US embassy cable - 04BRUSSELS1749

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 001749 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DHS FOR UNDER SECRETARY HUTCHINSON; DOJ FOR CRIMINAL 
DIVISION BRUCE SWARTZ; STATE FOR EUR PDAS RIES, CA DAS 
JANICE JACOBS, S/CT WILLIAM POPE; 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CA, EAIR, ECON, EU, PTER, USEU BRUSSELS 
SUBJECT: SCENESETTER FOR APRIL 26 INAUGURAL SESSION OF THE 
TRANSPORT, BORDER AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY DIALOGUE 
(TBIS) 
 
REF: STATE 083901 (NOTAL) 
 
1.  Summary and introduction.  The inaugural meeting of the 
high level dialogue on transportation, border and 
infrastructure security (TBIS) on April 26 is an important 
opportunity to break through the bureaucratic logjams between 
various EU components that have severely complicated efforts 
to advance our homeland security agenda with the EU.  By 
bringing together several elements of the Commission, along 
with the Council Secretariat, the Irish Presidency, and 
newly-installed EU Counter-terrorism coordinator Gijsbert de 
Vries, we have a chance to get them to place existing EU 
efforts more squarely in the context of the struggle against 
terrorism.  The EU was contemplating the creation of a 
similar structure when we tabled our proposal for the 
creation of this group. 
 
2.   On the EU side, the meeting will be formally co-chaired 
by Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Director General Jonathan 
Faull and External Relations (RELEX) Deputy Director General 
Fernando Valenzuela.  They have the lead, but we have found 
in the past that the real problems arise from more robust 
rules and regulations promulgated by "first pillar" 
directorates such as Transport/Energy and Internal Market. 
Representatives from these directorates will also be present 
at the session although not at the table.  One of our key 
goals for the day should be to convince the "backbenchers" 
that their offices need to take better account of the 
implications of what they do for the war on terrorism. The 
Irish Presidency and the Council Secretariat should be allies 
in trying to push for a more comprehensive and balanced 
approach on these questions.  End summary and introduction. 
 
----------- 
The Setting 
----------- 
 
3.  The EU has indicated they want this first TBIS meeting to 
be a success - to have a positive agenda and to achieve 
concrete results.  Within the EU this meeting is referred to 
as the "Enhanced Security Dialogue."  We will need to explain 
our view that this meeting is not to replace our current 
discussion mechanisms on JHA issues.  It is indeed precisely 
because our current JHA discussions address the issues of 
transport, border and infrastructure security in an 
unsatisfactory way that we have proposed this new mechanism. 
DG RELEX has confided to us that if this meeting can 
effectively bring together the various directorates to 
discuss these issues in a coordinated fashion it will have 
been a successful venture.  The EC recognizes that it has 
"stove-piped" its handling of these issues and is hopeful 
that this new mechanism will assist in overcoming this 
problem.  In addition to overcoming the "stove-piping" 
problem, we want to use this meeting to enhance the pivotal 
role of Jonathan Faull and his JHA Directorate in this 
dialogue as he is the one focusing on law enforcement and 
security aspects of these issues.  We also want to underscore 
the important role that the newly-named Council terrorism 
coordinator Gijsbert  De Vries can play. 
 
4.  There has long existed a tension among the various 
directorates of the Commission, the council secretariat and 
the Member States.  This tension has only been exacerbated by 
the push to forge an EU counter-terrorism strategy.  For 
example, the focus of the Transport and Internal Market 
Directorates is primarily commercial, while that of JHA is on 
law enforcement and security.  Meanwhile, terrorism 
coordinator De Vries has been placed within the Council 
Secretariat and answers to High Representative Solana. 
 
SIPDIS 
Elements of the Commission do not acknowledge his position as 
having jurisdiction over their portfolios.  The EU 
Counter-terrorism Declaration is a Member State document, but 
contains initiatives that touch on Commission competencies. 
This forum may bring some of these tensions to the fore.  In 
this context, there is a danger that the session could be 
side-tracked into theological debate on the purpose of the 
group.  We will need to review this at the top of the 
meeting, but we should seek to move quickly to the other 
items on the agenda in order to look for practical outcomes. 
 
5.  There is much in the recently-adopted Council Declaration 
issued after the Madrid attacks that can be helpful in 
framing the agenda and purpose of the group.  It also can 
provide a point of departure as we consider a possible joint 
Summit statement.  De Vries will want to explain the 
initiatives (old and new), but we should try to steer him 
away from a presentation on a public document we have already 
read and digested.  Instead, we should key on the declaration 
to begin a focus on how this will affect transatlantic 
efforts to cooperate more fully on law enforcement and 
improve security for transport/infrastructure and borders. 
 
--------------- 
Priority Issues 
--------------- 
 
6.  Biometrics:  The EU will expect an update regarding the 
Administration,s efforts to persuade Congress to postpone 
the 10/26/2004 biometrics deadline.  The EU has informed 
Congressman Sensenbrenner in writing of its efforts to 
coordinate the introduction of biometrics into Member State 
passports.  An early, favorable decision by Congress 
regarding the deadline will be critical in managing the flow 
of legitimate travelers.  The parallel policy change of 
enrolling visa waiver travelers in US VISIT on or about 
9/30/2004 will also be raised by the EU.  The lack of prior 
notification and expected negative public reactions as the 
date nears are two issues the EU may raise.  Although the 
Commission has publicly stated it will not pursue reciprocal 
treatment of American travelers to the Schengen area, calls 
for reciprocity have already been heard in Europe (with the 
example of Brazil cited).  Finally, the issue of visa waiver 
for new Member States continues to simmer.  The Commission 
notified USEU that the Czech Republic has again demanded that 
visa waiver be discussed at the next JHA Council meeting.  If 
this issue is raised at the TBIS, we suggest that it be 
deferred to a technical meeting later in the day between CA 
and DG JHA where DAS Jacobs will explain the legislative 
parameters to the VWP. 
 
7.  Border security: Our delegation might press for the 
following concrete results to enhance border security:  a 
pilot project to share, on a reciprocal basis, 200 names from 
our lookout systems before the end of the calendar year. 
This gives the EU time to resolve potential legal and 
technical issues relating to the Schengen Information System 
(SIS).   The Department,s swift response to the EC,s 
proposal on sharing lost/stolen passport information via 
Interpol (reftel State 83112) can be used as leverage to 
obtain from the EU a similar response on our proposed pilot 
for exchanging lookout information.  A written proposal 
(similar to the one Jonathan Faull presented to the 
Department on lost/stolen passports) may be helpful in moving 
this suggestion forward. 
 
8.  Information Exchange:  We might also like to flag a 
longer-term objective of exchanging on a reciprocal, routine 
basis information on visa applications that have been 
refused.  DG JHA Head of Unit for IT Systems Frank Paul, who 
is charged with designing the Visa Information System (which 
will make such an exchange possible), has been selected for 
an IVP in FY 2005.  His consultations in Washington during 
this program might serve to lay the foundation for a 
longer-term objective related to the VIS.  Since this visa 
information would relate to aliens outside the EU, privacy 
objections should be minimized.  In addition, SIS II is being 
developed in response to the enlargement.  Agreement to 
cooperate with the EU on sharing data using the SIS II 
database must come quickly if the EU's system is to be 
designed with this objective in mind. 
 
9.  Link to G7/G8:  Many of these border security initiatives 
are being simultaneously worked in the G8 Secure and 
Facilitated International Travel Initiative (SAFTI).  Four EU 
member states and the Commission participate in these G8 
discussions.  We should anticipate that the dialogue with the 
EU will touch upon these G8 initiatives and programs. 
 
10.  PNR:  After the Parliament vote, the Commission has 
stated that it will proceed with an 'adequacy finding' for 
PNR data transfers, but the Irish have been less emphatic 
that they will move forward on the associated "international 
agreement" in the Council.  The TBIS will provide a good 
forum to push for rapid adoption of the deal.  We can also 
use this opportunity to outline our approach on third country 
transfers of PNR data and send the signal we consider the 
question closed.  We understand that in ICAO, some member 
states are pressing forward a proposal on airline passenger 
data that would call for a moratorium on PNR transfers until 
an ICAO standard is developed.  We should ask the Commission 
and Council representatives present to explain their 
positions on this potentially damaging initiative. 
 
 
11.  CAPPS II:  The Commission (DG Transportation and DG 
Markets) would also like a readout of where we are on 
implementation of the CAPPS II system after the February GAO 
report.  That readout would include our best estimates on 
timing for the system's going live, and when we planned on 
initiating bilateral discussions to work out an 'adequacy 
finding' for operation of the system with EU data. 
 
12.  Air Marshals:  In January 2004, U/S Hutchinson appeared 
before a special session of European Directors General of 
Civil Aviation and  suggested that the U.S. and EU could work 
together to develop guidelines for the placement of sky 
marshals on flights, as well as alternate measures that 
countries could implement to substitute for assigning 
marshals.  The Commission will want to discuss this matter 
further.  They also wish to learn more about work TSA is 
doing with the UK on the 'gold standard' for placement of 
marshals. 
 
SCHNABEL