Visa policy is a strategic public policy that America must get
right. It is a critical tool for promoting American public
diplomacy, economic growth, and international
alliance-building.
The exclusion of many of America's closest Central and Eastern
European allies from the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) has undoubtedly
been an obstacle to building enduring bilateral alliances with
European nations. In late 2007, Congress passed legislation
allowing for expansion of the VWP, and its implementation must now
make progress.[1]
Policymakers must implement these visa reforms along with wider
reforms of transportation security policy. The devastation of 9/11
looms large, and it is incumbent on nations on both sides of the
Atlantic to ensure that travel is safe as well as open. However, it
is equally incumbent on nations to ensure that new policies
genuinely contribute to increased security and are formulated in
the spirit of transatlantic cooperation, without European Union
obstructionism.
Expanding the Visa Waiver Program
Under the VWP, most visitors from 27 partner nations are allowed
to enter the United States for up to 90 days without a visa if they
have valid passports. The policy has been a resounding success,
encouraging travel, commerce, and unprecedented levels of
people-to-people exchanges. In that respect, it has been a
brilliant tool of public diplomacy. A 2007 survey from the Pew
Global Attitudes Project shows that those who have visited the U.S.
and interacted with Americans consistently feel more positive about
America than those who have not: that "familiarity breeds
favorability."[2] At a time when America's image has hit rock
bottom among many Europeans, it is essential to strengthen its
existing successful tools of international diplomacy.
The VWP is a relic of the Cold War era rather than the 9/11 era,
and under legislation signed into law by President Bush on August
3, 2007, six countries are likely to become VWP partner countries
in the near future based on the new set of criteria on visa
rejection rates and overstays.
The legislation also creates a new path for aspirant countries
with higher visa-refusal rates, such as Poland and Bulgaria,
eventually to gain admission. Despite overly restrictive amendment
language requiring countries to achieve visa refusal rates below 10
percent, the legislation allows for flexibility if all other
administrative and technical requirements are met. Crucially, every
aspirant country except Romania is reducing its visa-refusal
rate.[3]
America has moved in the right direction on visa waiver reform.
In December 2007, Congress funded two new security systems mandated
by the legislation, and even the "10 percent rule" looks to be less
problematic in light of administrative and technical progress.
The EU Interferes
Just as the United States is moving from the political to the
technical, the European Union has intervened in a calculated move
that has grossly inflamed the issue. It has put inordinate pressure
on EU member states not to sign bilateral agreements and is even
promoting retaliatory action at the EU level.[4] The EU's desire to
supranationalize visa policy in such a confrontational manner is
nothing new: In 2006, the European Commission threatened reprisals
against U.S. diplomats based in Schengen-area countries in
retaliation for not extending visa waivers to EU accession
countries.
The VWP should not, however, be considered an EU issue.
Extending visa waivers to all EU member states would allow Brussels
to decide to which countries America opens its doors and would set
a powerful precedent for automatically extending the VWP to future
EU accession countries like Turkey.[5] Participation has never been
decided on an EU-wide basis. For example, Greece is not a visa
waiver participant, but Slovenia has been since the program's
inception in 1986.[6] In fact, U.S. diplomats working in many EU
countries (e.g., France and Spain) already have to apply for
visas.
The EU's supranational drive is the latest in a protracted power
grab for control over member states' borders. The EU's contention
that member states be treated equally is deeply hypocritical in two
ways.
First, the vast majority of EU-15 member states imposed
extensive employment derogations against EU-10 accession countries
in 2004. Ireland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom were the only
countries that granted unrestricted work rights to workers from the
EU-10 accession states upon their full membership in 2004.
Second, the EU is proposing its own plans for a biometric
entry system for non-EU nationals.[7] The EU's concern is not data
protection, ease of travel, or European solidarity, but rather the
centralization of a key element of national power.
The United States' ability to attract investment, commerce, and
tourism is a vital tool in combating growing anti-Americanism on
the European continent. Sadly, the European Union does not share
this goal. In its effort to become a superstate with all the
trappings of nationhood, it is more interested in demonstrating its
willingness to confront, oppose, and frustrate American policy.
Transportation Security Policy
Every international traveler that comes to the U.S., regardless
of his or her country of origin, undergoes terrorist and criminal
screening through the Advance Passenger Information System. The
United States now wants to increase the amount of information it
gets in advance of passengers' travel.
As part of visa reform, the United States is proposing
additional security measures for both existing and aspirant VWP
participants, to be negotiated on a bilateral basis. The U.S. has
proposed a new electronic travel authorization system whereby
passengers provide detailed personal and booking information in
advance of travel, including place of birth and previous
citizenships.
This system has likely been proposed in response to the European
Union's unwillingness to cooperate effectively on data sharing. For
instance, the 2007 Passenger Name Records Agreement (PNR)
reduced--from 34 to 19--the pieces of intelligence that are kept on
European airline reservation databases and are accessible by U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Under the new policy, airlines
"push" or send data to CBP; the U.S. is not allowed to "pull" or
access PNR data electronically. The amount of time that data can be
retained has also been limited.[8]
America's ability to access this information is critical. These
indicators are run against lists of known and suspected terrorists
and analyzed against the traveling patterns of other known
terrorists. Such information is valuable for counter-terrorist
purposes, as Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff
states: "It simply gives us a way of analyzing their behavior in
conjunction with other things we know so we can pursue further
inquiry when they appear at our airports."[9]
The Administration is dealing with its allies on a bilateral
basis, where it will certainly find better traction. It is
essential that any new system is workable and efficient and does
not merely add another layer of hassle for travelers from existing
VWP countries.
For example, the system must have an extended timeframe of
eligible travel for previously registered frequent travelers. Also,
it should not require that information be submitted more than 48
hours in advance of travel. Participating countries must work
closely with travel agencies and Internet booking agents to ensure
that passengers are aware of the new rules, because the booking
process is the most convenient time to provide such information. By
sharing information through an electronic questionnaire at the time
of booking, passengers will not be overly inconvenienced.
Too much hassle would exclude last-minute legitimate travelers
who are vital to maintaining healthy transatlantic relations.
Business executives, for example, should not be required to
re-register for every visit. With sensible and workable measures
that simply heighten information sharing between trusted allies, a
new system can increase security and ensure the buy-in of partner
nations.
The United States must be careful not to pass measures that are
seen as discriminatory or unfair. If the new system is cumbersome
and restrictive, America's enduring allies will be tempted to use
the EU's retaliatory clout as a blunt negotiating instrument
against the United States.
Air Marshals: An Insurance Policy
According to The Guardian, the United States is also
demanding that European countries put air marshals on flights from
Europe to the United States as part the new package of security
measures.[10]
The United States cannot compel or oblige any sovereign nation
to put armed air marshals onto flights, and it is inconceivable
that the U.S. would allow diplomatic relations to suffer on this
issue alone. It is equally unlikely that any cost-benefit analysis
would bear out the cost of having air marshals on every
transatlantic flight. The discretionary use of air marshals,
already practiced by several European countries, including France
and Germany, will likely increase anyway as a result of the
policy's success.
Air marshals help to ensure safe transatlantic travel. They are
used either randomly or, in some cases, as an alternative to
cancelling higher-risk flights. Air marshals also create a general
deterrent factor. In addition to the many elements of international
transport security--data sharing, intelligence analysis, passenger,
cargo and luggage screening--air marshals simply provide an
insurance policy as a last line of defense against terrorists.
Conclusion
The key to protecting the homeland is targeting terrorists, not
hassling genuine travelers. A new passenger screening system must
strike a balance between information sharing and ease of travel. A
workable and efficient system that disrupts terrorists from moving
freely across international borders but allows the vast majority of
genuine travelers to continue their business unhindered can be
achieved by enhanced cooperation between allied countries such as
Britain and America.
Extending visa-free travel privileges to countries that are
partners in the war on terrorism will undoubtedly strengthen
bilateral relationships and give impetus to legitimate travel among
pro-American citizens from the European continent.[11] The EU's
interjection at this critical stage demonstrates its ambition to
become a global power that can frustrate U.S. policy. The United
States must remember this lesson when dealing with the EU and
orient its policy toward strengthening its bilateral relations in
Europe.
Sally McNamara is Senior Policy
Analyst in European Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for
Freedom at The Heritage Foundation.