THE MIGRATION DIALOGUE: A U.S.-EU JHA DELIVERABLE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 000169 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE PASS TO PRM/MCE NED NYMAN, CA/P REBECCA DODDS, EUR/ERA ALESSANDRO NARDI. DHS PASS TO DHS/PLCY MIKE SCARDAVILLE. E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: SMIG PREF CVIS KFRD KISL EUN SUBJECT: THE MIGRATION DIALOGUE: A U.S.-EU JHA DELIVERABLE REF: A. 09 USEU BRUSSELS 1584 ¶B. 09 USEU BRUSSELS 1704 ¶C. USEU BRUSSELS 91 ¶D. 07 JANUARY 2010 USEU-STATE-DHS VIDEOCONFERENCE ¶E. GENEVA 48 BRUSSELS 00000169 001.4 OF 003 ¶1. (U) This cable includes two action requests. Please see paragraph 9. ¶2. (SBU) SUMMARY: On February 4, the USEU representatives from the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM), the Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA),and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) met with representatives from the EU Presidency and Commission to map out necessary steps for the official launch of the U.S.-EU Migration Dialogue, viewed by the participants as a deliverable for the next JHA Ministerial in April. The Presidency and Commission reviewed the five topics previously vetted in Washington and suggested one more that Member States are interested in exploring now, as well as six others for potential future development. The group also discussed how to structure the dialogue. The Commission aims to provide USEU a draft Terms of Reference by February 15 or 16, to be followed by a meeting on February 19 to hone it for presentation to the Member States in mid-March. At the February 19 meeting, the participants will also prioritize the joint projects under consideration. Given the timing, the Presidency is also interested in informal coordination with the United States in advance of the April steering committee meeting of the Global Forum on Migration and Development. END SUMMARY -------------- A MINISTERIAL DELIVERABLE -------------- ¶3. (SBU) On February 4, the USEU representatives from PRM, CA and DHS met with Spanish Ambassador Maria Bassols, who chairs the EU Council Secretariat's High Level Working Group on Migration (HLWG),Marc Richir, Head of Unit for International Aspects of Migratory Policy at the Commission, as well as other EU Presidency and Commission representatives, to discuss progress made and next steps on the U.S.-EU Migration Dialogue (Refs A, B, C). Ambassador Bassols and Marc Richir reiterated the Member States' enthusiasm for pursuing this Dialogue, and said they view the official launch of the Dialogue, marked by ministerial approval of the Terms of Reference, as a solid deliverable for the U.S.-EU JHA Ministerial on April 8-9 in Madrid. -------------- FEEDBACK ON PROPOSALS -------------- ¶4. (SBU) Richir then addressed each of the five areas for potential cooperation which had been vetted in Washington (Ref D) prior to being presented at the Senior Level Informal JHA planning meeting in Madrid (Ref C). -- On intercountry adoptions, the Member States sought clarity on how the United States viewed adoptions as a form of migration. The USEU representatives explained the goal of delivering joint demarches encouraging third countries to accede to or enforce the provisions of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions, as well as developing common positions toward countries with serious adoption fraud concerns. All of these measures help prevent trafficking in children, which is a form of migration, albeit illegal and involuntary. Recent questions and concerns about loosening international adoption procedures for children orphaned in the 12 January earthquake in Haiti highlight the importance of this issue and its relevance to the Migration Dialogue. The USEU team cited the recent series of U.S.-EU joint demarches to third countries on the Hague Convention on Preventing International Parental Child Abduction as a positive example of what can be accomplished together. -- On anti-fraud training, the Member States asked for more details. The USEU reps outlined the possibilities of cross-training between U.S. and EU officials (also drawing on the expertise of Member States),as well as the prospect of developing joint training programs for use in third countries. Substantively, the training could extend beyond traditional travel document fraud, to include detecting a whole range of malfeasance, such as fraudulent identities, family relationships, or work histories. The Commission reps suggested their programs through "MIEUX" could be a potential vehicle for such joint training. (NOTE: MIEUX stands for BRUSSELS 00000169 002.2 OF 003 "Migration: EU Expertise." It is a joint initiative by the EU and the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) to support third countries in addressing irregular migration and mixed migratory flows as a part of a comprehensive approach to migration management. While Richir said that MIEUX could have an anti-fraud component, the types of technical assistance listed on their website indicate that MIEUX may be better suited to the migration capacity building proposal below. END NOTE) -- On developing migration capacity in third countries, the Member States were pleased by the potential for concrete projects in this area. They would welcome an initial exchange of views on hotspots such as Libya and the Horn of Africa, potentially including countries in West Africa and Latin America, to explore where best to direct these efforts. They are also interested in learning the extent to which the United States is already providing technical or financial assistance to improve migration capacity in third countries. -- On sharing information on the U.S. refugee resettlement program, the Member States saw this as very beneficial to their own efforts to establish a more robust EU refugee resettlement plan, and opined that it could be an area for even deeper cooperation. (NOTE: This information sharing is already underway with other EU institutions. In addition to efforts at post, PRM/A is working with DHS and HHS colleagues to prepare a videoconference on resettlement with members of the European Parliament. END NOTE) -- On consultations on multilateral migration fora, the Member States were in favor. This will enable coordinated responses to issues of mutual concern such as proposals to create new normative institutions for global migration "governance" (Ref E). Given that the Dialogue will not be officially launched until the JHA Ministerial in April, the USEU team asked whether it would be possible to confer in advance of the next steering committee meeting for the Global Forum on Migration and Development, also in April. Ambassador Bassols agreed that it could be very useful to confer informally now, acknowledging that more detailed modalities for regular consultation under the Dialogue can be worked out later. -------------- EU tables additional topics for the Dialogue -------------- ¶5. (SBU) In addition, the Member States proposed looking jointly at returns and readmissions, as they seek to learn how other destination countries manage. The DHS Attache explained that the United States does not use readmission agreements as the EU does, but instead relies on a combination of international law, policy tools, and technology. The Commission and Presidency reps were very interested in learning about the U.S. approach as they examine their own policies. The DHS Attache also explained the work in the United States on detention of illegal immigrants, and the appropriate standards for such detention. The EU expressed interest in this as a possible aspect of a returns discussion. Member States also offered the following topics for possible future development: labor migration and the impact of the financial crisis; integration and anti-radicalization; student visa regimes; migration as a tool of development; an action plan for unaccompanied minors; and transatlantic mobility. -------------- NOT YOUR TYPICAL DIALOGUE -------------- ¶6. (SBU) The group then brainstormed about the best structure for the Dialogue, acknowledging that the typical format of high-level representatives meeting for regularly scheduled discussions would not fulfill its purpose of joint action. The USEU reps proposed the Dialogue as an umbrella structure providing planning and oversight for the range of different projects, with format and participation determined by the project. Ambassador Bassols proposed a Steering Committee in Brussels to plan and oversee the range of projects, as directed by capitals. The Steering Committee could consist of a group similar to those present for the February 4 meeting, namely the USEU migration team and the Commission and Presidency representatives of the High Level Working Group on Migration. -------------- BRUSSELS 00000169 003.2 OF 003 NEXT STEPS -------------- ¶7. (SBU) Based on these discussions, the Commission will draft the terms of reference (TOR) to define the purpose of the dialogue and outline its proposed structure. It will reference examples of the types of projects to be undertaken, without making specific commitments. Richir's office aims to provide USEU with a draft TOR by February 15 or 16. The USEU migration team will seek guidance from Washington, and then meet with the EU reps again on February 19, to hone the language in time for Ambassador Bassols to present it for Member State approval in the HLWG meeting mid-March. When the language is approved by Washington and the Member States, it will be presented for Ministerial approval at the JHA Ministerial April 8-9. At the February 19 meeting, participants will also prioritize the projects under consideration. ¶8. (SBU) To ensure continuity and durability of the Dialogue, the Spanish Presidency will engage the Belgians who assume the rotating presidency on July 1. (NOTE: USEU endorses a strong role in the Dialogue for the rotating presidency as it chairs the High Level Working Group. In discussions with the Canadian Mission, USEU has learned about shortcomings in structuring migration talks with only the Commission. END NOTE) ¶9. (SBU) ACTION REQUESTS: 1) PRM please advise USEU regarding any preferences for how the Bureau would like to confer informally with EU partners in advance of the GFMD Steering Committee meeting in April. 2) PRM, CA, DHS and EUR please provide feedback on the EU proposal for a returns policy discussion, to include info sharing on how the United States facilitates returns without readmission agreements, as well as examining the role of, and appropriate standards for, detention of illegal immigrants. Kennard .