Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06MINSK691
2006-06-30 13:11:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Minsk
Cable title:  

GOB APPEALS TO EU TO STOP "SPIRAL OF PRESSURE"

Tags:  ELAB PREL PGOV ECON EINV WTRO USTR BO 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHSK #0691/01 1811311
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 301311Z JUN 06 ZDK
FM AMEMBASSY MINSK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4637
INFO RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KIEV 3353
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 3507
RUEHRA/AMEMBASSY RIGA 1720
RUEHVL/AMEMBASSY VILNIUS 3730
RUEHWR/AMEMBASSY WARSAW 3372
RUEHC/DEPT OF LABOR WASHDC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0322
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 1203
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RUFOADA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK
C O N F I D E N T I A L MINSK 000691 

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR DRL/IL BOB HAGEN, DRL, EUR/UMB
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/30/2016
TAGS: ELAB PREL PGOV ECON EINV WTRO USTR BO
SUBJECT: GOB APPEALS TO EU TO STOP "SPIRAL OF PRESSURE"


Classified By: AMBASSADOR GEORGE KROL FOR REASONS 1.4 (B,D)

C O N F I D E N T I A L MINSK 000691

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR DRL/IL BOB HAGEN, DRL, EUR/UMB
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/30/2016
TAGS: ELAB PREL PGOV ECON EINV WTRO USTR BO
SUBJECT: GOB APPEALS TO EU TO STOP "SPIRAL OF PRESSURE"


Classified By: AMBASSADOR GEORGE KROL FOR REASONS 1.4 (B,D)


1. (C) SUMMARY: The Lithuanian Ambassador to Belarus gave
U.S. Ambassador copies of three letters from Belarusian
Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Martynov to: Javier
Solana, High Representative for the Common Foreign and
Security Policy, Secretary General of the Council of the
European Union; Peter Mandelson, Member of the European
Commission; and Antanas Valionis, Acting Foreign Minister of
Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania. In all three
letters, Martynov expresses the GOB's concerns regarding a
possible decision by the European Commission to withdraw
trade preferences granted to Belarus under the EU's
Generalized Tariff Preferences (GSP) regulations. Martynov
appeals to all three for their intercession to permit Belarus
more time to comply with the standards of the 1998 ILO
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
(See paragraphs 6 - 8 for the full text of the letters.) END
SUMMARY.


2. (C) In the Belarusian Foreign Minister's letter to EU
High Representative Javier Solana, Martynov describes the
possible withdrawal of Belarus' GSP trade preferences as a
"new worrisome circumstance" in EU-Belarusian relations.
Martynov explains that the Belarusian people would perceive
GSP withdrawal as an EU effort to punish them for what
Martynov calls their "sovereign choice" during the March 19
elections.


3. (C) Martynov asks Solana to consider a new GOB-proposed
law reforming trade unions and the decision of the ILO Geneva
Conference to extend Belarus' time to implement ILO
recommendations. Martynov appeals to Solana to stop what
Martynov calls the "spiral of pressure" on Belarus and to
"normalize" EU-Belarusian relations. Martynov's letter to
European Commission Member Peter Mandelson focuses on the

GOB's concerns regarding the European Commission's decision
on August 17, 2005, to submit to the European Council a
proposal for temporary withdrawal of trade preferences under
Regulation (EC) No. 2501/2001 unless Belarus committed to
conforming to the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work. Martynov warns that an EU
withdrawal of Belarus' GSP status would "trigger a chain of
consequences beyond EU-Belarus trade and economic
cooperation." He further predicts that the Belarusian
people, particularly socially protected groups, would suffer
most from the consequences and would perceiv
e EU withdrawal of trade preferences so soon after March's
presidential elections as politically motivated. Martynov
expresses his hope that the Commission "will be guided by the
same constructive spirit" as the ILO Geneva Conference.


4. (C) In his letter to Lithuania's Acting Foreign Minister
Antanas Valionis, Martynov reiterates more concisely the
logic of his appeals to Solana and Mandelson. Martynov
argues that GSP withdrawal would not only disrupt the
EU-Belarus dialogue on trade union issues but would also
destroy what Martynov calls the GOB's new "painstaking"
reforms of trade-union laws.


5. (C) Meanwhile, the Slovak DCM explained to the U.S. DCM
that when the MFA approached them on the same subject, she
suggested to the Belarusians that they send a delegation to
Slovakia to see how Slovak trade unions operate. To her
surprise, the MFA seemed agreeable and the Slovaks are now
following up on this development. On the other hand, Head of
the European Desk at the MFA Valeri Romashko told the British
Ambassador to Belarus, "Who needs trade unions? The
government will take care of workers' needs."


6. (C) COMMENT: EU diplomats in Minsk have told us that
despite the rhetoric, member states remain divided on
carrying out EU threats to withdraw GSP trade preferences for
Belarus. On June 29 the Latvian and Lithuanian DCMs
confirmed for Pol/Econ Chief that their governments, along
with that of Poland, actively oppose the measure for
political and economic reasons. The DCMs doubted the other
EU countries would make a decision in favor of trade
preferences withdrawal when the member states take up the
issue again in September. END COMMENT


7. (C) Begin Text of FM Martynov's Letter to Solana.

His Excellency
Mr. Javier Solana
High Representative for
the Common Foreign and Security Policy,
Secretary General of the Council of

SIPDIS
the European Union
Brussels

Minsk, 13 June 2006

Your Excellency,

I am writing to you in the light of a possible new worrisome
circumstance in the relations between the European Union and
the Republic of Belarus. After the EU adopted, in the wake
of the recent presidential election, measures limiting the
right of a number of Belarusian citizens to the freedom of
travel and infringing upon their other rights, now we are
aware of appeals to withdraw trade preferences from the
Republic of Belarus under the scheme of the EU generalized
tariff preferences (GSP).

Let me tackle some of the most important aspects of this
problem.

Above all, whichever formal arguments are presented, a
withdrawal of trade preferences from Belarus will be
inevitably perceived not only by the politically motivated
and unfair step of the European Union, as an attempt to
punish the Belarusian people for its sovereign choice made in
the course of the presidential election on 19 March 2006.

A decision to deprive Belarus of the GSP status granted to
quite a wide range of countries will demonstrate beyond doubt
a politicized targeting of Belarus by the EU making its
people a victim. It will definitely be highly detrimental to
the image of the EU in the eyes and minds of the ordinary
people of Belarus. The interests of the European business
and consumers will also be affected by the ensuing increase
of the custom tariffs on a number of goods in demand on the
European market (in particular, oil refinement products).

Improvement of legal mechanisms and practices in the trade
unions sphere as well as strengthening a genuine social
partnership are the mainstream directions of the State policy
in the Republic of Belarus. For that purpose the Government
is promulgating a new law on trade unions.

The pace of this process is being determined by the
interested parties - the Government, employers' associations
and trade unions - through dialogue and search for mutually
acceptable solutions of existing problems. To sanction
Belarus for the resulting pace of this painstaking process is
hardly helpful to anyone involved.

I am sure our western partners are well aware that Belarus is
consistently open to a dialogue on the trade unions matters.
We have welcomed and cooperated with both the ILO Commission
of Enquiry and the European Commission experts. We continue
to stand ready for further cooperation.

It should also be clearly understood that granting the
Belarusian side time necessary to implement the
recommendations of the ILO Commission of Enquiry will allow
to continue the on-going dialogue of the international bodies
with the Republic of Belarus on the matter, as well as join
efforts within Belarus aimed at removing the still existing
disagreements in this area. To the contrary, a negative EU
decision will undoubtedly adversely affect this sensitive
process.

A negative decision of the EU will thus amount not only to a
disruption of the EU-Belarus dialogue on trade union issues,
but also a de facto destruction of the painstaking effort in
Belarus to reform trade union related field via a respective
new law.

I would like to particularly emphasize that, considering the
geographical composition of the country's economy, withdrawal
of the trade preferences will inflict the most severe damage
to the socio-economic revival of the Belarusian substantially
the interests of ordinary people living and working there.

In its Decision of 17 August 2005 (2006/616/EC) the European
Commission announced its intention to submit to the EU
Council a proposal for temporary withdrawal of the above
trade preferences, unless before the end of a six-month
monitoring period Belarus made a commitment to take measures
necessary to conform within eight months with the principles
referred to in the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work, as expressed in the
recommendations of the ILO Commission of Enquiry report of
July 2004.

The Government of the Republic of Belarus has clearly
undertaken the above commitment as expressed in my letter of
30 March 2006 addressed to the Member of the European
Commission, Mr. P. Mandelson.

I am sure that the clear position of the Government of
Belarus gives the European Commission every ground to
recommend to retain the trade preferences granted to the
Republic of Belarus under the EU GSP scheme and thus to
provide time and an important incentive to implement the
recommendation of the ILO Commission of Enquiry. Such a
decision of the European Commission will undoubtedly conform
to the mutual interests of Belarus and the EU as well as the
expectations of trade unions to serve social and economic
needs of the people of our country.

I would like to take this opportunity to draw your attention
to the fact of the recent decision of the International
Labour Conference in Geneva to provide the Government of
Belarus with additional time to implement the ILO
Commission's recommendations.

I hope the European Union will be guided by the same
constructive spirit.

The common sense suggests that the time has come to stop the
spiral of pressure. In my earlier messages to you I
expressed the readiness of the Belarusian side to normalize
relations between Belarus and the EU. In this respect I
think it is time to revert to the idea to arrange a high
level meeting to discuss the future of this relationship.
The details of such a meeting could be settled through the
diplomatic channels.

Yours sincerely,

/S/

Sergei Martynov

End Text.


8. (C) Begin Text of FM Martynov's Letter to Mandelson.

His Excellency
Mr. Peter Mandelson
Member of the European Commission
Brussels

Minsk, 13 June 2006

Your Excellency,

The Republic of Belarus attaches serious importance to the
forthcoming recommendation of the European Commission on the
status of Belarus on the beneficiary country list of the
trade preferences granted under Regulation (EC) No 2501/2001.

In its Decision of 17 August 2005 (2005/616/EC) the European
Commission announced its intention to submit to the EU
Council a proposal for temporary withdrawal of the above
trade preferences, unless before the end of a six-month
monitoring period Belarus made a commitment to take measure
necessary to conform within eight months with the principles
referred to in the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work, as expressed in the
recommendations of the ILO Commission of Enquiry report of
July 2004.

The Government of the Republic of Belarus has clearly
undertaken the above commitment as expressed in my letter of
30 March 2006 addressed to you, Mr. Commissioner.

In this respect we consider that it will be appropriate,
while drafting the final recommendation on the issue for the
forthcoming meeting of the EU GSP Committee, to take into
full consideration the appeal of the Belarusian side of March
30, 2006.

I would like to share with you some thoughts and
consideration on the matter.

A negative decision on Belarus' status under GSP might
trigger a chain of consequences beyond EU-Belarus trade and
economic cooperation. In particular, such a decision will
lead above all to substantial decrease in volumes of the
Belarusian trade with the EU member-states and, accordingly,
will produce a dramatic impact on the ordinary people of the
Republic of Belarus. First of all, its socially unprotected
groups will be most affected. It is obvious that such a
development will be in direct contradiction with the European
Neighbourhood Policy and contrary to support of the needs of
the Belarusian people, as declared by the European Union.

I would like to specially emphasize that, considering the
geographical composition of the country's economy, withdrawal
of the trade preferences will inflict a most severe damage to
the socio-economic revival of the Belarusian territories
affected by the Chernobyl disaster. It will harm directly
and substantially the interests of ordinary people living and
working there.

Needless to say, withdrawal of Belarus from the list of the
beneficiary countries of the EU GSP will create an extremely
negative image of the European Union in the Belarusian
society. The interests of the European business and
consumers will also be affected by the ensuing increase of
the custom tariffs on a number of goods in demand on the
European market (in particular, oil refinement products).

It should also be clearly understood that granting the
Belarusian side time to take measures necessary to implement
the recommendations of the ILO Commission of Enquiry will
allow to continue the on-going dialogue of the international
bodies with the Republic of Belarus on trade unions matters,
as well as joint efforts aimed at removing the still existing
disagreements in this area. To the contrary, and negative EU
decision will undoubtedly adversely affect this sensitive
process.

A negative decision of the European Commission will thus
amount not only to a disruption of the EU-Belarus dialogue on
trade union issues, but also a de facto destruction of the
painstaking effort in Belarus to reform trade union related
field via a respective new law.

A decision to exclude Belarus from the EUG SP Taken in the
wake of the presidential election in Belarus in March 2006
will make abundantly evident that the EU was guided by
precisely political motives.

The intentions to exert economic pressure on Belarus will
also run contrary to the Budapest Memorandum on Security
Assurances in Connection with the Republic of Belarus'
Accession to the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 5 December 1994,
to which one of the EU key members is a party.

I am sure that a clear position of the Government of the
Republic of Belarus, as expressed in my letter of 30 March
2006, the willingness of the Belarusian side to
constructively cooperate with the European Commission and the
ILO give the European Commission every ground to recommend to
retain the trade preferences granted to the Republic of
Belarus under the EU GSP scheme and thus to provide time and
an important incentive to implement the recommendation of the
ILO Commission of Enquiry. Such a decision of the European
Commission will undoubtedly conform to the mutual interests
of Belarus and the EU as well as the expectations of trade
unions to serve social and economic needs of the people of
our country.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the international Labour
Conference in session these days in Geneva has taken a
decision to provide the Government of Belarus with additional
time to implement the ILO Commission's recommendations.

I hope the European Commission will be guided by the same
constructive spirit.

I also kindly ask you, Mr. Commissioner, to convey this
letter to all Members of the European Commission.

Yours sincerely,

/S/

Sergei Martynov

End Text.


9. (C) Begin Text of FM Martynov's Letter to Valionis.

His Excellency
Mr. Antanas Valionis
Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Lithuania
Vilnius

Minsk 13, June 2006

Your Excellency,

As you are probably aware, the EU GSP Committee at its
forthcoming meeting is to decide on a recommendation of the
European Commission on the status of Belarus on the
beneficiary country list of the trade preferences granted to
our country by the EU under Regulation (EC) No 2501/2001.

The Belarusian side committed itself to undertake all
possible steps to carry out the recommendations of the ILO
Commission of Enquiry in accordance with the Commission
Decision of 17 August 2005. The respective commitment has
been expressed in my letter of 30 March 2006 addressed to the
Member of the European Commission, Mr. P. Mandelson. The
Belarusian side declared its readiness for further
constructive cooperation with the European Commission and the
ILO.

Belarus is naturally interested in the EU GSP Committee
decision to provide it with a possibility to fulfill the ILO
Commission of Enquiry recommendations in line with the
obligation undertaken on 30 March 2006. Obviously, such a
decision of the European Commission will provide the ground
to continue cooperation between Belarus and international
bodies on the issue of implementation of respective ILO
conventions as well as conform to the mutual interests of
Belarus and the EU and the expectation of trade unions to
serve social and economic needs of the people of our country.

A negative decision of the EU will thus amount not only to a
disruption of the EU-Belarus dialogue on trade union issues,
but also a de facto destruction of the painstaking effort in
Belarus to reform trade union related field via a respective
new law.

A decision to exclude Belarus from the EU GSP taken in the
wake of the presidential election in Belarus in March 2006
will make abundantly evident that the EU was guided by
precisely political motives.

I would like to take this opportunity to draw your attention
to the fact of the recent decision of the International
Labour Conference in Geneva to provide the Government of
Belarus with additional time to implement the ILO
Commission's recommendations.

I hope the European Union will be guided by the same
constructive spirit.
In this respect I have sent letters to Mr. P. Mandelson and
the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security
Policy, Secretary General of the Council of the European
Union Mr. Javier Solana, in which I stated the approach of
the Belarusian side on the matter. The copies of the letter
are attached.

I count on an objective attitude and support of your country,
when the above-mentioned issue is considered by the EU GSP
Committee.

Yours sincerely,

/S/

Sergei Martynov

End Text.
Krol