CLARITY OF PURPOSE ACHIEVED ON CWC REGIONAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L BRIDGETOWN 000744

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR WHA/CAR, S/CT
DEPARTMENT PASS TO DHS FOR CHARLES STALLWORTH,
BYLLE PATTERSON, AND MIKE LOONEY
CARACAS FOR DAO

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/17/2016
TAGS: PREL PINR PTER ASEC CPAS XL
SUBJECT: CLARITY OF PURPOSE ACHIEVED ON CWC REGIONAL
ENTRY-EXIT SYSTEM

REF: BRIDGETOWN 505

Classified By: Ambassador Kramer for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).


1. (C) SUMMARY: Barbados Deputy Prime Minister Mottley
hosted a meeting between Embassy officials and the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) Director of Foreign Operations in
Customs and Border Protection (CBP),Charles Stallworth,
April 18, 2006. The meeting proved to be beneficial as it
defined the entry-exit immigration project and clarified
roles and responsibilities. If DHS funds the project, it
will serve as a pilot program for the larger Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) and allow the U.S. to
track visitors coming to the region for Cricket World Cup
(CWC) in 2007. CWC is expected to attract a large number of
visitors from south Asia, where the largest concentration of
cricket fans resides. END SUMMARY.


2. (SBU) Participants: Barbados Deputy Prime Minister Mia
Mottley, Barbados Permanent Secretary for Special Assignments
related to Cricket World Cup Juanita Thorington-Powlett, and
former Barbados Senator Phillip Goddard, now serving as
Science and Technology Advisor to the Prime Minister.

U.S. Participants: Ambassador Mary Kramer, Deputy Chief of
Mission Mary Ellen Gilroy, DHS Director of Foreign Operations
Charles Stallworth, and NAO Patricia Aguilera (notetaker).


3. (C) During an April 18 meeting with Deputy Prime Minister
(DPM) Mottley, Charles Stallworth addressed concerns that
lingered after an initial meeting on April 10 between DHS
contractors and officials from Barbados and CARICOM. Mr.
Stallworth prepared a white paper that assisted in his
presentation to DPM Mottley. He outlined the hurdles the USG
had to overcome before committing to
the regional entry-exit smart card project. Mr. Stallworth
made it clear that there was no secured USG funding as of
yet, and that the time frame needed to implement a project of
this magnitude would be challenging.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR SHARING INFORMATION


4. (SBU) Ambassador Kramer raised concerns over the legal
framework necessary to share information with the USG. DPM
Mottley replied that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between the U.S. and CARICOM would suffice, obviating the
need to negotiate bilateral agreements with individual
countries. Asked by Ambassador Kramer if CARICOM could sign
on behalf of its member states, DPM Mottley explained that
member states had ceded signing authority to CARICOM. All

member states had enacted domestic legislation that made any
agreements entered into by CARICOM legally binding. She
reminded Ambassador Kramer that there were several existing
agreements to share information with the U.S. and that this
project would be no different.

SMART CARDS


5. (C) Mr. Stallworth and DPM Mottley discussed general
technical issues that remained undetermined. Mr. Stallworth
explained that the cost of the proposed smart card would vary
greatly depending on the amount of information held in the
card. The USG would want all ten fingerprints, a digital
photo, and biographic data to be stored in the card. If
CARICOM had an interest in using the smart card as an e-purse
as well, then CARICOM would have to negotiate the applicable
contract terms with the chosen financial institution. The
costs of the smart card, however, would be divided between
the financial institution and the USG. DPM Mottley offered
that Visa International was one of the official sponsors of
the International Cricket Council (ICC) and there had been
talks on the possibility of them signing on to the project.
Mr. Stallworth advised he could not favor one vendor over
another due to federal contracting regulations. The USG
would deal with Visa International, or any other financial
institution, as an ordinary contractor. If Visa
International decided it did not want to participate in the
project, then the USG would pay for the smart cards for a

pre-determined time frame. Ambassador Kramer added that DHS
and the Department of State's office of legal affairs and
ethics would need to decide the proper mechanism to deal with
this issue. DPM Mottley said she understood and would urge
the ICC to continue talks with Visa International.


6. (C) DPM Mottley thought it practical if only visitors
attending CWC receive smart cards. As they arrived, she
said, they would be processed in a separate area. All other
visitors would go through the normal immigration line, but
would have a fingerprint and digital photo taken. When Mr.
Stallworth asked about using the smart cards to enter into
the CWC venue sites, DPM Mottley warned that CARICOM had not
agreed to the smart card being used for this purpose, and
thus it was best to focus on what CARICOM had passed as
policy. Mr. Stallworth agreed that the focus should be on
the tracking of passengers at the points of entry.

DEADLINES AND OTHER CONCERNS


7. (C) Once the parameters of the smart card were decided,
DPM Mottley said the system should be up and running by
December 2006 and no later than January 2007. She cautioned
that the run-up to the Guyana elections could potentially be
problematic for the installation of the project and strongly
urged DHS to first install the system in Guyana.
Furthermore, the entry-exit project would also need to be
installed in Suriname and Dominica. CWC spectators would
likely use either country as a jumping-off point since
accommodations were limited in neighboring countries. DPM
Mottley added that Suriname, because of its history and
population, had strong links to Indonesia. Visitors coming
from that part of the world could avoid transiting through
North America or Europe and enter the region through Suriname
instead.

WHAT ABOUT HAITI?


8. (C) DCM Gilroy asked if CARICOM would request the USG to
install a system in Haiti, Belize or the Bahamas. DPM
Mottley replied that she believed Haiti was too chaotic at
the moment to include in the initial project. As for Belize
and the Bahamas, visitors would have to transit through the
U.S. before getting to one of the CWC hosting countries, and
thus it was not urgent to include either
country in the initial phase.

NEXT STEPS


9. (C) DPM Mottley said each participating country would need
to start its own public campaign to sell the project, and
posited the following scenario: First, Ambassador Kramer
should make public remarks about the biometric entry
requirements visitors would need to have in their travel
documents to enter the U.S. and possibly Europe in the near
future. DPM Mottley, in turn, would comment on Ambassador
Kramer's statement, using the occasion to introduce the
entry-exit initiative. DPM Mottley reasoned that the average
citizen would be more likely to buy in to the project if they
believed it would expedite their future travel to the U.S. or
Europe.


10. (C) COMMENT: The initial euphoria Post experienced when
DHS moved expeditiously to contract a site survey of CWC
hosting countries quickly dissipated when it became obvious
that the region had contradictory expectations for the
entry-exit system. Charles Stallworth's visit to Barbados
was an important step in managing expectations by clearly
defining the realistic scope of the project as envisioned by
DHS when it agreed to consider funding it. That clarity,
along with the frankness of the meeting and the open sharing
of ideas, resulted in DHS and CARICOM expressing unanimity of
purpose. END COMMENT.
KRAMER