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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 GENEVA 002654 
 
SIPDIS 
 
BUDAPEST FOR OSCE, USEU FOR MEZNAR 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREF PHUM SMIG XG CIS
SUBJECT: COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES CONFERENCE 
PROCESS ENDS 
 
 
 ¶1.  (U) SUMMARY.  An October 10 meeting in Geneva marked the 
end of the decade-long CIS Conference Process, originally 
created to address problems of refugees and displaced persons 
-- as well as statelessness -- arising out of the break up of 
the Soviet Union.  Although a final conference statement was 
endorsed by all and there was a perceived need for a 
follow-on mechanism, no decision was made on new structures 
to continue the dialogue on migration and refugee issues. 
Two distinct visions emerged:  (1) Belarus, proposal for a 
CIS dialogue managed by a permanent secretariat in Minsk that 
would be partially funded by Russia; and (2) Moldova's 
proposal for sub-regional ad hoc meetings, as needed (with 
Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova forming one 
nucleus).  A technical meeting will be scheduled in early 
2006 to try to find agreement.  Uzbekistan's absence was in 
marked contrast to previous participation in the CIS 
Conference Process.  PRM/ECA Etta Toure and USEU/PRM Marc 
Meznar represented the U.S. in the meeting, which was 
co-chaired by the United Nations High Commissioner for 
Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for 
Migration (IOM).  END SUMMARY. 
 
 
Meeting Overview 
---------------- 
 
¶2.  (U) The CIS Conference Process was established to 
"Address the Problems of Refugees, Displaced Persons, Other 
Forms of Involuntary Displacement and Returnees in the 
Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States and 
Relevant Neighboring States."  The purpose of the 10 October 
meeting in Geneva was to conclude the CIS Conference Process, 
adopt a final statement, and look ahead towards a possible 
new flexible framework for Euro-Asian cooperation on 
migration, asylum and displacement issues.  At the day-long 
meeting, participating CIS countries, their neighbors, 
Friends and observers of the process read statements and 
discussed accomplishments and future plans for addressing the 
migration challenges that continue to confront the region. 
Remaining gaps in the implementation of policies related to 
asylum and protection were mentioned as a concern by the 
majority of delegations. Delegates also addressed issues 
related to security and combating terrorism, border 
management, increased movements of migrants and 
asylum-seekers into and across the region, trafficking in 
persons and xenophobia. 
 
 
¶3.  (U) Meeting participants included the Russian Federation, 
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, 
Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, and Ukraine.  Turkmenistan 
and Uzbekistan were absent.  The Council of Europe, the 
United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Organization 
for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the 
International Labor Organization (ILO) as well as lead NGOs, 
including the Danish Refugee Council, Georgian Young Lawyers 
Association and Non-Violence International were represented. 
Other Friends of the Process, neighboring countries and 
observers including Austria, Bulgaria, China, the Czech 
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Finland, Germany, Islamic 
Republic of Iran, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Switzerland and Turkey were also 
represented.  Many of these countries noted the 
accomplishments of the Process and congratulated 
participating CIS governments and partner organizations -- 
UNHCR, IOM, the OSCE and the Council of Europe -- for the 
marked successes in developing concerted efforts, policy 
measures, legal structures and practical mechanisms to manage 
the largest displacement challenge of the last half century. 
Participating CIS countries thanked partner agencies and 
donors and summed up their accomplishments, lessons learned, 
as well as future plans on migration issues in the region. 
 
 
CIS Countries on the Process 
---------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (U) Belarus highlighted the effect of the newly 
established external frontier of the European Union (EU) on 
its western border in drawing more migrants and refugees into 
its territory and said that the financial and technical 
assistance given by IOM and UNHCR to adopt legislation and 
establish facilities that meet international standards was 
extremely useful.  Over 3,000 asylum requests from 33 
nationalities have been filed and adjudicated by Belarusian 
authorities since acceding to the Geneva Refugee Convention. 
Belarus announced plans to formally join IOM this fall, 
noting that migration remained a central challenge for the 
CIS countries.  Belarus noted its country's active 
participation in the EU-funded Soderkoping process and said 
that the EU and countries beyond should be welcomed to 
continue engaging with this new structure for the CIS both as 
financial contributors and as countries affected by 
international migration. 
 
¶5.   (U) Moldova stated that the 1996 CIS conference managed 
to carry out its tasks and that it was now time to devolve 
action to flexible, action-oriented groups not supra-national 
in format -- at the sub-regional level.  Moldova noted that 
the EU was opening a full-fledged delegation in Chisinau and 
that its program of action with the EU contained a specific 
chapter on migration/asylum.  Additionally, it was 
cooperating with the Stability Pact for Southeast Europe in 
these matters.  With Romanian accession to the EU, Moldova 
said it expected to experience more flows of migrants and 
refugees into its territory.  Moldova noted it was the first 
CIS country to adopt a humanitarian status or tolerated stay 
for those who did not meet Geneva Convention definitions but 
who would not be sent back to regions of conflict; those 
denied asylum were also given the chance to appeal the 
decision.  Other developments included giving UNHCR full 
access to prisons, ports of entry and airports.  Moldova also 
highlighted an invitation to both the EU and the U.S. to help 
monitor the border with TransDnistria. 
 
¶6.  (U) Russia said it attaches great importance to the issue 
of migration and that Russian President Putin is very 
involved in the issue, particularly as it relates to the 
Russian economy, its large territory, terrorism, as well as 
legal and illegal people movements.  Russia reminded 
participants of its role in the Process and express its 
desire for a new platform for continuing the Process with 
cooperation by all.  It welcomed international assistance in 
this effort and is ready to work with international players. 
 
¶7. (U) Ukraine said that as a transit point between east and 
west, it faces major challenges in combating trafficking. 
Ukraine also highlighted its accomplishments since the 
establishment of the Plan of Action, and underscored the role 
of international assistance.  Ukraine has adopted new laws to 
address the problems of migration; it has created a data base 
on migration related issues and supports international 
dialogue to address gaps and challenges in migration. Ukraine 
welcomed the attention by the OSCE to the issue of the 
Crimean Tatars. Ukraine supports the return of more than 
250,000 Crimean Tatars who are struggling to reestablish 
their lives and reclaim their national and cultural rights 
against many social and economic obstacles. 
 
¶8.  (U) Armenia and Azerbaijan noted the major cause (the 
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict) of displacements in both countries 
and highlighted accomplishments in establishing migration 
policies, the continuing challenges and the need for 
international support to combat trafficking in persons.  Both 
countries emphasized their assistance to their displaced 
populations -- 800,000 in Azerbaijan and 300,000 in Armenia, 
according to both countries.  Armenia has included assistance 
for their displaced (ethnic Armenians who fled Azerbaijan) in 
its national plans, while Azerbaijan has set up an Oil Fund 
to move its IDPs to permanent settlements. 
 
¶9.  (U) Kazakhstan said that international migration has been 
an important phenomenon during the years following its 
independence, noting that for the first time last year there 
was balance between the numbers of those emigrating and 
immigrating.  In 2004, over one million foreigners were 
present in Kazakhstan, including up to 300,000 illegal 
migrant workers.  Kazakhstan said it was working with 
neighboring states to regularize the status of these 
migrants.  Recent steps to manage immigration included:  a) 
adopting a process for issuing visas and residency permits 
simultaneously; b) establishing a training center, which 
could be used by other countries; c) assisting returning 
ethnic Kazakhs, victims of trafficking and refugees; e) 
setting up an electronic database of refugees; and, f) moving 
towards biometric passports.  Kazakhstan said that it was 
working with Russia to stop illegal immigration because it 
was worried that this phenomenon could assist terrorists to 
move between countries. 
 
¶10.  (U)  Kyrgyzstan warned that negative trends in migration 
were causing geopolitical instability in Central Asia. 
Kyrgyzstan expressed concern over the treatment of Kyrgyz 
laborers abroad, noting that it had acceded to the Convention 
on the Rights of Migrant Workers and other key international 
instruments.  The Kyrgyz delegate expressed thanks to Russian 
authorities for resolving status problems connected to 
migrant workers and said that the Migration Office would soon 
open a branch in Moscow.  Within Kyrgyzstan, assistance was 
being given to many of the 15,000 returning ethnic Kyrgyz, 
the over 4000 registered refugees and 500 asylum seekers. 
Kyrgyzstan said that the inflow of Uzbeks had not stopped and 
that it was unprepared to receive another large influx like 
the group of 500 that had crossed the border in May and had 
stayed in-country for two months before being resettled to 
third countries.  Kyrgyzstan said that more work needed to be 
done at the sub-regional level for dealing with new refugee 
flows, as well as statelessness. 
 
¶11.  (U) Tajikistan said its on-going priorities include: 
improving the legislative basis for refugee/migration issues; 
managing migration flows; signing bilateral and multilateral 
agreements; curbing illegal immigration; training officials; 
and signing agreements with countries of destination for 
labor migration.  Regarding expatriate migrant laborers, 
Tajikistan said that it has a developed a strategy document 
that includes providing good information prior to departure. 
Tajikistan also said that the plight of IDPs and ecological 
migrants needed to be addressed. 
 
¶12. (U) Georgia's Minister of Refugees and Accommodation, who 
did not come prepared to make an opening statement, applauded 
the accomplishments of the Process and highlighted Georgia's 
problems in addressing issues related to IDPs, refugees and 
ecological migrants. 
 
¶13. (U) Uzbekistan's absence was in marked contrast to 
previous participation in the CIS Conference Process.  Like 
neighboring Turkmenistan, the Uzbeks increasingly are 
isolating themselves from discussing migration and refugee 
issues with their neighbors and re-establishing a Soviet-type 
concept of border control. 
 
 
Replacing the CIS Process: Two Schools of Thought 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶14. (SBU) Though the CIS Conference Process has officially 
ended, it was obvious from statements presented by 
governments, as well as private conversations with the 
participating officials, that there are two schools of 
thought on the replacement of the CIS Conference Process. 
During the conference, Belarus proposed a new system of 
dialogue for the greater CIS region that would involve 
international organizations and be coordinated by a permanent 
secretariat in Minsk.  Russia and Tajikistan supported 
 
SIPDIS 
Belarus' proposal during the plenary session.  In a private 
conversation, the Russian representative told PRMOffs that 
Belarus' proposal was suggested by UNHCR and that Russia was 
prepared to contribute $200,000 towards the establishment of 
a secretariat in Minsk.  When asked if the venue could be 
elsewhere, he said (after an awkward silence) that Russia was 
flexible and would likely support any consensus decision for 
replacing the Process.  Armenia, which is not part of the 
GUAM countries, supports the Belarus proposal for replacing 
the CIS process, as do the Central Asian countries. 
 
¶15. (SBU) The second school of thought advocated by many who 
consider the Belarusian proposal a Russian plot to control 
the dialogue was proposed by Moldova and includes flexible, 
action-oriented groups at the sub-regional level.   Moldova 
stated that Georgia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan had agreed with 
them to form a sub-regional group (GUAM) which would be more 
oriented to the European Union and other international 
partners.  Ukraine said that any new arrangements to replace 
the CIS Process must address today's migration challenges 
through bi-lateral and regional approaches.  Georgia clearly 
rejected the Belarus proposal for a secretariat in Minsk. 
GUAM officials told PRMOffs that they did not feel there was 
enough confidence among the CIS countries to have a 
secretariat in one of the countries.  Specifically, it could 
 
SIPDIS 
not be in Belarus or Russia -- particularly since Russia 
would have leverage with its funding prerogatives. 
 
 
Donors' Position 
---------------- 
 
¶16.  (U) Friends and observers of the Process, including ILO, 
UNDP and the USG expressed their readiness to contribute 
actively to the next stage of international cooperation in 
regulating international migration and addressing 
displacement across the CIS.  They also welcomed impetus 
towards developing comprehensive regional, sub-regional and 
national frameworks.  Following is the USG's formal statement 
on the conclusion of the CIS Conference Process: 
 
// U.S. STATEMENT // 
 
At the 1996 CIS Conference we embarked on an almost 
unprecedented journey.  The Program of Action, with its 
comprehensive strategy and its underlying principles of human 
rights and refugee law, was indeed ambitious.  It has been 
quite a journey we have learned many lessons, much has been 
accomplished, but many challenges remain. 
 
I would like to express my government's gratitude to UNHCR, 
IOM and OSCE for their significant efforts in assisting the 
CIS governments to make substantial gains in addressing some 
of the difficulties associated with refugees and migrants in 
the region.  The partnership of UNHCR, IOM, OSCE and, later, 
the Council of Europe in a joint Secretariat has been a 
unique and successful endeavor. 
 
My government fully supports the affirmed desire by 
stakeholders to replace the current CIS Conference Process 
with new arrangements which would provide a flexible, 
action-oriented and States-owned framework for structured 
dialogue and cooperation on a comprehensive range of issues 
related to migration, asylum and displacement. This desire is 
in line with the basic premise of the Conference process 
that, over time, the CIS governments themselves would assume 
greater responsibility for implementing the Program of 
Action. This responsibility includes prioritization of 
refugee and migration issues in national agendas, designating 
increased resources to address unresolved matters, and 
following through with the political resolve to accomplish 
the tasks at hand. 
 
As we look to a new paradigm to continue the work begun in 
1996, my government would like to highlight two issues that 
deserve particular attention: 
 
¶1.  Continued capacity building in migration management Since 
1996, my government has provided over $70 million to assist 
CIS countries on a wide range of migration issues. This 
assistance to governments and migration sector 
non-governmental organizations includes capacity building in 
migration management. With help from IOM, our migration 
implementing partner, my government's initial contributions 
allowed for the establishment of IOM offices and cooperation 
frameworks in migration management in most CIS countries. 
Today, other international donors are building on these 
initial investments.  However, we cannot lose sight of the 
importance of continuing to build on these investments to 
ensure sustainability. Otherwise, we risk losing valuable 
ground.  I urge all stakeholders to keep this in mind as we 
move to conclude the CIS Conference Process. 
 
¶2.  Overcoming persistent problems - Despite many 
achievements, we cannot ignore a number of areas that require 
greater efforts to overcome persistent problems.  These 
include: 
 
--More work on conflict prevention and the peaceful 
resolution of political disputes; 
--Greater respect for human rights and the rule of law; 
better protection of refugees & IDPs; 
--More cooperation on voluntary repatriation; 
--Better guarantees of the proper treatment of asylum 
seekers; 
--A need to close the gap between migration-related 
legislation and implementation in the CIS; and 
 
--Continued efforts to prevent and combat trafficking in 
human beings, and provide more effective support to victims. 
 
We must renew our commitment to progress in each of these 
areas.  My government's hope is that the structure and 
modalities following the CIS Conference Processes will 
provide venues not only to address these problems, but also 
to sustain what has been accomplished since 1996.  /END 
STATEMENT/ 
 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶17.  (SBU) Russia's decision to put money on the secretariat 
is a laudable step in the countries of the region taking 
ownership of the process (one of the long-term objectives of 
the CIS Process).  However, this leadership from the former 
master is clearly unwelcome in the parts of the CIS that 
yearn to join western, democratic groupings.  There is no 
doubt that a variety of unresolved migration and refugee 
issues including trafficking in persons, labor migration, 
statelessness, and new refugee outflows augur for a continue 
dialogue among countries of the region.  Ideally, a periodic 
conference that brought together all countries for common 
themes (like labor migration) could be supplemented by more 
frequent interactions at the sub-regional level on specific 
themes (like Uzbek refugee flows).  Clearly, migration 
dynamics have altered significantly in the CIS countries over 
the past ten years.  We recommend continued coordination with 
IOM and UNHCR as CIS countries strive to map out arrangements 
that will replace the CIS Conference Process. 
Moley