Disclaimer: This site has been first put up 15 years ago. Since then I would probably do a couple things differently, but because I've noticed this site had been linked from news outlets, PhD theses and peer rewieved papers and because I really hate the concept of "digital dark age" I've decided to put it back up. There's no chance it can produce any harm now.
| Identifier: | 04THEHAGUE51 |
|---|---|
| Wikileaks: | View 04THEHAGUE51 at Wikileaks.org |
| Origin: | Embassy The Hague |
| Created: | 2004-01-09 14:04:00 |
| Classification: | CONFIDENTIAL |
| Tags: | EAIR NL PTER |
| Redacted: | This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks. |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 THE HAGUE 000051 SIPDIS BRUSSELS FOR TSAR J.KNUDSEN E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/09/2009 TAGS: EAIR, NL, PTER SUBJECT: ARMED FLYING DUTCHMEN: DEBATE OVER SKY MARSHALS IN THE NETHERLANDS Classified By: CDA Daniel R. Russel for reasons 1.5 (b) and (d) 1. (C) Summary. After a promising start, Dutch carriers, under pressure from pilots, are at this stage not ready to allow sky marshals on their flights and would likely choose instead to ground flights. However, carriers are working with the pilots' unions and the Ministry of Justice to develop a protocol that addresses pilots concerns, which center on liability and responsibilities during a mid air incident. The Ministry of Justice is confident that it can work through the disagreements and start the sky marshal program in four weeks time. Under MOJ's direction, the Royal Military Police have trained a brigade of 10 sky marshals. The past week has featured a loud debate in the media among the airline employees unions, the carriers, the government, and the public -- a debate that includes strong public criticism of the MOJ. End Summary. Introduction ------------ 2. (SBU) In the past week Dutch media have covered in detail a public dispute between the GONL and pilots over how/whether to comply with the USG requirements for armed sky marshals on transatlantic flights. It appeared at first that sky marshals would be less of an issue in the Netherlands and that Dutch carriers would be able to comply. But now, under pressure from the pilots union, carriers will draw up a protocol with unions and the GONL. The process could take a few weeks. Dutch Sky Marshals Program -------------------------- 3. (C) The Dutch Royal Military Police (Marechaussee) Special Air Security Branch maintains a small sky marshal program. While the program is administered by the Marechaussee (which is technically under the Ministry of Defense), the Ministry of Justice directed the creation of the program. The program was launched in 2003 and was developed in close coordination with DHS officials. At the moment the Dutch have ten officers who the MOJ says could deploy this month. The program should expand in 2004, according to Hendrik Bos of the Marechaussee. Air marshals have a temporary authority to deploy onto Dutch carriers, but a permanent legislative solution will be necessary if the program were to go long term. The government has not yet authorized the marshals to carry guns, and their armed training is not yet complete, according to our Brussels-based TSAR. MOJ has been criticized in the media for caving in to SIPDIS "irrational" U.S. security demands, but MOJ makes the point that its program has been under development for two years. The Ministry of Justice is confident the Dutch sky marshal program can be up and running in four weeks. Pilots Association Opposes Guns ------------------------------- 4. (SBU) The Dutch Airline Pilots Association (VNV) have called for a protocol to be drawn up between MOJ, the airlines, and the VNV, that requires air marshals announce themselves, their responsibilities, and their weapons to the pilot of an aircraft. Henk de Vries, Chairman of the VNV, told EconOff the position of his organization is as follows: air marshals can provide an extra contribution to airline security if a) there are clear lines of responsibility and authority, and b) air marshals carry other than conventional firearms. The VNV strongly objects to air marshals carrying firearms because this would conflict with current aviation security goals to ban all firearms in the air. The VNV fears the use of firearms would create serious technical and legal/liability problems when used on board aircraft. Since the authority and responsibility on board aircraft rests with the captain of an aircraft, he/she will be held responsible for passengers killed or wounded in action. VNV has asked for an investigation into the use of "intelligent" weapons including paralyzers and/or "smart guns." VNV also wants cameras in cockpits. The VNV is interested to know the USG position on pilot liability/responsibility on board an aircraft in case of an incident. De Vries told post that the VNV will urge its members on January 9 to refuse to fly with air marshals equipped with conventional firearms, regardless of the aircraft's final destination. 5. (SBU) The Dutch flight attendants union has joined the discussion as well, making known its opposition to the deployment of sky marshals. Their reading of national and international law stipulates that cabin crew members have authority over the cabin, and therefore should take the lead over sky marshals during emergency situations. KLM -- Complaints, But Working on Agreement ------------------------------------------- 6. (C) On January 8, EconOff spoke with Teun Platenkamp, who holds the title of Sr. VP of Security Services at KLM, and also serves as Chairman of the Association of European Airlines (AEA) Civil Aviation Security Committee. KLM is committed to working on the aforementioned protocol and expects it to be finished in two weeks. Like the pilots union, KLM states that the primary point of aviation security should be at the airport, not in the sky. Platenkamp pointed out Schiphol's tight baggage and passenger screening systems, in particular for transatlantic flights. Nevertheless, KLM says it is not/not opposed to the air marshals request in principle, and is working hard to meet the requirements. Plantenkamp voiced objections to manner in which the emergency amendments were communicated to the Dutch. KLM was initially surprised by the USG announcement of requiring government-employed armed air marshals on some foreign-operated transatlantic flights. But the problem was aggravated in that the emergency amendments were delivered directly to airlines instead of to governments first. The result was that carriers and unions had little time to react, and issued quick statements, which caused the debate to be conducted in the open media. KLM argues that air security would have been better served if the discussion between the GONL, carriers, and the employees unions could have taken place in a more orderly fashion, rather than through a public media war of press releases and editorials. Platenkamp identified another potential hurdle: he predicts that pilots and airlines will not simply acquiesce to the posting of an air marshal in response to a threat; instead, airlines and pilots will demand to know the nature of a threat so they may decide for themselves whether or not they want to fly. 7. (C) Platenkamp welcomes an open discussion with the USG that will lead to a carefully considered, mutually agreeable air marshals policy. He warns that setting up a last-minute, hasty arrangement "could work against us all." Platenkamp took time to reinforce his organization's commitment to guaranteeing safe air travel and noted that KLM wants very much not to have to cancel flights, such as what happened to British Airways and Air France. Platenkamp noted that the Dutch DG for Civil Aviation will attend the January 16 meeting of DGs in Brussels on the subject of the new U.S. security requirements. RUSSEL
Latest source of this page is cablebrowser-2, released 2011-10-04