US embassy cable - 05PARIS2864

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 002864 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EUR/WE-JLEVIN, EUR/EX, L, M/R, EB/TRA/MA-SMILLER 
CBP FOR OIA-KTHOMSEN, RBONNER AND AGINA 
ICE FOR FOREIGN OPS DIVISION 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AMGT, AODE, EWWT, FR 
SUBJECT: EU GOVTS STILL DISCUSSING CSI STATUS ISSUE, SAYS 
GOF 
 
REF: A. STATE 64240 
     B. PARIS 2062 
 
1.  (U) This is an action request. 
 
2.  (SBU) SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUEST:  The French Foreign 
Ministry said April 21 that it had not made a decision on the 
question of status for U.S. Container Security Initiative 
(CSI) personnel at French ports, and that it continued to 
consult with its EU partners.  In three to four weeks, the 
GOF expects that EU member states that host CSI will have 
established a decision timeline to indicate a date by which 
they will reach consensus on the status issue.  The GOF 
confirmed that, pending resolution of the issue, it had 
"frozen" the Administrative and Technical (A&T) status of CSI 
personnel at the port of Le Havre, France.  This has so far 
affected import privileges, but not immunity, as we 
understand it. 
 
3.  (SBU) While we have little control over how quickly EU 
governments arrive at a joint decision, in the interim, we 
request guidance for an approach to the GOF on the immediate 
issue of the GOF status "freeze," which we perceive as a de 
facto withdrawal of some benefits of A&T status for CSI 
personnel.  We also request guidance on how the Embassy might 
respond to an eventual request for reciprocity of status for 
European customs officials whose countries wish to post them 
in the U.S. as part a reciprocal CSI program.  END SUMMARY 
AND ACTION REQUEST. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
EU Governments Still Discussing CSI Status 
-------------------------------------------- 
4.  (SBU) Embassy Econ MinCouns delivered Ref A demarche to 
Foreign Ministry DAS-equivalent for transportation, 
infrastructure and energy policy Jean-Claude Nolla on April 
21 accompanied by Embassy ICE Attache, HR representative and 
econoff.  In response, Nolla said he took note of our points 
and understood U.S. concern regarding the need to move 
quickly to decide on appropriate status for CSI personnel. 
However, he said, the GOF had not yet made a firm decision 
and continued to consult with its EU partners in Brussels 
where the debate on CSI status continued largely via 
"corridor" discussions. 
 
5.  (SBU) Nolla expects member state representatives to 
establish a calendar within the next month targeting a date 
for consensus.  He agreed that each member state possessed 
the authority to grant appropriate diplomatic status itself 
and that the EU had no legal imperative to form a common 
position on the issue.  However, he said, key member states 
(although not France, initially) had proposed a common 
approach because of a realization that the status of CSI 
personnel could in the future have an broad impact on 
European Community customs issues.  This realization lent the 
movement a political impetus, he said, although it was clear 
that lacking any legal basis for an official Council 
decision, whatever member states eventually decided would be 
enshrined in an informal and "hopefully very flexible" 
agreement. 
 
------------------ 
Commission Role? 
------------------ 
6.  (SBU) As for the involvement of the European Commission, 
Nolla reiterated that the Commission was not behind the 
effort to harmonize CSI status.  However, he reported that 
the Commission had responded to questions about its 
competence in the matter put to it by the U.K. and Germany in 
a way that indicated it may have a role in the debate.  Its 
responses indicated, Nolla said, that Commission regulation 
of the use of personal data and confidential business 
information in the EU -- which CSI personnel may have access 
to -- has provided a basis in the past for weighing in on 
other community questions.  Drawing on this example, Nolla 
suggested that the Commission should not be counted out as a 
player in this issue and reminded that it was the Commission 
that had initially issued infringement proceedings against EU 
members which had concluded bilaterals with U.S. Customs 
because of the potential commercial impact of what the 
Commission perceived to be  inevitable "trade distortions" 
introduced by CSI. 
 
----------------------- 
"Frozen" In Le Havre 
----------------------- 
7.  (SBU) Nolla confirmed information the Embassy HR Section 
received via telephone from the Foreign Ministry protocol 
office on March 29, i.e. that the GOF had "frozen" the 
Administrative and Technical (A&T) status of CSI personnel 
currently in Le Havre pending the outcome of the GOF's 
reconsideration of the status question.  So far the only 
concrete result of the "freeze" is that duty-free importation 
of privately-owned vehicles for three CSI employees in Le 
Havre has been suspended.  The two other employees imported 
their vehicles before the "freeze" took effect.  Nolla 
stressed that France supported the objectives and the 
operation of the CSI programs in Le Havre and Marseille, and 
that the GOF's "freezing" of A&T status was not because the 
GOF had any problems with U.S./French cooperation regarding 
the CSI counterterrorism program or because of any concerns 
about individual CSI personnel.  Rather it resulted from the 
necessity of maintaining a "snapshot" of the current status 
while a common CSI status policy was worked out among EU 
partners.  Nolla did not raise the issue of immunity and it 
is our understanding that CSI employees retain the immunities 
granted with A&T status. 
 
8.  (SBU) We responded that, for the purpose of certain 
benefits, "freezing" status for current CSI personnel was the 
same as withdrawing status and that the "freeze" in Le Havre, 
as well as any future decision to grant less than the 
equivalent of A&T status to all CSI personnel, would be 
detrimental to USG efforts to recruit, form teams, and manage 
the CSI program.  Nolla said he understood and wanted to 
continue to work with the U.S. for an acceptable outcome. 
When we cited examples of several member states that had 
already granted A&T status to CSI personnel (the Netherlands, 
Italy, Sweden and most recently Greece), Nolla said that 
despite what might appear to be a growing EU member consensus 
to grant A&T status, he could report that the same 
governments were saying in Brussels that the issue was open 
for debate and that, if they had granted status, they had 
done so (in particular in the case of Sweden) on a temporary 
basis only. 
 
9.  (SBU) As in our March 24 meeting (Ref B) Nolla raised 
again the option of "En Mission" status as a possible 
alternative to A&T status.  He acknowledged that "En Mission" 
grants little more than official entry and exit privileges, 
but thought that additional benefits could be added on an ad 
hoc basis.  Nevertheless, he was pessimistic that even with 
ad hoc enhancements, the "En Mission" status would measure up 
to the equivalent of A&T status.  Despite this dire 
prognosis, Nolla summed up that although "En Mission" was one 
option under consideration it may not be the alternative 
eventually accepted by CSI host governments after all.  They 
could as easily reach an informal and flexible consensus that 
would simply limit how far member states can go in granting 
status. 
 
---------------------------- 
COMMENT AND ACTION REQUEST 
---------------------------- 
10.  (SBU) Although Nolla insists that no decision has been 
made, we sense that the direction of EU government consensus 
is toward something less than the equivalent of A&T status. 
In addition, it is clear that the GOF has no intention of 
breaking away from what has now become a CSI host government 
momentum in the EU to harmonize status for CSI personnel.  In 
addition to the longer term question of what EU member 
governments will eventually decide, in France we are faced 
with the more immediate problem of the de facto loss of 
certain benefits for CSI personnel in Le Havre resulting from 
the GOF's "freeze." 
 
11.  (SBU) We request Department's guidance for a formal 
approach to the GOF asking that it separate the issue of 
reconsideration of status with the EU from the "freezing" of 
status of the Le Havre personnel.  We may want to consider 
pointing out that in "freezing" status, the GOF -- contrary 
to its previous decision to grant A&T status, and without 
written explanation -- has in effect withdrawn it in certain 
respects. 
 
12.  (SBU) We also request guidance on how the Embassy should 
eventually respond to a request for reciprocity in the 
granting of status to European customs officials whose 
countries wish to take advantage of CBP's offer of CSI as a 
reciprocal program.  The GOF has not raised the issue of 
reciprocity of status but we expect the question to surface, 
if not here, then in another EU country, and it may be linked 
to the issue of status granted to CSI personnel in the EU. 
What privileges and immunities would the U.S. be prepared to 
extend to European customs personnel, performing functions 
similar to those performed by CSI personnel, at major U.S. 
ports?  END COMMENT AND ACTION REQUEST. 
WOLFF