does not easily accommodate the planned 2007 
nomination.  The French Ambassador recommended discussing 
this issue with reps of countries standing for election to 
the World Heritage Committee (WHC).  End summary. 
 
2.  At a 21 June meeting attended by representatives of the 
Argentinean, Belgian, German, French, Indian and Swiss 
UNESCO representatives, representatives of the Le Corbusier 
Foundation explained the current status of the plans for a 
"serial nomination" in 2007 for World Heritage Site status 
that would recognize a twenty Le-Corbusier designed 
buildings worthy of World Heritage Site status and 
representative of the architect's life's work.  The 
buildings are located in France, Switzerland, India, 
Belgium, Germany and England.  The organizers dropped their 
original plans to include a Le Corbusier designed building 
located on Harvard University's campus, but expressed hope 
that perhaps this building might someday be included as an 
"extension" site. 
 
3.  French Ambassador to UNESCO Jean Gueguinou said that Le 
Corbusier's work obviously deserved recognition as a UNESCO 
World Heritage site.  Gueguinou then succinctly stated the 
problems: 
 
--when the nomination is made in 2007, WHC rules will limit 
the total number of new sites to 40 per year.  Each country 
may nominate a maximum of two sites, but one of them must be 
a natural site. 
 
--Therefore, for the nomination to succeed, each of the 
countries containing a building on the organizer's list 
would be required to select that building as their one 
cultural site for nomination.  This would be highly unlikely 
-- Countries may nominate only sites that are listed on 
their "Tentative List." (Note. World Heritage Convention 
procedures anticipate that each signatory will maintain a 
list of sites in its territory that it considers worthy of 
"World Heritage" status.  These lists are called "Tentative 
Lists." End note.) 
 
--Some countries, such as India and Argentina, might have 
different priorities for their Tentative Lists, Gueguinou 
noted.  The Argentine and Indian reps noted agreement. 
 
--The German and Belgian reps noted that the Le Corbusier 
sites are not on the their respective Tentative Lists and 
would not likely be included, due to internal political 
processes.  Moreover, Germany has already more or less 
decided on which sites to nominate through the year 2010. 
 
4.  Gueguinou emphasized that a solution should be found to 
the many procedural difficulties, given the obvious merit of 
a Le Corbusier nomination.  He expressed the hope that the 
World Heritage Center, the Paris-based UNESCO-housed 
administrative support body for the 1973 World Heritage 
Convention, would help find a solution.  The World Heritage 
Center representative at the meeting, apparently already 
persuaded that the Le Corbusier work deserved recognition, 
said that the World Heritage Center had a certain 
flexibility in interpreting the rules, but stopped well 
short of saying that the current rules could accommodate the 
nomination 
 
5.  Gueguinou and the Le Corbusier Foundation reps floated 
an idea to the effect that France and Switzerland could 
nominate Le-Corbusier buildings on their territories, with 
other Le Corbusier locations considered as "extension" 
sites. 
 
6.  Gueguinou noted that 12 of the 21 States who are 
represented on the World Heritage Committee, the policy- 
making body established by the 1973 World Heritage 
Convention, stand for election in October.  He encouraged 
discussion of the procedural problems in Le Corbusier 
nomination with reps of the countries standing for election. 
He also reiterated his feeling that the World Heritage 
Center should be able to help find a way to accommodate the 
nomination.  Finally, he suggested that the interested 
parties reconvene in November, after the UNESCO General 
Conference and the World Heritage Committee elections, to 
continue to make plans to promote the nomination 
Oliver