VISA WAIVER MEETING: U.S. WELCOMED -- AND WARNED

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 BRUSSELS 004503 SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR P - JDEHART; EUR/ERA - PCHASE AND KSHEARER; CA - JJACOBS AND SJACOBS; DHS FOR BTS - DSULLIVAN AND MCLAYTON E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/29/2014 TAGS: SMIG PREL CMGT EUN USEU BRUSSELS SUBJECT: VISA WAIVER MEETING: U.S. WELCOMED -- AND WARNED REF: BRUSSELS 2114 Classified By: PRMOFF MARC J. MEZNAR. REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D). ¶1. (C) Summary. While privately praising USG efforts to adopt a more positive approach to EU Member States not in the visa waiver program (VWP),the European Commission (EC) struck a combative tone in public during consultations on October 18. DG JHA Head of Unit for Visas and Borders Jan de Ceuster contrasted the U.S. response to enlargement with more welcomed initiatives from New Zealand (extending visa waiver status to all 25),Australia (processing visa applications online for newcomers),and Canada (proactively re-evaluating status of new states). He also warned the ten EU Member States not in VWP against using the "solidarity mechanism" to force reciprocity, calling it a "draconian" measure. De Ceuster stated the EU Council has begun discussing "retaliatory" options other than visa reciprocity to pressure the USG (he did not clarify further). Senior USG policy makers from DHS and DoS reviewed the technical qualifications for VWP status. The reaction from the ten EU "have nots" was low-key. Suggestions included: reducing the subjectivity of visa decisions, lowering the visa application fees, making the visa refusal rates public, and taking into consideration EU Membership when deciding on VWP status. In a subsequent media roundtable, questions focused on USG reaction to the "solidarity mechanism" and the effect it would have on transatlantic travel, if invoked. End Summary. -------------- Commission urges U.S. to expand VWP -------------- ¶2. (U) Following up on an offer made by DHS Secretary Ridge during a a recent meeting in The Hague, senior policy advisors from the Departments of Homeland Security and State met in Brussels on October 18 with the ten EU Member States not in the VWP to review the parameters of the program. The meeting was co-hosted by the EC and the Dutch Presidency. The ten interested Member States were represented by Brussels-based diplomats (with the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland also sending senior personnel from capitals). ¶3. (C) During a pre-meeting briefing, DG JHA Head of Unit for External Relations Lotte Knudsen thanked the U.S. for being responsive to the internal dynamics on VWP by agreeing to meet with the ten "aggrieved" members as a group. DG JHA Head of Unit for Visas and Borders Jan de Ceuster opened the meeting by declaring it to be a historic gathering. ¶4. (C) De Ceuster quickly shifted gears, however, and adopted a combative tone on visa reciprocity. He reviewed the context of the meeting, noting that the ten new EU states fulfilled their Schengen obligations of adopting the EU's common visa waiver list without benefiting fully in return. He contrasted the U.S. defense of its "status quo" after enlargement with more positive initiatives from other countries regarding visas. De Ceuster said that New Zealand will extend visa waiver status to all 25; Australia will initiate online applications with visas being issued "quite automatically"; and, Canada will proactively re-evaluate the status of new states with regard to visa waiver. ¶5. (C) Characterizing the ten as "victims of non-reciprocity" vis-a-vis the U.S., de Ceuster explained that any of these countries could invoke the "solidarity mechanism" which would result in an automatic visa requirement for U.S. citizens in thirty days (reftel). Only a qualified majority vote in the Council could suspend this action. De Ceuster then turned his fire on the ten, warning that use of the solidarity mechanism would be counterproductive. He characterized it as a "draconian" instrument. ¶6. (C) De Ceuster said the EC has put forward a proposal to "do away with the dangerous automatic nature" of the mechanism. He also stated the Council has begun discussing "retaliatory" options other than visa reciprocity to pressure the USG (without clarifying further). ¶7. (C) (Note: PRMOff was told by Norwegian permrep staff, who qualify for insider status on Schengen issues, that the discussion last week in COREPER was an initiative of the Dutch Presidency. The retaliatory measures could come from a full range of sectors -- trade, education, science -- although no specifics were discussed in COREPER. This line of thinking was developed after it became evident that the ten "aggrieved" members responded unenthusiastically to the Commission's proposal to take the teeth out of the solidarity mechanism. End Note.) -------------- U.S. reviews parameters -------------- ¶8. (SBU) DHS Director for International Enforcement Daniel E. Sullivan said the U.S. was looking for positive approaches in its dialogue with the EU. He reviewed the history of the VWP and described current travel flows at U.S. ports of entry. Of the estimated 330 million foreigners who enter the U.S. annually each year, 13.5 million benefit from VWP (11.6 million for pleasure and 1.97 for work). He said that legislation enacted since 9/11 provided for a tightening of the criteria for VWP (including requirements for machine readable and biometric passports). Sullivan also highlighted the increasing focus on national security related provision of VWP status, once the 3% visa refusal threshold is met. -------------- Member States offer suggestions -------------- ¶9. (C) The response from the Member States was surprisingly mild. Specific comments and questions were as follows: -- Malta: Asked for clarification about the procedure to follow if the government felt like it qualified for VWP status. (Sullivan recommended the Maltese government contact the U.S. Embassy to formally initiate a request for consideration and described the subsequent steps.) -- Hungary: Complained about the subjective nature of visa decisions. (Senior Advisor for Consular Affairs Susan Jacobs noted that over time issuance rates have remained relatively stable, despite the frequent turn-over in consular staff.) -- Estonia: Wondered whether having been part of the Soviet Union counted against it and noted it could not enter into a bilateral agreement with the U.S. on visas because EU membership prohibited this. (Jacobs stressed that membership in regional groupings did not affect VWP status. She used APEC as an example of a regional association where several members enjoy VWP status while others do not.) -- The Czech Republic: Suggested the visa refusal rate be made public and that EU Membership be considered when deciding on VWP status. Also stated that visa fees were too high. (Jacobs noted that consular operations were conducted on the basis of "fee for service.") -- Poland: Asked for a clarification of what was more important, combating illegal immigration or enhancing national security. (Sullivan responded that the former was a primary consideration when the program was first established in 1986, but that current concerns stress the importance of national security.) ¶10. (SBU) Poland thanked the U.S. for its willingness to meet to discuss visa policy and recommended that periodic discussions on VWP and other issues of mutual interest take place. All the participants seemed to appreciate the U.S. initiative, even if the basic message regarding parameters of VWP was similar to what they have heard on a bilateral basis. Jacobs said that the U.S. had engaged in bilateral discussions with Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia and welcomed others to initiate similar dialogues. PRMOff also noted the on-going migration dialogues -- such as CIREFI and SCIFA -- where a full range of border management issues arediscussed with the Member States. ¶11. (SBU) De Ceuster said that a readout of the meeting would be presented to the Policy Dialogue on Borders, Transportation and Security at its next meeting in Washington on November 22. PRMOff recommended that the EC also provide a readout on where its proposal to modify the "solidarity mechanism" stands, as well as additional information on the new initiative to identify other "retaliatory" measures should the U.S. not expand VWP. -------------- Media roundtable focuses on "solidarity mechanism" -------------- ¶12. (SBU) In a subsequent media roundtable, questions from the international wire services focused on the U.S. reaction to the "solidarity mechanism" and the effect it would have on transatlantic travel, if invoked. Radio and print media from the new member states were more interested in efforts their own countries might make to attain VWP status. ¶13. (U) The following communique, drafted by the Department, was distributed to the press regarding the meeting: Begin Text United States officials met with members of the European Union in Brussels on October 18 to discuss participation in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). They noted that U.S. visa policies and procedures are established in accordance with specific laws and legislatively mandated requirements. Legislation for the VWP requires the U.S. to review each country individually for purposes of determining compliance with requirements of the VWP. This should not be viewed as a reflection of the overall bilateral relationship with the U.S.; many countries not in the program are among the closest friends and partners of the United States. The statutory requirements to qualify for the VWP are set forth in Section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and cannot be waived. Countries must first meet a threshold requirement of an average non-immigrant visitor refusal rate of less than 3%. Once that threshold is met, the following criteria come into play: Issue a machine-readable passport that, after October 26, 2005, is biometrically enhanced according to ICAO standards; Offer visa free travel to American citizens; Certify that they report the loss or theft of blank passports to the U.S. Government; Have a low rate of immigration violations and refused admissions. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, must make a positive determination regarding the impact the country,s potential VWP participation would have on U.S. national security and law enforcement interests. In the ongoing review of current VWP participants the factors considered include: Terrorist and criminal threats in the country and efforts to address them; Existence of formal and informal cooperation, including extradition; treaties, with the U.S. and international partners, such as Interpol; and Effective border security controls, including citizenship and passport issuance procedures. The Secretary of Homeland Security is required to submit to Congress a report on a country,s qualification for designation as a VWP country, including an explanation of a favorable determination. While Greece and none of the new EU member nations meet all the criteria at this time (with the exception of Slovenia, who joined the VWP prior to EU accession),U.S. officials said that they would continue to review the situation in each country and make nominations for participation in the VWP if and when a country becomes eligible. This is similar to the approach used by most EU member states in defining which third countries qualify for "visa waiver" status according to the Schengen Agreement. U.S. officials reiterated the commitment of the U.S. Government to facilitate legitimate travel and trade between EU members and the United States, and look forward to the day when all EU member states meet the criteria to enter the VWP, and enjoy visa-free travel. End Text -------------- Comment -------------- ¶14. (C) The hard line taken by the EC in public was obviously for "domestic politics" -- to convince the ten members not on VWP that Brussels is going to bat for them. The EC's over-arching goal is to keep any of the "aggrieved" members from invoking the solidarity mechanism. In this sense, the October 18 meeting was instrumental in demonstrating USG willingness to engage in a dialogue and to leave the door to VWP cracked open. The worrisome new development of possible "retaliatory" measures in unrelated sectors also demonstrates the EC's political desire to attain uniform treatment from the U.S. for all 25 Member States. The EU certainly does not want to bring transatlantic travel to a grinding halt. At the same time, the EC and Member States are searching for appropriate ways to demonstrate the importance they attach to visa waiver. (USDEL did not have a chance to clear on this message.) SCHNABEL