This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

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