Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09TASHKENT1621
2009-12-09 11:36:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Tashkent
Cable title:  

Uzbekistan: Suspending GSP Counterproductive

Tags:  PREL ETRD ELAB PHUM ECON SOCI KIPR UZ 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNT #1621/01 3431137
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O R 091136Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY TASHKENT
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1624
INFO RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC
RUEHC/DEPT OF LABOR WASHINGTON DC
RUEHNT/AMEMBASSY TASHKENT
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
C O N F I D E N T I A L TASHKENT 001621 

SIPDIS
STATE FOR SCA/CEN, EEB/TPP, DRL/ILCSR

E.O. 12958: DECL: 2019/12/09
TAGS: PREL ETRD ELAB PHUM ECON SOCI KIPR UZ
SUBJECT: Uzbekistan: Suspending GSP Counterproductive

REF: TASHKENT 1816; STATE 42137; TASHKENT 1599; STATE 84124
TASHKENT 1123

CLASSIFIED BY: Nicholas Berliner, Pol-Econ Chief; REASON: 1.4(B),(D)

C O N F I D E N T I A L TASHKENT 001621

SIPDIS
STATE FOR SCA/CEN, EEB/TPP, DRL/ILCSR

E.O. 12958: DECL: 2019/12/09
TAGS: PREL ETRD ELAB PHUM ECON SOCI KIPR UZ
SUBJECT: Uzbekistan: Suspending GSP Counterproductive

REF: TASHKENT 1816; STATE 42137; TASHKENT 1599; STATE 84124
TASHKENT 1123

CLASSIFIED BY: Nicholas Berliner, Pol-Econ Chief; REASON: 1.4(B),(D)


1. (C) Post understands that the inter-agency is preparing to
discuss the issue of suspension of Uzbekistan's GSP benefits based
on petitions related to child labor and intellectual property
rights. A decision to suspend or revoke GSP for Uzbekistan would be
counterproductive - it would do little or nothing to remedy the
problems cited in the petitions, but would almost certainly be
viewed by the Government of Uzbekistan (GOU) as a "hostile act" at
a time when we are working to put our relationship on a more stable
and sustainable footing through the process of Annual Bilateral
Consultations (ABC). Any effort to sanction Uzbekistan on this or
other issues could directly undermine our interests, without
achieving the desired change of behavior or policy on the part of
the GOU. Unfortunately, the fact is that we have few levers with
which to coerce change and the Uzbeks respond badly to outside
pressure. Recognizing these limitations, we should keep our focus
on patient, but principled engagement as the only viable approach
to effecting long term change in Uzbekistan and, at the same time,
enabling us to defend the full range of our interests in this
country.




2. (C) The issues of child labor and IPR that are the focus of the
GSP petitions are only two of a host of areas where Uzbekistan
falls far short of U.S. and international standards. However, we
need to be careful not to let these questions define our interests.
Child labor, in particular, is a long-standing, structural and
cultural problem that does not have immediate solutions. Although
the GOU rejected inviting the ILO to conduct a survey of this
year's cotton harvest, such a survey would not have moved the issue
closer to a solution. In fact, a survey would only have reconfirmed
what everyone, including the GOU, already knows: children

participate in the cotton harvest in Uzbekistan. Resolution of the
child labor problem will require reform of the agricultural sector
and investment. There are already some signs that the GOU is headed
in this direction, such as legislative changes to tighten the
prohibition on child labor and reports that the GOU is once again
looking at mechanization of the cotton sector. However, these
processes will take time and must be Uzbek-led.




3. (SBU) On IPR issues, recent conversations with the GOU have
taken on a much more constructive and cooperative tone. The GOU is
prepared to move forward on the issues from the International
Intellectual Property Alliance's 1999 petition. Specifically,
Uzbekistan is preparing to remove its reservations to Article 18 of
the Berne convention and IPR-related changes to the criminal and
administrative codices are expected to be addressed by the
parliament (Ref A).




4. (C) In economic terms, GSP is not terribly significant to the
U.S. or to Uzbekistan. GSP-eligible bilateral trade in 2008 was 2.8
million dollars (Ref B). The "benefit" of GSP to Uzbekistan (or its
cost to the USG in forgone tariff revenues) is therefore only a
fraction of that amount, several hundred thousand dollars.
Suspension of GSP would not have a significant impact on the GOU or
on its exports. It clearly would not have enough of an impact to
cause the GOU to eliminate child labor (assuming that this can be
accomplished by fiat, which we believe is not the case) and IPR
already appears to be headed in a more positive direction. The
impact, unfortunately, is more likely to be negative, and
detrimental to U.S. interests, rather than Uzbekistan's.




5. (C) GSP is symbolic for Uzbekistan, but in Central Asia,
symbolism is important. We have pursued a policy of re-engagement
with Uzbekistan that is about to take a significant step forward
with visit of Foreign Minister Norov to Washington on December 17
and 18 to initiate the ABC process. We came to this process as much
through the realization that policies of sanctions and isolation
simply do not achieve results, as we have through the need to
support very real interests, such as the ability to move supplies
to our forces in Afghanistan. Engagement is about building trust
with the GOU and we have already seen several examples where this
has begun to show results, such as the release of jailed opposition

figure Sanjar Umarov (Ref C),the reaccreditation of the Drug
Enforcement Administration and further cooperation on Afghanistan.
We have reached a point where the Uzbeks are looking for something
in return, a "deliverable" that Norov can bring back from
Washington that demonstrates the benefit to Uzbekistan of improved
relations with the U.S. If Norov returns to Tashkent with nothing
more than the news that the U.S. is sanctioning Uzbekistan for
child labor by lifting GSP, the reaction on the part of President
Karimov and the GOU is likely to be very negative.




6. (C) Unfortunately, this is a case where doing the right thing in
terms of process or principle (we do not contest the point that, in
terms of the GSP process itself, this would be a necessary step)
would result in a set-back for U.S. policy and security interests
in Uzbekistan. GSP is simply not an effective or appropriate policy
tool to use on this issue and in these circumstances. We therefore
urge the interagency to retain GSP eligibility for Uzbekistan so
that the full range of these issues, including child labor and IPR,
can be addressed in the course of our on-going ABC process.
BUTCHER