USUNESCO: APRIL 4-6 NEGOTIATIONS ON DECLARATION ON

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 002546

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS


E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: TBIO UNESCO KSCI
SUBJECT: USUNESCO: APRIL 4-6 NEGOTIATIONS ON DECLARATION ON
BIOETHICS


1. Summary. The first session of the intergovernmental
meeting held April 4-6 to discuss development of a draft
declaration on bioethics at UNESCO revealed that there is
not consensus support for the Preliminary Draft of the
Declaration submitted by the International Bioethics
Committee (IBC). Despite efforts by some delegations and
the Secretariat to present the Preliminary Draft as a
consensus text, give the appearance of inevitability, and
minimize the extent and importance of differences, the
governments present did not reach consensus or approve text.
End Summary.


2. At the first session of the intergovernmental meeting of
experts, April 4-6, Member States discussed development of a
declaration on bioethics, using the Preliminary Draft
developed by the IBC as the starting point for discussions.
The Bureau clearly expected Member States to support the
Preliminary Draft with only a few minor changes. The
Secretariat presented the Preliminary Draft as a "consensus

SIPDIS
text," and France lobbied hard for its acceptance with
little/no change. France was supported in this position by
Russia, Poland, Turkey, Ukraine, and to a lesser extent the
UK. France stated several times that Member States should
stick to the current timeline and send a final draft forward
to the 2005 General Conference for review and adoption,
arguing that "the perfect must not be the enemy of the
good." Other delegations, including the U.S., Germany,
Canada, India, Brazil, and Bolivia, took the position (often
for different or even opposed reasons) that the Preliminary
Draft is not acceptable in its current form and that further
discussion of general issues of scope and purpose, as well
as specific language, is necessary. Each of these
delegations argued that it is important to develop a text
that enjoys wide consensus, even if this means that a final
draft is not ready for consideration and possible adoption
at the 2005 General Conference. Brazil in particular
expressed their frustration with the "experts" process,
noting that the IBC had 6 meetings to develop the
Preliminary Draft while Member States were provided with
only 2 meetings to further develop and negotiate the text.


3. Disagreements about the text focused on whether the
Declaration should include a provision stating respect for
human life, on the nature of a declaration (should/shall),
and on its scope. Some delegations argued that the field of
bioethics includes, or should include, protection of the
biosphere and issues of social benefit and that the
declaration should explicitly address these topics. Other
delegations, including the US delegation, argued that the
declaration should focus on biomedical issues and that,
while the biosphere and social responsibility are important
topics, they fall outside of the scope of bioethics and that
efforts to include them would prevent consensus. There was
also controversy over inclusion of the term "human life" in
the declaration. The U.S. delegation argued that this is a
fundamental concept that forms the cornerstone of bioethics
and must be included in the declaration.


4. Despite clear disagreements about the declaration's
scope, purpose, and language, the Bureau sent the text to a
drafting group to resolve "minor differences." The
"technical drafting session" demonstrated the difficulty in
achieving consensus; a three-hour session focused on only
one, relatively brief Article and resulted in more
disagreement than had been evident at the beginning of the
session.


5. The inability to reach consensus was deflected into
complaints about the working conditions-i.e., the absence of
(or the Secretariat's refusal to use) a screen and
insufficient translation services beyond English and French.
In particular, the meeting concluded that more time is
needed to develop a consensus text and that the second
intergovernmental session in June should last for at least
5, rather than the currently scheduled 3, days. The DG will
be asked to make these requests at the forthcoming Executive
Board meeting. The delegation from Italy generously
offered to pay for translation services at the June meeting
so that delegates could work in all 6 official working
languages.


6. In the inter-sessional period, the President of the
meeting (Amb. Sader of Uruguay) will hold informal
consultations, and perhaps an open meeting, in Paris in an
effort to facilitate development of a text that can be
presented to the June session of the government experts'
meeting.


7. Among the obstacles faced was the intervention of the
UNESCO Legal Counsel. He strayed beyond legal advice to
give his views of why "shall" is the proper word in several
contexts, and purported to explain how the IBC had used
"shall" and "should". A point of order by the US that this
went beyond his appropriate role and that his explanation
was directly at variance with the explanations given by the
chairman of the IBC drafting group ended the discussion
(several other members agreed informally that he had acted
improperly). In subsequent discussions with the US
delegation, he denied saying what he had in fact said.


8. Several delegations and Director-General Matsuura
referred to the declaration as the first step towards
developing binding "international regulations in bioethics,"
i.e. a convention. The day after the meeting closed, the
Russian ambassador to UNESCO told Ambassador Oliver that
elaborating this declaration is one of the most important
pieces of work before the organization. He also made clear
that he sees the declaration as a precursor of a convention
on bioethics.

9.Comment: Different delegations seem to have fundamentally
different views on the appropriate focus and intent of the
declaration, and consensus will likely be very hard to
reach. Moreover, a number of delegations were represented
by non-governmental officials who did not seem to be
representing their governments' positions. Despite these
difficulties, there were many at the session who want to
push to have a final document ready by the October General
Conference meeting. End Comment. OLIVER