Anti-Human Trafficking Working Group Prepares

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