Paris- July 5, 2000

The first day of the Meeting of Governmental Experts on the Draft Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage held at the UNECO headquarters in Paris was a déjà vu from the last two years. The morning session was spent listening to the opening remarks of the delegates trying to outdo each other in complementing the chairperson for his being nominated again to the chair. Basically, kissing up and trying to align themselves in good favor for the week to come.

The afternoon's session went toward deciding how the plenary would be broken up into separate discussion groups for the following day. Nothing of any substance was achieved.

Tuesday morning's 10 AM session didn't get started until 11:15 AM. With most of the delegates milling about and waiting for the session's chairperson to arrive. When the meeting finally convened the subject of "definitions" was discussed. As in the past two years the conventions overbroad definition of underwater cultural heritage meaning "all traces of human existence" was again debated ad nauseam. Last years conclusions on this definition resulted in the use of strategically placed brackets on some words and phrases so that their specific meanings ostensibly would not be misconstrued (or was it possibly to be interpreted to accommodate an administrative regimes whims later on)?

This definition, Article 1(a) read: "Underwater cultural heritage" means all traces of human existence [which have been] partially, totally or periodically [situated] underwater for at least 100 years [or are 100 years old and underwater]. These definitions went on to express several inclusions and footnotes which are too lengthy to be included for the purposes of this report. The point is, that the whole morning and much of the afternoon's session was directed at trying to reach a consensus on an accepted definition of Article 1(a). They did not succeed, and went on to what they called Article X, which if accepted, would precede Article 7 in Option 3. (are you still with me)? Some States directly tied Article 1(a) to Article X, which if not included, they would not be a party to.

It is this kind of bureaucratic ramblings, disagreements, debates and indecisiveness that will be the downfall of this convention. I am fairly confident, even this early on, that it is this kind of mismanaged bureaucracy that will cause the convention to collapse on itself. As Senator Jesse Helms said in his letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright just last week: "In my mind, this situation underscores the wisdom of our country's decision some years ago to withdraw from UNESCO. I urge you to join me in an effort to stop UNESCO's effort to scuttle an important and workable area of Anglo-American law drawn from centuries of maritime custom, and to put an entire American industry sector out of business." (see Jesse Helms letter- click here)

More reports will follow- Pat Clyne