Cloning concerns; the criminal court; Sixth Committee: Legal - GA 57 Session

UN Chronicle, March-May, 2003

In a key debate with implications for the future of human medicine, the Sixth (Legal) Committee grappled with the potential misuse of medical technology to produce human clones. The proposal for an international agreement to place a series of checks and balances on human cloning has been circulating in the Committee for two years. During the debate this session, countries dodged each other over two approaches to the issue: to ban cloning altogether--for reproduction and medical research--or allow scope for research. Limited therapeutic cloning produces tissue or organs, while reproductive cloning produces an identical twin from the cell of the donor.

France and Germany pioneered a resolution in 2001 that sought to ban reproduction but allow research in cloning technology. In 2002, the debate roughly split countries sixty to forty. The delegate of Germany, Christian Walter Much, told the UN Chronicle: "The resolution of France and Germany was to start negotiations in two stages: first, ban reproductive cloning on which there is consensus in the UN; and second, negotiate where there is still no consensus, that is on therapeutic cloning."

A competing resolution, sponsored by Spain, the United States and the Philippines, aimed for a total ban on all forms of cloning. "It was highly unlikely that this approach would yield results with the necessary urgency." Mr. Much also said that a convention on cloning should strive for the widest possible acceptance, just like other conventions in the human rights field. "As this was not possible, we reluctantly agreed to postpone the discussion to the next session."

The debate provoked discussion that went beyond the lay and the secular. Birhanemeskel Abebe of Ethiopia told the Chronicle that therapeutic cloning was a "prejudicial" and "misleading" act and should be banned, because "human beings have a right not to be created as objects of experimentations". He added: "We believe human cloning should be banned, because it upsets the social order by confounding the meaning of parenthood and confusing the identity and kinship relations of any cloned child."

Committee Chairman Arpad Prandler of Hungary summed up the contentious debate, stating to the Chronicle that the item on cloning was a "multifaceted and very difficult" problem, involving scientific, ethical, religious and even political differences. He said the Committee, being aware that a confrontation on the two approaches could not be avoided and in line with its tradition of consensus, therefore decided to postpone the item to the next (fifty-eighth) session.

While the Committee adopted a total of 19 resolutions, all without a vote, the cloning issue ended as one of two draft decisions, meaning it was not yet ready even for a vote.

The other issue concerns a draft comprehensive counter-terrorism convention.

"Frankly, the major element to be resolved among delegations is still the definition of terrorism". Ambassador Prandler recalled that "it has been discussed in the UN for more than thirty years. If we wish to elaborate a comprehensive convention, then it should also have a kind of definition."

The Committee debate on terrorism involved regional and bilateral perspectives, even as a majority of countries said that the "scourge of terrorism" had to be fought in the international and domestic arenas. But substantially significant differences remained because the definition of terrorism was still elusive. Along with a comprehensive anti-terrorism convention, the Committee also attempted to draft an international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism.

On the definition of terrorism, the delegate of Sudan, speaking for the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that acts of terrorism that involved attacks on civilian populations should be differentiated from "legitimate" struggles of peoples under "colonial, alien or foreign domination for self-determination" and "national liberation, as recognized and defined by the United Nations".

A Latin American diplomat who did not wish to be identified told the Chronicle that during the debate on nuclear terrorism, discussions stalled on the issue of "use" of nuclear weapons by legitimate military forces, while on the question of drafting a comprehensive anti-terrorism convention, he said: "I don't think there would be any future programme.

Roberto Lavalle of Guatemala told the Chronicle that by "adopting the two declarations and the treaties concerning terrorism the Committee had recommended, the General Assembly had made a very significant contribution to the fight against this scourge. However, since the layman neither followed nor had adequate understanding of international legal developments of a fairly complex and technical nature, the public is unable to appreciate the value of this contribution which predates September 11. The man in the street should nevertheless have some idea of the importance of that work, as well as of the treaties against terrorism adopted under the aegis of the United Nations", he said.