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

201613Z May 05

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 003490 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
FOR IO/T, IO/UNA 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: TBIO US FR UNESCO KSCI
SUBJECT: USUNESCO:  INFORMAL BIOETHICS DECLARATION MEETING 
 
 
¶1. An explicitly "informal" and ad referendum intersessional 
meeting on the draft bioethics declaration called by 
Ambassador Sader, President of the Intergovernmental Meeting 
of Experts, was held at UNESCO on May 17.  The meeting was 
organized around a non-paper written by Sader and 
distributed at the beginning of the meeting.  It set out the 
issues that need to be considered, organized by topic: 
"terms and scope," "aims," "principles," and "transversal 
issues."  (The document is not yet available 
electronically).  The meeting was attended by US Mission 
health attach John Hoff and Ambassador Oliver. 
 
¶2. There was consensus (but not unanimity) for avoiding a 
definition of bioethics and instead describing what is 
covered.  (Peru and Bolivia expressed reservations about 
this approach; Mexico recognized that replacing a definition 
with a description does not avoid the issues, and said the 
description must contain the three matters at issue, 
described below.)  There was also consensus for merging 
Articles 1 and 2.  US rep pointed out that this depended on 
the substance of the resulting provision. 
 
¶3. There was also general agreement that the substantive 
disagreement centered on which of the three issues should be 
addressed in the declaration ("the triptych")-medical, 
social, and environmental.  (These were sometimes referred 
to as the 4 issues, depending on how so-called bio-piracy 
and access to health care were counted).  Brazil said that 
the social and environmental issues may not be in the 
definition of bioethics, but "touch on" bioethical issues. 
US rep suggested that this approach might offer promise; 
these other issues are not part of bioethics-access to 
medicine is not bioethics, but the way care is 
delivered/researched is-but may touch them (if they "touch," 
they are outside of bioethical issues and separate from 
them), and the existence of these issues could be 
acknowledged without including them in the operative 
provisions of the declaration.   [Any such formulation 
should incorporate a reference to the other fora that are 
dealing with these issues.]  Canada said these other issues 
were "linked" to bioethics.   Luxembourg said bioethics 
bears on bio-medical problems, but is "connected" with these 
other issues. 
 
¶4. After the break, the discussion turned to Article 3 
(Aims).  Countries began reintroducing the three items into 
the body of bioethics through the statement of "aims." 
India, for instance, said bio-ethics included bringing 
medicine to people who need it, etc. Peru complained that 
biodiversity was mentioned in Article 3 but social rights 
weren't.  Turkey wanted to add international companies. 
Brazil emphasized the word "responsibility."  US rep pointed 
out that putting things into "Aims" makes them matters of 
bioethics; social issues and biodiversity were not  "aims" 
of bioethics, but a goal for science (to which bioethics 
should apply to prevent abuses of people).  US rep also said 
that respect for human life had to be in Aims, in which 
human dignity is included.  Canada pointed out the problems 
in getting into these other areas-UNESCO already has adopted 
declaration on these things. What would be the relationship 
among the declarations? 
 
 
¶5. After lunch the discussion turned to the "principles." 
Ambassador Sader said the questions were whether to include 
social issues, respect for human life, and a reference to 
"double standards," referring to Saudi Arabia's suggested 
modifications to Article 5 and Brazil's intervention on 
this. 
 
Discussion of  "transversal" issues 
 
¶6.  US rep pointed out the importance of shall/should and 
said that even the Canadian approach presented problems: it 
would take lawyers a lot of work to see what had previously 
been agreed to as binding; there is a danger of inflation of 
rights through summarized references; and if there were a 
pre-existing obligation, there is no benefit in restating 
it.  Canada emphasized that their "starting point" was the 
use of  "should," that it "may be" all right to use "shall" 
to refer to an "established legal right," but that this 
would require "careful drafting."   Japan agreed that the 
word "should" should be used; they pointed out that this 
does not depend on the nature of a particular article but 
results from the non-binding nature of the document; they 
said "shall" presents a problem.  Peru suggested that since 
the document was non-binding, "we have the luxury" of using 
"shall."  Canada then explained the difficulty this 
presented: even if the document is non-binding, courts may 
give weight to a principle that is stated in the mandatory 
terms of  "shall."   Mexico said that "should" should be 
used generally except when existing obligations. 
 
¶7. Ambassador Sader said treatment of human life remains a 
problem.  He suggested including it in the preamble.  US rep 
said that this would not be sufficient, because that would 
put a primary factor in a subordinate position to other 
things that were derived from the primary principle.  Brazil 
said the world is split; this is difficult.  Japan said we 
should avoid discussion of this issue.  Ambassador Sader 
said use of  "human beings" has been accepted-although a 
particular context may require otherwise.  He also discussed 
using the preamble for settling controversial issues (in 
addition to respect for life, discussed separately). 
 
¶8. Germany said it would present language on scope-including 
access to health care and biosphere: it would refer to the 
common responsibility toward other forms of life.  US rep 
said we looked forward to the German wording but should be 
cautious.  Access to health care was not a matter of 
bioethics.  And what does "responsibility" to the biosphere 
mean?  These sound like the creation of undefined duties. 
Australia said, "Going beyond the US," we have problems with 
the term "responsibility"-they worried about creating legal 
rights that the next generation could use. 
 
¶9. There was discussion of next steps: 
1) There will be a Chairman's summary of the meeting; states 
can respond to it. . 
2) Germany will develop and distribute language on scope. 
3) By May 27 states must respond to Pierre Sane's letter 
asking for comments on the IBC draft. 
4) There was disagreement about whether to have another 
intersessional meeting 
5) Ambassador Sader will continue consultations (and may 
convene another, even more informal meeting or may convene 
another intersessional session). 
 
Two interesting private discussions: 
 
¶10. (SBU) The Japanese representative said they agree with 
US on everything but inclusion of respect for life and were 
waiting further instructions from Tokyo.  US rep pointed out 
that respect for life was simply a statement at the same 
level of abstraction as other statements in the draft and 
did not determine a result in any particular application; 
they need to be persuaded of this.  In another discussion, 
the Indian Ambassador said that abortion had saved the lives 
of thousands of Indians, and she was confident the US would 
fold on this issue at the end. 
 
OLIVER