STOCKHOLM ON HSPD-6 TERRORIST

UNCLAS STOCKHOLM 000648 SIPDIS STATE FOR CA/P/IP BARBARA HALL, PETER THOMPSON, DIANE BEAN AND MARY DOETSCH SENSITIVE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ASEC CMGT CVIS PTER PGOV PREL SW SUBJECT: STOCKHOLM ON HSPD-6 TERRORIST SCREENING INFORMATION EXCHANGE NEGOTIATIONS REF: (A) STATE 101569 (B) WECHSLER/HALL E-MAILS 9/23/08 (C) STOCKHOLM 510 ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: Embassy delivered reftel demarche September 25 and urged that Swedish officials be prepared to meet with a negotiating team to discuss implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6 (HSPD-6) in October. Swedish officials predict they will be able to assemble the right officials to discuss the issue in detail, but implied that an agreement to share terrorist screening information is unlikely to be concluded quickly. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (SBU) POL Counselor and Consul delivered ref A demarche requesting Sweden enter into negotiations to share terrorist screening information under HSPD-6 to MFA America's Desk Deputy Director Per Norstrom and Desk Officers Paula Wennerblom and Jemina Holmberg on September 25. EmbOffs left behind copies of the model document to guide negotiations, Q and A material, and releasable sample screenshots from the U.S. Terrorist Screening Data Base that would be made available to participating partner nations. Finally, EmbOffs informed Norstrom that a negotiating team from the State Department and the Terrorist Screening Center would like to travel to Sweden the week of October 20 to both brief appropriate Swedish stakeholders and begin concrete negotiations on an agreement. ¶3. (SBU) Norstrom accepted our talking points but was not prepared to offer a specific response or to comment on how long it might take to build interagency consensus on a way ahead. He informed us that the MOJ would likely have the lead on negotiating any agreement and would put us in touch with the right office in the coming days. He felt that a negotiating team visit the third week of October provided enough lead time to organize meetings and brief appropriate principals. Norstrom and his colleagues were curious as to which EU member states had already concluded HSPD-6 agreements with the United States. ACTION REQUEST: Post would appreciate Department guidance on this question. ¶4. (SBU) COMMENT: We think the Swedes will show up at the appropriate level to meet the negotiating team. However, concluding negotiations at the speed suggested in refs (A) and (B) is almost anathema to the Swedish methodically consensus-driven approach, especially in light of the privacy issues raised by such an agreement. An earlier attempt to negotiate a working level arrangement to satisfy HSPD-6 requirements faltered when the Swedish Security Services were told by their lawyers that this issue could quickly become a public liability in an atmosphere already highly charged by the passing of a controversial surveillance bill in July (reftel C). SILVERMAN