LATVIAN GOVERNMENT STUMBLES OVER ESTONIA

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 RIGA 000349

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/14/2017
TAGS: PGOV PREL EN LG
SUBJECT: LATVIAN GOVERNMENT STUMBLES OVER ESTONIA


Classified By: Charge d'affaires a.i. Tamir G. Waser


1. (C) Summary: When the Latvian parliament rejected a
resolution of support for Estonia on May 3, it soon became
clear that the governing coalition had mishandled its
response, either out of political pettiness, an effort to
avoid violence here, a desire to maintain good relations with
Moscow, or likely, a combination of the three. Whatever the
reason, the government has been harshly criticized from
across the political spectrum, with one foreign policy expert
calling the event "the lowest point in Latvian foreign policy
since the restoration of independence." Since the vote, the
government has scrambled to show its support for Estonia, and
in the end, probably ended up being more strident than it
wanted to be. Strong as the public reaction was, it is too
early to tell if this will do any lasting political damage to
the coalition. End summary.


2. (C) In the days after the disturbances in Tallinn, the
Latvian government was reacting as expected, by condemning
the violence. Latvia was also quietly providing support to
its neighbor, sending a water cannon to help with riot
control efforts. But the GOL was clear that it would be low
key about the material support it was providing to Estonia.
MFA Pol Dir Klava had told Charge May 2 that Latvia "would
not trumpet" its assistance, in particular not to inflame
tensions in advance of May 9 Victory Day celebrations.
(Note: Following the events in Tallinn, GOL officials were
very nervous at the potential for spillover to May 9 events
here, and laid on significant additional security from
previous years. End note.)


3. (U) On May 3, the opposition New Era party submitted a
resolution to the weekly meeting of the Saeima (parliament)
offering support to the government and people of Estonia,
urging respect for diplomatic norms regarding the Estonian
Embassy in Moscow, condemning statements from Duma members
that interfered in Estonian internal affairs, and urging EU
member states and the European Parliament to make similar
statements. The governing coalition opposed the resolution,
arguing that it was not submitted in a timely manner and had
not undergone review in committee. Although some members of
the coalition defected and voted for the resolution, enough
voted against, abstained, or simply did not vote to prevent
the resolution from getting the 51 votes needed for adoption
(it received 41). Saeima then voted 68 - 21 to send the
resolution to the foreign affairs committee for further
review.


4. (U) The following day, May 4, was the 17th anniversary of
the declaration of the restoration of independence by the
Latvian Supreme Soviet. At events marking the occasion,
members of National Front (the group that voted for
independence in 1990),including those still in parliament,
were harshly critical of the actions the previous day. One
National Front member told us that he "was ashamed" by the
Saeima's failure to support Estonia. Others talked of how
the Baltic unity that was so essential in the waning days of
the USSR had disappeared. One foreign policy expert told the
DATT that the vote "the lowest point in Latvian foreign
policy since the restoration of independence."


5. (U) On May 7, the Foreign Affairs committee met to review
the draft declaration and coalition members issued
high-minded statements on the need to follow procedure, with
Chairman Andris Berzins publicly saying that the New Era
draft contained spelling errors and typos that made it
unacceptable. Meanwhile, New Era hammered away in the press
and committee that the government (in)action was shameful.
The committee adjourned without taking action.


6. (U) On May 8, an event was held in central Riga's Dome
square to show support to Estonia. Based on the late-1980's
Baltic Way, that formed a human chain between the three
Baltic capitals, the idea was to recreate Baltic solidarity.
New Era immediately jumped on the event and announced they
would attend. The coalition was initially silent. PM
Kalvitis, in Moscow for the world hockey championships, was
called by the newspaper Diena and asked if he would attend
the event. He initially said he would not because it
conflicted with a cabinet meeting where the Estonian
Ambassador would attend to receive the support of the
government. The PM then called back to say he would attend
the march with the Estonian Ambassador. The newspaper
published the transcripts of both calls on the front page of
its May 9 edition, creating an image of the PM being out of
touch. Another Latvian language daily, usually hostile to
New Era, led its May 9 edition with a picture of the Dome
Square event captioned, "The people speak in the absence of
the Saeima." The rural-based Latvijas Avize, a mainstay of
supporters of the leading People's Party, was also harshly
critical of the government and parliament's response to
Estonia. None of the papers had any significant coverage of

RIGA 00000349 002 OF 002


Kalvitis' attendance at the event or the cabinet statement of
support for Estonia.


7. (C/NF) Criticism of the government also came from within.
PM Kalvitis' foreign policy advisor, Peteris Ustubs
(protect),said that government had completely misplayed the
event. He was especially critical of the People's Party,
saying that they could not see beyond their distrust of New
Era and failed to recognize the public reaction of defeating
the draft resolution. Ustubs, a career diplomat, is usually
careful to avoid criticizing political decisions, so his
strong reaction was noteworthy. MOD State Secretary Edgars
Rinkevics (protect) said the Saeima's rejection of original
resolution made May 3 "one of most disappointing days I've
had in years."


8. (U) On May 9, the Foreign Affairs committee of the Saeima
found new resolve and quickly adopted an alternative
resolution, which the full Saeima adopted on May 10, with 71
votes in favor. This alternate resolution contained many of
the same elements as the New Era draft, although the language
was a bit softer in places and it lacked the call for other
EU states to adopt similar resolutions. It did, however,
specifically criticize members of the Russian Duma for
"improper involvement" in the internal affairs of Estonia.
Press coverage the following day used words like "finally"
and "at long last" to describe the Saeima vote.


9. (C) Comment: It seems that the ruling coalition's
mishandling of the situation in the parliament was motivated
by combination of factors -- a deep dislike for New Era, a
desire to avoid inflaming the local Russian community in
advance of Victory Day commemorations and an attempt to avoid
antagonizing Moscow in the run up to ratification of the
Latvia - Russia border treaty. In the end, the government
came out on the political short end, although May 9 did pass
peacefully. Press and public reaction was unusually strong
and negative, especially for Latvia. We cannot easily recall
an instance, outside of moments of national tragedy, when all
three major Latvian language newspapers editorialized about
the same issue with the same position on the same day. By
the time the coalition got its act together, New Era was
getting positive press as the defenders of the legacy of the
Baltic Way and the adopted resolution ended up being probably
more critical of Moscow than the government would have liked.
While New Era will likely pick up some support for its
leadership on this issue, it is too early to know whether the
coalition parties will suffer any lasting political damage
from these events.
WASER