NETHERLANDS/EU/UN: PLANNING TO VOTE FOR CUBAN

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 002590

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EUR, WHA/CCA, IO/UNP

E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/08/2014
TAGS: PREL ETRD CU UNGA
SUBJECT: NETHERLANDS/EU/UN: PLANNING TO VOTE FOR CUBAN
RESOLUTION AGAINST EMBARGO

REF: A. (A) STATE 215870


B. (B) STATE 145203

C. (C) THE HAGUE 1692

Classified By: POL Counselor Andrew Schofer for reasons 1.4 (b/d)


1. (C) Poloff delivered ref A demarche October 8 to Jan Jaap
Groenemeijer, MFA's Policy Advisor on Cuba and Caribbean
Issues. Groenemeijer responded that while the U.S. and
Europeans certainly agree on many aspects of the human rights
and political situation in Cuba, he did not foresee any
change in the European pattern of voting in favor of
anti-embargo resolutions at the UNGA. Groenemeijer stated
that "every year" the Dutch and other Europeans vote for the
Cuban-sponsored resolution, while issuing strong Explanations
of Votes condemning the human rights situation in Cuba.


2. (C) Groenemeijer noted that, as discussed in the September
28 US-EU COLAT consultations in Washington, the U.S. and EU
share similar goals in Cuba, but differ in how to achieve
those goals. Groenemeijer declared that the vote on this
resolution is not linked to the internal situation in Cuba,
but rather to the U.S. "unilateral policy" embargoing trade
with Cuba, which he described as purely a "trade issue." He
referenced the US-EU "Understanding" reached during 1996-1998
which provided for the EU's suspension of its case against
the Libertad Act before the WTO, but which reserved the right
to restart the procedure in the future if waivers of Title
III or other provisions were not continuously granted.
Groenemeijer emphasized that the Understanding does not
soften the EU's opposition to the U.S. policy, and indicated
the EU remains convinced that the Libertad Act is contrary to
international law.


3. (C) As a footnote, Groenemeijer referred to the recent
U.S. "country by country" approach of reporting on policies
and activities in Cuba, which he continued to argue (despite
having received ref B points as per ref C) could be seen as a
harbinger of country-by-country discontinuation of Title III
waivers. Groenemeijer indicated that he believed the EU
should remain vigilant regarding the 1996-1998 Understanding,
and would be prepared to relaunch its dispute before WTO in
case the waivers are not renewed.
SOBEL