Wikileaks - SUBJECT: THE MIGRATION DIALOGUE: A U.S.-EU JHA DELIVERABLE
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.
http://wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10BRUSSELS169.html
Full:
Viewing cable 10BRUSSELS169, THE MIGRATION DIALOGUE: A U.S.-EU JHA DELIVERABLE
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
· The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
· The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
· The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #10BRUSSELS169.
Reference ID
Created
Released
Classification
Origin
10BRUSSELS169
2010-02-10 16:29
2011-08-30 01:44
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
USEU Brussels
VZCZCXRO1131
PP RUEHIK
DE RUEHBS #0169/01 0411629
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 101629Z FEB 10 ZDK MULTIPLE SVCS
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY
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
d