FRANCE: STATUS UPDATE ON HSPD-6 TERRORIST

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 005320 SIPDIS STATE FOR CA, EUR/WE, S/CT, EB/TRA E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/04/2016 TAGS: CVIS PTER PINR PGOV PREL FR SUBJECT: FRANCE: STATUS UPDATE ON HSPD-6 TERRORIST SCREENING INFORMATION SHARING INITIATIVE REF: A. SECSTATE 109771 B. 2005 PARIS 8062 C. PARIS 824 D. PARIS 2316 E. PARIS 4510 Classified By: DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION KARL HOFMANN FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D) -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) Since we last reported on HSPD-6 in October 2005 (ref B),the GOF has continued to express reservations about it based on its experience with No-Fly watchlisting, pending issues regarding data privacy and doubts about the potential benefits of data exchange. It has been careful however not to reject the initiative out of hand. Our approaches have remained focused on the two agencies we believe have the principal GOF equities in this issue: the Prime Minister's anti-terrorism coordinating body, the General Secretariat of National Defense (SGDN) and the Ministry of the Interior's FBI-equivalent Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST). It is unlikely the GOF will want to take up the issue until after elections next Spring, and we can expect tough negotiations if and when it does. -------------- CONCERNS ABOUT NO-FLY -------------- ¶3. (C) Though overall GOF cooperation on intelligence and law-enforcement issues remains very good, we believe that the GOF views watch-list sharing in part through the prism of its concerns about the No-Fly list. The GOF sees the No-Fly list as overly inclusive and prone to "errors" that have led to past diversions of Air France flights, and created a risk of lawsuits by passengers refused boarding. SGDN Deputy Director Scott de Martinville told the DCM in November 2005 that France might be open to "reciprocal sharing" at some point, but that the time was not right to begin such a discussion due to pending French anti-terrorist legislation (since enacted) and ongoing concerns about No-Fly screening and data privacy legislation, issues which have yet to be resolved. It is likely that this concern has taken on additional weight as the French election season approaches, and as negative press coverage about anti-terror cooperation with the U.S. in European media continues. Whether or not this is an accurate perception of HSPD-6, our interlocutors at SGDN tread warily around any issue they see as potentially linked to No-Fly screening, either because they fear that French names they give us could unjustifiably end up on the No-Fly list, or because they believe that any new measures they take would create political vulnerabilities for the arrangements they have agreed to for the implementation of No-Fly screening. ¶4. (SBU) We do not think it likely that this reluctance will diminish before the coming Fall or Winter. The Prime Minister's office has made a determination that airline No-Fly data processing procedures must conform to French Data Privacy legislation. The GOF informed airlines in May that they must evaluate whether their No-Fly data processing requires a review by the Data Privacy Authority (CNIL),and that they must submit an application if required as soon as possible (refs. D and E). The application process will likely overlap with the necessity of finding an alternate basis for the U.S./EU agreement on Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by September 30, amplifying the likelihood that privacy advocates will publicly call the size and accuracy of our watchlists into question, or attempt to pressure the GOF to modify the arrangments it has made to implement No-Fly screening. -------------- WHAT IS IN IT FOR US? -------------- ¶5. (C) In addition, the French security services do not yet appear convinced of the potential benefits they might reap from expanded watchlist sharing. With the adoption of new anti-terrorism legislation in January, Interior gained the authority to create its own watchlist system. The GOF is proceeding with this very carefully however, and is likely to aim for a narrowly drawn database, centered on France. When Secretary Chertoff raised data-sharing with Interior Minister SIPDIS Sarkozy in January (ref C),Sarkozy indicated that while he was open to the idea in principle, he did not believe France had benefited as much as the U.S. from past exchanges of information. Since then, the Embassy's Legatt office has met several times with DST to pursue discussions on a possible first-step trial exchange of 200 names, first proposed by TSC Director Donna Bucella in October. In our view this is a useful initiative that we hope would help persuade the French of the utility of broader and more systematic sharing of information. In discussions, the DST has pressed to receive a list of French names, and was unenthusiastic when on May 31 TSC proposed a list of 200 names that included only 12 French SIPDIS nationals, even though, as we have pointed out, many of the other names also have some link to France. Legatt raised the exchange again with DST Deputy Director Jean-Francois Clair as recently as June 7, but so far the DST has not indicated that it is willing to proceed with the trial exchange on a reciprocal basis. -------------- OUR ASSESSMENT -------------- ¶6. (C) Our assessment therefore is that there are at least two hurdles to overcome before HSPD-6 can move ahead with the French. In the immediate future, we believe that it would be fruitless to approach the GOF again until the politically sensitive issue of No-Fly screening and data privacy is resolved, hopefully sometime this Fall. In fact, with an election campaign getting underway it would not be surprising if GOF reticence to discuss the issue continues until after next Spring's elections. We will certainly sound out our contacts on this when appropriate, and raise the issue anew with the GOF at the earliest opportune moment. In the meantime, we do not recommend renewing our offer for sharing of a trial list. ¶7. (C) If the French do at some point prove more receptive to discussions about watchlist sharing, we will need to convince them first that we have something to offer that they want. We think that a successful approach will need to be based on clear guidance about what is potentially available to the GOF, and in particular, how many names of French nationals or residents we have, and which databases they are drawn from. Additionally, they will probably want to know at the outset which aspects of the exchange are open to negotiation: are there limitations based on numbers, nationalities, or source databases? Is exchange of underlying information necessarily excluded, and if not, on what basis would it be exchanged? Finally, what would we expect to receive at a minimum in return? We should expect tough negotiations, with the French aiming to receive all the French names on our watchlists, but to give us as few of their citizen's names as possible. They will also likely seek guarantees concerning, or even participation in the decision-making about the placing of names of French citizens they give to us on our No-Fly or Selectee lists. We should also expect them to systematically mine the names they are given for evidence to bolster their contention that our No-Fly list is too large and indiscriminate, and perhaps efforts on their part to correct what they see as "errors" in our listings. ¶8. (SBU) Post POC for HSPD-6 continues to be Economic Officer Mark E. Motley. Please visit Paris' Classified Website at: http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/paris/index.c fm STAPLETON