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

181300Z Jun 03

UNCLAS  ZAGREB 001399 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
FOR EUR/SCE AND G/TIP 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PREL HR
SUBJECT: CROATIA REACTION: 2003 TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS 
REPORT 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) We were called in to the Foreign Ministry on June 13 
to discuss the recently released 2003 Trafficking in Persons 
report.  Dubravka Simonovic, Head of the Human Rights section 
in the Department for UN and Human Rights, asked for an 
explanation of why Croatia was placed as a tier 2 country in 
the Department's 2003 Trafficking in Persons report.  She 
observed that to be included in the report a country would 
have to have a significant number of trafficking victims, 
defined as not less than 100 victims.  She then pointed out 
that there have been eight victims in Croatia, a number that 
is agreed upon by NGOs, international organizations, and the 
GOC. 
 
¶2. (SBU) We explained that the assessment of a "significant" 
number of victims was based not just on the number of known 
victims, but also on the number of women trafficked into 
Western Europe, the number of women trafficked from source 
countries, the fact that one of the three known routes from 
source countries to Western Europe goes through Croatia, and 
the fact that the police deport many women without ever 
questioning how they got into Croatia.  Based on these 
factors, we think its reasonable that a significant number of 
victims are trafficked through Croatia.  Simonovic summarized 
that our assessment was based on an "assumption," and we need 
more credible data.  Besides challenging us on the data, she 
also questioned where Bosnia and Serbia and Montenegro were 
on the report, and wanted to know why Macedonia was a tier 1 
country "when they have a much bigger problem than we do." 
 
¶3. (SBU) Despite the disagreement over numbers, Simonovic 
affirmed that Croatia had the political will to address the 
problem of trafficking, and that it wishes to work closely 
with us to address the issue.  She asked what they needed to 
do to come into compliance with the Trafficking Victims 
Protection Act.  We provided her with a summary of activities 
and deadlines from Croatia's National Action Plan to suppress 
trafficking, approved by the GOC last November, and pointed 
out how little had been implemented in the intervening time 
period.  She admitted that the deadlines were not realistic 
and that this issue needed to be addressed by the National 
Committee.  She further bemoaned the limited availability of 
GOC funding for trafficking activities, yet assured us that 
the ministries allocate additional funding beyond the 
approximately $16,000 available through the Government Human 
Rights Office for trafficking activities. 
 
¶4. (SBU) We later met with Ivana Werft, Secretary to the 
National Committee for the Suppression of Trafficking in 
Persons.  Werft has been a willing and able interlocutor on 
trafficking issues, and has worked to bridge the gap between 
NGO activists and the GOC on trafficking issues.  Like 
Simonovic, Werft was concerned with the report's finding that 
Croatia has a significant problem of over 100 cases of 
trafficking when all agree that there have been eight 
identified victims.  To illustrate the problems connected 
with transit and identification of trafficking, she 
rhetorically asked what border police can do, and what data 
can be gleaned from a situation, when, for example, police 
stop, question, and then send on their way young women from 
the Balkans who are legally transiting Croatia and say they 
are en route to a job in Western Europe.  Werft pointed out 
that of the eight known victims in Croatia, two had been 
identified while transiting Croatia, a testimony to increased 
awareness and training. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶5. (U) The very nature of the crime of trafficking creates 
serious obstacles in terms of compiling accurate and reliable 
data, particularly in countries that are believed to be 
primarily transit countries.  All those working on the issue 
locally recognize the problem of a lack of data, yet NGOs and 
the International Office for Migration (IOM) have and 
continue to request donor funding solely for awareness 
raising and prevention activities.  Our requests to the 
Stability Pact for examples or models of good data collection 
projects have not met with success. 
 
¶6. (U) We had prepared both Simonovic and Werft in advance 
for the tier 2 listing.  In part due to our aggressive 
engagement on the issue -- for months we took every 
opportunity to forewarn that we anticipated Croatia may be 
listed as a tier 2 country -- both Simonovic and Werft told 
us they were not surprised at the listing and had in fact 
expected it. 
 
 
¶7. (SBU) Despite the challenges to us on the numbers, the 
tier 2 placement has had the predictable effect of sharpening 
the GOC's focus on the issue.  Simonovic specifically stated 
that the issue is now a priority for the GOC because the IC 
has made it a priority.  As with refugee and return and 
reintegration issues, where the international community 
focuses, the GOC responds.  We will strive to maintain their 
attention on this issue in the hope that increased GOC 
funding and meaningful activities will result. 
MOON 
NNNN