IN-DEPTH READOUT OF EU'S CUBA COMPROMISE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 PRAGUE 001006

SIPDIS

FOR EUR/ERA, DRL AND CUBA DESK

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/28/2015
TAGS: PREL EU EZ CU
SUBJECT: IN-DEPTH READOUT OF EU'S CUBA COMPROMISE


Classified By: Political Officer Kimberly C. Krhounek for reasons 1.4(b
) and (d).


1. (C) Following the June 13 GAERC on Cuba, Post received a
comprehensive record of the internal EU discussion in a
document given to us by our interlocutors at the MFA. This
document is the Czechs' written record of what transpired at
the meeting. We have translated it and are sending it to
Washington as a valuable insight into internal EU
negotiations on this sensitive issue. Please STRICTLY
PROTECT this information. It appears clear from the review
that the Czechs had little beyond rhetorical support from a
few countries in their efforts to create a stronger text
conclusions, advocate benchmarks for progress and place an
increased focus on human rights rather than economic benefits
and trade. In the end, the EU's desire for a common position
dominated the debate more than events in Cuba itself. Below
follows the basic summary of the positions advocated by the
various representatives of the participating EU member states
and how the final conclusion on Cuba was brokered:


A. (C) EU PRESIDENCY: The Luxembourg Presidency opened the
meeting by noting that the draft text circulated for
discussion on Cuba reflected the compromise reached by all EU
member states, with the exception of the Czech proposal to
limit all high-level EU visits to Cuba to foreign ministers,
with other ministries represented only at lower working
levels. The EU Presidency observed that Luxembourg, as a
country with a small administrative structure, did not
understand why problems of human rights could not be
mentioned by other visiting ministers such as ministers of
transportation or environment:


B. (C) CZECH REPUBLIC: The Czech representative said that
it is difficult at this time to formulate a final position in
light of the fact that there had been no change in the human
rights situation and no more political prisoners had been
released. The Czech side respected the EU's need to reach a
common position and understood the necessity to cooperate on
economic measures, but nonetheless warned that it was unclear
how many ministers during their visits actually addressed the
issue of human rights. For this reason, the Czechs proposed
that economic dialogue take place only at lower working
levels. The Cuban regime has refused to allow visits by high
level Czech officials. The Czechs requested solidarity from
other member states on the issue of high-level visits, noting
that the Czech Deputy FM who was planning to visit Cuba in
accordance with the January conclusions to discuss human
rights issues was denied a Cuban visa. The Czech
representative assumed all the EU member states share the
same common principles and values about the importance of
protecting human rights. The Czech side does not want to go
against the common position; however it stands by its
proposal to limit high-level visits to foreign ministers.


C. (C) SPAIN (M. Moratinos): The Spanish representative
considered it a success that the EU was able to speak with a
single voice on such a sensitive issue. He averred that
during this discussion reviewing the January conclusions, it
was necessary to compare the situation now with relations as
they were after the June measures of 2003, when relations
between the EU and the Cuban government were at their lowest
point. No structured dialogue existed, the EU had not
achieved the release of any prisoners and no meetings with
the opposition were allowed by the government. The EU had
reached a blind alley, a total blockade, from which only the
most hard-line proponents of the regime gained a benefit.
Thanks to the new position taken in January of this year, the
EU Ambassadors had taken the lead on both dialogue with the
Cuban government as well as structured dialogue with the
opposition; they had achieved the release of 2 important
political prisoners from the group of 75 and they are
attendng organized meetings with the opposition. Spain
maintains the common position of the EU while at the same
time it does not invite government officials to celebrations
of its national day. Another step with significant effect
was Spanish co-sponsorship of the EU resolution on Cuba in
the Human Rights Commission. The goal of all of these
activities is to apply continuous pressure on the Cuban
government so that it will realize that its policies are not
sustainable and that sooner or later it must make changes.
The January measures introduced a convenient mechanism to
maintain this pressure. He insisted that Spain is the first
to condemn the expulsion of European observers and
understands the problem that the Czech Republic has with the
refusal of the Deputy Foreign Minister's visit. That is why
Spain offered the following compromise text: "... on a
reciprocal and non-discriminatory basis, including the
issuance of visas to members of the respective governments
for official visits." Spain also hinted that the Cuban
Foreign Minister informed Moratinos that in case they can
maintain a significant dialogue, the Cuban government in the
near future will be prepared to offer the EU a political
dialogue on democracy and human rights which would cover
releasing political prisoners and changes in the area of
human rights. However, Spain was not able to share more
about this proposal at this time.


D. (C) GERMANY (Joschka Fischer): Germany said that it
fully shared the critical position of the Czech Republic
towards Cuba. When reviewing the January conclusions, it is
important to keep in mind what was expected and promised at
the time when the EU suspended the June 2003 measures. It
was expected that the Cuban government would release 75
political prisoners and improve the situation in the area of
human rights. The subsequent results were however very small
and one must draw from this the necessary conclusions.
According to Germany, the text of the conclusions released
from the GAERC must be much more firm. Dialogue should be
first focused on the accomplishment of tangible results in
the areas of human rights, democracy and freeing of political
prisoners and only then on the areas of politics and
economics. Germany proposed the following amendment to the
draft text, " maintain a dialogue...with the Cuban
authorities." The problem of human rights must be addressed
in harmony with the proposal of the Czech Republic for
on-going discussion during all high level visits. The
position of the EU on the question of human rights must be
formulated clearly and its member states must maintain
solidarity. A different policy would lead to the
stabilization of the Cuban regime. Germany does not see any
concrete results which have occurred since January and that's
why it can only agree with the offered text with difficulty
and only in the interest of achieving a common position.


E. (C) EUROPEAN COMMISSION (Ferrero-Waldner): The EC
representative expressed support for the European Presidency
in searching for a common position; it is necessary that the
EU show that it is capable of reaching agreement on sensitive
questions and create the foundation for a successful
transition to democracy in Cuba. A change of position is not
simple even for the Cubans. The goal of the EU should be
connected to dialogue in the right direction. The solution
is for every minister during his/her visits to Cuba to bring
up the issue of human rights. According to the EC, it is not
a solution to isolate Cuba.


F. (C) PORTUGAL (do Ameral): Portugal expressed agreement
with the European Commission and synthesized the positions of
Germany and Spain, saying that isolation and the U.S. embargo
do not promote change, but rather they strengthen the Castro
regime and allow its continued survival. According to
Portugal, the EU has achieved the first small advancements
(the meeting with opposition) and this door should remain
open.


G. (C) SLOVAKIA (Kukan): Slovakia emphasized that the EU
must speak with a single voice. Consensus within the
framework of the EU is necessary, because Cuba takes
advantage of differences in the positions of the member
states in order to divide them. It is necessary to use every
opportunity to speak with Cuban institutions about human
rights. Slovakia did not agree with the opinion of the
European Commission. The Cuban government is not seizing the
opportunities offered to it. The EU must ask the question
how many additional opportunities we should give to the Cuban
government. Slovakia proposed that before the EU reaches any
further conclusions on Cuba, it should prepare a document
evaluating progress. The Slovak representative agreed with
the Czech Republic and Germany that the most important
question from the point of view of the EU is that of human
rights. The EU must maintain a realistic view on the
situation there, right now it is not possible to say that
developments in Cuba encourage optimism.


I. (C) CYPRUS (Iacovou): Cyprus believed that it is
necessary to find consensus and expressed agreement with
Spain and the EC. According to Cyprus, the message of the EU
towards Cuba comprehends that the regime has survived for
many years through heroic means thanks to the American
embargo. In reaction to the Czech proposal, Cyprus does not
understand why questions of human rights cannot be raised
during the visit of other officials during their visits, such
as Ministers of Justice. It would be an unnecessary
limitation, artificially created, which doesn't reflect the
reality that in each member state there are different
administrative structures and different ways of dividing up
the human rights portfolio.


J. (C) SWEDEN (Freivalds): Sweden shared the opinions of
the EC and Spain, but also at the same time the fears of
Germany as the Cuban regime has not fulfilled its promises
Therefore it is necessary to have a focused dialogue about
human rights.


K. (C) FRANCE (Douste-Blazy): It is a priority to hold to a
common position and that is why in this phase it considers it
most sensible to continue in the already established dialogue
with the Cuban government and Cuban opposition, even though
there is no visible progress at this time.


L. (C) POLAND (Rotfeld): Poland agreed with the opinions of
Germany and Sweden that it is necessary to have a focused
dialogue and to preserve the common position. In the
opposite case, the Cubans would take it as a sign of disunity
in the EU.


M. (C) DENMARK (Moller): Denmark agreed with the opinion of
Germany that it is necessary to change the text and to
strengthen it. The EU cannot maintain a double standard on
human rights (for example in comparison with relations with
China). Denmark also agreed with the opinion of the Czech
Republic that it is not possible to have consensus without
solidarity. The EU must clearly express that it takes the
protection of human rights very seriously.


N. (C) BELGIUM: Belgium agreed with the same interests
expressed -- in the struggle for human rights. However, it
is necessary to agree to a single position. According to
Belgium it is necessary to continue with the current
direction (ie, pressure on the Cuban government). So far,
too short a period of time has passed to allow for judging
actual results. At this time, Belgium does not see any other
alternative.


O. (C) GREECE: Greece adheres to the consensus position and
stated that the policy of the EU must be a policy of
rapprochement and dialogue with the goal of convincing the
Cuban government that improving in the area of human rights
is unavoidable. EU intervention must be efficient, effective
and also flexible.


P. (C) CZECH REPUBLIC: The Czech Republic agreed that after
hearing all of the opinions expressed, it is necessary to
strengthen the wording of the text describing the measures
towards Cuba as the Germans proposed. In the spirit of
finding consensus, the Czech Republic would withdraw its
original proposal, but at the same time expressed deep
disappointment about the current position of the EU on the
question of human rights. As an illustration of how Cuba
perceives the EU, the Czech representative recalled that Cuba
labelled the EU a political, moral and ethical dwarf. In
this connection the Czech Republic mentioned the question of
participation at national day receptions. The mission of the
Czech Republic in Havana is permanently discriminated against
and the Czechs feel little support from the EU on this
matter. It remains an open question of what to do in the
case that some EU ministers avoid a discussion of human
rights during their visits.


Q. (C) The GAERC approved the proposed text of Germany and
Spain in forming the final conclusion.

Visit Prague's Classified Website:
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/prague/index. cfm
CABANISS