A/S FRIED MEETS WITH EU OFFICIALS ON RESETTLING

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 000629 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/13/2019 TAGS: PGOV PREL PHUM EUN EG SUBJECT: A/S FRIED MEETS WITH EU OFFICIALS ON RESETTLING GUANTANAMO DETAINEES IN EUROPE Classified By: ASSISTANT SECRETARY DANIEL FRIED FOR REASONS 1.4 B AND D -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (C) The EU Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Gilles de Kerchove, and the European Commission Director General for Justice, Freedom, and Security, Jonathan Faull, informed A/S Fried and a U.S. interagency delegation in Brussels April 27 that the EU anticipates having a common political position to create by this June an "enabling environment" for Member States to accept the resettlement of Guantanamo detainees. De Kerchove and Faull expressed optimism that the process to attain this internal understanding would not be defeated by opposition from Member States, although such a position will require a consensus decision of EU member state ambassadors (COREPER) and hitches may arise along the way. De Kerchove also noted that the EU's internal political position necessitates an external statement with the U.S. Government. This second document -- likely to be a joint statement, or similar text -- would need to track in the same timeline as the EU internal position, thus requiring an agreed text for submission to the COREPER by the third week of May. De Kerchove and Faull envisaged that a May COREPER consensus would tee-up both documents for a ministerial-level blessing at the June 4-5 General Affairs Ministerial (GAERC). In addressing the mechanism for sharing information with the collective EU (and Schengen treaty) member states on Guantanamo detainees that the USG transfers through bilateral means with those states, de Kerchove and Faull informed that information should be passed to the recipient state, not the EU, and that it might be helpful to parse out EU-releasable information in packages provided to recipient states. Faull indicated sympathy to the idea that recipient states would be given more information than the USG allows them to share with other EU and Schengen states. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) Gilles de Kerchove, the EU Coordinator for Counterterrorism and a trusted interlocutor on Guantanamo detainee resettlements, was joined by Jonathan Faull, the European Commission Director General for Justice, Freedom, and Security, in hosting A/S Fried, Matt Olsen (Executive Director of the Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force, DOJ), Elizabeth Farr (Director for Combating Terrorism, NSC),and Steve Pomper (Attorney Adviser, State),along with USEU Justice and INL representatives. The April 27 meeting in Brussels preceded Attorney General Holder's participation in the U.S.-EU Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial Troika Meeting, held in Prague the next day, that both sides also attended to discuss Guantanamo detainee resettlement issues. ¶3. (C) De Kerchove opened the discussion by presenting the three things the EU required in moving forward internally: 1) An EU political position that will among other things include an internal information sharing mechanism on Guantanamo detainees that are resettled in EU member states; 2) An external document with the USG recounting the principles under which the internal position would be effected; and 3) A USG declaration on security cooperation (de Kerchove later clarified that this might happen in the Spring of 2010, but could be referenced in the aforementioned external document.) Faull added that the EU political position will be just that -- political cover -- and not a legal construct of any sort that would require lengthy formalization processes; or in other words, a "common position" in lower case not capital letters. ¶4. (C) On an internal information-sharing mechanism, de Kerchove reported that his office, in coordination with the Commission, was arriving at an agreed way forward that uses channels for sharing classified information among Member States' intelligence services. A/S Fried offered that the USG was ready to share "substantially the same" information with member states that accept detainees as that considered by U.S. decision makers to approve the transfer of those detainees. Moreover, Fried noted that the USG might also share information with the EU to satisfy other member states, albeit at a much lower level, given the large number of states receiving that information. Faull indicated that he understood and noted that responsibility would be upon the member states receiving detainees, not the EU, to receive and share information with other members. Faull added that it might be helpful for the USG to identify information that a receiving state is cleared to share with the other EU and BRUSSELS 00000629 002 OF 003 Schengen member states. ¶5. (C) In regard to a U.S.-EU joint document -- referenced by de Kerchove as a "joint something" (joint statement, for example, but in no case a legally-binding or formal agreement) -- de Kerchove offered that a joint political construct was necessary to provide a public face to the internal position and would assist in pushing through the conclusion of that internal process. Specifically, de Kerchove thought that this document should proceed in parallel with the approval of the EU internal position: worked through the Political and Security Council, approved by the COREPER, and blessed by the June 4-5 GAERC (with the possibility of a further blessing by the Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial the following week). Fried cautioned that this process, which relies on member state consensus, could allow for the addition of cumbersome linkages to other matters for which a single state could hold the process hostage. This could slow and potentially stall a process that requires speed to meet the proposed June deadline. Both de Kerchove and Faull opined that they believed the will was present in the Member States to move the issue forward by June, and seemed to think that they could manage any obstacles that might arise. Faull noted that we should agree to share in a discreet setting indications of any problems or obstacles that might arise in the course of this process. De Kerchove added that a joint political statement recognizing the new paradigm of cooperation would assist in pushing through any delays. Fried agreed that a statement noting a new chapter in transatlantic relations would show to Europeans that the United States has turned a page and to Americans that Europe is willing to help on this serious issue. Additionally, it would be valuable to maximize the benefit in the roll-out of an EU internal position with the joint statement. Fried promised to consult Washington on the request for a joint political statement. ¶6. (C) In a brief smaller meeting after the larger group session, de Kerchove outlined with input from the U.S. delegation what he believed the joint statement should include: -- A reference to the independence of member states to make the decision to resettle detainees. -- A reference to the humanitarian nature of the exercise. -- A reference to moving forward with counterterrorism cooperation in a manner that comports with the rule of law. -- A reference to progressing and elevating the so-called Bellinger dialogue on legal issues of common interest. -- A reference to deepened security cooperation (a shift in paradigm). -- A reference to a proposed joint counterterrorism declaration down the road. ¶7. (C) The last request, a joint counterterrorism declaration, which de Kerchove mentioned at the outset of the larger meeting and focused on again in the smaller meeting, was less well received news by the U.S. delegation. De Kerchove foresaw the statement coming around March 2010 after further work between both sides, but highlighted that it should be referenced in the joint statement. For purposes of the joint statement, which is proposed for June, the U.S. delegation noted that the Presidentially mandated Task Force on U.S. detention policy will not complete its work until July, and likewise the USG will not be able to agree to language that gets ahead of that Task Force's work. In order to make clear that EU views on the legal framework on detention are being taken into account, de Kerchove suggested that it might be helpful for the EU to submit to that Task Force a letter setting forth its views. -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶8. (C) The meeting suggested a way ahead with the EU to develop a political umbrella that may be of use to some EU member state governments prepared to accept detainees. Keeping to the June timeline will be the key to success. The joint political statement to supplement the EU internal position may also prove challenging given the potential for BRUSSELS 00000629 003 OF 003 linkages and according hold-ups, but appears to be a pre-requisite to the EU position. The EU proposal for a follow-on declaration on transatlantic security cooperation remains less clear. END COMMENT. MURRAY .