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