US embassy cable - 05PARIS3025

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