Uzbekistan: Post Concerns over GSP-related Proposed Actions

C O N F I D E N T I A L TASHKENT 001123

SIPDIS
AMEMBASSY ASTANA PASS TO USOFFICE ALMATY
AMEMBASSY HELSINKI PASS TO AMCONSUL ST PETERSBURG
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PASS TO AMCONSUL VLADIVOSTOK
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PASS TO AMCONSUL YEKATERINBURG
AMEMBASSY BELGRADE PASS TO AMEMBASSY PODGORICA
AMEMBASSY ATHENS PASS TO AMCONSUL THESSALONIKI

E.O. 12958: DECL: 2019/07/01
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL ELAB USTR UZ
SUBJECT: Uzbekistan: Post Concerns over GSP-related Proposed Actions

CLASSIFIED BY: Holly Lindquist Thomas, P/E Officer, Department of
State, Pol-Econ Office; REASON: 1.4(B),(D)

From Ambassador Norland




1. (C) As part of the review of Uzbekistan for the
Generalized Systems of Preferences (GSP),the Department of Labor
(DOL) and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) have proposed to
withdraw or limit GSP benefits if the GOU does not take certain
actions related to child labor in the cotton sector. I believe
this approach would be counterproductive. The goal of abolishing
child labor in Uzbekistan is undeniably important. However, the
threat of sanctions is not likely to work in this case, and could
lead to retaliation in completely unrelated areas. Furthermore,
this "name and shame" approach is inconsistent with President
Obama's position of encouraging engagement whenever possible, even
with regimes with whom we have been reluctant to engage in the
past.




2. (C) Child labor in the cotton sector is a well-documented
problem in Uzbekistan. Multiple stakeholders, including
governments, NGOs, industry trade organizations, and socially
responsible investment firms are involved in trying to pressure the
GOU to do away with this long-standing practice. Recognizing this
wide-scale involvement, our position has been to support the
multilateral process and to encourage the GOU to work with
international organizations, particularly the UN (through UNICEF)
and the International Labor Organization (ILO) to address the
problem. For example, we have been working hard at convincing the
GOU to allow the ILO to perform an independent assessment of the
child labor problem during the fall cotton harvest. The GOU at
times has seemed ready to move forward on this issue, for example
by adopting a National Action Plan last fall, and at times seems
reticent to even admit there is a problem, as at a recent meeting
on the issue in Geneva. But we have heard that the private sector
boycott of Uzbek cotton is having some effect, and if that is
indeed the case, the GOU will have even more reason to address the
issue head on. Our concern is that threats to withdraw or limit
GSP benefits if certain steps (like the ILO assessment) are not
taken are overly heavy-handed, and will undermine our efforts to
encourage a multilateral process rather than a bilateral one.
Indeed, Post believes this kind of approach is more likely to
result in the GOU digging in its heels and refusing to "bow to U.S.
pressure" for an independent assessment than it is to encourage
acceptance of an ILO team.




3. (C) Undersecretary Burns is scheduled to come to
Uzbekistan in just over a week, which is an opportunity to quietly
push the GOU on this issue. We believe this face-to-face
interaction is a great opportunity to make progress on these and
other areas, and will be much better received than will a strong
demarche threatening sanctions.




4. (C) Child labor in the cotton sector is a long-standing
problem in Uzbekistan, and abolishing it will require reforms
across the agricultural sector. We are working to encourage these
reforms, and we hope that forward progress will be observed in the
fall harvest. However, revoking GSP will not solve the child labor
problem, and it may make things harder on a host of other issues
that are also important to our policy objectives in Uzbekistan.




NORLAND
NORLAND