VZCZCXRO3883
PP RUEHPOD
DE RUEHBS #1663/01 3451220
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 111220Z DEC 09 ZDS ZDK
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY
INFO RUCNMEU/EU INTEREST COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 001663 
 
C O R R E C T E D   C O P Y (SENSITIVE CAPTION ADDED) 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CASC CVIS EUN KOCI
SUBJECT: EU CONSULAR CONFERENCES ILLUSTRATE IMPACT OF 
LISBON TREATY 
 
REF: USEU BRUSSELS 1414 
 
BRUSSELS 00001663  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
¶1. (U) Summary:  The USEU senior consular representative 
attended two EU consular seminars in November as an observer. 
 The first concerned consular assistance to EU nationals in 
third countries and the second, international adoptions.  The 
object of both conferences was to move toward harmonizing 
member states' regulations in these areas, which could 
ultimately impact U.S. coordination with the EU on consular 
services.  End Summary. 
 
EU Consular Conference - Providing Consular Assistance 
 
¶2.  (SBU) At the semi-annual, one-day consular seminar hosted 
by the EU presidency in Stockholm, the theme was providing 
consular assistance to EU nationals in third countries. 
Representatives of the EU Presidency, Council and Commission, 
along with an academic who tracks the evolution of consular 
diplomacy in the EU made presentations to representatives of 
25 of the 27 EU member states there. 
 
¶3. (U) The Council Secretariat representative addressed 
possible changes in how EU countries provide consular 
assistance outside the EU as the Lisbon Treaty (which came 
into force December 1) comes into full effect.    Changes 
will depend on whether the new European External Action 
Service (EEAS) contemplated by the Treaty takes on consular 
responsibilities, which currently fall to member states 
(reftel).  The speaker also addressed the fact that member 
states' national laws differ in areas such as responsibility 
for permanent residents living abroad, which could pose a 
difficulty during an evacuation.  He suggested the 
possibility of requiring all EU travelers to take out some 
sort of travelers insurance with the major insurance 
companies contributing to a "super fund" for evacuations. 
 
¶4. (U) Another speaker discussed how the evolution of 
consular work mirrored the evolution of the relationship of 
citizens to the state.   Provision of consular assistance 
abroad increased as citizens' expectations of what their 
governments could and should provide grew.   The speaker 
discussed the emergence of "consular diplomacy," as more 
high-profile consular cases emerged involving the highest 
levels of government.  In the nineteenth century, consular 
services were derided as "Cinderella services" but in the 
twenty-first century, the issue has moved up the diplomatic 
agenda.  This has been reflected in the growth of consular 
sections and the range of services they provide.  Discussing 
the fact that the public's demands have risen faster than the 
level of consular services provided, the speaker encouraged 
member state governments to be active, as opposed to 
reactive, in terms of deciding what services they are  able 
to provide. 
 
¶5. (SBU) The speaker from the EU Commission discussed a 
recent Commission study, to be published in March, of the 
level of overseas consular services provided by the 27 member 
states to their own citizens and to other EU nationals. The 
level and scope of services provided -- such as hospitals 
visits and issuance of emergency travel documents -- differed 
widely from one member state to another, particularly with 
respect to consular assistance provided to other EU 
nationals.  The speaker recommended member-state 
coordination,  to avoid their nationals going "consul 
shopping." 
 
¶6. (U)  Three break-out groups covered consular assistance 
for the mentally ill, Article 36 of the Vienna Convention 
(consular notification of arrest), and "honor crimes."  The 
USEU consular representative attended the session on 
providing assistance to the mentally ill.  A representative 
of the government of Norway -- one of the non-EU member 
states present -- spoke about the extensive program in place 
in Norway in which the traveler's regional health authority 
assumes responsibility for bringing the traveler back to 
Norway.  In the case of a foreign traveler suffering from 
mental illness in Norway, the local health authorities reach 
out to the home country health authorities for information 
about past treatment, if any.  When the patient is ready to 
travel home, the Norwegian hospital makes arrangements. 
 
¶7. (U) The working group on Article 36 noted that there are 
problems with early notification of arrests to allow consular 
access, often because law enforcement officials do not know 
where the arrested traveler is from.  The working group on 
honor crimes noted that it is important to locate the 
appropriate contacts in the host government where such a 
crime occurs. 
 
¶8. (U) Comment: The discussions throughout the seminar were 
lively and wide-ranging.  Especially interesting were areas 
such as the growth in the scope of consular services in which 
 
BRUSSELS 00001663  002 OF 002 
 
 
the U.S. and EU member states face similar phenomena of 
rising expectations.  End comment. 
 
Council of Europe/EU Commission Conference on International 
Adoptions 
 
¶9.  (U) The second seminar was a two-day conference on 
adoption co-sponsored by the Council of Europe and the EU 
Commission.  The conference was attended by EU member-state 
government officials, adoption organizations, NGOs, 
attorneys, jurists, adoptive parents and adults who had been 
adopted as children.  The first day addressed national 
adoptions and the second international adoptions.  Both 
sessions focused on the revised 2008 European Convention on 
the Adoption of Children, which has been signed by 13 states 
to date, two of which signed during the conference.  When 
three more states accede to the Convention it will go into 
force.  There were eight panel discussions covering every 
aspect of the adoption process, all of which stressed the 
primacy of the child's interests.  The EU Commission reported 
that it was engaged in a comparative study of member-state 
laws on adoption with a view toward EU legislation in the 
area.  The panelists covered, for example, the right to 
consent to being adopted, rights of a non-custodial 
biological parent in the adoption process, access of adoptive 
children to their biological identities, the pros and cons of 
adoptions by single people, cohabiting couples and same-sex 
couples, and the psychological effects of adoption on the 
child. 
 
¶10. (U) During the discussions on international adoptions, 
the panelists discussed the 1993 Hague Convention on 
Adoption, to which 81 countries are signatory, and the 
safeguards it put in place.  The general consensus among the 
panelists was that international adoption was the third-best 
solution for the child, after reintegration into the 
biological family and in-country adoption.  The speakers 
discussed the corrupting role large sums of money play in 
international adoptions, the need to protect all parties from 
unscrupulous intermediaries and the importance of 
transparency in this area.  They also discussed the 
desirability of "receiving states" (states whose citizens 
adopt internationally) providing assistance to "sending 
states" (states with children being adopted internationally) 
to help children from impoverished families remain in family 
units.  One idea put forward was that, as EU member states 
harmonize their adoption regulations and standards, it may be 
possible to create a central adoption authority for the 
entire EU and treat the EU as a single area for adoptions. 
In that scenario, adoptions from one EU member state to 
another would not be considered "inter-country."  Both the EU 
Commission and EU Parliament have done studies comparing the 
adoption regulations in the various EU member states. 
 
¶11. (SBU) A number of panelists spoke about the situation in 
specific countries, including Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. 
There has been a moratorium in Romanian international 
adoptions since 2002 due to corruption in the adoption 
system.  Now that more effective safeguards are in place, the 
government of Romania is examining the possibility of 
allowing international adoptions .  To date, no decision has 
yet been taken regarding families whose international 
adoptions were in the "pipeline" when the moratorium was put 
in place.  That decision was defined as "political." 
 
¶12. (SBU) Comment:  Participating as an observer at 
EU-sponsored conferences provides an excellent opportunity 
for an on-the-ground view of how the EU is having to deal 
with issues under the new direction of the Lisbon Treaty.  In 
addition, it affords the U.S. an opportunity to identify 
areas and methods in and by which the U.S. and EU can further 
work together.  End comment. 
 
MURRAY