VWP MOU AND RELATED AGREEMENTS: AUSTRIAN INTERIOR

C O N F I D E N T I A L VIENNA 000982 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/08/2023 TAGS: CVIS PTER KCRM PREL EUN AU SUBJECT: VWP MOU AND RELATED AGREEMENTS: AUSTRIAN INTERIOR MINISTRY WILL MOVE AHEAD, CAUTIOUSLY REF: VIENNA 953 Classified By: Econ/Pol Counselor Dean Yap. Reason: 1.4(b) and (d). ¶1. (C) Summary. In a July 9 meeting with Emboffs, MoI Bi- and Multilateral Affairs Director Kurt Hager (protect) indicated he will seek Minister Fekter's approval for interagency consultations on negotiation of the HSPD-6 and Pruem-like agreements between the U.S. and Austria. However, the conclusion of such negotiations would be linked to conclusion of a U.S.-EU agreement on data protection. Moreover, because of the early Sept. 28 national elections, Hager was doubtful that more than approval for informal consultations could be obtained before a new government is formed, probably not until November-December. End Summary. ¶2. (C) Hager reported that, based on the July 3 briefing provided by the Embassy (reftel),the MFA has called a confidential interagency meeting for Monday, July 14 to discuss the VWP MoU and associated HSPD-6 and Pruem-like agreements. Key participants will be the Interior Ministry and the Data Protection Office (based in the Chancellor's Office). Hager is preparing a position paper for Interior Minister Fekter's approval for the meeting. If she agrees, at the July 14 meeting Interior will 1) suggest that the VWP MoU be put on hold until a U.S.-EU data protection agreement in concluded; 2) that the Austrians should negotiate both the HSPD-6 and Pruem-like agreements and that President Fischer's approval for negotiations (analogous to obtaining C-175 authority) should be sought; and 3) that the data protection provisions in both agreements should be identical to one another and should be the same as those agreed by the U.S. and EU. ¶3. (C) Hager had two requests that would assist Interior: 1) a draft binding version of an HSPD-6 agreement (Post understands this will be forthcoming presently) and; 2) clarification of the meaning and intent of Article B.3.a.iii on PNR data in the VWP MoU. On the latter, Hager was of the view that the MoU provision would require negotiation of a third binding agreement with the U.S. (Note: in discussions June 28, Hager also thought that if the U.S. insisted on provisions regarding real-time clarification of questions on lost and stolen passports (post has seen this in one draft MoU and removed from another),this would also require negotiation of a legally binding agreement.) ¶4. (C) Though Hager was reasonably confident that Minister Fekter would approve the position in para 2 above, he was doubtful that the interagency would agree to these positions prior to elections. A more likely outcome would be approval to hold informal interagency exploratory and information-gathering meetings with the U.S. on these agreements. He expected the Austrian side to seek further clarification of the draft texts and to have numerous questions on data protection. ¶5. (C) Asked about other options for negotiation of the agreements, Hager speculated that German ratification of its Pruem-like agreement with the U.S. might provide some political cover for the GoA to act. However, he emphasized that if that were the case, the HSPD-6 provision on data protection would still have to be identical to those in the Pruem-like agreement. He said that the HSPD-6 agreement was perceived as more sensitive because it involved intelligence-related exchanges, while the Pruem-like agreement was linked to law enforcement. ¶6. Asked when informal consultations could take place, Hager proposed September or October, stressing that the U.S. delegation should be prepared to address both the HSPD-6 and Pruem-like agreements, as well as questions about the VWP MoU. In Austria, the same persons from the Foreign and Interior Ministries and Data Protection Office will be responsible for all three texts. Girard-diCarlo