Forum Bioethik
Rede des deutschen Delgationsleiters Christian Much vom 17.10.2002
Info: Hubert Hüppe, 19.10.2002

Zu finden unter:
sowie der Einfachheit halber hier angefügt.
Ein paar kurze Anmerkungen von Th.Friedl/ Büro Hüppe:

Die Rede enthält ungewöhnlich scharfe, gegen die USA gerichtete
Zunächst werden die USA ausdrücklich als der Hauptgegner des deutschen
Anliegens, nur das reproduktive Klonen in der anstehenden Konvention zu
behandeln, hingestellt. ("We are of course aware that there is a
competing initiative, led in particular by the USA.."). Doch wurde der
konkurrierende Vorschlag ("competing initiative", Drucksache
A/C.6/57/L.3 vom 27. September 2002) von Spanien formuliert. Das Papier
findet derzeit Zustimmung bei ca. 30 Staaten, von denen die USA nur
einer, wenn auch ein großer, ist.
Dann werden die USA mehrfach als ein Schauplatz möglichen reproduktiven
Klonens angeprangert, auch indem nicht von "der Arzt Zavos" oder
"obskuren Sekten wie die Raelianer" die Rede ist, sondern von "der Arzt
 Zavos aus den USA" ("the US-based doctor Zavos") und "obskuren Sekten
 wie die Raelianer aus den USA" ("obscure religious sects such as the
 US-based Raelians"). Insbesondere hinsichtlich der Raelianer weisen
Amerikaner mit Befremden darauf hin, dass deren Ärzte und ihr Führer
gerade nicht Amerikaner, sondern Europäer seien.
Die Rede gipfelt in einem starken moralischen Vorwurf an die USA, indem
die Zustimmung zum deutsch-französischen Vorschlag rhetorisch mit der
einzigen Möglichkeit zur "Erfüllung der Verantwortung gegenüber der
Humanität" gleichgesetzt wird ("We trust that this Committee will live
up to its responsibilities towards humanity and make the right choice").
Dem Zuhörer wird suggeriert, die Zustimmung zu dem von den USA
mitgetragenen Vorschlag, jedes Klonen in die Konvention einzubeziehen,
sei die falsche Wahl und eine Nichterfüllung der Verantwortung gegenüber
der Humanität.
Man braucht sich nicht zu wundern, wenn diese auf diplomatischem Parkett
ungewohnte Schärfe auf der Gegenseite tiefe Verletzung hinterläßt.

New York, 17 October 2002
57th Session of the General Assembly Sixth Committee 
Item 162: International Convention  Against the Reproductive Cloning of
Human Beings

Statement by  Mr. Christian Much
> Mr Chairman,
> I would like to make this statement also on behalf of the delegation of
> France.
> The Sixth Committee is now entering the decisive round of considering
> the agenda item "International Convention Against the Reproductive
> Cloning of Human Beings".
> The Working Group of the Sixth Committee that we attended only three
> weeks ago made some important steps forwards. The draft resolution that
> France and Germany presented to the Sixth Committee in its Working Group
> was positively received by the majority of delegations - reluctantly by
> some, enthusiastically by others. This trend has continued. I am now in
> a position to introduce to the Sixth Committee, also on behalf of the
> co-sponsors, amendments to the already known Franco-German draft
> resolution as contained in the report of the Working Group. The
> amendments have been agreed upon in a group of co-sponsors and
> like-minded countries. The amendments include, notably, amendments
> proposed in the Working Group by Brazil, Mexico, Sierra Leone, China and
> a few others. For easier reference, you will find this amended version
> in document L.8 .
> The draft resolution contained in L.8 further develops the already known
> approach: " It proposes, in op2 et seq., immediate negotiations on a ban
> of reproductive cloning, and " It decides, in op5 a), to address
> immediately afterwards other related concerns, including, but not
> limited to, through the elaboration of one or more appropriate separate
> international instruments. These negotiations would be prepared as of
> now, in accordance with op5 b), so as to ensure a smooth take-off.
> This approach allows to move fast where consensus exists, and as fast as
> possible on other concerns. Through this differentiation, the approach
> of L.8 offers a chance to win the race against the Italian doctor
> Antinori and the US-based doctor Zavos who have made credible
> announcements that the first cloned baby may be born within a year or
> two.
> The initiative now reflected in L.8 was openly discussed in the Working
> Group of the Sixth Committee. It now incorporates some major concerns: "
> It states explicitly, in op3 b), that the prohibition of reproductive
> cloning does not as such imply the endorsement of any other form of
> human cloning# " Op 5 a) casts the compromise to launch a second round
> of negotiations in unambiguous terms: The Ad Hoc Committee meeting next
> spring will be a first, not a last step. " The specific developmental
> dimension of the issue was further strengthened, in op9, by adding
> UNCTAD to the organisations that should be closely involved in the
> process of negotiations. " Op6 now calls on States, pending the entry
> into force of a Convention against Reproductive Cloning, to act at the
> national level, by prohibiting reproductive cloning, and also calls upon
> States, in op7, to ban at the national level other forms of cloning that
> are contrary to human dignity through prohibition or moratoria.
> With these amendments and clarifications, we hope that L.8, which is the
> result of an agreement reached among a large number of countries, will
> be adopted by the Sixth Committee. 
> Mr. Chairman,
> We are of course aware that there is a competing initiative, led in
> particular by the USA, which has surfaced at a later stage and was
> tabled immediately after the end of the Working Group. It proposes to
> mix consensual and non-consensual issues in one negotiating process and
> thereby holds the risk that the opportunity to ban reproductive cloning
> now will be missed. 
> The appeal of this approach resides in the fact that in many a country's
> view, including our's, the concerns about cloning go beyond reproductive
> cloning. France, Germany and the countries associated to our approach do
> not question these concerns. But we question the wisdom and
> effectiveness of an all-or-nothing-approach that leads to nothing. This
> approach is benefitting the wrong side - the side of irresponsible
> researchers, of fraudulous doctors promising substitute babies for
> astronomic amounts of money, and of obscure religious sects such as the
> US-based Raelians who claim that pregnancies of cloned embryos are
> already underway.
> To defend this approach, its supporters say that because of possible
> abuses you cannot address one form of cloning without addressing the
> other. They also say that we should first clarify terminology. Let us
> consider this argument by way of an analogy taken from this Committee's
> negotiations on anti-terrorist conventions.
> Do you think that those who are now trying to lead us into inaction, or
> into false action, would buy the argument that we cannot deal with,
> let's say, bombing terrorism unless we agree on the related issue of
> financing terrorism? Did we accept a blockade on sectoral negotiations
> because we believed that the only valid solution would be a
> comprehensive convention?
> Also, let me ask you: What will it say about the Sixth Committee, which
> after all is the Legal Committee, if we would spend considerable amounts
> of energy legislating such issues as electronic signatures and
> receivables in international trade, but lost our sense of urgency in the
> face of legislating the issue of reproductive cloning - an issue that
> all of us, in UNESCO, have identified as a severe violation of human
> dignity?
> Speaking from a narrow national perspective, France and Germany could
> say: Why bother, we have already legislation against reproductive
> cloning and a ban (as far as Germany is concerned) or strict regulations
> (as far as France is concerned) on so-called therapeutic cloning. Other
> countries, too, may believe that the real-life cost of advancing
> principled positions is low, considering that they have their national
> anti-cloning laws in place. There may be countries which, speaking from
> their national perspective, might be tempted to say: If cloning happens,
> it will happen somewhere else, so let's avoid the difficult choices that
> have to be taken.
> This may be a dangerous way of thinking, for three reasons: " First:
> Cloning researchers that are banned from performing their wicked
> experiments in some countries may well choose to find safe havens in
> unregulated countries. This is a matter for grave concern. " Secondly:
> We need to give a signal that erodes the supply of money - mostly
> private money - for unethical cloning, and we need to give that signal
> now. The danger of reproductive cloning will be significantly reduced if
> we tell its financers, through the immediate initiation of negotiations:
> You are loosing your money! You are not heading for a Nobel Prize but
> for a solid reputation as an enemy of humanity. We can give such a
> signal for reproductive cloning, and we must do it. If you want to give
> the same signal for other forms of cloning, our draft resolution gives
> you all the freedom to go one step further. " Thirdly: The
> all-or-nothing approach is all the more dangerous as there are countries
> where research on cloning has reached a high degree of sophistication,
> but where no national laws against it are in place. It is most
> troublesome to see that the absence of both national and international
> norms in these countries would effectively consolidate a dangerously
> permissive environment, to the detriment of dignity of the human race. 
> Mr. Chairman,
> Once again, the Sixth Committee is called upon to decide on the future
> course of action of this initiative. We know that this Committee is
> usually operating in a consensual manner. We had wished that this would
> be possible, but, as the Dutch coordinator of the informal consultations
> held on 25 September reported back to the Working Group, all compromise
> proposals were declined. We therefore have a difficult choice to make -
> a choice where stakes are high and the options simple, simple but very
> consequential.
> We trust that this Committee will live up to its responsibilities
> towards humanity and make the right choice. Failure to do so would
> convey the wrong signal to the outside world:  " The UN would be seen as
> impotent to take preventive action in the face of a generally
> recognized, generally repudiated and imminent danger.  " And our
> disagreement on defining the most efficient approach would be construed
> as a disagreement on the repulsiveness of reproductive cloning. Dr.
> Antinori, Dr. Zavos and a few others are waiting for that signal.
> Whether to give such a signal or not - that is in your hands.

home        back          side