Cablegate: Eu Govts Still Discussing Csi Status Issue, Says

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 002864

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EUR/WE-JLEVIN, EUR/EX, L, M/R, EB/TRA/MA-SMILLER
CBP FOR OIA-KTHOMSEN, RBONNER AND AGINA
ICE FOR FOREIGN OPS DIVISION

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AMGT AODE EWWT FR
SUBJECT: EU GOVTS STILL DISCUSSING CSI STATUS ISSUE, SAYS
GOF

REF: A. STATE 64240
B. PARIS 2062

1. (U) This is an action request.

2. (SBU) SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUEST: The French Foreign
Ministry said April 21 that it had not made a decision on the
question of status for U.S. Container Security Initiative
(CSI) personnel at French ports, and that it continued to
consult with its EU partners. In three to four weeks, the
GOF expects that EU member states that host CSI will have
established a decision timeline to indicate a date by which
they will reach consensus on the status issue. The GOF
confirmed that, pending resolution of the issue, it had
"frozen" the Administrative and Technical (A&T) status of CSI
personnel at the port of Le Havre, France. This has so far
affected import privileges, but not immunity, as we
understand it.

3. (SBU) While we have little control over how quickly EU
governments arrive at a joint decision, in the interim, we
request guidance for an approach to the GOF on the immediate
issue of the GOF status "freeze," which we perceive as a de
facto withdrawal of some benefits of A&T status for CSI
personnel. We also request guidance on how the Embassy might
respond to an eventual request for reciprocity of status for
European customs officials whose countries wish to post them
in the U.S. as part a reciprocal CSI program. END SUMMARY
AND ACTION REQUEST.

--------------------------------------------
EU Governments Still Discussing CSI Status
--------------------------------------------
4. (SBU) Embassy Econ MinCouns delivered Ref A demarche to
Foreign Ministry DAS-equivalent for transportation,
infrastructure and energy policy Jean-Claude Nolla on April
21 accompanied by Embassy ICE Attache, HR representative and
econoff. In response, Nolla said he took note of our points
and understood U.S. concern regarding the need to move
quickly to decide on appropriate status for CSI personnel.
However, he said, the GOF had not yet made a firm decision
and continued to consult with its EU partners in Brussels
where the debate on CSI status continued largely via
"corridor" discussions.

5. (SBU) Nolla expects member state representatives to
establish a calendar within the next month targeting a date
for consensus. He agreed that each member state possessed
the authority to grant appropriate diplomatic status itself
and that the EU had no legal imperative to form a common
position on the issue. However, he said, key member states
(although not France, initially) had proposed a common
approach because of a realization that the status of CSI
personnel could in the future have an broad impact on
European Community customs issues. This realization lent the
movement a political impetus, he said, although it was clear
that lacking any legal basis for an official Council
decision, whatever member states eventually decided would be
enshrined in an informal and "hopefully very flexible"
agreement.

------------------
Commission Role?
------------------
6. (SBU) As for the involvement of the European Commission,
Nolla reiterated that the Commission was not behind the
effort to harmonize CSI status. However, he reported that
the Commission had responded to questions about its
competence in the matter put to it by the U.K. and Germany in
a way that indicated it may have a role in the debate. Its
responses indicated, Nolla said, that Commission regulation
of the use of personal data and confidential business
information in the EU -- which CSI personnel may have access
to -- has provided a basis in the past for weighing in on
other community questions. Drawing on this example, Nolla
suggested that the Commission should not be counted out as a
player in this issue and reminded that it was the Commission
that had initially issued infringement proceedings against EU
members which had concluded bilaterals with U.S. Customs
because of the potential commercial impact of what the
Commission perceived to be inevitable "trade distortions"
introduced by CSI.

-----------------------
"Frozen" In Le Havre
-----------------------
7. (SBU) Nolla confirmed information the Embassy HR Section
received via telephone from the Foreign Ministry protocol
office on March 29, i.e. that the GOF had "frozen" the
Administrative and Technical (A&T) status of CSI personnel
currently in Le Havre pending the outcome of the GOF's
reconsideration of the status question. So far the only
concrete result of the "freeze" is that duty-free importation
of privately-owned vehicles for three CSI employees in Le
Havre has been suspended. The two other employees imported
their vehicles before the "freeze" took effect. Nolla
stressed that France supported the objectives and the
operation of the CSI programs in Le Havre and Marseille, and
that the GOF's "freezing" of A&T status was not because the
GOF had any problems with U.S./French cooperation regarding
the CSI counterterrorism program or because of any concerns
about individual CSI personnel. Rather it resulted from the
necessity of maintaining a "snapshot" of the current status
while a common CSI status policy was worked out among EU
partners. Nolla did not raise the issue of immunity and it
is our understanding that CSI employees retain the immunities
granted with A&T status.

8. (SBU) We responded that, for the purpose of certain
benefits, "freezing" status for current CSI personnel was the
same as withdrawing status and that the "freeze" in Le Havre,
as well as any future decision to grant less than the
equivalent of A&T status to all CSI personnel, would be
detrimental to USG efforts to recruit, form teams, and manage
the CSI program. Nolla said he understood and wanted to
continue to work with the U.S. for an acceptable outcome.
When we cited examples of several member states that had
already granted A&T status to CSI personnel (the Netherlands,
Italy, Sweden and most recently Greece), Nolla said that
despite what might appear to be a growing EU member consensus
to grant A&T status, he could report that the same
governments were saying in Brussels that the issue was open
for debate and that, if they had granted status, they had
done so (in particular in the case of Sweden) on a temporary
basis only.

9. (SBU) As in our March 24 meeting (Ref B) Nolla raised
again the option of "En Mission" status as a possible
alternative to A&T status. He acknowledged that "En Mission"
grants little more than official entry and exit privileges,
but thought that additional benefits could be added on an ad
hoc basis. Nevertheless, he was pessimistic that even with
ad hoc enhancements, the "En Mission" status would measure up
to the equivalent of A&T status. Despite this dire
prognosis, Nolla summed up that although "En Mission" was one
option under consideration it may not be the alternative
eventually accepted by CSI host governments after all. They
could as easily reach an informal and flexible consensus that
would simply limit how far member states can go in granting
status.

----------------------------
COMMENT AND ACTION REQUEST
----------------------------
10. (SBU) Although Nolla insists that no decision has been
made, we sense that the direction of EU government consensus
is toward something less than the equivalent of A&T status.
In addition, it is clear that the GOF has no intention of
breaking away from what has now become a CSI host government
momentum in the EU to harmonize status for CSI personnel. In
addition to the longer term question of what EU member
governments will eventually decide, in France we are faced
with the more immediate problem of the de facto loss of
certain benefits for CSI personnel in Le Havre resulting from
the GOF's "freeze."

11. (SBU) We request Department's guidance for a formal
approach to the GOF asking that it separate the issue of
reconsideration of status with the EU from the "freezing" of
status of the Le Havre personnel. We may want to consider
pointing out that in "freezing" status, the GOF -- contrary
to its previous decision to grant A&T status, and without
written explanation -- has in effect withdrawn it in certain
respects.

12. (SBU) We also request guidance on how the Embassy should
eventually respond to a request for reciprocity in the
granting of status to European customs officials whose
countries wish to take advantage of CBP's offer of CSI as a
reciprocal program. The GOF has not raised the issue of
reciprocity of status but we expect the question to surface,
if not here, then in another EU country, and it may be linked
to the issue of status granted to CSI personnel in the EU.
What privileges and immunities would the U.S. be prepared to
extend to European customs personnel, performing functions
similar to those performed by CSI personnel, at major U.S.
ports? END COMMENT AND ACTION REQUEST.
WOLFF

© Scoop Media