VZCZCXYZ0003
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHVI #0089/01 0221507
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 221507Z JAN 09
FM AMEMBASSY VIENNA
TO RUEAHLC/HOMELAND SECURITY CENTER WASHINGTON DC
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1891
INFO RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS

UNCLAS VIENNA 000089 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CVIS PBTS PTER KCRM PREL AU
SUBJECT: AUSTRIA ON VISA WAIVER PROGRAM CONSULTATIONS 
 
REF: (A) STATE 2059 (B) 08 VIENNA 1878 
 
¶1. (U) Summary.  In a Jan. 21 meeting with senior Embassy 
staff, Austrian MFA and Interior Ministry officials proposed 
that a U.S. delegation visit Vienna in either the second week 
of February or the first or second week of March for 
consultations focused on Austrian concerns about U.S. data 
protection legislation and practices.  As reported previously 
(e.g., Ref B), these are the major obstacles to conclusion of 
HSPD-6 and/or PCSC agreements with Austria. Washington 
guidance on the proposed consultations is requested.  End 
Summary 
 
-- Response to Letter 
 
¶2. (U) MFA Director for Justice and Home Affairs Johann 
Brieger and Interior Ministry Director for International 
Affairs Hager met Jan. 21 with Embassy Vienna Econ/Pol 
Counselor, Consul General, and DHS Attache to discuss 
Secretary Chertoff's Dec. 31 letter to Austrian Ambassador 
Nowotny on new VWP security requirements.  The Austrians had 
been well briefed in Brussels and Vienna on the content of 
the letter and had just a few questions about it.  MOI's 
Hager asked about the necessity for an exchange of letters on 
LASP, given the USG's acknowledgment that Austria was already 
fulfilling all the substantive requirements of the 2007 VWP 
legislation.  E/P Counselor noted that while we are in 
agreement on substance, the U.S. legislation requires a 
bilateral agreement and that, in the USG view, a simple 
exchange of letters confirming existing practices is 
considered sufficient to meet the legal requirement.  Hager 
also asked about the form the biennial review of VWP 
compliance would take.  DHS Attache explained that the review 
will largely be internal to the USG, to certify that the 
necessary data is being received by the proper authorities 
within the USG.  Only if a problem appears would 
consultations with Austria be necessary and, while such 
consultations might include exchanges of visits, these were 
not generally expected to be part of the review process. 
Hager indicated that an Austrian written response to 
Secretary Chertoff's letter would be forthcoming. 
 
-- Proposed Consultations 
 
¶3. (U) Brieger reported that an Austrian interagency team had 
met Jan. 13 to discuss the letter and had agreed that the 
Minsitry of Foreign Affairs should proceed to formally 
request a negotiating mandate from the cabinet for the two 
agreements.  This process would take "a few weeks," according 
to Brieger.  In addition, the Austrians would like the U.S. 
to send an experts delegation to Vienna to discuss concerns 
in Austria's data protection agencies about the scope and 
vigor of U.S. data protection legislation and procedures. 
These are, as Embassy has previously reported, the greatest 
obstacle to conclusion of HSPD-6 and/or PCSC agreements with 
Austria.  Brieger also noted that the conclusion of a U.S.-EU 
agreement on data protection, if it could be incorporated 
into the text of the two agreements, would also serve to 
resolve Austrian concerns.  Brieger reported that Commission 
contacts had suggested that such an agreement was likely by 
the end of 2009. 
 
¶4. (U) Brieger and Hager suggested that the expert 
consultations in Vienna take place either the second week of 
February or the first or second week of March.  He proposed 
two sessions.  The first would be with members and staff of 
Austria's Data Protection Council (Datenschutzrat), and 
include a U.S. presentation on data protection laws and 
regulations and their implementation in practice, and an 
opportunity for unscripted exchanges and questions/answers. 
The second session would be with Austrian ministerial 
officials alone and would look specifically at the data 
protection provisions of the HSPD-6 and PCSC agreements in 
light of the morning's discussions. 
 
-- Comment 
 
 
¶5. Post understands that the skeptical views of Austria's 
data protection community about U.S. data protection 
standards are well known to the Departments of State and 
Homeland Security.  Austria, no less and perhaps more than 
the EU as a whole, is particularly concerned about legal 
rights of redress and limits on transfer of data exchanged to 
third parties.  Washington may wish to consider whether, if 
indeed there is a good and timely prospect of reaching 
U.S.-EU agreement on data protection, engagement with Austria 
now would be worth the commitment of time and other resources 
required.  For its part, Post would welcome a visit by data 
protection experts and dialogue with the Austrians, and 
requests Washington guidance on the Austrian proposal for 
consultations.  End Comment. 
KILNER