This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 002375 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR INL/PC; DOJ FOR OIA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AINF KCRM KJUS EUN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: EUROPOL - U.S. COOPERATION 
 
¶1. Summary.    The mission of Europol (the European Police 
Office) has steadily expanded from its initial focus on 
fighting drugs to encompass all serious crimes, including 
terrorism, illicit migration, trafficking in persons, child 
pornography, money-laundering and counterfeiting of the Euro. 
 Within the last year and a half the U.S. has signed two 
cooperative agreements with Europol.   While it is expected 
that the initial flow of information will largely be from the 
USG to Europol, these agreements will allow the U.S. to 
develop a deepening cooperative relationship as Europol grows 
in stature within the EU and acquires a more expansive role 
in police work.  This is being submitted as part of the 
Mission's reporting plan.  End summary. 
 
Mission and Function of Europol 
 
¶2.  Europol is an evolving police institution of the European 
Union whose primary mission at this time is to facilitate the 
coordination and cooperation of member states in the field of 
criminal law enforcement.  At the present time it has limited 
operational authority and its personnel do not arrest people 
or engage in searches and seizures.  Europol operates under 
its own Convention which came into force on October 1, 1998. 
Europol commenced its full activities on July 1, 1999. 
Membership in Europol is part of the acquis; accordingly, all 
accession countries will be members of Europol as part of 
their obligation to adhere to the EU institutions and 
principles.  Through the pooling of information and data 
concerning those aspects of crime which affect two or more of 
their members, Europol is able, in theory at least, to 
provide all members with better insight into the crime 
problem they face and how best to respond to it.  Europol's 
"added value" to member states, in theory, lies in its 
ability to perform critical analysis and to render 
coordinative assistance to member states in fighting 
primarily transnational organized crime and terrorism.  Under 
the Europol convention, all members must assign one or more 
"liaison" officers to Europol headquarters in The Hague and 
ensure that these officers have access on line to the various 
police databases maintained by their respective country. 
Noteworthy is the fact that member states are not pooling 
their databases but merely making them potentially accessible 
in one centralized location in The Hague.  Within a 
relatively short period of time, Europol has evolved from a 
small entity with jurisdiction limited to the drug area to 
its present jurisdiction over all serious crimes, including 
terrorism, illicit migration, trafficking in persons, child 
pornography, and money-laundering, with primary jurisdiction 
over counterfeiting of the Euro.  Europol is funded by 
contributions from the EU Member States according to their 
GNP.  Its 2003 budget is Euro 55.5 million.  There are 
currently 386 staff members from all Member States.  Of 
these, 59 are Europol Liaison Officers representing a variety 
of law enforcement agencies (police, customs, gendarmerie, 
immigration services, etc.)   The Directorate of Europol is 
appointed by the Council of the European Union.  The 
Directorate currently consists of Director Jurgen Storbeck 
(German) and Deputy Directors Willy Bruggeman (Belgium) and 
Mariano Simancas (Spain). 
 
¶3.  Europol has improved its international law enforcement 
cooperation by signing bilateral agreements with the 
following non-EU states and international organizations:  the 
European Central Bank, the European Monitoring Center on 
Drugs and Drug Addiction, Iceland, Norway, and the World 
Customs Organization.  It is currently in negotiations with 
Canada. 
 
Europol's Weakness 
 
¶4.  The Europol Convention is an extremely complex 
instrument.  It contains precise and cumbersome rules 
concerning the handling of personal data, reflective of the 
Union,s collective fears of massive human rights violations 
by police organizations, which are not usually closely 
controlled.  While obviously a worthy objective, the rules 
are so stringent with respect to the handling of personal 
data as to make it extremely difficult for the organization 
to function effectively.  It is suggested that the same 
objectives could be accomplished in a more efficacious 
fashion so as to strike a more appropriate balance between 
the security needs of the nation and the protection of human 
rights. 
 
¶5.  Europol depends on others to provide it with the raw data 
which form the basis of its analytical work.  However, a 
critical tenet of the Convention is that member states retain 
control over their own data and dictate what is to be shared 
with Europol and with member states through the Europol 
process.  Thus member states can and do withhold information 
from Europol, which impedes its ability to perform its 
assigned tasks.  Nowhere is this more dramatically seen than 
in the field of terrorism where, following the September 11 
attack, the JHA ministers publicly criticized their own 
organizations for not sharing critical data on terrorism with 
Europol.  Europol can only propose investigations to member 
states but cannot compel such inquiries.  Europol cannot send 
out its officials to conduct interviews, perform searches or 
make arrests.  Europol is generally disliked if not despised 
by many EU member police organizations.  These organizations 
tend to resent Europol,s existence and view it as criticism 
of their own efforts at coordination, which they maintain, 
have worked effectively over the years.  In this regard, it 
should not be forgotten that Europol is a political creation 
and its establishment was not driven by perceived needs of 
law enforcement but rather the political desire for greater 
integration in the JHA arena.  The JHA ministers are 
consistently conferring more and more jurisdiction on 
Europol.  It is likely that the new EU Constitution (due to 
be unveiled in June 2003) will provide Europol with some 
limited operational role as well as the authority to order a 
country to commence an inquiry.   Over time, Europol could 
evolve into the nucleus of a federal EU police structure. 
 
Relations with the United States 
 
¶6.  In a relatively short period of time we have been able to 
conclude and put into effect two agreements with Europol 
which provide a legal basis for exchanging all forms of 
information, including personal data.   An outgrowth of the 
events of 9/11, the initial agreement between the U.S. and 
Europol was signed in Brussels in December, 2001, to enable 
the sharing of strategic data and to facilitate cooperation 
on joint threat assessments.  The logical next step was a 
follow-on agreement to allow the exchange of personal data. 
The stringent data privacy restrictions imposed by Europol's 
Convention, monitored by its Joint Advisory and Management 
Boards, tempered assessments of the potential success of the 
negotiations.   These concerns were eventually addressed to 
the satisfaction of Europol's data protection counselors and 
the second agreement was signed in Copenhagen in December, 
¶2002. 
 
¶7.  We are in the process of implementing these agreements 
with all U.S. law enforcement agencies.  Last year the JHA 
ministers directed that Europol open a liaison office in 
Washington.  In August, two officers arrived in Washington to 
take up this assignment.  The precise terms of reference for 
these officers are being developed on an interagency basis. 
There is agreement within the USG that the National Crime 
Bureau (NCB) in Washington should be the point-of-contact for 
Europol.   However, tensions still exist regarding the 
exchange of information concerning terrorism; Europol wants 
access to more case-related information.  The U.S. does not 
have a liaison officer assigned to Europol. 
 
¶8.  Comment.    Europol's critical analysis of transnational 
crime data coming from two or more EU Member States is an 
"added value" to  bilateral law enforcement agreements which 
can provide information from only a single national 
perspective.   At least in the short run, it is anticipated 
that U.S. agencies will be providing more data to Europol 
than it will provide us.  Nevertheless,  the two U.S. 
agreements will allow us to develop a deepening cooperative 
relationship with Europol as it grows in stature within the 
EU.   This will prove useful in our joint fight against 
terrorism.  End comment. 
 
SCHNABEL