VZCZCXRO7963
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA
RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHTC #1440/01 2131215
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 011215Z AUG 07
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9929
INFO RUEAHLC/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC
RUEHAT/AMCONSUL AMSTERDAM 3376
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 THE HAGUE 001440 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EUR/UBI AND EUR/ERA 
HOMELAND SECURITY FOR OIA AND PRIVACY OFFICE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PTER EAIR ETRN EUN NL
SUBJECT: DUTCH GOVERNMENT SUPPORTIVE OF U.S. - EU PNR AGREEMENT 
 
 
THE HAGUE 00001440  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
¶1.  Summary.  In a July 7 letter to Parliament, Minister of Justice 
Ernst Hirsch Ballin and MFA State Secretary for EU Affairs Frans 
Timmermans gave a positive assessment of the new U.S. - EU PNR 
Agreement.  The letter provided an overview of the agreement, which 
it said was "balanced," and provided an adequate level of data 
protection.  Hirsch Ballin and Timmermans indicated that 
Parliamentary approval for the agreement was required; in the 
meantime, the agreement could be provisionally implemented once 
signed by the United States and the European Commission (EC).  End 
Summary. 
 
¶2.  The letter informing Parliament that the U.S. and the European 
Commission had reached agreement on the text of a new PNR Agreement 
to replace the interim Agreement set to expire at the end of July 
noted that new Agreement was similar in substance to the previous 
Agreements.  The letter notes that EU paid particular attention 
during the negotiations to ensuring an adequate level of data 
protection.  Hirsch Ballin and Timmermans expressed satisfaction 
that the negotiations resulted in a balanced draft agreement which 
meets the previously agreed guidelines for the EU negotiating 
mandate, and thus forms a good negotiation result of the German 
presidency and the Commission. 
 
¶3. The letter states that Parliamentary approval for the Agreement 
was required in the Netherlands, as well as other EU member states, 
and that the government would submit the Agreement, once signed, to 
Parliament for ratification.  The Netherlands, it said, would make a 
statement in the Council that it must complete its constitutional 
procedures before giving final approval to the Agreement.  In the 
interim, the Agreement would go into effect on a provisional basis 
as of the date signed. 
 
¶4.  The letter highlighted the following key elements of the 
Agreement: 
 
-- The objectives of the Agreement are combating terrorism and 
serious cross-border crime; U.S. law enforcement agencies charged 
with deterring terrorism and serious crime will have access to PNR 
data for the purposes stated; 
 
-- An exchange of letters between the U.S. government and the EC 
articulating commitments on the protection of passenger data will 
form the basis for binding commitments; 
 
-- PNR data will be retained in active status for seven years, 
followed by an additional eight year period in inactive status with 
limited access; 
 
-- PNR data will be protected in the United States in accordance 
with U.S. privacy law, and passed only to third countries that meet 
similar standards, except in emergency situations; 
 
-- Fewer PNR data items will be provided than under the previous 
agreement; however, this does not necessarily mean less data will be 
provided (Note. This is an apparent reference to the move from 34 
"data elements" to 19 "types of PNR," but the letter does not 
provide details about the information to be transmitted.  End Note); 
 
 
-- Sensitive data, such as data indicating religion, race, or 
political convictions may not be used, except in emergency 
situations; 
 
-- The current "pull" system for transmitting the data will be 
changed to a "push" system as of January 2008; 
 
-- Reciprocity will be respected; however, this will be defined at a 
later date, as the EU does not yet have a PNR system in place; 
 
¶5.  During the DCM's July 20 courtesy call on him, MFA DG for 
European Cooperation Ian De Jong noted in passing that the PNR issue 
appeared to be finally resolved; this, he said, was a positive 
development for the U.S. - EU relationship.  He did not indicate any 
concern about the prospects for expeditious Parliamentary approval. 
 
 
¶6.  During a May 31 Justice Committee debate on international data 
exchange (NOTE. prior to conclusion of negotiations on the new U.S. 
- EU PNR Agreement.  END NOTE), Minister Hirsch Ballin stressed that 
the GONL favored the conclusion of a new U.S. PNR Agreement; he 
added that bilateral solutions or an extension of the current 
interim Agreement were not viable long term solutions.  He said that 
privacy was not an absolute right, but that any restrictions on 
privacy must serve a clear purpose.  He said that in principle, PNR 
data would be protected in the United States under the U.S. Privacy 
Act, but noted he believed there could be exceptions related to 
terrorism cases.  He promised to provide Parliament further 
information in writing on the government's position on the retention 
 
THE HAGUE 00001440  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
period for PNR data, the role of the European Data Protection 
Supervisor and the Dutch Data Protection Authority in the PNR 
negotiations, and the costs incurred by airlines to provide PNR data 
to the U.S., and to turn around in mid-flight due to irregularities 
in PNR data. 
 
¶7.  Parliamentarians raised a number of issues during the debate, 
though none indicated that they were inclined to oppose a PNR 
agreement with the U.S.  Several MPs raised the data retention 
period, reciprocity, and evaluation mechanisms as important 
considerations for approving an eventual agreement.  Fred Teeven of 
the Liberal (VVD) Party was the most outspoken in support of an 
agreement on PNR, criticizing those who put privacy over security 
concerns.  Coskun Coruz of the government coalition partner 
Christian Democratic (CDA) party applauded the Cabinet's positive 
but critical attitude on PNR.  Aleid Wolfsen of government coalition 
partner Labor (PvdA) Party raised concern about the extent of the 
data provided under a PNR agreement, asking if information on 
religion, sexual orientation and political affiliation would be 
excluded.  Naima Azzough of the GreenLeft and Jan de Wit of the 
Socialist (SP) Party stressed reciprocity, proportionality and 
subsidiarity as key concerns; Azzough also raised the need for 
guarantees on legal certainty and respect for Dutch sovereignty, and 
the concern about the types of information provided. 
 
 
¶9.  Comment.  There has been little press attention so far to the 
conclusion of a new PNR Agreement, though that could change as the 
summer holiday period draws to a close and the Agreement is 
submitted to Parliament for approval.  There has been little 
indication of serious Parliamentary opposition to ratification of a 
new PNR Agreement; however, PNR is often raised, along with 
apparently unrelated issues such as the transfer of SWIFT bank 
transaction data, by Parliamentarians and the press as a potential 
violation of European data protection rules.  Parliamentarians and 
others critical of the United States, in particular U.S. conduct of 
the global war on terror, also have a tendency to use PNR and data 
protection concerns as a convenient cudgel with which to beat up on 
us.  It is too soon to tell whether that tendency will significantly 
complicate the upcoming debate on Dutch ratification of the new PNR 
Agreement.  The upcoming visit by the DHS Chief Privacy Officer will 
provide a timely opportunity to start setting the record straight on 
PNR and data protection concerns.  End Comment. 
 
Gallagher