VZCZCXYZ0001
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0034/01 0351310
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 041310Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0537
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 0299
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0973
RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 0001
RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES 0001
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD 0332
RUEHPE/AMEMBASSY LIMA 0005
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 1046
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO 0003
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 0017
RUEHSG/AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO 0022

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000034 
 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958:N/A 
TAGS: SNAR KCOR KCRM PGOV UN BE CH CO AR PK PE RS MX
CA, CI 
SUBJECT: PROGRESS DELAYED TOWARD A REVIEW MECHANISM FOR ORGANIZED 
CRIME TREATY 
 
REF: A) 08 UNVIE 465 
 
¶1. SUMMARY: INL DAS Elizabeth Verville chaired a two day expert 
meeting, hosted by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) from 
January 25-26, in order to resume discussions of possible mechanisms 
to review implementation of the UN Convention against Transnational 
Organized Crime (UNTOC).  The majority of states present, including 
Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, EU Member States and the 
United States, endorsed the creation of a Working Group to develop 
terms of reference for a review mechanism, which could include 
expert review, peer review or a combination thereof in order to 
measure countries' implementation of UNTOC.  Russia led a group of 
countries that included China, Iran and Pakistan that pushed for a 
"step-by-step" or gradual approach, questioning the necessity of 
establishing a new review mechanism beyond the discussion that takes 
place at the UNTOC's biennial Conference of the Parties (COP). 
Ultimately, countries endorsed the establishment of a Working Group 
that would discuss possible options for a review mechanism but 
without setting a timeline for development of terms of reference or 
adoption of the mechanism.  The recommendations represented 
significant foot dragging from the more forward leaning approach 
advocated by USDEL and the majority of other countries present. 
However, the result has the elements needed to build on and, with 
vigorous preparatory work in Vienna, to press for a COP outcome that 
mandates development of terms of reference. END SUMMARY. 
 
--------------- 
U.S. Delegation 
--------------- 
¶2.  INL DAS Elizabeth Verville led the U.S. delegation (USDEL), 
which also included the following officials: UNVIE John Brandolino, 
DOJ Thomas Burrows, INL Christine Qine and L Virginia Prugh. 
 
------------------------- 
Progress Delayed 
Toward a Review Mechanism 
------------------------- 
¶3.  From January 25-26, UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) 
convened an expert meeting, chaired by INL DAS Elizabeth Verville, 
during which approximately 70 countries met to discuss possible 
mechanisms to review implementation of the UN Convention against 
Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) and its supplementary 
Protocols on trafficking in persons, on migrant smuggling and on 
illicit trafficking in firearms.  Previously, this expert meeting 
convened for a one-day session in September 2009 (ref A).  At that 
time, negotiations were coming to a head for the review mechanism to 
the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and many countries 
believed it premature to explore options for the UNTOC without 
finalizing the UNCAC terms of reference (ToR), which was 
subsequently agreed upon in November 2009.   As such, the UNODC 
identified two days in January for UNTOC experts to reconvene. 
 
¶4.  The Fourth UNTOC Conference of the Parties (COP), held in 
October 2008, charged this expert meeting with the development of a 
report and recommendations on possible options for a review 
mechanism for the UNTOC.   These recommendations were to be 
forwarded to the Fifth COP, when it convened in October 2010.  The 
majority of states present, including Argentina, Canada, Colombia, 
Mexico, Peru, EU Member States and the United States, endorsed the 
creation of a Working Group to develop terms of reference for a 
review mechanism, which could include expert review, peer review or 
a combination thereof in order to measure countries' implementation 
of UNTOC.  USDEL joined these countries in cautioning against a 
"copy and paste" approach with regard to the ToR developed for the 
UNCAC.  Instead, a review mechanism should be developed that is 
tailored to the unique provisions and scope of the UNTOC and its 
Protocols, particularly its emphasis on international cooperation. 
USDEL highlighted its support for a country-by-country review of the 
Protocol on Trafficking in Persons, citing the hidden nature of the 
crime and the unique need for services to victims of trafficking, 
which are often provided by non-governmental organizations. 
Argentina and Peru complemented U.S. interventions, and also 
advocated for the establishment of a voluntary process, or pilot 
project, to begin reviewing implementation of the UNTOC and its 
Protocols. 
 
¶5.  Russia led a group of countries that included China, Iran and 
Pakistan that pushed for a "step-by-step" or gradual approach, 
 
questioning the necessity of establishing a new review mechanism 
beyond the discussion that takes place at the UNTOC's biennial 
Conference of the Parties (COP).  Russia also pushed for further 
focus on data collection, despite the fact that data collection has 
been the subject of UNTOC discussions since 2004.   Russia also 
refused to endorse the establishment of any Working Group with the 
express mandate of developing a ToR for a review mechanism.  Russia 
emphasized that it would only accept a strictly intergovernmental 
process and argued that non-governmental organizations should not 
have a role to play in a review process.   With frequent and lengthy 
interventions, the Russian delegation scuttled any recommendations 
that would definitively set in motion a timeline for a review 
mechanism.  (Note: see septel). 
 
¶6.  At DAS Verville's direction, experts met in two informal 
sessions in order to hash out acceptable recommendations.  After 
intense debate, countries agreed: (1) that the COP should create a 
Working Group to explore possible options for a review mechanism, 
(2) that the information gathered by UNODC through its 
self-assessment checklist and software tool should form the basis of 
any future review mechanism, and (3) that interested countries may 
explore with UNODC ways and means of reviewing their implementation 
of the UNTOC.   Again because of objections from Russia, China, Iran 
and Pakistan countries failed to agree on a timeline for developing 
ToR for an UNTOC review mechanism or for adoption of a review 
mechanism. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
¶7.  The recommendations adopted by the expert meeting represent a 
significant departure from the more forward leaning approach 
advocated by USDEL and the majority of other countries present at 
the meeting.  Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan succeeded in 
preventing the expert meeting from agreeing to a firm timeline for 
the development of terms of reference for a review mechanism and 
called into question even the need to establish one.  This 
negotiating tactic may well reflect their own lessons learned during 
the negotiation of the UNCAC review mechanism, as this same group of 
countries reluctantly accepted a peer review process.  At the same 
time, many EU Member States expressed privately their desire to see 
a mechanism for the UNTOC include some of the concepts that they 
were not able to see incorporated into that for the UNCAC, including 
an increased role for NGO or civil society involvement.  The 
deadlock at the expert meeting served as a wake-up call for many 
delegations, including USDEL, who had hoped that the necessity of a 
review mechanism for UNTOC would not be challenged.  In order to 
make progress at the October 2010 COP, informal consultations will 
need to begin as soon as possible with a view to overcoming 
conceptual differences.  UNVIE will work to activate a group of 
like-minded countries in order to begin this process and will also 
work with the Department to begin a strategy of outreach with the 
recalcitrant countries. END COMMENT 
 
DAVIES