DHS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DUTCH ON PROPOSED

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 THE HAGUE 001195 SIPDIS DEPT FOR EUR/UBI DHS FOR ROSENZWIEG AND OIA-DSEQUEIRA SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: CVIS EAIR PREL NL SUBJECT: DHS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DUTCH ON PROPOSED "TRUSTED TRAVELER" PROGRAM ¶1. (U) Summary. During April 10 discussions, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy Paul Rosenzweig and Deputy Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) Gert Versluis reviewed outstanding DHS concerns about the proposed bilateral International Expedited Traveler, (IET, or "trusted traveler") program between JFK and Schiphol airports. Rosenzweig asked about Dutch background checks, EU privacy restrictions and whether the program could be limited to Dutch citizens. Versluis committed to consult with European Commission (EC) officials on the latter two items. In a May 4 conversation with Consul General Bond, Versluis reported that, following consultation with EC officials, he believed the EU issues could be satisfactorily resolved. Rosenzweig and Versluis plan to meet June 2 in Brussels to discuss next steps. End Summary. ¶2. (U) Rosenzweig and Versluis met at Immigration Service headquarters for an hour on April 10 to review the status of the IET program, and clarify outstanding DHS concerns. Rosenzweig expressed regret at the delay in getting back to the Dutch on concerns that had arisen during the DHS clearance process about whether Dutch participants in the program would be adequately vetted. (Note. Negotiations on a draft MOU for a pilot program to permit expedited immigration clearance for vetted "trusted" travelers enrolled in the IET program concluded in August 2005. End Note.) He stressed that DHS considered the Dutch valued partners on border control issues, and remained interested in working with them on developing a "trusted traveler" program, assuming DHS concerns about vetting could be resolved. ¶3. (U) Rosenzweig noted that DHS had thought (mistakenly) that PRIVIUM (a Schiphol-based program that provides expedited entry and departure for members) was a trusted traveler program (with thorough background checks on participants),vice a registered traveler program. Now that DHS understands the difference, he said, it was important to be clear that a higher enrollment standard was needed to participate in the IET program than for PRIVIUM membership. Versluis responded that it had already been agreed that the IET participation standard would be stricter than PRIVIUM's. ¶4. (U) Rosenzweig then identified three key DHS issues that would have to be resolved for the bilateral "trusted traveler" pilot program to go forward. These were: a) Whether the pilot program could be limited to Dutch citizens. He said this was necessary because neither the Dutch nor the USG have the required access to other countries' criminal records to adequately vet the backgrounds of non-Dutch EU participants. b) Whether proposed EU data protection directive (that would strengthen EU privacy protections and potentially hinder the sharing of law enforcement information with non-EU members) would preclude the Dutch from sharing with DHS information on the criminal backgrounds of applicants. c) The thoroughness and scope of the Dutch background checks on applicants for the trusted traveler program. He stressed that DHS would need to know what databases were checked, how deeply, and how far back. ¶5. (U) On background checks, Versluis said that in discussions to date on the IET, the GONL had agreed to inform DHS if applicants had criminal records precluding their enrollment in the pilot program. Four categories of criminal offenses had been defined, and it had been agreed that DHS would be informed if there were negative information about an applicant relating to any of those categories. He noted that the background check is done during enrollment and updated regularly. Watchlists are also checked each time the person travels. ¶6. (U) On the issue of EU privacy restrictions, Versluis noted that participants would be fully aware of the requirement for a background check, and voluntarily authorize the release of the data when applying to participate in the program. Travelers would have the alternative of traveling to the United States without joining IET so nothing would compel them to agree to provide their personal data. For these reasons, he said, he not believe that the Dutch provision of criminal background information to DHS would run afoul of EU privacy regulations. THE HAGUE 00001195 002 OF 002 ¶7. (U) On the issue of limiting the IET program to Dutch citizens, Versluis indicated he was not sure whether the program could be limited to Dutch citizens. He said it would be necessary to ensure it would not violate EU regulations, but that it might be possible to limit it to Dutch citizens initially on grounds that it was a pilot program. ¶8. (U) Versluis suggested that a possible solution for checking the backgrounds of non-Dutch applicants would be for them to obtain a Certificate of Good Behavior (CGB), which he said he understood was not available to anyone with a recent criminal record. Citizens of non-visa waiver (VWP) EU countries would need a US visa and a CGB. All the names would also be checked against the EU watchlist. Rosenzweig explained that the CGB would not be sufficient, as the USG needed more specific and complete information about possible criminal records to permit expedited border crossing. ¶9. (U) Versluis committed to consulting with European Commission (EC) officials to determine whether the program could be limited to Dutch citizens without running afoul of EU regulations, and whether current or anticipated EU privacy restrictions would negatively affect Dutch ability to provide the results of background check information to DHS. Versluis and Rosenzwieg agreed that if the outcome of Versluis's consultations with the EC were positive, they would proceed with more technical discussions to ensure that Dutch background check procedures meet DHS requirements. ¶10. (U) Versluis informed Consul General Bond May 4 that his May 2 consultations with the EC's Frank Paul had been positive, and he believed that DHS concerns on restricting the program to Dutch participants and on data sharing could be resolved. He said that the Commission would not object to limiting the bilateral program initially to Dutch citizens, as long as it could be opened up to other EU citizens at some point in the future. Additionally, he said he had confirmed that EU privacy restrictions would not prohibit sharing necessary background information on participants because the program is entirely voluntary. ¶11. (U) Versluis and Rosenzweig will meet in Brussels June 2 on the margins of the USEU-sponsored Counter Terrorism Conference to discuss the outcome of Versluis's consultations with Commission officials, and to determine the next steps for resuming working level discussions on the IET pilot program, including a detailed, technical review of the Dutch criminal background check procedures for program participants. ¶12. (SBU) COMMENT. The resumption of discussions on the "trusted traveler" program with the April 10 Rosenzwieg- Versluis meeting has helped alleviate Dutch irritation over continuing delays in USG approval of the draft MOU. Post appreciates Rosenzwieg's willingness to travel at short notice to clarify DHS concerns with the existing draft and to continue to move the negotiation process forward. End Comment. ARNALL