O 101358Z MAR 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9131
INFO USMISSION USUN NEW YORK

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000099 
 
 
E.O. 12958:N/A 
TAGS: PGOV UN KCRM UNODC
 
SUBJECT:  ANTI-CRIME VISION FOR UNODC 
 
REF:  (A) STATE 19808; (B) 3/5/09 CLINE-TSAI EMAIL 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY:  In anticipation of this week's high-level 
meeting in Vienna on anti-drug issues, Antonio Costa, head of the UN 
Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), issued a paper that paints a 
broad picture for UNODC's anti-crime work.  On March 5, he provided 
a preview and briefing on this paper to G-8 Ambassadors.  While 
dense with ideas and somewhat complex, his paper provides an 
opportunity for the U.S. to reaffirm our larger anti-crime vision, 
and begin to advocate for such a vision with Costa and other active 
Member States. END SUMMARY 
 
------------------------- 
COSTA'S ANTI-CRIME VISION 
------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (U) On March 5, UNODC Executive Director Antonio Costa briefed 
G-8 ambassadors in Vienna on a concept paper he drafted, "Organized 
Crime and Its Threat to Security: Tackling a Disturbing Consequence 
of Drug Control" (previously emailed to Department).  In the paper 
he described crime of "staggering proportions" as the "dramatic 
unintended consequence" of illicit drugs.  He advocated a 
three-pronged approach: (i) a controlled strategy tailored to each 
market, (ii) community-wide resistance programs, and (iii) sharing 
of resistance efforts/measures among nations.  He said the paper was 
intended to provoke thoughts to address the crime related to the 
drug supply chain - from cultivation to trafficking to 
abuse/addiction - which he estimated to be a $300 billion market 
worldwide.  He claimed that drug-related crime had been subject to 
benign neglect, and questioned the effectiveness of existing 
anti-crime instruments. Referring to the ongoing negotiations on the 
political declaration and the action plan of the 10-year review of 
the 1998 UNGA Special Session on drug control (UNGASS), Costa 
claimed that his paper would supplement those documents which, 
according to him, had failed to capture this element. 
 
------------------------ 
VIEWS OF G-8 AMBASSADORS 
------------------------ 
 
¶3. (U) During the briefing, UK ambassador (UK) asked Costa to 
clarify what message his paper was intended to convey on the (crime) 
Conventions.  UK expressed his concern that Costa's paper might be 
undermining the Conventions because it criticizes them for being 
ineffective.  French ambassador praised the UNGASS political 
declaration (under negotiation) for reflecting international 
political and security questions related to drugs.  He added that 
the two crime conventions (UN Convention against Corruption, or 
UNCAC, and UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, or 
UNTOC) are hard to implement, and therefore may be perceived as 
being hostile to developing countries.  He stated that one should 
not blame the Conventions for problems. 
 
¶4. (U) Thanking Costa for his courage to be "provocative," 
Ambassador Schulte joined other ambassadors in warning against 
undermining the crime conventions and inadvertently raising 
questions about the drug control regime.  He asked Costa to find 
ways to maximize the impact of UNTOC and UNCAC.  He made Ref A 
points, stressing the value of the various crime treaties and their 
Conferences of the Parties in broadening our global reach. 
Ambassador further underlined the importance of the treaty function 
of the UNODC, and urged Costa not to lose the balance between the 
normative and technical assistance functions of his office in any 
restructuring efforts that might result. 
 
¶5. (U) Canadian Ambassador agreed with the comments made by the UK, 
France and the US.  She credited the conventions for encouraging 
mutual legal assistance among states and deepening the dialogue on 
the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).  German Ambassador 
recommended a "cross-cutting" rather than "compartmentalized" 
approach, and looking for ways to improve the use of UNTOC.  Japan 
praised the straightforward approach of the paper, but urged that it 
should also note positives.  He expressed support for the U.S. view 
on the importance of UNODC's normative work and urged Costa not to 
lose sight of it.   Costa replied that he would not want to lose 
sight of treaty implementation. 
 
¶6. (U) Russian ambassador, stressing his very preliminary reaction, 
asked Costa to clarify the nature of the paper.  Costa responded 
that it is intended to "bond" UNODC's different functions.  He said 
there is now an in-house division between drugs and crime, when the 
problem is drug-related crime.  Italian ambassador asked how Costa 
plans to restructure the house, how to group meetings, and how to 
translate the concepts in the paper into action.  Costa said he had 
no answer.  He just wanted to share this paper with member states, 
get their comments, and then take action "in the house" 
accordingly. 
 
----------------------------------------- 
COMMENTS:  ADVOCATING FOR THE U.S. VISION 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) COMMENTS: Costa's willingness to engage us in a dialogue 
relatively early in his thought process is a new development, and 
one we should seek to encourage.  His paper is dense with ideas, 
many which we have heard before and some which the U.S. does not 
support.  Examples of ideas which the U.S. opposes include a call 
for a cybercrime convention, movement towards a universal money 
laundering instrument and a greater focus on firearms issues.  He 
also criticizes the work of the UNCAC and UNTOC Conferences of 
Parties, which we believe are critical to promoting implementation 
of these conventions.  UNVIE, INL and other U.S. partners will 
continue to deal with Costa's individual ideas - as we have in the 
past - as each issue is raised in various UNODC or Commission 
contexts. 
 
¶8. (SBU) However, looking beyond Costa's individual ideas and 
persistent personality, his paper presents a broader vision for 
UNODC's anti-crime work that warrants a thoughtful response. 
Costa's larger vision appears to be one where anti-crime work 
becomes more of a component to the organization's anti-drug work. 
He appears to support a de-emphasis on the steady and technical work 
of the anti-crime treaty-based bodies and a greater emphasis on 
actions that he perceives as more beneficial, such as technical 
assistance and awareness raising.  He also seeks a mandate for UNODC 
to play a major role in anti-crime issues that have been of interest 
to various member states, including cybercrime and firearms 
trafficking. 
 
¶9. (SBU) We believe the best response to Costa's paper is to present 
our own and better vision for approaching anti-crime work in the 
Vienna context.  The current U.S. vision on UNODC's anti-crime work 
has been a successful one, but it is worth taking a look to see 
whether it can or needs to be updated.  The U.S. has sought in the 
past decade to channel and focus the anti-crime work of UNODC.  We 
have succeeded in moving UNODC beyond simply a forum for debating 
what action should be taken to counter priority crime threats.  We 
have done this by crafting anti-crime conventions on key substantive 
areas (organized crime, trafficking in persons, corruption, etc.), 
thus establishing legally-binding guidelines for action in these 
areas.  We have further successfully created active UNODC-supported 
treaty bodies to help promote implementation of these guidelines. 
We have called for technical assistance to help countries implement 
their commitments, although limited U.S. funding has made our call 
largely just that.  We have also played a major role in developing a 
medium term strategy to help focus the relevant Commissions and 
UNODC, and have for the most part kept the Crime Commissions and 
Congresses from interfering with these conventions and work of the 
treaty-related bodies. 
 
¶10. (SBU) Costa intends to repeat his message during the upcoming 
Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ), 
scheduled for April 16-24, and posted his paper on the UNODC website 
on March 6.  We should use Costa's somewhat complex paper and call 
for action as an opportunity to reaffirm or reshape our larger U.S. 
vision for anti-crime work at UNODC.  As we go about this analysis, 
we should try to look beyond Costa, whom we obviously support for 
various reasons, and his persistence on promoting individual ideas 
with which we disagree.  We should consider that the medium term 
strategy has failed to keep Costa and various member states from 
advocating for action on substantive areas that they think are 
priorities, particularly in the context of the CCPCJ.  We should 
also consider whether there are ways to reinvigorate implementation 
of the anti-crime conventions beyond the context of the Conferences 
of Parties, and whether we agree with Costa's goal of making UNODC's 
anti-crime work more of a component of its anti-drug work.  We 
should also take into account a recent and relatively new dynamic in 
Vienna, which includes an active G-77 and movement by non-donors to 
make UNODC a more fiscally stable and less donor-driven 
organization.  The upcoming CCPCJ will provide an initial venue to 
try out some of the U.S. ideas, and put the ball back in Costa's 
court as we work to shape a shared agenda for UNODC.  END COMMENTS 
 
SCHULTE