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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 004332 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR EUR/ERA, EB/TRA, AND INL 
STATE PLEASE PASS DHS FOR U/S HUTCHINSON, A/S VERDERY, AND 
CLAYTON 
DOJ FOR SWARTZ AND BURROWS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ASEC EAIR EWWT PHSA PTER EUN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: DHS U/S HUTCHINSON'S OCT 1 MEETING WITH EXTERNAL 
RELATIONS DG LANDABURU 
 
Sensitive but unclassified, entire text. 
 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1.  (SBU) DHS Undersecretary for Border and Transportation 
Security Asa Hutchinson met External Relations Director 
General Eneko Landaburu October 1 in Brussels.  Hutchinson 
told Landaburu that the EU and U.S. need to stand shoulder to 
shoulder even when we do not agree to show we are working 
together to overcome differences. Landaburu agreed with 
Hutchinson that more communication with European and U.S. 
publics on Homeland Security was important but warned that 
the two sides should not paper over real disagreements in 
joint appearances. Hutchinson noted that DHS was working on 
longer term projects like an international trusted traveler 
program. Landaburu expressed his appreciation for U.S. 
efforts to raise awareness of the US-VISIT program with 
Europeans but noted skepticism over the US VISIT system and 
welcomed the roll out of "Secure Flight" before cautioning 
that the Commission would have to review the program. 
Landaburu noted that the Commission proposed a paper in ICAO 
on PNR and Hutchinson agreed that ICAO should be considered 
as a place to discuss global standards for transfer of PNR. 
Hutchinson noted DHS's satisfaction with the current U.S.-EU 
agreement. The EU side welcomed the postponement of the 
October 2004 deadline for including biometric data in 
passports but asked for additional time.  Hutchinson agreed 
to look into the appointment of a "trusted third party" to 
review international PNR transfers currently under discussion 
between the U.S. and European Commission.   Landaburu thanked 
the U.S. for arranging an informational meeting with EU 
countries not participating in the Visa Waiver Program. 
 
Action items coming out of the meeting included: 
 
---  U/S Hutchinson committed that the U.S would discuss the 
results of the November test of "Secure Flight" with EU 
officials. 
 
---  U/S Hutchinson agreed to look into the appointment of a 
"trusted third party" to review international PNR transfers 
under discussion between the U.S. and European Commission and 
to review what other loose ends remain before full compliance 
with the U.S.-EU PNR agreements is possible, including the 
finalization of a sensitive data list that the Commission 
owes the U.S.  End Summary. 
 
Joint Communications Strategy 
----------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Hutchinson told Landaburu he appreciated 
participating in the Hague Justice Ministerial and he had 
added Brussels to his trip to strengthen coordination with 
the EU.  He hoped that the U.S. and EU could begin to develop 
initiatives together as well as communicate jointly to 
publics as a part of this initiative.  The U.S. and EU 
together would be more effective addressing security 
concerns.   Landaburu said he appreciated Hutchinson's 
efforts at building ties with his European counterparts.  The 
EU was currently stressing a member state driven security 
policy, and the Commission was involved in this process. 
Still Landaburu believed that Hutchinson would find strong 
partners with JHA DG Faull and TREN DG Lamoureux, as well as 
the member states.  A frank U.S.-EU Policy Dialogue on Border 
and Transport Security (PDBTS) would be necessary on the many 
security initiatives DHS was contemplating.  Landaburu added 
that the EU needed to balance the need for increased security 
with citizens' rights to privacy.  European public opinion as 
part of a global trend had not been keen on the security 
changes developing in the United States.  Landaburu added 
that he did not want to use a joint press conference with 
language constructed to paper over U.S.-EU differences to 
give arguments to those that do not support needed security 
enhancements.  Hutchinson agreed that both sides needed to be 
realistic.  The U.S. and EU could work together in some areas 
and be honest about those areas where they disagreed. 
 
US VISIT 
-------- 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Hutchinson noted that post-Madrid the pressure for 
strengthened immigration controls in Europe seemed to be 
growing.  The U.S. had adopted the US VISIT system to collect 
biometric data on visitors more quickly than had the EU, but 
he believed that the EU would adopt a similar system.  The 
U.S. would serve as a lightening rod for criticism, until 
such systems came to be commonplace.   Hutchinson understood 
this role.  He said DHS was working to ensure the US VISIT 
system ran well.  An important next step would be development 
of an internationally recognized trusted traveler system that 
would allow publics to see that the technology also 
facilitated travel. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Landaburu said he was grateful for Hutchinson's 
efforts to raise awareness of the US VISIT program in Europe, 
thereby "answering" Commissioner Patten and Vitorino's 
September 8 letter to Secretaries Powell and Ridge on the 
subject.  While, in principle, the Commission had no 
objection to the enrolling of Visa Waiver travelers in US 
VISIT, whether the policy will create a backlash among EU 
travelers depends in large part on how DHS implements the 
system.  Landaburu added that having to submit to a finger 
scan would be a shock to some.  The Commission had already 
received complaints from European travelers over treatment at 
U.S borders.  Landaburu said he had to wait about an hour at 
immigration at Dulles earlier in the week.  EU Consumer 
groups remain skeptical of how DHS safeguards the data it 
collects. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Hutchinson said he was concerned about European 
skepticism, and bad stories about inspector performance would 
make implementation more difficult.  DHS wanted to be 
responsive.  It had already made changes by training 
inspectors and giving them more discretion.  While a 
zero-tolerance policy for minor infractions had been 
implemented at the border following the 9/11 attacks, DHS 
realized that this had gone too far and reversed the decision. 
 
"Secure Flight" 
--------------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Hutchinson noted the recent roll out of the privacy 
impact assessment on the "Secure Flight" program.  The 
Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening Program (CAPPS II) 
had created significant controversy in Europe.  DHS had been 
responsive to those concerns with "Secure Flight".  The 
prescreening function had been adjusted dramatically in the 
modification of the CAPPS II system to create "secure 
flight".  The key was to create a better mechanism to compare 
passenger names against a terrorist watch list.  In "Secure 
Flight" a commercial database would not necessarily be used. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Landaburu noted that the EU had concerns with the 
design of CAPPS II and appreciated the information the 
Commission had received from the U.S. on "Secure Flight". 
The modifications were positive, but the Commission will 
likely need additional information.  Landaburu asked whether 
the system would definitely use European sourced PNR for 
domestic flights and how exactly data collected for "Secure 
Flight" would be used.  Hutchison told Landaburu that the 
"Secure Flight" test would take place in November, European 
sourced historical PNR data from June 2004 would be used as 
it would be impossible to determine which data was not 
'domestic', and that DHS would discuss the results of the 
test with the Commission.  All interested parties would have 
an opportunity to comment following the test.  (Comment: USEU 
previously passed the DHS Privacy Notices on the "Secure 
Flight " test to the Commission 9/30) 
 
PNR in ICAO 
----------- 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Landaburu asked Hutchinson his views on developing 
a global standard on international transfer of PNR, noting 
that European travel agents were asking for a standard out of 
fear that proliferation of PNR requests from governments will 
raise the cost of traveling.  The EU would seek a better 
definition of PNR within an ICAO framework.  Hutchinson noted 
that he saw ICAO examination of PNR as a benefit to aviation 
security but stated that the U.S. is satisfied with the 
current US-EU agreement on PNR.  (Comment: USEU passed the 
Commission Paper on developing a PNR standard in ICAO to 
Washington Agencies 9/23). 
 
 
APIS 
---- 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Landaburu added that DHS Assistant Secretary 
Verdery spoke at the September SLCG on the development of a 
regulation requiring airlines to transfer APIS data to 
DHS/CBP before a flight departs.  The EU wanted to look at 
the implications of this information.  The Commission's 
initial reaction was that such a requirement would complicate 
preparations and timing for U.S.-bound flights.  Hutchinson 
confirmed that the U.S. was considering the change.  He noted 
that currently, CBP received flight manifest data 15 minutes 
after a U.S.-bound flight departed.  Some passenger data was 
available earlier, but a terrorist could escape a pre-takeoff 
check by arriving at the last minute.  Some way was needed to 
correct the last-minute problem.  It could be a matter of 
educating passengers to provide their data earlier without 
necessarily a longer wait at the airport.  DHS is looking at 
requiring manifest data 60 minutes prior to takeoff to enable 
a check to be done before departure, but airlines have 
already told DHS that a 60-minute rule would require that a 
plane's door be shut 75 minutes prior to departure. 
Landaburu noted that such a change would cause disruptions to 
passengers arriving at an airport from connecting flights. 
Hutchinson noted the problem and added that DHS is looking at 
implications and gathering more information. 
 
Biometric Passport Deadline 
--------------------------- 
 
¶10.  (SBU) RELEX Director Richard Wright said the EU was 
happy about the one-year extension until October 26, 2005 of 
the law mandating inclusion of biometric data in passports, 
but that a year would not be sufficient.  Hutchison noted 
that the Congressional deadline was firm, calling it 
"political gamesmanship."  As the deadline grew nearer, 
U.S.-EU discussions would continue.  Hutchinson hoped that 
both sides could work hard to meet the deadline.  Wright 
suggested that the EU and U.S. could work jointly on the 
matter adding that the Community had 25 administrations to 
manage in this regard.  Hutchinson added that the U.S. was 
testing biometric passport readers with European 
participation.  Working together, this effort sends a good 
message. 
 
Trusted Third Party 
------------------- 
 
¶11.  (SBU) Wright added that DHS A/S Verdery had also 
mentioned onward transfers of PNR data and the need to come 
up with a "trusted third party" to oversee those transfers. 
Wright noted that with the court case undecided, the U.S. and 
Commission remained under the spotlight.  DHS Advisor Maria 
Clayton noted the U.S. was still discussing the issue 
internally.  The DHS Privacy office would conduct the joint 
review.   Hutchinson added that he would look into the issue 
and asked whether the delay in appointing the trusted third 
party would have any affect on the Parliament ECJ case 
against the PNR agreements.  U.S. Unit Head Gunnar Weigand 
said he could not assess the affect the delay would have, but 
any irregularity in implementation would add to the 
Commission's vulnerability before its opponents.  Clayton 
noted that to date, there have been no foreign transfers of 
PNR data.  She added that the U.S. was also seeking the list 
of sensitive data to be filtered from PNR records from the 
Commission. 
 
Visa Waiver 
----------- 
 
¶12.  (SBU) Landaburu closed by welcoming the U.S. initiative 
setting up an October 18 meeting of EU countries not 
participating in the visa waiver program.  Hutchinson replied 
that he hoped the meeting would help the non-VWP countries' 
to understand the requirements they must meet to join the 
program.  He told Landaburu that he understood the non-VWP 
countries' requests created a problem for the EU, and that he 
hoped the countries fully understood the criteria for 
membership and could develop a plan for how our requirements 
could be met. 
 
Scott