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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 007446 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO 
 
STATE FOR IO/UNESCO KEVIN PILZ, HENRY HATCH, OES/STAS ANDREW 
¶W. REYNOLDS, OES/OA Liz TIRPAK, OES BARRIE RIPIN 
STATE FOR USAID NORMAN RIFKIN 
STATE FOR NSC GENE WHITNEY, REBECCA GARDINER 
STATE FOR NOAA ARTHUR PATTERSON 
STATE FOR EPA 
STATE FOR NSF ROSE GOMBAY 
STATE FOR HHS Bill Steiger, LIZ YUAN 
 
E.O. 12958:     N/A 
TAGS: AORC TSPL EAID TBIO SENV SOCI UNESCO ETRA KSCI
SUBJECT:  UNESCO GENERAL CONFERENCE: U.S. WINS POSITIVE 
RESULTS ON NORMATIVE ETHICS INSTRUMENTS; OPPORTUNITIES FOR 
U.S. LEADERSHIP HIGHLIGHTED IN NATURAL SCIENCES 
 
Reftels:  A. Paris 4799  B.  Paris 6028  C.  Paris 5862 
 
¶1.   Summary:  In Commission III (social and natural 
sciences) at UNESCO's 33rd General Conference (GC), the U.S. 
Delegation registered several important successes relating 
to social and natural sciences issues, despite a challenging 
political environment.  The adoption by the GC of the 
Bioethics Declaration without change met U.S. goals for the 
GC; the document as adopted reflects major successes in 
defeating provisions harmful to U.S. interests and beliefs. 
The U.S. Delegation also successfully defeated a proposal to 
launch a feasibility study on a declaration on a code of 
conduct for science. (paras 3-6)  The General Conference 
adopted the strategy for establishing a global tsunami 
warning system approved at the June 2005 Assembly of the 
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.  Senior U.S. 
participation in the Ministerial Round Table on the Basic 
Sciences successfully conveyed U.S. concern about issues 
facing developing countries.  (paras 7-10) 
 
¶2.  The General Conference adopted a draft resolution 
outlining the format of the new medium-term strategy (2008- 
2013) and a drafting process that includes a more active 
role for member states.  Also with an eye to the new medium- 
term strategy, a resolution was adopted mandating an overall 
review of the Natural Sciences and Social Sciences sectors. 
The new medium-term strategy (to be adopted at the 2007 
General Conference) is an opportunity to shape UNESCO into 
the next decade, to turn its focus away from normative 
instruments and towards programs with lasting impact. (paras 
11-12).  End Summary. 
 
Social Sciences:  Bioethics Declaration Adopted, New Science 
Ethics Instrument Averted 
 
¶3.  The General Conference adopted the Universal Declaration 
on Bioethics and Human Rights.  No change was made in the 
document that had been negotiated in June, and this met U.S. 
goals.  The final Declaration is far from perfect, but 
overall represents a major success.  We successfully dodged 
the bullet on this.  At the outset of this process, there 
was a concerted effort to include the following as 
bioethical principles (and human rights): "reproductive 
health care"; respect for all forms of life (with respect 
for human life downgraded or omitted); protection of the 
environment; access to health care, clean water, etc.; 
elimination of poverty; access to new technology, etc.  We 
were able to include in the final document a provision 
concerning respect for human life (and no reference to 
reproductive health care) and to turn the other, good things 
into goals, not rights or ethical principles. 
 
¶4. At the adoption in Commission III, the U.S. presented a 
statement of explanation of position which is included in 
the Annex to the Commission III report as one of the 
"statements of interpretation of particular provisions." The 
Record of the Plenary session will include the same 
statement.  The U.S. also was successful in changing the 
reference in Paragraph 5(b) of the resolution concerning 
adoption of the Declaration to delete the concept of 
"implementing" the Declaration; as approved by the Plenary, 
it reads that the DG will enable the International Bioethics 
Committee and the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee to 
assist UNESCO in "promoting and disseminating the 
principles" of the Declaration. 
 
¶5.  The most contentious issue in the Social Sciences field 
was the proposal advanced by the Social and Human Sciences 
(SHS) secretariat that the Director General prepare a study 
on the feasibility of a declaration on a code of conduct 
for science.  A US-backed proposal to replace the 
feasibility study with assistance to countries in building 
infrastructure and codes of ethics was ultimately narrowly 
defeated.  At the Plenary session a compromise was crafted, 
directing the DG to "reflect" on the issue of ethics and 
science and to report to the Executive Board in a year. 
 
¶6.  Regarding the Program and Budget for the Social and 
Human Sciences Sector, the United States was successful in 
amending Paragraph 03110 (a)(ii) to delete a reference 
saying that the Social and Human Sciences sector would 
"develop" principles to guide scientific and technological 
development and social transformation; it now reads that it 
will "implement" universal principles.  In addition, the 
U.S. successfully amended several DRs, including changing a 
reference to policy based rule of law to rule of law more 
broadly (DR 24); deleting a reference that would ask the 
Director General to devise policies concerning migration (it 
now reads he will elaborate a framework for policy 
development) (DR 25); changing a reference to international 
organizations introducing a rule of law to restrict it to 
matters within their competencies, and amending a suggestion 
that member countries introduce a rule of law against any 
from of discrimination in all judiciary systems to simply 
calling for a rule of law ( DR 71) 
 
¶7.  Comment:  The Director General's call for a pause in the 
development of normative instruments, his undertaking a 
review of the natural and social sciences, and his 
reluctance even to do a feasibility study on a declaration 
relating to a declaration of ethics in science are 
indications of the DG's concern about SHS' activities in 
this area.  End Comment. 
 
Natural Sciences:  Opportunities to Enhance Positive U.S. 
Profile at UNESCO, and Beyond 
 
¶8.  On the agenda of Commission III (Natural and Social 
Sciences), the Natural Sciences issue of most importance to 
the U.S. was the strategy for establishing a global tsunami 
warning system approved at the June 2005 IOC Assembly (REF 
A).  In addition, Commission III approved six new category 
II centers, as well as proposals for an International Year 
of Planet Earth and an International Astronomy Year. 
Regarding the latter, U.S. delegation sought and received 
assurances that the Year would be financed by extrabudgetary 
funds, and planned in consultation with the UN Outer Space 
Agency (UNOOSA). 
 
¶9.  Presidential Science Advisor Marburger chaired the first 
session of the UNESCO Roundtable on the Basic 
Sciences, setting the tone for the debate.  NSF Director 
Bement also participated.  The debate was an opportunity to 
explore best practices and formulate recommendations on the 
role of the basic sciences in sustainable development.  The 
resulting communique underlined specific means of 
enhancing science education and capacity building; our 
expectation is that these can be taken into account in the 
drafting of the new medium-term strategy (see paras below). 
 
¶10.  Comment:  The Natural Sciences Sector of UNESCO offers 
many opportunities.  The work of the IOC in disaster 
mitigation and earth observation systems is central to U.S. 
interests.  Many of the category II centers discussed and 
approved by the General Conference -- particularly the 
Dundee Center on water law and policy and the Kobe center on 
water hazards mitigation are also pertinent and will help 
ensure that UNESCO programs have impact in developing 
countries.  The participation of Drs. Marburger and Bement 
in the Ministerial Roundtable on Basic Sciences conveyed 
U.S. concern about issues facing developing countries. 
 
¶11.  However, even the Natural Sciences sector is given to 
launching an abundance of centers and of international 
years, which if not implemented strategically, represent a 
dispersal of UNESCO's resources in areas that may have 
little impact. But the medium-term strategy, and in 
particular the review of the Science Programs (below) offers 
the opportunity to shape the future course of this key 
sector in a positive way.  This will help the organization 
as a whole resist the temptation to invest its efforts in 
normative instruments and in unproductive programs.  End 
Comment. 
 
 
Medium-Term Strategy:  An Chance to Sharpen UNESCO's Focus 
 
¶12.  At the General Conference, there was consensus in favor 
of a resolution co-drafted and co-sponsored by the U.S. that 
set the format and procedure to be followed in drafting the 
next medium-term strategy (REFS B).  The aim of the 
resolution is to ensure that member states take a pro-active 
role in the process; for the U.S., this presents an 
opportunity to enhance UNESCO's focus on programs, rather 
than on normative instruments.  That resolution was 
discussed and approved by all of the GC program commissions 
as well as in plenary. 
 
¶13.  Also in connection with the Medium-Term Strategy, 
Commission III approved a resolution to "launch an overall 
review of (the Natural Sciences and Social and Human 
Sciences sectors) against the background of UNESCO's 
mandate, country and regional priorities and today's global 
needs, which would form an integral part of and contribute 
to program planning." (REF C) Though many member states, 
including the U.S., were in favor, the Secretariat resisted, 
citing budgetary restrictions.  In the end, 120,000 dollars 
was found to fund the study, with a plea for extra-budgetary 
funds.  In response to the resolution, the DG announced in 
plenary his plan "to set up a working group headed by DDG 
Barbosa and consisting of senior Secretariat officials and 
external experts, to prepare a report for the Executive 
Board."  At an informal October 18 meeting organized by the 
resolution's sponsors, they said that they would meet with 
Barbosa to seek clarification on how the DG's panel would 
operate and to urge him to include appropriate outside 
experts in the review panel.  At this point, there is no 
definitive word on the composition of the panel.  With 
regard to the Social and Human Sciences Division, the 
exercise is likely to consider the nature of the activities 
conducted by SHS and the leadership of the sector.  Oliver