GOL DECIDES TO TRY AGAIN ON LATVIA-RUSSIA BORDER

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 RIGA 000053

SIPDIS

SIPDIS
NOFORN

E.O. 12958: DECL: (10 YEARS AFTER SIGNING OF LATVIAN/RUSSIAN BORDER TRE
ATY)
TAGS: PREL PBTS PGOV RS LG
SUBJECT: GOL DECIDES TO TRY AGAIN ON LATVIA-RUSSIA BORDER
TREATY


Classified By: Ambassador Catherine Todd Bailey. Reasons: 1.4 (b & d)


1. (C/NF) Summary: Latvian Prime Minster Kalvitis has
decided to renew discussion of the Latvia-Russia border
treaty, with an aim to sign the document in the first half of

2007. He believes the political calendars in Russia and
Latvia provide a unique window of opportunity. In order to
avoid the problems of May 2005, when a unilateral Latvian
declaration on the treaty was rejected by Russia and scuttled
a planned signing, Kalvitis is seeking a simple parliamentary
authorization to sign the document. However, legal arguments
his government made two years ago are providing fodder for
some political opposition. Nevertheless, there is greater
unity among key government figures than in 2005 and it
appears the PM has the votes in parliament to get the
authorization to sign. There is still no guarantee, however,
that Moscow will go along with this carefully laid out plan.
The debate over the treaty reveals how fragile the Latvian
national psyche remains on issues of the Soviet occupation
and in many ways provides the best argument for signing the
treaty and beginning to look forward rather than back in
Latvian-Russian relations. End summary.

History
--------------


2. (U) Latvia's eastern border with Russia was originally
delineated in the Latvian-Soviet treaty of peace and
friendship in 1920. It was moved slightly westward after
WWII when the USSR redrew the boundaries of the Latvian SSR.
Six counties around the town of Abrene, historically
populated by Russians and amounting to less than two percent
of Latvia's territory, were moved from Latvia to Russia. In
1997, the two countries reached agreement on the text of a
treaty to demarcate the border, with Abrene remaining in
Russia, but the agreement was never signed. Plans to sign
the treaty when President Vike-Freiberga visited Moscow in
May 2005 were scrapped when Russia rejected a declaration
passed by the Latvian parliament that referred back to the
1920 peace agreement and the Soviet occupation of Latvia and
asserted the continuity of the Latvian state since 1918.
Russia felt that the declaration left open the possibility of
Latvia making a future claim on Abrene and/or seeking
monetary reparations for the loss of territory and other
elements of the Soviet occupation. Latvia noted that it had
made clear in joining the EU and NATO that it had no
outstanding territorial claims, but the treaty was left to
the side. In the meantime, the two countries concluded
agreements on establishment of an intergovernmental
commission and on economic cooperation.

Current plans
--------------


3. (C) Following his reelection in October, PM Kalvitis began
working to revive the border treaty. Building a more stable
relationship with Russia has been a key goal for Kalvitis now
that Latvia is securely in the EU and NATO and he sees the
border treaty as an important step. Determined to avoid the
problems of 2005, the PM's office developed a short
resolution for parliament to pass authorizing the government
to sign the treaty. The text refers to the August 1991
document restoring Latvia's 1922 constitution. As this
document was the one used by Boris Yeltsin to recognize
Latvian independence that same month, the Latvians believe
Moscow cannot object. The text also makes reference to the
internationally recognized continuity of the Latvian state, a
term Kalvitis believes Putin told him he could accept when
they met in St. Petersburg in June 2006.


4. (C) The draft resolution was endorsed by the foreign
affairs committee of parliament January 18 by a vote of six
to one with two abstentions. FM Pabriks briefed Ambassadors
of NATO and EU countries that same day and Ambassador Bailey
attended. Pabriks explained that the next step is for the
parliament to consider the draft in its January 25 session
when, for procedural reasons, it will refer it back to the
foreign affairs committee for a second endorsement. There
will then be a full parliamentary debate on the issue
February 1, when the PM, FM, and possibly even President
Vike-Freiberga, will address the parliament. Final passage
is planned for February 8 and the Latvians would hope to sign
the text later that month in Moscow. (Comment: This is only
the latest timeline and it is possible that the dates may
slip, although the sequence of events should remain the same.
End comment.)


5. (C/NF) The PM's office has been working to keep
international partners abreast of the process. We and the
German Embassy were given advance copies of the text in the

RIGA 00000053 002 OF 003


hopes that we would be willing to endorse it publicly. We
declined given the internal nature of the issue. They have
also showed the draft to the Russian MFA, which did not
reject it, but took a wait and see attitude, wanting to see
what would actually emerge from parliament.

Challenges
--------------


6. (U) While the government has a plan, significant political
objections have been raised. Many of the same parties of the
current coalition were in power in 2005 when the unilateral
declaration was adopted. At the time, the government, for
domestic political reasons lined up legal scholars who
claimed the declaration was necessary to conform to the
constitution. Now, however, they are stuck with this legal
interpretation from 2005. There are two interrelated and
legally technical issues raised by opponents of the treaty.
First, the 1922 constitution defines the territory of Latvia
as comprising four regions and with borders defined in
international agreements. Amending this section of the
constitution requires a referendum. The argument is that the
Latvia-Russian border was set by the 1920 treaty and any
change in that border requires a referendum. The government
counters that the section empowers the government to modify
borders by international agreement as needed. The second
issue is whether accepting the new border both legitimizes
the occupation and denies the continuity of the Latvian
state. In this argument, the 1920 treaty is still in force
since Latvia has never withdrawn from it or abrogated it.
Since Russia feels it lapsed when Latvia "willingly" joined
the USSR, they will not tolerate mention of it. Therefore,
critics argue, failure to refer to the 1920 treaty in
addressing the current agreement amounts to validating the
Soviet occupation. Also, the continuity of the state is a
key element in Latvia's politically sensitive citizenship and
property restitution laws. Politically, some ethnic Latvian
parties opposed to the border treaty are also questioning the
government's seeming rush to get this done right away.
Despite these political challenges, key officials such as the
President, PM, and FM appear better coordinated in their
strategies and public comments than was the case in 2005.

Why now?
--------------


7. (C/NF) According to Peteris Ustubs, the PM's foreign
policy advisor, and Aivis Ronis, former Ambassador to
Washington and NATO, who is supporting the PM's plan, the PM
is motivated to move forward by several factors. First,
Kalvitis feels that he has a unique and small window of
opportunity in the political calendar get this done. At
home, he is politically strong, coming off the October
elections in which he was the first Latvian PM ever returned
to office. On the Russian side, after the middle of this
year, Duma and then Presidential elections will stymie any
ability to move forward, possibly until at least 2010, by
which time Latvia will again be facing elections. Second,
the lack of the border treaty provides one more arrow in the
quiver of Russian critics of Latvia, who keep alive the idea
that Latvia will use NATO membership as a shield to reclaim
Abrene by force. Finally, the PM feels that resolving this
issue allows him to move forward on what he feels are the
more pressing bilateral issues, such as reducing barriers to
Latvian-Russian trade. For example, the lack of the border
treaty has been cited as a reason for the slow processing of
trucks from Latvia into Russia, often causing trucks to idle
at a checkpoint, often for days at a time. In public
comments, the PM has stressed this last point as a key reason
to move ahead quickly.

Prospects
--------------


8. (C/NF) The question now is whether PM Kalvitis can succeed
in this effort. On a television program to discuss the
issue, about 60% of the roughly 8,000 people who called to
register their views were opposed to the PM's plan to sign
the treaty "clean." And while the country's senior
leadership is relatively united, he does not have the full
support of his governing coalition, with nationalist
Fatherland and Freedom opposed to signing the treaty without
the 2005 declaration and a sizable minority of the Greens and
Farmer's party feeling the same. So, he will have to rely on
support from the ethnic Russian parties. Our best guess is
that he can probably get about 60 votes to support signing.
However, as soon as the resolution is passed, it is expected
that opposition center-right party New Era will file a
challenge with the Constitutional Court, arguing that the
legislation contradicts the Constitution absent a referendum.

RIGA 00000053 003 OF 003


And there is still no assurance from Moscow that they will
sign, and our contacts here all agree that Russia will not
sign if there is a pending challenge in the Constitutional
Court.


9. (C/NF) Comment: The PM is taking a risk here, no
question, but Kalvitis has good domestic political instincts,
so he did not rush into this without thinking it through.
From our standpoint, what has been most interesting about
this issue is the high level of insecurity it reveals among
the Latvian public on its own history. There is a genuine
fear among a large segment of the population that signing
this treaty would serve to legitimize the Soviet occupation
and annexation, sixty-seven years after it occurred and
sixteen years after Latvia regained independence. In many
ways, that is the best argument for signing this treaty.
Leaving the issue out there only serves to provide a focal
point for the past, whereas signing it helps to turn the page
and allow Latvia to develop a more forward-looking
relationship with Russia.
BAILEY