VZCZCXRO9958
RR RUEHKW RUEHMA RUEHSK
DE RUEHUNV #0187/01 1171530
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 271530Z APR 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9351
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1610
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUCNCRI/VIENNA CRIME COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 UNVIE VIENNA 000187 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: PHUM KWMN PREF SMIG KCRM KTIP UN
 
SUBJECT: Anti-Human Trafficking Working Group Prepares 
Recommendations 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1.  On April 15-16 Vienna-based delegates and anti-human trafficking 
government experts from several countries gathered in Vienna to 
participate in a working group designed to assist the Conference of 
the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Convention against 
Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) in the implementation of its 
mandate with regard to the Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Protocol. 
The recommendations of the session will be forwarded to the COP at 
its next meeting in 2009, and to New York, as part of UNODC's input 
to the Secretary General in advance of Thematic Debate on TIP, 
scheduled for May 13th.  Broad consensus was found in a number of 
areas, evincing a convergence of opinions on many important issues. 
However, thorny issues remain, notably the questions of 
"criminalizing" trafficked victims and whether and how to involve 
NGO's in the policy-making process.  Although many issues were 
discussed, the conversation often returned to the contentious and 
New York-based "Global Plan of Action."  Belarus, Russia and Egypt 
expressed support for the Plan, but there is a noticeable lack of 
enthusiasm from other delegations for such an exercise.  End 
Summary. 
 
------------------------ 
Recommendations Show 
Broad Areas of Consensus 
------------------------ 
 
¶2.  The first day was free-flowing and constructive on how best to 
improve implementation of the TIP Protocol and how to improve 
coordination at the international level.  The second day reverted to 
the inevitable divisions and started to focus on the line-by-line 
negotiations.  The U.S. delegation was pleased to see that the 
proposed recommendations were often a vehicle to engage in further 
substantive conversation rather than giving national statements. 
 
¶3.  Delegations agreed that universal adherence and effective 
implementation of the TIP Protocol was a crucial initial step to 
combating the trafficking problem.  USDEL received support for its 
proposal to ask UNODC to solicit information from signatory 
countries on the obstacles preventing ratification of the TIP 
Protocol and include the information in its next report to the COP. 
Delegations also agreed on the need to criminalize all conduct that 
facilitates or supports human trafficking, such as prostitution and 
pimping.  (Note:  Some member states criticized the UN.GIFT Global 
Report on Trafficking in Persons for the lack of acknowledgment that 
many states are prosecuting the problem through TIP-related offenses 
(such as pimping), rather than through an explicit criminal offense 
of "trafficking in persons." Norway, for example, took umbrage at 
the Report's assertion that the dearth of trafficking in persons 
worldwide demonstrates insufficient attention being paid to human 
trafficking.  End note.) 
 
¶4.  Initially skeptical, member states eventually endorsed a U.S. 
recommendation that the UNODC prepare issue papers to improve the 
understanding and interpretation of key concepts in the Protocol in 
the context of penal proceedings. Concepts such as "exploitation," 
"movement" and "vulnerability," which are decisive elements in a TIP 
criminal case, are often understood inadequately by prosecutors, 
court clerks or judges. Such inadequate understanding can lead to 
inefficient proceedings and worse, a lack of conviction. 
 
¶5.  Delegations found broad consensus on the need to raise 
awareness, and to build capacity by training officials from the 
front-line immigration and labor inspectors, to social workers, 
prosecutors and even peace-keeping soldiers.  Such training, the 
delegations recommended, should be especially oriented to the proper 
identification of trafficked victims, which is crucial to the timely 
and appropriate referral to treatment. 
 
¶6.  Delegations also agreed on the need to step up partnerships 
between governments and the private sector to combat trafficking for 
labor exploitation.  The working group accepted a U.S. 
recommendation that governments should, in addition to properly 
identifying those products and services of exploited labor, raise 
public awareness of this issue, in the hope of reducing the demand 
for such goods and services. 
 
¶7.  The Group reached agreement on four recommendations on victim 
protection and assistance:  1) the need for equal access to such 
services, regardless of citizenship or origin; 2) the victim's 
ability to stay in the territory temporarily or, when appropriate, 
permanently; 3) the need for more effective allocation of support 
service funds; and 4) the inclusion of the "best interests of the 
child" principle. 
 
-------------------------- 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000187  002 OF 003 
 
 
Bones of Contention: 
Criminalizing TIP Victims 
-------------------------- 
 
¶9.  A number of other issues proved contentious.  One was the manner 
in which trafficked victims should be treated by the criminal 
justice system.  While it is undeniable that many victims engage or 
engaged in unlawful acts (use of fraudulent identification, illegal 
border crossing, as well as prostitution, etc.), many member states 
(including the US) asserted that such persons should not be 
prosecuted or otherwise punished for those acts, so long as these 
acts were the "direct result" of their status as a trafficked 
person.  Iran, Egypt and Pakistan (which is not party to the 
protocol) strenuously objected to what they saw as "blanket amnesty" 
to criminals, albeit trafficked victims.  They insisted that before 
they would even consider non-punishment, the victim must show that 
she/he was compelled to engage in the unlawful activity.  (Note: 
Such a position arguably is at odds with the irrelevance of 
"consent," as discussed in Article 3 of the Protocol.  It also 
creates an undue burden on the victim to establish "compulsion" as 
an affirmative defense.  End Note.)  In the end, delegations agreed 
to insert the element of compulsion, and, softened the 
recommendation to request that member states "consider the 
possibility of non-prosecution or punishment." 
 
------------------------- 
NGO Involvement in Policy 
------------------------- 
 
¶10.  A second contentious issue was the involvement of NGO's in the 
formation of national policy.  China, Pakistan (neither are a 
signatory nor a party to the Protocol), Russia, and Egypt objected 
vociferously to NGO inclusion in related governmental task forces. 
In contrast, USDEL and many EU countries, especially Austria, 
stressed that it was absolutely indispensible for civil society to 
have an "equal" seat at the table.  The compromise is a 
recommendation for NGO's and their work to be taken into account by 
policymakers when formulating national strategies. 
 
¶11.  USDEL underscored its support for the UNODC's crucial role in 
helping states implement the protocol, but found some proposals 
impractical or ill-developed.  Russia, the UK and others expressed 
support for UNODC's Global TIP report, and called on a biennial 
summary report, and comprehensive review of TIP issues worldwide 
once every ten years.  Russia specifically expressed the need for 
such a report "independent from government bias."  Others called for 
a UNODC-administered database that would collect TIP information. 
However, no one was able to articulate clearly the purpose of this 
database, whether it would serve as: a clearinghouse of government 
information on health statistics, or a compilation of law 
enforcement cases, or a status report of TIP-related legislation. 
Delegates could not find consensus on any of these recommendations, 
although delegations acknowledged that they should at least be 
considered by the COP. 
 
---------------------- 
Global Plan of Action 
Proposal Finds Limited 
Support in Vienna 
---------------------- 
 
¶13.  Throughout the two-day meeting, conversation often returned to 
the contentious "Global Plan of Action".  Led by Belarus, the Plan 
was characterized as a supplement to the Protocol and would assist 
the implementation of the Protocol.  Russia, joined by the Africa 
Union and Egypt, expressed support for the Plan.  [Note: Many 
delegations, including Egypt, acknowledged privately that the AU and 
Egyptian positions were in large part dictated by their national 
"first wives," such as Mrs. Mubarak in Egypt.  End note.] 
 
¶14.  The U.K., Canada, Norway, Colombia, Peru, Iran, Indonesia, 
Pakistan, France, China and Argentina all spoke either publicly or 
privately against the Plan.  Their objections were wide-ranging, 
from the need to focus on existing mechanisms, or on regional 
mechanisms, to the potential of creating an undesired parallel 
process to the COP. Pakistan in particular stated it was "too much 
too soon" to develop a global plan, and since it was not a party to 
the TIP Protocol it could not support such a plan of action. USDEL 
outlined concerns about the utility of launching a new initiative 
when there is already an adequate global legal framework in place, 
i.e., the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in 
Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United 
Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.  In the 
end, the Plan failed to gain consensus as a recommendation to the 
COP; the Chair's report of the meeting will characterize the 
discussions. 
 
------- 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000187  003 OF 003 
 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶15.  We were pleased at this opportunity to focus UNODC's 
anti-trafficking activities through the lens of the COP.  Despite 
broad consensus in a number of areas, the UNTOC COP will undoubtedly 
face controversy over involvement, the criminalization of TIP 
victims, the Global Plan of Action, and the direction of UNODC's 
anti-TIP efforts (regular global reports vs. technical assistance). 
While there was little enthusiasm in the room for the Global Plan of 
Action, U.S. delegation also sensed disconnect between national 
delegations in Vienna and New York.  Our Mexican interlocutor, for 
example, stated that it is very hard for him to get an answer from 
his New York colleagues on whether they support the GPOA.  Other 
delegations voiced similar sentiments.  It will be important in this 
regard for the Department to work through capitals to ensure that 
governments speak with a single voice in both New York and Vienna on 
UN anti-trafficking work. 
END COMMENT. 
 
 
Schulte