Cablegate: Progress Delayed Toward a Review Mechanism for Organized

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

© Scoop Media