MACEDONIA: KICK-STARTING MAY 29 AGREEMENT

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 SKOPJE 000758

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EUR/SCE

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/15/2017
TAGS: PGOV PREL MK
SUBJECT: MACEDONIA: KICK-STARTING MAY 29 AGREEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION

REF: A. SKOPJE 533

B. SKOPJE 567 AND PREVIOUS

Classified By: P/E CHIEF SHUBLER, REASONS 1.4(b) AND (d).

SUMMARY.


1. (C) Governing VMRO and ethnic opposition DUI have made
slight progress toward implementing their five-point May 29
agreement (ref A),with tentative steps toward codifying a
list of 46 laws that would require a qualified (Badinter)
majority, and the government having approved a draft law on
composing the parliamentary committee on inter-ethnic
relations (but which DUI has yet to review). With both sides
agreeing in principle how to proceed on the GOM's proposed
social benefits package for victims of the 2001 conflict,
chances are fair that the two sides will reach additional
agreement on the practical steps needed to implement that
proposal. Less promising are chances that the sides will
reach agreement on a draft law on the use of languages, given
the fact that neither DUI nor governing coalition junior
partner DPA appears willing to share credit for what could be
seen as a watershed legislative achievement for the ethnic
Albanian community. End summary.


TENTATIVE STEPS TOWARDS IMPLEMENTATION OF 5-POINT MAY 29
AGREEMENT


2. (SBU) Implementation of the US-EU-brokered five-point May
29 agreement between governing VMRO and ethnic Albanian
opposition DUI began July 9 (ref A),with separate working
groups meeting to discuss a law on languages and a package of
social benefits for victims of the 2001 conflict. Since
then, there have been a few follow-on meetings of both
working groups, interrupted by a several-week hiatus during
the parliamentary summer recess. Emboffs have observed the
language law working group proceedings, while our EUSR
colleague have followed working group discussions on the
victims of conflict issue.

SOME PROGRESS ON THE FIRST TWO POINTS OF THE AGREEMENT


3. (SBU) Despite the willingness of both sides to meet, there
has been no breakthrough on either the language law or the
victims of conflict issue. There has, however, been some
progress on the first point of the agreement -- the VMRO side
has proposed the list of 46 laws for which a Badinter
majority vote would be required (as agreed with DUI),and has
amended the government's draft parliamentary rulebook to
include them. Opposition SDSM has, however, blocked passage
of the rulebook, arguing that it -- inter alia -- unfairly
limits speaking time during parliamentary debates.


4. (SBU) On revision of the method of composing the
parliamentary committee on inter-ethnic relations (point two
of the agreement),VMRO has submitted a draft amendment that
party leaders claim would address DUI's key concerns about
when MP candidates are required to declare their ethnicity.
The government approved the proposal at the beginning of
September, and has sent it to parliament for debate, but
without first consulting with DUI. DUI VP Arifi says the
party is unhappy that it was not consulted on the draft law,
but that it intends to play a constructive role in discussing
the bill's passage in parliament.

LIMITED MOMENTUM ON LANGUAGE LAW


5. (SBU) In separate meetings September 13 with DUI VP Teuta
Arifi and with VMRO Executive Committee members Zoran
Stavreski (Deputy Prime Minister) and Martin Protoger (PM
Gruevski's Chief of Staff) P/E Chief and EUSR POLAD Walsh
reviewed progress made so far on implementing the May 29
agreement, and discussed steps both sides could take to
accelerate momentum toward completing the tasks required.


6. (SBU) On the language law (the third point of the
agreement),Arifi said DUI believed the "pace of discussions
was unsatisfactory," and insisted that the process could not
continue indefinitely. She argued that the two sides should
discuss the VMRO and DUI draft legislation proposals already
prepared and should each show flexibility in reaching a

SKOPJE 00000758 002 OF 002


compromise on the language of a final text.


7. (C) VMRO's Stavreski and Protogjer, however, were
unyielding in their contention that the DUI draft goes beyond
the constitution and the Framework Agreement in its approach
to the use of language. They insisted on using the VMRO
draft law as a starting point, arguing that it would be more
efficient to work with a single document. They also said the
process had to take into account the concerns of VMRO's
ethnic Albanian coalition partner, DPA, that it not be
excluded from receiving credit for eventual passage of a law
on languages, which would constitute a watershed legislative
achievement for the ethnic Albanian community.


8. (C) P/E Chief and EUSR's Walsh countered that VMRO should,
at a minimum, provide DUI with specific comments explaining
in detail why it believed the DUI language exceeded the
working group's mandate. They also suggested that the two
sides agree to produce in the working group a draft law that
was "60-70 percent" complete, and then submit that to
parliament for further discussion and debate in the
appropriate committees, which Stavreski and Protoger agreed
to consider. The VMRO representatives, however, remained
skeptical that the process would lead to a mutually
satisfactory outcome anytime soon.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION FOR VICTIMS OF CONFLICT


9. (C) Regarding the GOM's offer to provide a package of
social benefits, including employment opportunities, to
victims of the 2001 conflict, DUI's Arifi said the party
would not provide the list of victims the government had
requested. She said the party was concerned that GOM
officials could misuse such a list. Instead, she proposed
that the government explicitly state under which existing
laws victims of the conflict, including former NLA members,
could apply for the benefits, and then provide a mechanism so
those victims could do so. Both Stavreski and Protoger later
told us the GOM could accept that proposal, as long as the
terms of reference did not restrict access to benefits to DUI
supporters only. (NOTE: There has been no movement, by either
side, on point five -- agreement to further discussions in
parliament on the method of composition of government. Both
sides, however, understood that was a throwaway point when
the May 29 agreement was concluded, and that there were no
limitations on discussion of that issue in parliament to
begin with. END NOTE.)

COMMENT


10. (C) The government appears to want to close this chapter
in its relations with DUI, but by doing the bare minimum
necessary to complete implementation of the five-point May 29
agreement. Completing the first two points, the Badinter
list and the draft law on the inter-ethnic committee, is
likely if the opposition eventually comes around to
supporting VMRO's proposed amendments to the parliamentary
rulebook and its draft law on the inter-ethnic committee (the
latter being far less contentious than the former, from the
opposition's point of view). The social benefits package
solution for the victims of conflict issue also appears
within reach; the mechanics of how to apply for such benefits
and how to verify those applications remain stumbling blocks,
both surmountable, in that process.


11. (C) The language law discussions, however, are more
complex and less likely to yield a compromise outcome. VMRO
has remained deaf to our repeated proposals that it consult
with coalition partner DPA in advance of discussions with
DUI, and that VMRO include DPA's suggestions on the draft law
in its working text. If the two sides do reach a "70 percent
solution" and submit the draft to parliament, they will
therefore face the challenge of how to ensure DPA support for
the draft proposal or, in DUI's case, be ready to compromise
with DPA to allow the latter to share credit for completing a
major ethnic Albanian agenda item. Given the history of
contentious relations between those two parties, that would
be a long-shot outcome. End comment.
MILOVANOVIC