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 placesand 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