How should UNESCO manage promotion of both ethics and cultural diversity?

UNESCO has been called the conscience of the United Nations system. It has programs specifically focusing on Ethics and Human Rights, promoting ethical conduct and protection of those rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written in the 1940s but it has taken decades to agree on the Conventions by which nations agree to establish laws to protect those rights and many countries (including the United States) have not ratified all those conventions. Not only do some governments have specific policies to limit or infringe on human rights, but there are serious debates about the universality of the rights set forth in the declaration. The religious freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration are examples of areas under discussion. Moreover, there are many ethical issues such as responsibility for environmental sustainability and the appropriate treatment of animals that are not "human rights" and are not universally agreed upon among peoples and nations.

UNESCO also is concerned with the promotion of cultural diversity and indeed has a program specifically chartered for that purpose. Last year it published a UNESCO World Report titledInvesting in Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialog.

To what degree should UNESCO's tolerance of cultural diversity be limited by its concern for ethical behavior? Should UNESCO militate against coercive governments that do not respect internationally agreed upon human rights of their subjects? Should it militate against religious leaders who call for sanctions against those expressing views which they feel to be sacrilegious? Should UNESCO seek cultural change in Africa to abolish female circumcision" Should UNESCO reject applications for recognition of bull fighting as an expression of Spanish culture because many people feel that the practice imposes ethically unacceptable pain and suffering to animals?

UNESCO's Director General, as a matter of policy, issues a public protest whenever a journalist is assassinated, calling for investigations of such killings. It offers a prize to recognize those reporters who place themselves in danger in order to report stories important to their audiences. On the other hand, UNESCO does not seem to have a comparable policy to publicly intervene to protect the human rights of scientists, nor does it seem to be prepared to intervene forcefully on behalf of educators and cultural leaders whose human rights are infringed upon.

UNESCO is construed as a laboratory and a clearinghouse for ideas, and perhaps it should promote discussion and debate on the intersection of the promotion of ethical behavior and respect for human rights with the development of cultural diversity policies. Yet the culture of UNESCO's governing bodies would seem such as to make such a course of action likely or even possible. Agreement among 58 representatives of member nations in the Executive Board or among the 193 delegations of member nations in the General Conference is fragile and is managed by a diplomatic process in which the most controversial issues are usually finessed or deferred. (The lesson of the debate on the New World Information Order which was not adequately contained and which is thought to have been a major reason for the withdrawal of two of UNESCO's largest donors may be germane here.) How can a body of nations including the worst offenders against human rights come to debate productively about efforts to protect human rights? How can a body of nations currently divided along cultural lines debate productively about the promotion of cultural changes which are needed to preserve human rights?

While the ideas expressed above are my own, I owe thanks to Ignacio Barrenechea for bringing the subject to my intention and helping to inform my thinking.