GUINEAN FOREIGN MINISTER UNDERESTIMATES

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 CONAKRY 000122

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/01/2017
TAGS: PGOV PHUM GV
SUBJECT: GUINEAN FOREIGN MINISTER UNDERESTIMATES
INTERNATIONAL CONCERN ABOUT HUMAN-RIGHTS VIOLATIONS DURING
RECENT GENERAL STRIKE

REF: CONAKRY 120

Classified By: Ambassador Jackson McDonald. Reasons. 1.4 (b) and (d)


1. (C) On February 1, Foreign Minister Mamady Conde and the
Ambassador met over lunch at the latter's residence. The
discussion focused mainly on Guinean domestic politics in the
wake of the recent general strike. Young compared to most
members of President Lansana Conte's government and
entourage, Foreign Minister Conde nonetheless strikes us as
an old-thinker, despite his relative openness to the outside
world and concern about Guinea's image abroad.


2. (C) Foreign Minister Conde, whose name has been mentioned
over recent months as a prime-ministerial candidate,
confirmed that it had been difficult to get President Conte
to sign yesterday's decree (reftel) creating the post of
prime minister, with delegated powers as head of government.
He said that senior religious leaders had played an
instrumental role in extracting the signature. The Foreign
Minister agreed that it remains to be seen how much power
President Conte will actually delegate to his future prime
minister. He said Conte is set in his ways, runs Guinea like
a traditional village chief, and will insist on continued
access to government funds, which he considers to be his own.


3. (C) Foreign Minister Conde said that President Conte
remains loyal to the military and vice versa. The Foreign
Minister asserted that President Conte would never accept a
civilian successor. If he ever retires from office for
health reasons, he will call on a general to replace him
(i.e., he will not adhere to the constitutional provisions on
presidential succession).


4. (C) Foreign Minister Conde claimed that the government
had mismanaged the recent general strike. At the outset, he
said, the government should have rejected the labor unions'
political demands since they exceeded the unions' legitimate
role, as outlined in the law, as representatives of Guinea's
workers. Underestimating the depth and breadth of popular
animosity against the Conte government, the Foreign Minister
seemed fixated on the unions as the source of the recent
trouble.


5. (C) The Ambassador stated that the labor unions were only
the tip of the iceberg. He said that large segments of the
Guinean population had mobilized, for the first time in
Guinea's history, to demand better governance, a better
standard of living, and hope for the future. He advised that
those in power today had better realize this. If not, they
risked being swamped by the groundswell of popular discontent
that was now reaching tsunami proportions.


6. (C) The Ambassador asked the Foreign Minister how he and
the government planned to respond to the killings during the
recent general strike, especially on January 22. The Foreign
Minister replied that, as the Minister of Justice told the
diplomatic corps on January 29, the Guinean justice system
had to be trusted to investigate and prosecute those
responsible. He added that the Guinean justice system was
capable of dealing with this internal matter; Guinea did not
need nor desire an international inquiry.


7. (C) The Ambassador responded that the Guinean
government's credibility remained low in this regard, because
it had yet to prosecute anyone for the killings perpetrated
during the previous general strike on June 12. He warned
that impunity was a slippery slope: if those responsible are
not brought to justice, they will feel free to kill again; if
those responsible are not brought to justice, others will
think they can get away with similar violence; if those
responsible are not brought to justice, the victims' families
will take matters in their own hands and seek revenge. The
way to prevent this potential cycle of violence, he said,
would be for the Ministry of Justice and the entire judicial
system to work expeditiously to investigate the killings and
to prosecute those responsible.


8. (C) The Foreign Minister declared that it remained
unclear who was responsible. He then claimed (outrageously)
that the labor unions themselves had to bear responsibility
for the deaths, because they had called for an illegal
protest march on January 22.


9. (C) The Ambassador responded that the protest march far
surpassed the labor unions, civil society, and the
opposition. Of the thousands of participants in the mass
demonstration on January 22, most were ordinary Guineans who,
for the first time ever, had taken to the streets to demand
change. They were unarmed. They did not shoot themselves.

CONAKRY 00000122 002 OF 002


According to most accounts, Red Berets (presidential guards
or another similarly uniformed military contingent) had fired
into the crowd.


10. (C) The Foreign Minister said that may or may not be the
case, but that, in any event, the government did not order
anyone to use lethal force to put down the demonstration.


11. (C) The Ambassador argued that, in that case, the
government had nothing to fear and everything to gain from a
prompt, transparent investigation into the killings, leading
to the identification and prosecution of the real culprits.
The Foreign Minister did not respond; both he and we know
full well that it will be extraordinarily difficult to bring
members of the Red Berets to justice, even if they acted
without orders from above.
MCDONALD