MOFA PRESENTS TALKING POINTS FOR UPCOMING G/TIP

C O N F I D E N T I A L TOKYO 002788 SIPDIS SIPDIS FOR EAP/J, EAP/RSP, G/TIP, L/LEI E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/20/2017 TAGS: PREL KCRM PHUM KWMN ELAB JA SUBJECT: MOFA PRESENTS TALKING POINTS FOR UPCOMING G/TIP VISIT OF AMB. LAGON REF: A. TOKYO 02315 ¶B. 19 JUNE EMAIL: MCJACKSON TO RRICHHART Classified By: CDA Joe Donovan, Reasons 1.4 B/D ¶1. (C) On June 19, 2007 MOFA Organized Crime Division Director Akihiko Uchikawa presented talking points to Embassy Tokyo Political Officer concerning the upcoming visit of Ambassador Lagon to discuss the 2007 G/TIP report. Though not visibly upset, Uchikawa was clearly frustrated and disappointed with both the results stated in the report and an information gathering process that he said he found sporadic, opaque and, with a set of additional questions submitted shortly before the report, ill-timed. ¶2. (C) Uchikawa said that Japan was very disappointed with their continued Tier 2 ranking and that official displeasure was expressed at much higher levels in the government this year. He repeatedly stressed the amount of effort expended by MOFA and other agencies of the Government of Japan in collecting information in response to questions posed by the United States. In particular, Uchikawa said that the Japanese Embassy in Washington had informed him that the Department was using "internal criteria" not explicitly stated in the report nor communicated to Japan to arrive at the Tier 2 ranking assessment. Uchikawa expressed frustration on this point and wondered how Japan could adequately address the concerns and assumptions of the United States if they are not communicated clearly to the Government of Japan well in advance of the report's submission deadline. ¶3. (C) In addition to the items mentioned in the talking points below, Uchikawa said that the United States needs to offer further explanation concerning the inclusion of apparently new criteria into this year's report: 1. Possible forced labor conditions of workers in foreign trainee programs. 2. Use of fraudulent marriage as a vehicle for human trafficking and 3. Child Pornography. Uchikawa noted that the United States did not submit explicit questions concerning these issues in the list of questions submitted to the Government of Japan in February. After passing the talking points at the conclusion of the meeting, Uchikawa once again said that Japan wants to work together with the United States on this important issue but that continued cooperation on the G/TIP report is going to be difficult if the concerns of the Government of Japan are not adequately addressed. ¶4. (SBU) Begin GOJ Talking Points: Talking Points (Ambassador Lagon's visit to Japan for the TIP report) ¶1. Recognizing that trafficking in persons is a grave crime and a serious violation of human rights, Japan has pursued steady implementation under it's "Action plan of measures to combat trafficking in persons" . Japan has also taken necessary measures on the points where the past TIP reports suggested to be addressed, and/or duly gave explanation to the U.S. Government. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that such efforts were not assessed fairly in this year's TIP report. ¶2. It has come to the point that we seriously doubt that, no matter how further we cooperates for U.S. TIP report, our efforts never receive a fair assessment. ¶3. In this respect, we need an explanation as to the reason behind the judgment in this year's TIP report by/at the time we have the consultation in Japan. (see also the point 5) ¶4. In order for us to continue our cooperation, we need assurance on the following points (without a convincing response to each of them by/at the time we have the consultation in Japan, we would have difficulty in offering full cooperation as before): 1) Since we believe that Japan satisfies the Minimum standards and criteria for Tier 1, if the U.S, thinks otherwise, the U.S. specify and indicate to Japan any standard or criteria (including internal yardstick, if any) that the U.S. think should be satisfied. If Japan meets it, the U.S. assure that Japan be classified as Tier 1 country; and 2) The U.S explain clearly the relationship between the questions that the U.S is going to ask Japan for the next TIP report and a standard and criteria the U.S. think should be satisfied; and 3) If the U.S. finds an issue to be addressed from sources other than the Japanese government, the U.S. inquire the Japanese government on the same issue. ¶5. While Japan needs to scrutinize this year's report, we have doubts about the following (This list is not exhaustive): 1) The TIP report mentions the "move of more exploitative sex business underground" as one of the reasons that the numbers of victims identified have declined and suggests that "the Japanese government should direct a more proactive law enforcement campaign to investigate suspected sites of commercial sexual exploitation". What is the basis of this assessment? We think there are other reasons that the numbers dropped. 2) TIP report mentions that "it is unclear if the existing legal framework is sufficiently comprehensive to criminalize all severe form of trafficking in persons" If it is unclear, why is Japan not inquired in a timely manner? (We received this inquiry only a month ago, without even being mentioned the deadline.) If it was just a matter of clarity, why is it considered as an negative element in the report? 3) TIP report describes that the Japanese government "referred few victims to dedicated trafficking shelters run by NGO" and "should also cooperate more closely with specialized NGO shelters to provide counseling services to victims" . However, Japan has already responded in April 10th in the letter from the Embassy of Japan. Is the response addressed duly in the drafting of the report? (Excerpt from the letter) Q I heard from the Japanese NGO that the government stopped to referring the victims to private shelters. Is this true? ¶A. This is incorrect. Just as in 2005 where we subsidized 52 victims to private shelters and facilities, budget of $100, 000 was allocated for such purpose in 2006. Compared to 112 victims protected in 2005, the number of protected victim decreased to 27 in 2006. Because of such decrease, we only referred 2 victims to private shelters in 2006 and not because the government has made a policy to stop referring victims to private shelters. (End Excerpt) 4) Following last year's TIP report, it refers to the 2005 penal code and repeats that "Application of these statues, however, has been hindered by the difficulty of establishing a level of documentary evidence required for providing a trafficking crime" . Last year we mentioned that this is not true and asked for clarification of such statement. We need to know on what basis such statement in the report relies. (End Talking Points) DONOVAN