USUNESCO BIOETHICS DECLARATION DISCUSSIONS AT THE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 003025

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: TBIO US UNESCO KSCI
SUBJECT: USUNESCO BIOETHICS DECLARATION DISCUSSIONS AT THE
171ST EXECUTIVE BOARD


1. Summary. UNESCO's ongoing efforts to elaborate a
universal declaration on bioethics were discussed by the
171st Executive Board on April 22, 2005. Divisions on the
nature and usefulness of the declaration remain and it is
not clear that those divisions will be bridged before the
next round of negotiations in June. End Summary


2. Ambassador Sader of Uruguay, President of the
Intergovernmental Meeting of Experts, reported that the
consensus that, going into the April 4-6 Intergovernmental
experts meeting, had been assumed to exist did not actually
exist. He said he was consulting with countries already
(the first consultation is set for May 12) and that he
planned to hold an "open-ended" (meaning open to all)
meeting of interested countries around May 15. This would
be a negotiating meeting and not go paragraph by paragraph.
More meetings, he said may be necessary; in fact, it may
never be possible to get agreement. He also added that
there would be an ad hoc group to work on "inconclusive
areas." (Comment: We are not clear what this meant.)


3. Pierre Sane, the Assistant Director General for Social
and Human Sciences, later in the session, said that the
first informal meeting would be in May and would concentrate
on the "key issues"; getting consensus on these issues will
help move things forward. He talked of the
Intergovernmental meeting in June lasting "at least 5 days."


4. In the discussion of the Executive Board Proposed draft
decision (171EX/13),several countries (particularly Brazil)
noted their dissatisfaction with the process and with the
draft prepared by the International Bioethics Commission
(IBC). Brazil said that many points had been "skipped over"
and that IBC did not consult with governments.


5. The most interesting intervention was Canada's. After
noting the "urgent need" for the Declaration, the support
for it in Canada (or at least at a meeting held in Canada),
and the need to address biosphere issues, the Canadian
delegate said that because other fora are dealing with the
issue, this declaration "cannot" deal with the biosphere.
Also, he said, Articles 12 ["solidarity and cooperation"],
13 ["social responsibility"], 14 ["sharing of benefits"], 23
["transnational practices"], and 26 ["international
cooperation"] deal with "development issues" and "go beyond
bioethical issues." "This declaration should be limited to
issues that are not treated elsewhere." Duplication is
harmful; one document could "contradict" the other.


6. The UK said it was concerned about the difficulties to be
overcome. "We should not submit a document [to the General
Conference] unless we have reached agreement, and we are far
from getting it." We are "far from agreement" on scope,
etc.


7. At several points during the Executive Board, France made
it clear that the expect the universal declaration to be
followed by a convention.

8.Italy offered to be a "facilitator" for a meeting to be
held on "neutral territory" in a "more serene environment."


9. India said that while the relationship between man and
his world presents moral issues, there are also practical
issues. There is no consensus on the meaning of bio-ethics,
and this has to be considered very carefully. "The scope
and nature of the declaration should be clarified." "It
must reflect international consensus." The June meeting
should consider this "with gravity."



10. On the specifics of the proposed draft decision by the
Executive Board (Item 16),the US delegation suggested in
its opening remarks to delete "superlative" from Paragraph 5
of the proposed draft decision (a reference to the
superlative work performed by the IBC),and said this
amendment would be consistent with what had been said by the
previous speakers (Brazil, Uruguay, and France).
Subsequently, in the paragraph-by-paragraph discussion,
Brazil suggested taking out both "congratulates" and
"superlative." The US supported this. Australia suggested
a compromise-leaving "congratulates" and deleting
"superlative"--the original US proposal. There was a
consensus for this.


11. In its opening remarks, the US had suggested deleting
"excellent" from Paragraph 7. In the paragraph-by-paragraph
discussion, Brazil proposed eliminating this and also "the
quality of" (the preliminary draft prepared by the IBC).
Consensus formed around what the US had originally proposed.

12. In Paragraph 8, the US suggested changing the language
to say that the government experts "should attempt to
finalize a draft that can be presented." to make the point
that there was still a lot to be done and it was not certain
that it would be completed. The French referred to the US
position on "should" in the Declaration itself and said that
the language in the proposed draft decision that the
government experts "should" finalize a draft is not a
binding obligation. A number of countries, concerned about
the process, offered support to the US position (Indonesia;
India; UK, by saying high quality should be added). It was
agreed to keep the text as it is in the draft decision-and
the US pointed out that it agreed to this on the basis of
the French explanation of the meaning of the word "should."


13. Comment: The meeting was significant for the number of
concerns and objections raised to the process and the
current draft of the declaration. In particular, it was
significant that Canada took the opportunity to make an
explicit and well-prepared opposition to the extension of
the Declaration to issues of the biosphere and "social
responsibility." France's determination to push for a
bioethics convention is reminiscent of their efforts to pass
a cultural diversity convention come what may.

OLIVER