US embassy cable - 04BRUSSELS4503

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 BRUSSELS 004503 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR P - JDEHART; EUR/ERA - PCHASE AND KSHEARER; 
CA - JJACOBS AND SJACOBS; DHS FOR BTS - DSULLIVAN AND 
MCLAYTON 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/29/2014 
TAGS: SMIG, PREL, CMGT, EUN, USEU BRUSSELS 
SUBJECT: VISA WAIVER MEETING: U.S. WELCOMED -- AND WARNED 
 
REF: BRUSSELS 2114 
 
Classified By: PRMOFF MARC J. MEZNAR.  REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D). 
 
1. (C) Summary.  While privately praising USG efforts to 
adopt a more positive approach to EU Member States not in the 
visa waiver program (VWP), the European Commission (EC) 
struck a combative tone in public during consultations on 
October 18.  DG JHA Head of Unit for Visas and Borders Jan de 
Ceuster contrasted the U.S. response to enlargement with more 
welcomed initiatives from New Zealand (extending visa waiver 
status to all 25), Australia (processing visa applications 
online for newcomers), and Canada (proactively re-evaluating 
status of new states).  He also warned the ten EU Member 
States not in VWP against using the "solidarity mechanism" to 
force reciprocity, calling it a "draconian" measure.  De 
Ceuster stated the EU Council has begun discussing 
"retaliatory" options other than visa reciprocity to pressure 
the USG (he did not clarify further).  Senior USG policy 
makers from DHS and DoS reviewed the technical qualifications 
for VWP status.  The reaction from the ten EU "have nots" was 
low-key.  Suggestions included:  reducing the subjectivity of 
visa decisions, lowering the visa application fees, making 
the visa refusal rates public, and taking into consideration 
EU Membership when deciding on VWP status.  In a subsequent 
media roundtable, questions focused on USG reaction to the 
"solidarity mechanism" and the effect it would have on 
transatlantic travel, if invoked.  End Summary. 
 
------------------------ 
Commission urges U.S. to expand VWP 
------------------------ 
 
2. (U) Following up on an offer made by DHS Secretary Ridge 
during a a recent meeting in The Hague, senior policy 
advisors from the Departments of Homeland Security and State 
met in Brussels on October 18 with the ten EU Member States 
not in the VWP to review the parameters of the program.  The 
meeting was co-hosted by the EC and the Dutch Presidency. 
The ten interested Member States were represented by 
Brussels-based diplomats (with the Czech Republic, Cyprus, 
Latvia, Lithuania and Poland also sending senior personnel 
from capitals). 
 
3. (C) During a pre-meeting briefing, DG JHA Head of Unit for 
External Relations Lotte Knudsen thanked the U.S. for being 
responsive to the internal dynamics on VWP by agreeing to 
meet with the ten "aggrieved" members as a group.  DG JHA 
Head of Unit for Visas and Borders Jan de Ceuster opened the 
meeting by declaring it to be a historic gathering. 
 
4. (C) De Ceuster quickly shifted gears, however, and adopted 
a combative tone on visa reciprocity.  He reviewed the 
context of the meeting, noting that the ten new EU states 
fulfilled their Schengen obligations of adopting the EU's 
common visa waiver list without benefiting fully in return. 
He contrasted the U.S. defense of its "status quo" after 
enlargement with more positive initiatives from other 
countries regarding visas.  De Ceuster said that New Zealand 
will extend visa waiver status to all 25; Australia will 
initiate online applications with visas being issued "quite 
automatically"; and, Canada will proactively re-evaluate the 
status of new states with regard to visa waiver. 
 
5. (C) Characterizing the ten as "victims of non-reciprocity" 
vis-a-vis the U.S., de Ceuster explained that any of these 
countries could invoke the "solidarity mechanism" which would 
result in an automatic visa requirement for U.S. citizens in 
thirty days (reftel).  Only a qualified majority vote in the 
Council could suspend this action.  De Ceuster then turned 
his fire on the ten, warning that use of the solidarity 
mechanism would be counterproductive.  He characterized it as 
a "draconian" instrument. 
 
6. (C) De Ceuster said the EC has put forward a proposal to 
"do away with the dangerous automatic nature" of the 
mechanism.  He also stated the Council has begun discussing 
"retaliatory" options other than visa reciprocity to pressure 
the USG (without clarifying further). 
 
7. (C) (Note: PRMOff was told by Norwegian permrep staff, who 
qualify for insider status on Schengen issues, that the 
discussion last week in COREPER was an initiative of the 
Dutch Presidency.  The retaliatory measures could come from a 
full range of sectors -- trade, education, science -- 
although no specifics were discussed in COREPER.  This line 
of thinking was developed after it became evident that the 
ten "aggrieved" members responded unenthusiastically to the 
Commission's proposal to take the teeth out of the solidarity 
mechanism.  End Note.) 
 
------------------------ 
U.S. reviews parameters 
------------------------ 
 
8. (SBU) DHS Director for International Enforcement Daniel E. 
Sullivan said the U.S. was looking for positive approaches in 
its dialogue with the EU.  He reviewed the history of the VWP 
and described current travel flows at U.S. ports of entry. 
Of the estimated 330 million foreigners who enter the U.S. 
annually each year, 13.5 million benefit from VWP (11.6 
million for pleasure and 1.97 for work).  He said that 
legislation enacted since 9/11 provided for a tightening of 
the criteria for VWP (including requirements for machine 
readable and biometric passports).  Sullivan also highlighted 
the increasing focus on national security related provision 
of VWP status, once the 3% visa refusal threshold is met. 
 
------------------------ 
Member States offer suggestions 
------------------------ 
 
9. (C) The response from the Member States was surprisingly 
mild.  Specific comments and questions were as follows: 
 
-- Malta:  Asked for clarification about the procedure to 
follow if the government felt like it qualified for VWP 
status.  (Sullivan recommended the Maltese government contact 
the U.S. Embassy to formally initiate a request for 
consideration and described the subsequent steps.) 
-- Hungary:  Complained about the subjective nature of visa 
decisions.  (Senior Advisor for Consular Affairs Susan Jacobs 
noted that over time issuance rates have remained relatively 
stable, despite the frequent turn-over in consular staff.) 
-- Estonia:  Wondered whether having been part of the Soviet 
Union counted against it and noted it could not enter into a 
bilateral agreement with the U.S. on visas because EU 
membership prohibited this.  (Jacobs stressed that membership 
in regional groupings did not affect VWP status.  She used 
APEC as an example of a regional association where several 
members enjoy VWP status while others do not.) 
-- The Czech Republic:  Suggested the visa refusal rate be 
made public and that EU Membership be considered when 
deciding on VWP status.  Also stated that visa fees were too 
high.  (Jacobs noted that consular operations were conducted 
on the basis of "fee for service.") 
-- Poland:  Asked for a clarification of what was more 
important, combating illegal immigration or enhancing 
national security.  (Sullivan responded that the former was a 
primary consideration when the program was first established 
in 1986, but that current concerns stress the importance of 
national security.) 
 
10. (SBU) Poland thanked the U.S. for its willingness to meet 
to discuss visa policy and recommended that periodic 
discussions on VWP and other issues of mutual interest take 
place.  All the participants seemed to appreciate the U.S. 
initiative, even if the basic message regarding parameters of 
VWP was similar to what they have heard on a bilateral basis. 
 Jacobs said that the U.S. had engaged in bilateral 
discussions with Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia and 
welcomed others to initiate similar dialogues.  PRMOff also 
noted the on-going migration dialogues -- such as CIREFI and 
SCIFA -- where a full range of border management issues arediscussed with the 
Member States. 
 
11. (SBU) De Ceuster said that a readout of the meeting would 
be presented to the Policy Dialogue on Borders, 
Transportation and Security at its next meeting in Washington 
on November 22.  PRMOff recommended that the EC also provide 
a readout on where its proposal to modify the "solidarity 
mechanism" stands, as well as additional information on the 
new initiative to identify other "retaliatory" measures 
should the U.S. not expand VWP. 
 
------------------------ 
Media roundtable focuses on "solidarity mechanism" 
------------------------ 
 
12. (SBU) In a subsequent media roundtable, questions from 
the international wire services focused on the U.S. reaction 
to the "solidarity mechanism" and the effect it would have on 
transatlantic travel, if invoked.  Radio and print media from 
the new member states were more interested in efforts their 
own countries might make to attain VWP status. 
 
13. (U) The following communique, drafted by the Department, 
was distributed to the press regarding the meeting: 
 
Begin Text 
 
United States officials met with members of the European 
Union in Brussels on October 18 to discuss participation in 
the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). They noted that U.S. visa 
policies and procedures are established in accordance with 
specific laws and legislatively mandated requirements. 
Legislation for the VWP requires the U.S. to review each 
country individually for purposes of determining compliance 
with requirements of the VWP.  This should not be viewed as a 
reflection of the overall bilateral relationship with the 
U.S.; many countries not in the program are among the closest 
friends and partners of the United States. 
 
The statutory requirements to qualify for the VWP are set 
forth in Section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
and cannot be waived. Countries must first meet a threshold 
requirement of an average non-immigrant visitor refusal rate 
of less than 3%.  Once that threshold is met, the following 
criteria come into play: 
 
     Issue a machine-readable passport that, after October 
26, 2005, is biometrically enhanced according to ICAO 
standards; 
     Offer visa free travel to American citizens; 
     Certify that they report the loss or theft of blank 
passports to the U.S. Government; 
     Have a low rate of immigration violations and refused 
admissions. 
 
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in 
consultation with the Secretary of State, must make a 
positive determination regarding the impact the country,s 
potential VWP participation would have on U.S. national 
security and law enforcement interests. In the ongoing review 
of current VWP participants the factors considered include: 
 
     Terrorist and criminal threats in the country and 
efforts to address them; 
     Existence of formal and informal cooperation, including 
extradition; treaties, with the U.S. and international 
partners, such as Interpol; and 
     Effective border security controls, including 
citizenship and passport issuance procedures. 
 
 
The Secretary of Homeland Security is required to submit to 
Congress a report on a country,s qualification for 
designation as a VWP country, including an explanation of a 
favorable determination. 
 
While Greece and none of the new EU member nations meet all 
the criteria at this time (with the exception of Slovenia, 
who joined the VWP prior to EU accession), U.S. officials 
said that they would continue to review the situation in each 
country and make nominations for participation in the VWP if 
and when a country becomes eligible. This is similar to the 
approach used by most EU member states in defining which 
third countries qualify for "visa waiver" status according to 
the Schengen Agreement. U.S. officials reiterated the 
commitment of the U.S. Government to facilitate legitimate 
travel and trade between EU members and the United States, 
and look forward to the day when all EU member states meet 
the criteria to enter the VWP, and enjoy visa-free travel. 
 
End Text 
 
------------------------ 
Comment 
------------------------ 
14. (C) The hard line taken by the EC in public was obviously 
for "domestic politics" -- to convince the ten members not on 
VWP that Brussels is going to bat for them.  The EC's 
over-arching goal is to keep any of the "aggrieved" members 
from invoking the solidarity mechanism.  In this sense, the 
October 18 meeting was instrumental in demonstrating USG 
willingness to engage in a dialogue and to leave the door to 
VWP cracked open.  The worrisome new development of possible 
"retaliatory" measures in unrelated sectors also demonstrates 
the EC's political desire to attain uniform treatment from 
the U.S. for all 25 Member States.  The EU certainly does not 
want to bring transatlantic travel to a grinding halt.  At 
the same time, the EC and Member States are searching for 
appropriate ways to demonstrate the importance they attach to 
visa waiver. 
 
(USDEL did not have a chance to clear on this message.) 
 
SCHNABEL