VZCZCXYZ0137
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0061/01 0501306
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 191306Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0610
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1862
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO 0009
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 1065
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0992
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD 0336
RUEHAS/AMEMBASSY ALGIERS 0099

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000061 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: PHUM KWMN PREF SMIG KCRM KTIP UN RS CH PK MX AG IR
SUBJECT: Anti-Human Trafficking Recommendations Reached, Russia, 
Iran and Pakistan Intransigence Notwithstanding 
 
Ref: A) 09 UNVIE 0187, B) UNVIE 0034, C) UNVIE 0035 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (U) The Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Working Group (WG) engaged 
in three days of often fruitful discussion and emerged with nearly 
fifty recommendations that will be forwarded to the Organized Crime 
Convention (UNTOC) Conference of the Parties (COP) in October 2010. 
The U.S. delegation (USDEL) was pleased to learn of ten new 
signatories to the TIP Protocol since October 2008, and took note 
that the problematic "Global Plan of Action" was mentioned only by 
its main proponents, Belarus and Russia.  More disturbing, Russia, 
Iran, and Pakistan, along with China and Algeria, working together, 
were able to block consensus on a number of issues.  The finalized 
recommendations, along with those negotiated in April 2009, will 
surely be re-negotiated at the October COP, and UNVIE will continue 
its dual track of diplomacy-building coalitions with like-minded 
countries while also reaching out to the few who remain hesitant. 
END SUMMARY. 
 
------------------------- 
Expert Working Group 
Surprisingly Constructive 
------------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) The TIP WG was created by the COP in order to provide 
recommendations on how better to implement the TIP Protocol.  The 
group met previously in April 2009 (Ref A), and it has proven a good 
barometer to measure the support for a variety of TIP-related 
issues. 
 
¶3. (U) This year, the WG's three-day agenda was ambitious in scope. 
For the first two days, the WG engaged in a surprisingly 
constructive discussion on issues ranging from non-punishment and 
prosecution of victims to best practices for discouraging demand for 
trafficked goods and services.  Of note, the expert group agreed 
that movement or transportation was not required for TIP to occur. 
On a number of occasions, it was clear that a productive 
"back-and-forth" discussion was occurring, and delegations were as 
interested in learning from others' experiences as they were in 
advancing their own national policies.  (Note. USDEL member John 
Richmond from the Department of Justice served as a panelist on the 
topic of non-punishment and prosecution of victims and gave a 
presentation drawing on his practical experience prosecuting TIP 
cases.  By the end of the session it was clear that other 
delegations viewed Richmond as one of the room's top experts on the 
issue.  End Note.) 
 
-------------------------- 
Iran, Russia, Pakistan and 
China Play Disruptive Role 
-------------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) Nevertheless, by the end of the second day, when the prospect 
of negotiating recommendations loomed, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and 
at times China and Algeria, also, reverted to the obstructionist 
behavior we have encountered elsewhere in Vienna (Ref C).  Iran 
stated it would not accept any recommendation that called for the 
absolution of TIP victims of their crimes.  "Prostitution is a 
serious crime in my country, and it should have serious 
consequences," the delegate warned.  While the prostituted person's 
status as a victim might be taken into account by the judge, he 
continued, Iran opposed the idea that a prostitute should not be 
prosecuted. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Russia objected on a number of fronts.  Like Iran, Russia 
was adamantly opposed to admitting to a "principle" of 
"non-punishment or prosecution," of victims, and objected to the 
very use of those terms.  Reflecting concerns related to the broader 
debate over possible UNTOC review mechanisms, Russia raised a 
question as to whether the TIP protocol applied, necessarily, to 
purely domestic trafficking cases. Other delegates did not agree 
with this interpretation, as Article 34 of UNTOC (which governs TIP 
Protocol implementation) makes clear that trafficking shall be 
established in the domestic law of State Parties "independently of 
the transnational nature" of the crime.  After the USDEL invited the 
Russian delegation aside to further discuss this issue, the Russian 
delegation backed off this position.  The Russian representative 
explained that Russia's true concern was that if the scope of the 
TIP Protocol covered purely domestic trafficking, then a review 
mechanism could theoretically be confined to examine only domestic 
counter TIP activities and Russia would support such an approach. 
 
The Russian representative conceded, however, that domestic 
trafficking (i.e., that which does not involve crossing a border) 
had to be criminalized under UNTOC and the TIP Protocol.  But, 
Russia, along with Iran and Pakistan and Algeria, continued its 
opposition to any mention of a review mechanism set up in 
coordination with the UNTOC to assist member states in evaluating 
and improving convention and Protocol implementation.  (Ref B). 
 
¶6. (U) Pakistan associated itself almost mechanically with any 
objection or position raised by Russia or Iran.  However, Pakistan 
also aggressively opposed any recommendation regarding providing 
victim care regardless of victims' cooperation with law enforcement 
and prosecutors.  Pakistan felt it essential that care for a victim 
be made conditional on cooperation with prosecution.  Again, after 
private discussions with the USDEL, Pakistan backed off its 
inflexible stance, and joined consensus on compromise language, 
crafted by USDEL and formally proposed by Argentina. 
 
¶7. (U) On the issue of non-punishment and prosecution, the WG 
finally adopted a recommendation that simply reaffirmed the April 
2009 position.  While admitting the WG's failure to move beyond the 
earlier position, the WG also grudgingly acknowledged that without 
Iranian, Pakistani and Russian agreement it could go no further. 
(Note.  The Iranian representative regretted he had even agreed to 
the April 2009 recommendation in the first place, attributing his 
actions to the fact that he had only "just arrived" in Vienna and 
had been told to "just go along with everybody else."  Not 
surprisingly, Iran had earlier in the week (unsuccessfully) tried to 
reopen the 2009 recommendations.  UNVIE expects Iran to be similarly 
obstructive and reject or otherwise condition this year's 
recommendations, despite the fact that Iran joined consensus in the 
WG on the issue.  End note.) 
 
¶8. (U) The WG was similarly constrained by Russia, Pakistan, and 
Iran, and also Algeria and China, on the issue of a review 
mechanism.  In the end, the WG simply adopted the language adopted 
by the UNTOC Working Group on Review of Implementation. (Ref B). 
 
-------------- 
USDEL Encouraged By Evidence of 
Wide-Spread Consensus 
-------------- 
 
¶9. (U) Despite the limitations caused by the problematic 
delegations, the USDEL was pleased to see unanimous support on a 
variety of U.S. priority topics.  The USDEL found quick and 
enthusiastic support for its recommendation that parties use the 
Protocol to better implement plea bargaining strategies, as well as 
for its clarification that a trafficking offense can occur by just 
harboring or receiving victims, even absent transportation of those 
victims.  The WG also quickly agreed to the USDEL's proposal that 
member states recognize the important work of civil society and 
integrate them into strategies to prevent TIP and care for victims. 
However, on this and other civil society-related recommendations, 
China was careful to condition the language and keep the WG from 
actually adopting a position advocating closer civil 
society-government links and coordination. 
 
------------- 
Mexico to Roll Out Blue 
Heart Campaign in April 
------------- 
 
¶10. (U) Mexico, along with UNODC, rolled out its endorsement of the 
Blue Heart campaign.  Mexico announced that its President would 
launch the campaign, which is designed to raise awareness of human 
trafficking to the general population, in mid-April.  UNODC 
officials privately expressed hope that the U.S. ambassador would 
attend. 
 
------------- 
UNODC Briefs WG on Tools to 
Fight Trafficking and 
Implement Protocol 
------------- 
 
¶11. (U) The UNODC Secretariat also rolled out many of the training 
materials and publications it has developed for Protocol 
implementation assistance.  These include the International 
Framework for Action, the Anti-Human Trafficking Manual for Criminal 
Justice Practitioners, and the Toolkit to Combat Trafficking in 
Persons.  UNODC also provided an update on Interagency Cooperation 
Group Against Trafficking in Persons (ICAT) activities. 
 
-------------- 
New Signatories to 
Protocol Announced 
-------------- 
 
¶12. (U) The UNODC Secretariat announced that since the October 2008 
COP, eleven more States had acceded to the Protocol: Chad, 
Indonesia, Jordan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Qatar, Syria, Timor-Leste, 
Togo, and United Arab Emirates (UAE).  Those accessions brought the 
total number of States parties to the Protocol to 135.  In addition, 
the Pakistan delegation informed the USDEL that Pakistan had 
recently signed the TIP protocol and the government is on track for 
ratification. 
 
------- 
No Action on the Global 
Plan of Action 
------- 
 
¶13. (U) The proposed Global Plan of Action was discussed a few times 
in the WG, but the overall relative lack of enthusiasm for this 
discussion was quite apparent.  Only the Plan's main proponents, 
Belarus and Russia, raised the issue.  Belarus and Russia both spoke 
of the need for a coordinated and comprehensive tool that would 
bring together what they see as the various anti-trafficking tools 
that currently exist but which form, in their view, at best a 
fragmented and incoherent framework.  The general sentiment was that 
the continuing disconnect between national delegations in New York 
and Vienna prevents real discussion among experts in Vienna on the 
Plan. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶14. (U) Despite the strong and sometimes discordant positions of 
Iran, Russia and Pakistan, the WG resulted in widespread consensus 
on almost every topic, evidenced by nearly fifty recommendations to 
be forwarded to the October 2010 COP.  It will be a challenge to 
turn many of these recommendations into action, but UNVIE will 
continue to build on the diverse and promising coalition found in 
Vienna (and reach out to Russia, Pakistan, China, and Algeria) to 
leverage as much agreement as possible in time for the October COP. 
End comment. 
 
DAVIES