R 110824Z JUN 09 ZDK
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 8602
INFO AMEMBASSY MINSK 
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 
AMEMBASSY BISHKEK 
AMEMBASSY YEREVAN 
AMEMBASSY BAKU 
USEU BRUSSELS
USDOC WASHDC

UNCLAS GENEVA 000458 
 
 
PASS USTR FOR KLEIN, HAFNER 
PASS STATE FOR EUR, EB/TPP-BTA 
PASS USDOC FOR JACOBS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD ECON WTRO USTR BLR
SUBJECT:  JUNE 5, 2009 INFORMAL CHAIRMAN'S CONCULTATIONS 
ON THE WTO ACCESSION OF BELARUS 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED NOT FOR INTERNET DISTRIBUTION 
 
¶1.   (U) Summary.  Three and a half years after the last such 
meeting, WTO Members met with Belarus to discuss how negotiations 
for its WTO membership might be resumed.  The meeting was called at 
the initiative of the Secretariat and Belarus.  Belarus emphasized 
its interest in encouraging investment and privatization, contended 
that legislation enacted since the hiatus in negotiations was WTO 
consistent, and noted Belarus' increased integration into the 
international trading system (expanding exports through 2008) and 
the ill effects of the global economic crisis (contracting exports 
now).  Several delegations (India, China, Kyrgyzstan) were 
supportive of Belarus' request and suggested that a formal Working 
Party (WP) meeting be scheduled to resume discussions.  Brazil was 
supportive, but more measured, saying that the stage is set for 
resumption, whether formal or informal. A number of other attendees, 
however, including the United States, European Communities and 
Australia emphasized their lingering concern that Belarus was not 
willing to open its market or actually implement WTO-consistent 
trade measures, notwithstanding legislation that might nominally 
conform to WTO provisions.  They insisted that Belarus provide 
improved market access offers on goods and services and information 
on actual implementation of WTO provisions.  Belarus did not respond 
to these points, keeping its comments general.  The United States 
asked Belarus about its planned customs union with Russia and 
Kazakhstan and any possible effects on its accession. [Note: This 
was before Russian Prime Minister Putin's recent comments that 
Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan plan to launch joint negotiations on 
accession to the WTO as a customs union.]  Belarus gave no 
indication that joint negotiations were being envisaged; they only 
noted some coordination among the three countries on WTO-related 
issues.  Delegations will now reflect on the overall discussion and 
submit written questions and requests.  The Chair will consult 
further before attempting to schedQe a formal WP meeting.  See 
paragraphs 7 and 8, below, for Next Steps and a Comment.  End 
Summary. 
 
Background 
 
¶2.   (SBU) Belarus' negotiations for WTO accession with major WTO 
delegations were effectively suspended in October 2005.  For several 
years, Belarus' approach to the negotiations had been almost totally 
procedural, measuring progress simply by the number meetings held, 
whether or not any agreement was reached on the many issues that 
remain to be resolved.  The Working Party met, delegations spoke, 
Belarus denied there were any issues to discuss, and little progress 
was made.  Belarus frequently complained about how long the 
accession negotiations were taking, but did little to address the 
negotiating requests or systemic concerns of the WP members.  With 
respect to the United States, Belarus declared that it would make no 
further goods offers until Russia had concluded negotiations.  By 
early 2006, the bilateral goods and services offers on the table 
were actually inferior to the ones that Belarus had circulated two 
years earlier and inferior to offers made by Russia.  Then two 
issues arose that brought WP members' frustrations to a head: the 
routine confiscation at the border of imports for trivial or 
nonexistent violations of customs regulations (and their subsequent 
resale in hard currency stores) and the State appropriation of firms 
based on the principle of a state golden share. Concerns raised 
bilaterally and in Geneva were dismissed by Belarus as fabrications 
or misunderstandings, and a significant number of delegations 
withdrew support for further WP meetings and refused to meet on 
market access issues until (a) there were substantially improved 
offers, and (b) delegations had sufficient information on the golden 
share issue and customs confiscations and responses to questions 
tabled.  Periodic informal consultations during 2006-2008 called by 
the WP Chairman, Swedish Ambassador to the WTO Mia Horn, confirmed 
this approach.  Belarus has provided information stating that it has 
abolished the problematic practices at the border and eliminated the 
concept of (quote) golden share (unquote) in its investment laws. 
Based on Belarus' statements to the WTO and the Secretariat and the 
Chairman's interest in resuming work on a different basis, WTO 
delegations agreed to an informal meeting to assess Belarus' 
sincerity and prospects for further work on the accession. 
 
Pre-Meeting with the Chair 
 
¶3.   (SBU) In a meeting prior to the scheduled informal consultation 
with Belarus, the United States, European Communities, Norway, 
Japan, and Australia met with Chairwoman Mia Horn to discuss 
viewpoints on the status of the accession.  The WTO Secretariat did 
not attend this meeting. Attendees were unanimous that more credible 
offers on goods and services are needed, that more evidence of 
implementation of legislation is needed, and more work on 
legislation, in areas such as import licensing, copyright, etc., is 
needed.  The United States confirmed that we would need to assess 
the information provided at this meeting and further inputs from 
Belarus in terms of offers, legislative action plan, checklists on 
TBT, TRIPs, SPS, etc., and responses to questions from members 
before resuming work. 
 
Informal Chairman's Consultations: 
 
¶4.    (U) Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Yeudachenka led the 
Belarussian delegation in the informal session.  In opening remarks, 
he provided a brief overview of Belarus' efforts to date, focused on 
broad economic indicators, rather than progress on specific WTO 
disciplines.  He stressed Belarus' efforts to move into the global 
economy, noting that its exports had grown from 10 to 34 USD billion 
from 2003 to 2008.  He also pointed to difficulties that Belarus 
faced as a result of the global financial crisis, in particular, 
falling exports.  He concluded by noting that it had been three and 
a half years since the last Working Party on Belarus' accession. 
The EC and US stressed that improved offers and a great deal more 
information across various areas is essential to gauge Belarus' 
seriousness before next steps can be determined.   The US flagged 
concerns about recent tariff increases on agricultural and 
industrial goods and import bans imposed on pork and otherQoducts 
based on an erroneous understanding of the H1N1 virus.  On 
multilateral issues, the United States asked questions related to 
SPS matters and flagged questions that we would table related to 
IPR, the relationship between Belarus' activity in customs union and 
the accession process, and alcohol licensing, among other issues. 
The EC focused its remarks on the areas of burdensome customs 
procedures, licensing regime, and continuing lack of transparency. 
Australia supported the US and EC comments.  Members such as India, 
China, Kyrgyzstan indicated that they viewed substantial changes 
have taken place in the last several years in Belarus and that they 
were supportive of resuming the Working Party process as soon as 
possible.  Brazil noted that they have not finalized their bilateral 
negotiations, but that they have resumed engagement.  Ukraine did 
not make an intervention. 
 
¶5.   (SBU) In his initial responses to members, Yeudachenka provided 
general information only, insisting that International Monetary Fund 
and World Bank reports and consultations with the EC in the context 
of the Eastern Partnership Program have provided opportunities for 
further transparency about both legislation and current practices. 
Yeudachenka stressed that Belarus is (quote) trying to be 
transparent (unquote).  He stressed Belarus' interest in attracting 
foreign investment and efforts to privatize 600 entities in the next 
several years.  The Belarussian delegation throughout the meeting 
welcomed further questions and offered to respond to them.   Anton 
Kudasov, Deputy Director of Directorate of Foreign Economic Affairs, 
MFA, and a veteran of Belarus' accession efforts, responded on 
substantive issues.  Kudasov noted that the legislative action plan 
submitted earlier has been fully implemented.    He asserted that 
(quote) lack of credibility in tariff offers is subjective (unquote) 
and stressed that while most members are satisfied with their 
offers, the difficulty lies with two delegations - the European 
Communities and the United States.  He took more direct aim at the 
EC, noting that Belarus had made four offers to the EC since 2005 
and that Belarus needs concrete direction back from the EC.  Kudasov 
concluded that they are in the middle of their overall effort with 
members in concluding bilateral goods and services negotiatiQ.  At 
present, they have completed discussions with nine delegations and 
are in discussions still with another 12.   They hope to conclude 
negotiations with three more Members in the course of 2009.  He made 
no promises about revised offers. Turning to multilateral issues, he 
noted that Belarus intends to implement WTO commitments in most 
cases, with some (unspecified) exceptions. On the customs union, he 
noted that there is work going on with Russia, Kazakhstan to 
negotiate and establish a single customs tariff. They are currently 
attempting to eliminate impediments to trade between them.  He 
insisted that Belarus will pursue the customs union in accordance 
with GATT Article XXIV.  [Note: The Belarussians did not indicate, 
as President Putin did on June 8 at the Eurasian Economic Community 
Meetings, that Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus intend to launch joint 
WTO negotiations as a customs union.  Kudasov indicated only that 
there is inter-state coordination and stressed the importance of 
both their deepening integration with Russia and the CIS as well as 
with the European Union. In a follow-up call with the Belarussian 
mission to the WTO in Geneva on June 10, Second Secretary Aleksandr 
Tselyuk indicated that they were awaiting instructions from capital 
on the Putin announcement, their negotiators were only returning 
from the Eurasian Economic Meetings today and that the announcement 
was (quote) quite unexpected (unquote).  End note.] 
 
¶6.   (U) Responding to the U.S. question concerning recent sharp 
tariff increases, Kudasov insisted that Belarus is not going to take 
any protectionist measures in relation to trade.  He said that the 
tariff increases should be viewed in the contact of an overall 
package, which also included tariff reductions on goods needed as 
inputs for their industry.  He claimed that the industrial goods 
increases are temporary, and will last for nine months, while the 
agricultural tariff increases will last for six months and offered 
to provide additional information if questions are submitted in 
writing.  He questioned what specifically the EC is referring to in 
relation to double licensing concerns and asked for evidence.   An 
unnamed representative from Belarus' customs agency provided brief 
comments that they have taken 27 governmental decisions with the aim 
of adhering to World Customs Organization convention by the end of 
this year.  They are updating information technology systems to 
cover 50 percent of exports declared by the end of the year.  He 
challenged the EC and US representatives to clearly specify their 
remaining concerns regarding customs valuation and procedures and 
insisted that Belarus has implemented GATT-consistent legislation. 
In response to another U.S. question about the status of import bans 
on pork in relation to the H1N1 virus, Kudasov said the situation 
remains fluid.  Currently a ban is in place and Belarus is expecting 
a guarantee from trading partners that the virus is not transferable 
from animals to humans.  He noted that their own meat sector is 
export dependent and that their main market for exports is Russia, 
whose SPS regime is quote evolving unquote.  While they have a 
vested interest in meeting WTO SPS requirements for imports, they 
need to ensure they maintain access to their export markets. 
 
Next Steps 
 
¶7.     (U) In her conclusion, the Chairwoman suggested that members 
submit further questions in writing.  Belarus needs to take several 
concrete steps: 1) update its legislative action plan; 2) provide 
updated checklists related to customs valuation, TBT, SPS, import 
licensing and TRIPs; 3) reply in writing to members' questions.  She 
observed that responses could provide input for a more fulsome 
factual summary to be prepared by the Secretariat.  She encouraged 
members to make more progress in their bilateral work.  The Chair 
insisted that the timing of any next consultations should remain 
open and subject to consultations with members once they receive 
these inputs from Minsk.  Deputy Minister Yeudachenka made a plea 
for a deadline for members' submission of questions and for 
consideration to be given to setting a date for a fall Working 
Party.  Chairwoman Horn held firm that more consultations are needed 
on the inputs.  The EC and US supported the Chair's next steps. 
 
¶8.   (SBU) Comment.  While Deputy Minister Yeudachenka's upbeat and 
cooperative tone was a decided change from his predecessors more 
defensive stance, neither he nor Kudasov made any unilateral 
commitments to address delegations concerns, or even to comply with 
the request for improved offers.  We hope for something more 
tangible in the written responses.  The delay in Belarus' accession 
has put it the position of having many new WTO Members join the 
negotiations, like WTO member Ukraine, who attended the meeting but 
did not speak, and possibly WTO accession applicant Russia, whose 
accession process is in its late stages.  We will transmit the 
relevant WTO documents and  our written questions to post 
separately, and look forward both to post's comments and to any 
information provided in the course of normal reporting on the issues 
raised in these materials.  End Comment.  End 
 
Allgeier