

Currently released so far... 51122 / 251,287
Articles
Brazil
Sri Lanka
United Kingdom
Sweden
00. Editorial
United States
Latin America
Egypt
Jordan
Yemen
Thailand
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
2011/05/01
2011/05/02
2011/05/03
2011/05/04
2011/05/05
2011/05/06
2011/05/07
2011/05/08
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
2011/05/13
2011/05/14
2011/05/15
2011/05/16
2011/05/17
2011/05/18
2011/05/19
2011/05/20
2011/05/21
2011/05/22
2011/05/23
2011/05/24
2011/05/25
2011/05/26
2011/05/27
2011/05/28
2011/05/29
2011/05/30
2011/05/31
2011/06/01
2011/06/02
2011/06/03
2011/06/04
2011/06/05
2011/06/06
2011/06/07
2011/06/08
2011/06/09
2011/06/10
2011/06/11
2011/06/12
2011/06/13
2011/06/14
2011/06/15
2011/06/16
2011/06/17
2011/06/18
2011/06/19
2011/06/20
2011/06/21
2011/06/22
2011/06/23
2011/06/24
2011/06/25
2011/06/26
2011/06/27
2011/06/28
2011/06/29
2011/06/30
2011/07/01
2011/07/02
2011/07/04
2011/07/05
2011/07/06
2011/07/07
2011/07/08
2011/07/10
2011/07/11
2011/07/12
2011/07/13
2011/07/14
2011/07/15
2011/07/16
2011/07/17
2011/07/18
2011/07/19
2011/07/20
2011/07/21
2011/07/22
2011/07/23
2011/07/25
2011/07/27
2011/07/28
2011/07/29
2011/07/31
2011/08/01
2011/08/02
2011/08/03
2011/08/05
2011/08/06
2011/08/07
2011/08/08
2011/08/09
2011/08/10
2011/08/11
2011/08/12
2011/08/13
2011/08/15
2011/08/16
2011/08/17
2011/08/18
2011/08/19
2011/08/21
2011/08/22
2011/08/23
2011/08/24
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Antananarivo
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Alexandria
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embasy Bonn
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Brazzaville
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangui
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Belfast
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Cotonou
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chiang Mai
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Chengdu
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
DIR FSINFATC
Consulate Dusseldorf
Consulate Durban
Consulate Dubai
Consulate Dhahran
Embassy Guatemala
Embassy Grenada
Embassy Georgetown
Embassy Gaborone
Consulate Guayaquil
Consulate Guangzhou
Consulate Guadalajara
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Hong Kong
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kolonia
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Krakow
Consulate Kolkata
Consulate Karachi
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Lusaka
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Lome
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy Libreville
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Leipzig
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Mission Geneva
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Mogadishu
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maseru
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Merida
Consulate Melbourne
Consulate Matamoros
Consulate Marseille
Embassy Nouakchott
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Nuevo Laredo
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Consulate Nagoya
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Praia
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Moresby
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Podgorica
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Hillah
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Surabaya
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy Tirana
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
Consulate Thessaloniki
USUN New York
USMISSION USTR GENEVA
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Mission CD Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
UN Rome
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vientiane
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
AMGT
ASEC
AEMR
AR
APECO
AU
AORC
ADANA
AJ
AF
AFIN
AMED
AS
AM
ABLD
AFFAIRS
AMB
APER
ACOA
AND
AA
AE
AADP
AID
AO
AL
AG
AORD
ADM
AINF
AINT
ASEAN
AORG
ABT
APEC
AY
ASUP
ARF
AGOA
AVIAN
ATRN
ANET
AGIT
ASECVE
ABUD
AODE
ALOW
ADB
AN
ADPM
ASPA
ARABL
AFSN
AZ
AC
AIAG
AFSI
ASCE
ASIG
ACABQ
ADIP
AFGHANISTAN
AROC
ADCO
ACOTA
ANARCHISTS
AMEDCASCKFLO
AK
ARABBL
ASCH
ANTITERRORISM
AGRICULTURE
AOCR
ARR
ASSEMBLY
AORCYM
AFPK
ACKM
AGMT
AEC
APRC
AIN
AFPREL
ASFC
ASECTH
AFSA
AINR
AOPC
AFAF
AFARI
AX
ASECAF
ASECAFIN
AT
AFZAL
APCS
AGAO
AIT
ARCH
AEMRASECCASCKFLOMARRPRELPINRAMGTJMXL
AMEX
ARM
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
AORCD
AVIATION
ARAS
AINFCY
ACBAQ
AOPR
AREP
AOIC
ASEX
ASEK
AER
AGR
AMCT
AVERY
APR
AEMRS
AFU
AMG
ATPDEA
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AORL
ACS
AMCHAMS
AECL
AUC
ACAO
BA
BR
BB
BG
BEXP
BY
BRUSSELS
BU
BD
BTIO
BK
BL
BE
BMGT
BO
BM
BX
BN
BWC
BBSR
BTT
BC
BH
BILAT
BUSH
BHUM
BT
BTC
BMENA
BOND
BAIO
BP
BF
BRPA
BURNS
BUT
BBG
BCW
BOEHNER
BOL
BASHAR
BIDEN
BFIN
BZ
BEXPC
BTIU
CPAS
CA
CASC
CS
CBW
CIDA
CO
CODEL
CI
CROS
CU
CH
CWC
CMGT
CVIS
CDG
CTR
CG
CF
CHIEF
CJAN
CBSA
CE
CY
CB
CW
CM
CHR
CD
COE
CV
COUNTER
CT
CN
CPUOS
CTERR
CVR
CVPR
CDC
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CONS
COM
CACS
CR
CONTROLS
CAN
CACM
COMMERCE
CAMBODIA
CFIS
COUNTERTERRORISM
CITES
CONDOLEEZZA
CZ
CTBT
CEN
CLINTON
CFED
CARC
CTM
CARICOM
CSW
CICTE
CYPRUS
CBE
CMGMT
CARSON
CWCM
CIVS
COUNTRYCLEARANCE
CENTCOM
CAPC
COPUOS
CKGR
CITEL
CQ
CITT
CIC
CARIB
CVIC
CAFTA
CVISU
CDB
CEDAW
CNC
CJUS
COMMAND
CENTER
COL
CAJC
CONSULAR
CLMT
CBC
CIA
CNARC
CIS
CEUDA
CHINA
CAC
CL
DR
DJ
DEMOCRATIC
DEMARCHE
DOMESTIC
DISENGAGEMENT
DB
DA
DHS
DAO
DCM
DAVID
DO
DEAX
DEFENSE
DEA
DTRO
DPRK
DOC
DTRA
DK
DAC
DOD
DRL
DRC
DCG
DE
DOT
DEPT
DOE
DS
DKEM
ECON
ETTC
EFIS
ETRD
EC
EMIN
EAGR
EAID
EFIN
EUN
ECIN
EG
EWWT
EINV
ENRG
ELAB
EPET
EIND
EN
EAIR
EUMEM
ECPS
ES
EI
ELTN
ET
EZ
EU
ER
EINT
ENGR
ECONOMIC
ENIV
EFTA
ETRN
EMS
EUREM
EPA
ESTH
EEB
EET
ENV
EAG
EXIM
ECTRD
ELNT
ENVIRONMENT
ECA
EAP
EINDIR
ETR
ECONOMY
ETRC
ELECTIONS
EICN
EXPORT
EARG
EGHG
EID
ETRO
EINF
EAIDHO
ECIP
EENV
EURM
EPEC
ERNG
ENERG
EIAD
EXBS
ED
EREL
ELAM
EK
EWT
ENGRD
EDEV
ECE
ENGY
EXIMOPIC
ETRDEC
ECCT
EUR
ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID
EFI
ECOSOC
EXTERNAL
ESCAP
ETCC
EENG
ERA
ENRD
ECLAC
ETRAD
EBRD
ENVR
ECONENRG
ELTNSNAR
ELAP
EPIT
EDUC
EAIDXMXAXBXFFR
EETC
EIVN
EDRC
EGOV
ETRA
EAIDRW
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ESA
ETRDGK
ENVI
ELN
EPRT
EPTED
ERTD
EUM
EAIDS
EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM
EDU
EV
EAIDAF
EDA
EPREL
EINVEFIN
EAGER
ETMIN
EUCOM
ECCP
EIDN
EINVKSCA
ENNP
EFINECONCS
ETC
EAIRASECCASCID
EINN
ETRP
ECONOMICS
ENERGY
EIAR
EINDETRD
ECONEFIN
EURN
ETRDEINVTINTCS
EFIM
ETIO
EATO
EIPR
EINVETC
ETTD
ETDR
EIQ
ECONCS
ENRGIZ
EAIG
ENTG
EUC
ERD
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EEPET
EUNCH
ESENV
ECINECONCS
ETRDECONWTOCS
ECUN
FR
FI
FOREIGN
FARM
FIR
FAO
FK
FARC
FAS
FJ
FREEDOM
FAC
FINANCE
FBI
FTAA
FM
FCS
FAA
FORCE
FDA
FTA
FT
FCSC
FMGT
FINR
FIN
FDIC
FOR
FOI
FO
FMLN
FISO
GM
GERARD
GT
GA
GG
GR
GTIP
GH
GZ
GE
GB
GY
GAZA
GJ
GEORGE
GOI
GCC
GMUS
GI
GLOBAL
GV
GC
GL
GOV
GKGIC
GF
GWI
GIPNC
GUTIERREZ
GTMO
GANGS
GAERC
GUILLERMO
GASPAR
HR
HA
HYMPSK
HO
HK
HUMAN
HU
HN
HHS
HURI
HUD
HUMRIT
HUMANITARIAN
HUMANR
HL
HSTC
HILLARY
HCOPIL
HADLEY
HOURANI
HI
HUM
HEBRON
HUMOR
IZ
IN
IAEA
IS
IMO
ILO
IR
IC
IT
ITU
ID
IV
IMF
IBRD
IWC
ICAO
ICRC
INF
IO
IPR
ISO
IK
ISRAELI
IQ
ICES
IDB
INFLUENZA
IRAQI
ISCON
IGAD
IRAN
ITALY
IRAQ
ICTY
ICTR
ITPGOV
ITALIAN
IQNV
IADB
INTERNAL
INMARSAT
IRDB
ILC
INCB
INRB
ICJ
ISRAEL
INR
IEA
ISPA
ICCAT
IOM
ITRD
IHO
IL
IFAD
ITRA
IDLI
ISCA
INL
INRA
INTELSAT
ISAF
ISPL
IRS
IEF
ITER
INDO
IIP
IND
IEFIN
IACI
IAHRC
INNP
IA
INTERPOL
IFIN
ISSUES
IZPREL
IRAJ
IF
ITPHUM
ITA
IP
IRPE
IDA
ISLAMISTS
ITF
INRO
IBET
IDP
IRC
KMDR
KPAO
KOMC
KNNP
KFLO
KDEM
KSUM
KIPR
KFLU
KE
KCRM
KJUS
KAWC
KZ
KSCA
KDRG
KCOR
KGHG
KPAL
KTIP
KMCA
KCRS
KPKO
KOLY
KRVC
KVPR
KG
KWBG
KTER
KS
KN
KSPR
KWMN
KV
KTFN
KFRD
KU
KSTC
KSTH
KISL
KGIC
KSEP
KFIN
KTEX
KTIA
KUNR
KCMR
KCIP
KMOC
KTDB
KBIO
KBCT
KMPI
KSAF
KACT
KFEM
KPRV
KPWR
KIRC
KCFE
KRIM
KHIV
KHLS
KVIR
KNNNP
KCEM
KLIG
KIRF
KNUP
KSAC
KNUC
KPGOV
KTDD
KIDE
KOMS
KLFU
KNNC
KMFO
KSEO
KJRE
KJUST
KMRS
KSRE
KGIT
KPIR
KPOA
KUWAIT
KIVP
KICC
KSCS
KPOL
KSEAO
KRCM
KSCI
KNAP
KGLB
KICA
KCUL
KPRM
KFSC
KQ
KPOP
KPFO
KPALAOIS
KREC
KBWG
KR
KTTB
KNAR
KCOM
KESS
KINR
KOCI
KWN
KCSY
KREL
KTBT
KFTN
KW
KRFD
KFLOA
KHDP
KNEP
KIND
KHUM
KSKN
KOMO
KDRL
KTFIN
KSOC
KPO
KGIV
KSTCPL
KSI
KPRP
KFPC
KNNB
KNDP
KICCPUR
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KDMR
KFCE
KIMMITT
KMCC
KMNP
KSEC
KOMCSG
KGCC
KRAD
KCRP
KAUST
KWAWC
KCHG
KRDP
KPAS
KTIAPARM
KPAOPREL
KWGB
KIRP
KMIG
KLAB
KSEI
KHSA
KNPP
KPAONZ
KWWW
KGHA
KY
KCRIM
KCRCM
KGCN
KPLS
KIIP
KPAOY
KTRD
KTAO
KJU
KBTS
KWAC
KFIU
KNNO
KPAI
KILS
KPA
KRCS
KWBGSY
KNPPIS
KNNPMNUC
KNPT
KERG
KLTN
KPREL
KTLA
KO
KAWK
KVRP
KAID
KX
KENV
KWCI
KNPR
KCFC
KNEI
KFTFN
KTFM
KCERS
KDEMAF
KMEPI
KEMS
KBTR
KEDU
KIRL
KNNR
KMPT
KPDD
KPIN
KDEV
KFRP
KTBD
KMSG
KWWMN
KWBC
KA
KOM
KWNM
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KRGY
KNNF
KICR
KIFR
KWMNCS
KPAK
KDDG
KCGC
KID
KNSD
KMPF
KWMM
MARR
MX
MASS
MOPS
MNUC
MCAP
MTCRE
MRCRE
MTRE
MASC
MY
MK
MG
MU
MILI
MO
MZ
MEPP
MCC
MEDIA
MOPPS
MI
MAS
MW
MP
MEPN
MV
MD
MR
MC
MCA
MT
MIL
MARITIME
MOPSGRPARM
MAAR
MOOPS
ML
MA
MN
MNUCPTEREZ
MTCR
MUNC
MPOS
MONUC
MGMT
MURRAY
MACP
MINUSTAH
MCCONNELL
MGT
MNUR
MF
MEPI
MOHAMMAD
MAR
MAPP
MNU
MFA
MTS
MLS
MEETINGS
MERCOSUR
MED
MNVC
MIK
MBM
MILITARY
MAPS
MARAD
MDC
MACEDONIA
MASSMNUC
MUCN
MQADHAFI
MPS
NZ
NATO
NI
NO
NU
NG
NL
NPT
NS
NA
NP
NASA
NSF
NEA
NANCY
NSG
NRR
NATIONAL
NMNUC
NC
NSC
NAS
NARC
NELSON
NATEU
NDP
NIH
NK
NIPP
NR
NERG
NSSP
NE
NTDB
NT
NEGROPONTE
NGO
NATOIRAQ
NAR
NZUS
NCCC
NH
NAFTA
NEW
NRG
NUIN
NOVO
NATOPREL
NV
NICHOLAS
NPA
NSFO
NW
NORAD
NPG
NOAA
OPRC
OPDC
OTRA
OECD
OVIP
OREP
ODC
OIIP
OAS
OSCE
OPIC
OMS
OFDP
OFDA
OEXC
OPCW
OIE
OSCI
OM
OPAD
ODPC
OIC
ODIP
OPPI
ORA
OCEA
OREG
OMIG
OFFICIALS
OSAC
OEXP
OPEC
OFPD
OAU
OCII
OIL
OVIPPRELUNGANU
OSHA
OPCD
OPCR
OF
OFDPQIS
OSIC
OHUM
OTR
OBSP
OGAC
OESC
OVP
ON
OES
OTAR
OCS
PREL
PGOV
PARM
PINR
PHUM
PM
PREF
PTER
PK
PINS
PBIO
PHSA
PE
PBTS
PA
PL
POL
PAK
POV
POLITICS
POLICY
PO
PRELTBIOBA
PKO
PIN
PNAT
PU
PGOVPREL
PALESTINIAN
PTERPGOV
PELOSI
PAS
PP
PTEL
PROP
PRELAF
PRHUM
PRE
PUNE
PIRF
PVOV
PROG
PERSONS
PROV
PKK
PRGOV
PH
PLAB
PDEM
PCI
PRL
PRM
PINSO
PERM
PETR
PPAO
PERL
PBS
PETERS
PRELBR
PCON
POLITICAL
PMIL
POLM
PKPA
PNUM
PLO
PTERM
PJUS
PARMP
PNIR
PHUMKPAL
PG
PREZ
PGIC
PAO
PROTECTION
PRELPK
PGOVENRG
PATTY
PSOC
PARTIES
PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ
PMIG
PAIGH
PARK
PETER
PHUS
PKPO
PGOVECON
POUS
PMAR
PWBG
PAR
PGOVGM
PHUH
PTE
PY
POLUN
PDOV
PGOVSOCI
PGOVPM
PRELEVU
PGOR
PBTSRU
PHUMA
PHUMR
PPD
PGV
PRAM
PARMS
PINL
PSI
PKPAL
PPA
PTERE
PGOF
PINO
PREO
PHAS
PAC
PRESL
PORG
PS
PGVO
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PINT
PRELP
PREFA
PNG
PTBS
PFOR
PGOVLO
PHUMBA
PREK
PHJM
POLINT
PGOVE
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PECON
PEACE
PROCESS
PLN
PEDRO
PF
PGPV
PCUL
PGGV
PSA
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PGIV
PHUMPREL
POGOV
PEL
PBT
PAMQ
PINF
PSEPC
POSTS
PAHO
PHUMPGOV
PGOC
PNR
RS
RP
RU
RW
RFE
RCMP
RIGHTSPOLMIL
REFORM
RO
ROW
ROBERT
REACTION
REPORT
REGION
RELATIONS
RAY
ROBERTG
RIGHTS
RM
RATIFICATION
RREL
RBI
RICE
ROOD
REL
RODHAM
RGY
RUEHZO
RELIGIOUS
RELFREE
RUEUN
RELAM
RSP
RF
REO
REGIONAL
RUPREL
RI
REMON
RPEL
RSO
SCUL
SENV
SOCI
SZ
SNAR
SO
SP
SU
SY
SI
SMIG
SYR
SA
SW
SF
SR
SYRIA
SNARM
START
SPECIALIST
SG
SNIG
SCI
SGWI
SE
SIPDIS
SANC
SELAB
SN
SETTLEMENTS
SCIENCE
SENVENV
SENS
SPCE
SPAS
SECURITY
SENC
SOCIETY
SOSI
SENVEAGREAIDTBIOECONSOCIXR
SEN
SPECI
ST
SL
SENVCASCEAIDID
SC
SECRETARY
STR
SNA
SOCIS
SADC
SEP
SK
SHUM
SYAI
SMIL
STEPHEN
SNRV
SKCA
SENSITIVE
SECI
SCUD
SCRM
SGNV
SECTOR
SAARC
SENVSXE
SWMN
STEINBERG
SOPN
SOCR
SCRS
SWE
SARS
SNARIZ
SUDAN
SENVQGR
SAN
SM
SFNV
SSA
SPCVIS
SOFA
SCULKPAOECONTU
SENVKGHG
SHI
SEVN
SH
SNARCS
SNARN
SIPRS
TBIO
TW
TRGY
TSPA
TU
TPHY
TI
TX
TH
TIP
TSPL
TNGD
TZ
TS
TC
TK
TURKEY
TERRORISM
TPSL
TINT
TRSY
TERFIN
TPP
TT
TECHNOLOGY
TE
TAGS
TRAFFICKING
TJ
TN
TO
TD
TP
TREATY
TR
TA
TIO
TECH
TF
TRAD
TNDG
TWI
TPSA
TWL
TAUSCHER
TRBY
TL
TV
THPY
TSPAM
TREL
TRT
TNAR
TFIN
TWCH
THOMMA
THOMAS
TERROR
TRY
TBID
UK
UNESCO
UNSC
UNGA
UN
US
UZ
USEU
UG
UP
UNAUS
UNMIK
USTR
UY
USUN
UNEP
UNDC
UV
UNPUOS
UNSCR
USAID
UNODC
UNRCR
UNHCR
UNDP
UNCRIME
UA
UNHRC
UNRWA
UNO
UNCND
UNCHR
USAU
UNICEF
USPS
UNOMIG
UNESCOSCULPRELPHUMKPALCUIRXFVEKV
UR
UNFICYP
UNCITRAL
UNAMA
UNVIE
USTDA
USNC
UNCSD
USCC
UNEF
UNGAPL
USSC
UNMIC
UNTAC
UNCLASSIFIED
USDA
UNCTAD
USGS
UNFPA
UNSE
USOAS
UE
UAE
UNCHS
UNDESCO
UNC
UNSCS
UKXG
UNGACG
UNHR
UNBRO
UNCHC
UNFCYP
UNIDROIT
WHTI
WIPO
WTRO
WHO
WTO
WMO
WFP
WEET
WS
WE
WA
WHA
WBG
WILLIAM
WI
WSIS
WCL
WEBZ
WZ
WW
WWBG
WMD
WWT
WMN
WWARD
WITH
WTRQ
WCO
WEU
WB
WBEG
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 05FRANKFURT2410, New Legal Payments Framework: Monetary Integration
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.
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. #05FRANKFURT2410.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
05FRANKFURT2410 | 2005-03-24 11:52 | 2011-08-24 01:00 | UNCLASSIFIED | Consulate Frankfurt |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 07 FRANKFURT 002410
SIPDIS
SENSATIVE
STATE FOR EUR PDAS RIES, EB, EUR/AGS, AND EUR/ERA
STATE PASS FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD
STATE PASS NSC
TREASURY FOR DAS LEE
TREASURY ALSO FOR ICN COX, HULL
PARIS ALSO FOR OECD
TREASURY FOR OCC RUTLEDGE, MCMAHON
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON EFIN EUN
SUBJECT: New Legal Payments Framework: Monetary Integration
at Retail Level
T-IA-F-05-016
This cable is sensitive but unclassified. Not/not for
Internet distribution.
¶1. (SBU) Summary: The European Commission (EC) intends to
propose a directive for payments services in the internal
market by June or September. A legally consistent framework
for the EU payments market, providing for transparency of
payment services contracts, competition and consumer
protection, is an essential building block for a Single
European Payments Area (SEPA) in which banks handle all euro
area payments as "domestic," essentially superceding purely
national payments systems. The EC's goal is for citizens to
be able to make payments around the euro area as simply and
as easily as they make payments in their home national
markets today, if not more so. This is monetary union
integration at the retail level, the next big push that
could help drive up efficiencies and competition to benefit
EU consumers and industry.
¶2. (SBU) Realizing the vision is easier said than done.
The EC has been laboring over a draft directive for several
years and still faces considerable difficulties. The
European banking industry, after being legislatively forced
in 2001 to charge equally for domestic and cross-border
payments, created the European Payments Council (EPC) to
"get in front of the issue." The EPC has drawn up a roadmap
on how banks would voluntarily cooperate to develop
instruments, standards and infrastructure so national
payments systems could migrate into a European one, creating
a SEPA by 2010. Truth be told, only a small portion of the
56 billion or so annual payment transactions are cross-
border. In other words, the business case for SEPA is not
compelling for individual firms. The noble SEPA project has
been slipping, despite the prodding of the European Central
Bank (ECB).
¶3. (SBU) In a surprise move, Commissioner McCreevy has
threatened to include industry standards and deadlines for
the SEPA into the new legal framework directive. Member
states will meet in mid-April to consider the idea. The EPC
has responded with a resolution underlying its commitment,
but the Commission is looking for firm assurances. Banks
are content with the current profitable national payments
systems, so they have little commercial incentive to change.
EU policy officials, on the other hand, may want to
accelerate the creation of a SEPA through legislation,
hoping to reap its potential benefits sooner rather than
later. End Summary
The Vision
----------
¶4. (SBU) Walk into a bank in Austria, make a transfer from
your home bank in Germany to pay a contractor in Spain for
work on your Costa del Sol villa. Or to pay for a car
directly from the manufacturer in France. Done as quickly,
easily and as inexpensively as you would make such a
transfer for repairing your chalet in Kitzbeul or buying a
car from a Vienna dealership. That is the vision for the
euro area. Even though euros are legal tender throughout
the euro area, cash is an expensive and inconvenient method
of payment. A euro area payments system would increase
competition in goods and services, increasing inefficiencies
to benefit consumers and industry alike.
¶5. (SBU) To realize this vision requires legal certainty
and standardization of forms and processes. Legal certainty
means that the users (customers) and providers of payment
services (banks, card companies, money remitters) operate
within the same legal framework of rights, obligations and
transparency. Standardization means that banks use common
instruments, standards and infrastructure for the execution
of transfers among themselves on an inter-bank basis. The
EC's new legal framework for payment services would cover
the first part; an initiative by the EPC would cover the
latter, creating the SEPA.
Legal Framework for Payment Services
------------------------------------
¶6. (SBU) The EC launched a consultation in December 2003
for a new legal framework directive. Its overall objective
is to provide a consistent legal framework for a European
payments market by providing a harmonized set of rules for
all payment services. This would increase legal certainty
and reduce compliance costs, allowing for economies of scale
and cost and price reductions. The EC also wants to ensure
a level playing field and enhance competition between
payment service providers. Banks tend to be the larger
players, but payments via direct debit cards, payment cards,
money transmitters, and e-payments or m-payments are other
important forms of payments. Allowing payment institutions
authorized in one member state to be "passported" to operate
throughout the EU would enhance competition, in the
Commission's view. The EC also wants to have a consistent
level of consumer protection and improved transparency.
¶7. (SBU) The EC's working draft contains general rules for
payment service providers, requirements for being authorized
as a payment institution, rules on payment services
(transparency of conditions, provision and use of payment
services, authorization of a payment service transaction,
the execution of a payment transaction, fraud prevention,
out-of court redress), and harmonization and mutual
recognition among EU member states. The directive would
establish a Payments Committee, composed of member state
authorities competent for payment systems, to help ensure
national implementation measures are harmonized and enter
into force at the same time. The EC's work schedule
indicates the proposal should be issued in June.
¶8. (SBU) Commentators generally share the EC's overall
objective. The EC, however, has been having a difficult
time committing to paper the legal obligations that would
make it a reality - being consistent with the reality of how
markets function and specific payments transactions take
place. The European Payments Council, an organization of
European banking associations, the Payments System
Government Expert Group, and the Payment System Market
Expert Group have provided the EC comments on its drafts.
The fifth modified working draft was issued at the end of
2004 and still attracted much criticism. Two general
criticisms have been that the drafts have changed
substantially from one version to the next and have not
reflected many of the views offered by industry.
Issues
------
¶9. (SBU) As the UK and Austria Presidencies will have the
lead on directing the proposed payments services directive
through the Council process, Finance Ministries and central
bankers in those countries are tracking the key issues that
have arisen in the drafting process. The following are some
issues largely based on conversations with these experts and
well as comments from some industry experts.
¶10. (SBU) Third Country Leg: The scope of the draft
directive would apply to payment services where either the
payer's payment service provider or the payee's payment
service provider is located in the EU, unless stated
otherwise. A payment service provider is a natural or legal
person whose regular business includes the provision of
payment services to payment service users. This means that
if the customer making the payment in Greece, using a Greek
bank for a payment to a person in the US, the payment
service in the US would be subject to the directive. Or if a
US person were to use its US bank to make a transfer to the
Greek person, that payment service would also be covered.
¶11. (SBU) While the draft would restrict the application of
obligations on fees and execution time to transactions
within the EU, other obligations, such as on the
availability of funds and liability for the execution of a
payments transaction, could be read to apply to entities in
third countries. Apart from the extraterritoriality issue,
commentators have pointed out that EU payments providers
should not be held liable for transactions outside the EU
where such providers are subject to different rules. The
EC's view is that the EU-based payment service provider's
experience in dealing with entities in third countries
should allow it to incorporate risks dealing with such
entities in the provision and pricing of its services. The
pricing of such risk is not a market price and would drive
up costs and likely decrease service, in the view of some
market experts.
¶12. (SBU) Second Party Transactions: Even without the third
country leg, there is a question of the extent to which a
payment service provider can be held accountable for an
entire transaction. German bankers' have pointed out that a
payment service provider should be obliged by its contract
for the use of its services (i.e. a customer directing it to
make a payment a vendor with an account in another bank),
but it cannot control or be held liable for the non-
performance of another service provider (i.e. whether the
vendor's bank will transfer the funds to the vendor's
account). One US bank made a similar observation, noting
that under the US Uniform Commercial Code, the originator's
bank is not liable where there has been defective execution
on the part of some intermediary banks or beneficiary banks.
¶13. (SBU) Competition: The directive would allow for the
authorization of payment institutions, like Western Union
and other providers of money remittances. Some member
states, like Germany, require money remitters to be
associated with a bank. UK officials take the view that
such point-to-point remittances that do not extend credit
hold very low risks and authorizes them as separate
institutions. ECB officials have expressed concern about
the prudential aspects of allowing payment institutions to
operate on a "lighter regime, " while banks are concerned
that they will be at a competitive disadvantage and deprived
of attracting customers to their local offices where they
advertise and sell other consumer services. The EC is keen
on opening up competition in this area to help drive down
consumer costs.
¶14. (SBU) Liability: Several issues have arisen on
liability. The draft directive would limit the loss to the
payment service user resulting from the lost, stolen or
misappropriate payment verification instrument to euro 150.
Some commentators have accepted this level, others question
why consumers should bear any loss, while others suggest
that the consumer should bear more financial liability.
¶15. (SBU) A more problematic issue is that the recent
working draft abolished the upper limit of euro 50,000 to
which the provisions of the directive would apply, meaning
it would apply to all transactions. This, coupled with the
liability provisions on disputed transactions or
unauthorized transactions would open payment service
providers to potentially large risks, including increasing
the risks of fraud committed by their clients, which would
lead to reducing services. This would be particularly true
in third country transactions mentioned above where the EU
service provider would have a difficult time redressing
potential abuses.
¶16. (SBU) Calling Back Transfers: The draft directive
would accord the payer the right to refund a payment
transaction which already has been executed under certain
conditions, e.g. his authorization did not include the exact
amount of the payment transaction at the time of its
authorization or the amount of the executed transaction is
contrary to the payer's "legitimate expectations," e.g. due
to changes in exchange rate. The request for a refund needs
to be made within six weeks of the payer being informed of
the transaction and, in any case, before three months after
the execution of the transaction. German bank commentators
note that such a recall could be applicable to card
transactions but not bank transfers. A major US card
payment company, however, points out that some charges are
not knowable in advance, such as car rentals that exceed the
initial contract dates, a service offered to the consumer.
¶17. (SBU) Application to Card Transactions: The draft
seeks to have uniformity for all payment services, but
German bankers and a US card payment company point out that
many of its provisions, including the very definition of a
"payment transaction" (the "deposit, withdrawal, or transfer
of funds from a payer to the benefit of a payee), applies to
the payment transaction from the payer to the payee.
However, the scope of the obligations would apply to payment
services initiated by the payee at the authorization of the
payee, e.g. card transactions (credit card services would
not be covered by the directive). One solution would be to
re-craft provisions for different types of payment services;
another solution would be not to include card transactions
in the directive.
¶18. (SBU) Waiver for Micro Payments: The working draft
would permit member states to waive requirements for
authorization and supervision of payments institutions where
such institutions (a) have less than six million
transactions a year and (b) hold a vital role in micro
financial intermediation, such as for underprivileged social
groups whose recourse to other payment services is limited;
and the waiver is in the public interest for law and order
and the effective implementation of money laundering rules.
This waiver would be particularly useful for the UK and
other member states that have large minority social groups
that rely on informal money remittance systems.
¶19. (SBU) Corporate Carve Out: The draft directive would
allow payment service providers and corporate users to agree
to different rules, so called service level agreements. As a
UK expert pointed out, the directive would make little sense
being applied between a multinational corporation and a
global investment bank. Others suggest that small and medium-
sized enterprises also have the leverage to strike deals
with payment providers and the legal resources to make it
stick, so they too should have the option not to apply the
rules.
¶20. (SBU) Cash: The most recent draft unexpectedly had an
expanded scope that included cash deposits and withdrawals.
Industry experts observe that they have not had time to work
through the implications of such a major change. Potential
effects include delaying the deposits of cash, changing the
way providers handle cash deposits (including out of hours
and automated arrangements), and requiring supermarkets that
provide "cash back" to be authorized as a payment
institution.
SEPA: Roadmap and Reality
-------------------------
¶21. (SBU) Common standards for payment services would serve
as the basis for inter-bank payments systems. In June 2002
the European Payments Council (EPC) was established to help
put into place a Single European Payments Area (SEPA) by
June 2010. Working backwards implies that by January 2008
citizens and commercial enterprises should be able to use
pan-European instruments, services and standards for
national payments. Initially this would mean that these pan-
European activities would be in parallel with national ones.
This would allow customers to make national and cross-border
payments from one account. National instruments, services
and standards would be gradually phased out, replaced by pan-
European ones. National infrastructures would be abolished
or transformed to a pan-European infrastructure.
¶22. (SBU) In December 2004 the ECB issued its third
progress report towards a single European payments area in
which it lamented that support for the "SEPA project and its
objective had weakened." The ECB presented its expectations
for the development of the necessary payments instruments,
standards and infrastructure. It concluded that if banks
were not able to get their acts together on a voluntary
basis, then the ECB might adopt regulation. An Austrian
central bank expert confirmed that, in his assessment, the
project had slipped by two years.
¶23. (SBU) With respect to instruments, in November 2002 the
EPC adopted the Credeuro Convention for cross-border
straight through processing (STP). STP instructions include
International Bank Account Number (IBAN), the beneficiary
customer, and Bank Identifier Code (BIC) of the
beneficiary's banks. Crederuo covers credit transfers of up
to 12,500 euros, and guarantees a bank customer charges at
the level of a domestic transfer and a maximum execution
time of three days. In April 2003 the EPC adopted the Inter-
bank Convention on Payments (ICP) to support Credeuro and
harmonize inter-bank charging practices. Four countries
(Germany, France, the Netherlands and Sweden) have
transposed the ICP into national banking industry
agreements. The ECB would like to see Credeuro and the
supporting inter-bank charging convention become the
compulsory minimum standard for all retail cross-border
credit transfers by January 2006.
¶24. (SBU) To compete with national systems, by January 2008
the ECB wants to have same day value payments at the euro
area level (called "Prieuro") and Credeuro as options for
national credit transfers. Also by the same date the ECB
wants to have pan-European direct debit (PEDD) as an
optional standard available for all euro area customers'
national direct debits. This would help ensure that PEDD
would be used on a euro-wide basis by 2010.
¶25. (SBU) Uniform standards are essential to realize smooth
straight through processing for payment transactions. For
credit transfers the ECB suggests that the EPC implement a
common account identifier (IBAN) for both national and cross-
border credit transfers and direct debits in SEPA. The ECB
also encouraged the EPC to define and implement standards
for straight through processing, including a unique standard
for electronic payment initiation and automated
reconciliation.
¶26. (SBU) On infrastructure the EPC adopted a model for the
European retail infrastructure, the pan-European automated
clearing house (PEACH). The European Banking Association
Clearing Company established the first and, to date, the
only PEACH. The PEACH only handles transactions up to
12,500 euros, provides for 3-day execution time, and is
limited to credit transfers. This is an expensive, narrower
and slower system compared to national systems that realize
lower costs through economies of scale, execute transactions
in one day, and cover direct debits. The ECB wants national
strategies for the migration of national infrastructure
systems to handle pan-European transfers. This could entail
transforming efficient national systems into PEACH compliant
systems or setting up completely new infrastructure.
Progress on SEPA: Public Policy Choices
---------------------------------------
¶27. (SBU) The ECB's disappointment with the speed of banks'
voluntarily working toward SEPA is understandable. The ECB
holds the vision of an integrated euro market for retail
payments as an important step for consumers and industry to
reap more benefits of monetary union. Bankers' lack of drive
is also understandable, since the SEPA requires a commitment
of time and resources whose commercial pay-off is uncertain
as long as efficient national payment systems exist. Cross
border payments account for less than 5% of the 56 billion
annual payment transactions. There are little economies of
scale to be realized from such business.
¶28. (SBU) From a public policy perspective, the
externalities of a SEPA appear to be large, promoting
competition in goods and services on the European level to
the benefit of consumers and industry. Individual banks may
not find the business case for setting up cross-border
payments systems, but together they could all benefit by
have one payment system for the euro area rather than the
present 25.
¶29. (SBU) According to UK officials these considerations
motivated Commissioner McCreevy to get involved. In a March
10 speech McCreevy stated that banks need a "clear political
signal," opining that he was convinced of "huge benefits" in
making the investment for a SEPA, delivering "significant
savings for banks, industry and consumers." Musing that "we
cannot sit on our hands forever," McCreevy declared, "We
will do what is needed to ensure that industry delivers a
single payments area. If necessary, the Commission will
make some agreed industry standards mandatory and include
the roadmap for the SEPA in our draft legal text." One way
that the Commission could spur faster action, in the view of
UK experts, would be to require transactions be executed
within one day - essentially the norm for domestic
transactions.
¶30. (SBU) The Commission will meet with member state
experts on April 12 to discuss how to proceed. If there is
agreement to include SEPA issues in the proposed directive,
the Commission is likely to delay launching the directive
until September and would open up any new working draft to
another round of public consultation. Meanwhile, the EPC
has adopted a resolution that underscores its resolve to
create the SEPA and has explained its work with banks on
plans to migrate national systems to euro area systems.
Whether this and other promises are enough to dissuade
Commissioner McCreevy from proceeding with legislation on
SEPA is a matter of on-going discussion.
Observations
----------------
¶31. (SBU) SEPA is an important goal for the European
Monetary Union and the EU internal market. Having a common
payments framework is an essential block of the SEPA.
However, including all forms of payments beyond just the
banking payments that would be processed in SEPA, has
complicated the EC's task. With such an ambitious
undertaking, incorporating expert comments is important to
get the draft legislation close to right the first time.
After a few false starts, such as with the Prospectus
Directive which needed to be totally re-written, the
Commission has used informal consultation to good effect.
That practice should continue in the new legal framework
directive on payment services.
¶32. (SBU) As much as industry may resent being forced to
act in an area it had promised action, experience suggests
that such prodding may be necessary. In the run up to the
introduction of the cash euro, survey after survey revealed
how banks had charged significantly more for cross-border
transfers than domestic ones. Time after time, banks
promised to take action at the urging of the ECB, but failed
to do so. Frustrated, on the eve of the introduction of the
euro, Finance Ministers and the Parliament adopted a
regulation requiring equal charges on cross-border transfers
to those on domestic transfers. Despite cries of anguish,
banks have complied. The EPC was created, in part, so banks
wouldn't be forced to action again, allowing them to get
ahead of the issue and help shape the debate. The EPC has
gotten a wake up call.
¶33. (SBU) Keeping true to its own "impact assessment"
approach to new regulations, the Commission should make a
credible case for the externalities of proceeding with
legislation for an SEPA. No doubt it could do so, but
reports from those who have seen the impact assessment are
not convinced. Avoiding being pre-empted by the ECB may
also motivate the Commission to adopt legislation. The
ECB's threat of adopting regulations to spur the development
of a SEPA is a direct challenge to the Commission's right of
initiative for legislation. The ECB already crossed into
the Commission's territory by elaborating standards on
clearing and settlement. Proposing legislation would allow
the Commission to control the issue and give a political
signal that banks should get their act together.
¶34. (SBU) The mismatch between SEPA, applying to the euro
area, and the draft proposed directive, applying to the EU,
could raise the question whether the new framework is
important for those countries that have not (or may not)
adopt the euro in the foreseeable future. That is, why
burden the market with standards on payment services if the
market will not benefit from the efficiencies of the SEPA?
The issue could be a real one as the UK will have the EU
Presidency and be charged with steering the issue through
the Council. UK officials, however, believe they have more
to gain if they advance issues that are in the interest of
the many even if they themselves might have other views.
The UK will likely push the work program giving the
Austrians a good basis to continue the Council's work next
year.
¶35. (U) This message has been coordinated with US Embassies
Berlin, London, and Vienna and USEU.
¶36. (U) POC: James Wallar, Treasury Representative, e-mail
wallarjg2@state.gov; tel. 49-(69)-7535-2431, fax 49-(69)-
7535-2238
Pasi