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

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 003948 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR CA - JJACOBS; EUR/ERA - PCHASE; DHS FOR BTS 
- SVERDERY; DOJ FOR CRIMINAL DIVISION - BSWARTZ; THE HAGUE 
FOR POL - DMANN 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/16/2014 
TAGS: CVIS PREL KOCI EUN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: DEMARCHE RESPONSE: REVISED US VISIT POLICY AND 
OTHER BORDER MANAGEMENT ISSUES 
 
REF: (A) STATE 195507 (B) THE HAUGE 1775 
 
Classified By: PRMOFF MARC J. MEZNAR.  REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D) 
 
¶1. (C) Summary.  The initial reaction from the European 
Commission on the FBI's enhanced access to US VISIT databases 
was low key.  Major concerns focused on types of law 
enforcement activities for which the data would be used and 
about delays at ports of entry following changes on 9/30 and 
12/31.  The Commission urged the U.S. to step up its 
information campaign so that travelers from visa waiver 
countries are aware they will be fingerprinted at ports of 
entry.  New Member States continue to press for a unified EU 
approach towards the U.S. visa waiver program and have 
indicated they will not agree to changes concerning the 
Schengen Agreement's solidarity mechanism.  The recent 
U.S.-Poland bilateral agreement to screen passengers at the 
Warsaw airport has also fueled resentment in European 
circles.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (U) On 9/14, PRMOff delivered reftel talking points to 
Diederich Paalman at DG Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) 
regarding changes to the US VISIT program, including enhanced 
FBI access to the database.  Paalman referred to the phone 
conversation between DHS DAS Verdery and JHA Director General 
Jonathan Faull, but said the Commission would prefer to react 
after it had a chance to read the revised privacy policy and 
related documents (available only after COB in Brussels that 
day). 
 
------------------------ 
US VISIT: Workloads of More Concern than Policy Changes 
------------------------ 
 
¶3. (C) On 9/16, PRMOff met with JHA Director for Immigration, 
Asylum and Borders Jean Louis de Brouwer, JHA External 
Relations Head of Unit Lotte Knudsen, and JHA 
Biometrics/Privacy Policy Officer Silvia Kolligs for a more 
in depth discussion.  De Brouwer expressed appreciation for 
efforts made by the USG to notify the Commission before 
changes were publicized.  Reactions to the changes themselves 
were muted.  De Brouwer had two basic questions which PRMOff 
answered using the Q & A's included in reftel A:  (a) what 
"enhanced" access meant and (b) how the information would be 
used by the FBI.  De Brouwer pressed hardest on the second 
point.  PRMOff stressed, according to Question 11, that data 
would be used "to investigate crimes related to national 
security, immigration offenses and other major crimes, such 
as murder, rape, robbery, organized crime and drug 
trafficking."  De Brouwer seemed satisfied that use would not 
extend to investigations regarding less serious types of 
offenses like civil matters. 
 
¶4. (C) After making a pro-forma pitch about the importance of 
ensuring privacy under the new information sharing 
arrangements, de Brouwer focused his comments on upcoming 
changes, both on 9/30 and at the end of the year.  Regarding 
new procedures to enroll VWP travelers in US VISIT as of 
9/30, de Brouwer strongly urged the U.S. to intensify its 
information campaign to alert VWP travelers to the new 
requirements.  "What you are doing is perfectly legitimate, 
but you need to explain it well (to the traveling public) in 
advance," he said.  He predicted a spate of highly 
unfavorable press articles if certain travelers with strong 
privacy instincts -- or "opinion leaders" -- were unaware of 
changes at the border and made to surrender prints (or worse, 
be turned around at ports of entry). 
 
¶5. (SBU) PRMOff stressed that previous rollouts involving 
digital scans -- at consulates abroad and at POEs for those 
entering with visas -- had not resulted in significant public 
relations problems.  To the contrary, the moves had a very 
high level of public acceptance.  De Brouwer pointed out that 
with the vast increase in numbers exclusively involving 
travelers from developed countries (where privacy concerns 
are greatest), the dynamic could shift.  Kolligs showed a US 
VISIT pamphlet she had received during her voluntary visitor 
program on biometrics and related privacy concerns, 
suggesting they be distributed at airline counters abroad for 
travelers headed to the U.S. from VWP countries.  Those with 
strong objections could decide not to board and thus avoid 
unpleasant turn-arounds. 
 
¶6. (SBU) The second item of concern connected to 9/30 raised 
by de Brouwer was the expectation of long delays at ports of 
entry caused by increased US VISIT workloads.  Kolligs said 
that in a briefing she had received from Cogent Incorporated, 
about 70,000 new biometric records are added to the US VISIT 
each day.  Consequently, the response time has decreased from 
15 seconds in March until 20 seconds today.  PRMOff pointed 
out that even with this increase, the inspector at the port 
of entry would be using the response time to conduct an 
interview with the passenger in order to determine 
admissibility to the U.S.  PRMOff predicted that after a 
brief period of adjustment to accommodate the increased 
number of passengers being enrolled in US VISIT, DHS would 
succeed in minimizing delays at POEs. 
 
¶7. (U) De Brouwer also asked about workload management at 
land borders following the expansion of US VISIT at the end 
of the year.  PRMOff explained that although US VISIT did not 
apply to U.S. citizens, most Canadians or Mexicans using the 
biometrically enabled border-crossing cards, there was still 
a need to plan well for these changes.  Because the EU is 
intensely interested in the management of land borders (as it 
tries to figure out how to cope with its own new external 
frontier in the east), de Brouwer requested that the U.S. 
make a presentation on this theme at the upcoming CIREFI 
(Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the 
Crossing of Frontiers and Immigration) meeting with the U.S. 
and Canada scheduled for 10/29 in Brussels. 
 
------------------------ 
VWP: Still Causing Angst 
------------------------ 
 
¶8. (C) De Brouwer used the meeting to discuss several related 
issues, particularly in light of the upcoming meetings in The 
Netherlands with Secretaries Ridge and Ashcroft.  Regarding 
the visa waiver program, he said that "pressure is increasing 
every month" from the new Member States.  De Brouwer reported 
that during an internal EU meeting of the SCIFA (Strategic 
Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum) group on 
9/15, new members voiced firm opposition to the Commission's 
proposal on visa reciprocity which would take the teeth out 
of the Schengen agreement's "solidarity mechanism."  He said 
Poland, Hungary and the Baltic states made it clear they 
would not agree to changes which would eliminate the 
possibility of automatic imposition of visas on countries 
like the U.S. that do not treat citizens of all Schengen 
states equally.  Responding to a Commission suggestion that 
they "use it or lose it," the aggrieved states of Eastern 
Europe also made it clear they are not prepared to invoke the 
retaliatory mechanism for the time being.  (Note.  Meanwhile, 
the EU scored a small victory with New Zealand's decision to 
extend visa waiver equally to all Member States as of April 
1, 2005 -- meaning Poland, Slovakia, Cyprus, and the Baltic 
states will no longer require visas after that date.  End 
Note.) 
 
¶9. (SBU) De Brouwer said that the Commission strongly 
supports the idea of the U.S. meeting as a group with the 
Member States not on VWP to review the technical criteria of 
the program (and, by doing so, send a political message that 
there is a certain path towards visa free status).  He also 
mentioned the political significance of the U.S. meeting 
these countries as a group, instead of bilaterally.  De 
Brouwer asked whether Secretary Ridge would make such an 
offer at his upcoming visit in The Hague, as he had heard 
from an anonymous source. 
 
¶10. (U) In the same vein, he urged the U.S. to consider the 
Commission's counter-proposal to the U.S. idea of creating a 
working group at the expert level to discuss visa issues 
(reftel B).  Instead of just looking at technical issues 
related to information sharing, he said this group could also 
discuss VWP and other areas of interest to the EU.  PRMOff 
explained that VWP was more appropriate to senior level 
consultations which are already occurring on a regular basis. 
 
 
------------------------ 
Poland:  Bilateral Agreement Resented 
------------------------ 
 
¶11. (C) De Brouwer also raised Poland's bilateral agreement 
with DHS/CBP for an "Immigration Advisory Program" at the 
Warsaw airport.  He reported that the Czechs were furious at 
this perceived advantage given by the U.S. to Poland (which 
they felt would somehow enable Poland to qualify more quickly 
for VWP).  The Czechs reportedly also complained about 
Poland's lack of solidarity by agreeing to such a deal.  De 
Brouwer said the Commission finds itself in a "rather 
ambiguous" situation and inquired whether the U.S. would be 
seeking out more countries for bilateral agreements.  PRMOff 
reviewed the context which led to the bilateral agreement 
with Poland, describing it as a re-packaging of existing 
programs around the world (i.e., immigration liaison 
officers) to help local officials identify fraud and other 
problems before boarding.  When asked about pre-clearance in 
Ireland, de Brouwer noted that Ireland was outside the 
Schengen area and thus could do as it pleased.  He also said 
that the Netherlands might be considered in breach of the 
Schengen agreement for programs at Schiphol airport, but 
noted there was no written agreement and that the activities 
there could be considered experimental or a pilot project. 
 
------------------------ 
Comment 
------------------------ 
 
¶12. (C) The mild reaction on 9/16 regarding enhanced FBI 
access may not fully represent the Commission's feelings once 
the news circulates and more information becomes available to 
European interlocutors.  De Brouwer was evidently more 
concerned with the internal deliberations of the SCIFA group 
and the pressures of the day (visa reciprocity, treatment of 
EU travelers at U.S. borders, etc.).  Even de Brouwer's 
interest in our management of land borders represents a 
pressing problem in Europe:  how to deal with communities 
that have thrived on cross border movements (i.e., between 
Poland and Ukraine, Slovenia and Croatia, etc.).  Shortly 
after the meeting, USEU was contacted by a reporter asking 
about enhanced FBI access; although the reporter would not 
name her source, she mentioned it was a European official. 
In short, the Commission may take its concerns about 
tightened border procedures in the U.S. to the court of 
public opinion.  Enhanced access to US VISIT will also 
certainly be raised during the visits of Secretaries Ridge 
and Ashcroft to The Netherlands. 
 
MCKINLEY