AUSTRALIAN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION AGAINST CUBA

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 002156 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/15/2016 TAGS: UNGA ETRD PGOV PREL EUN CU SUBJECT: AUSTRALIAN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION AGAINST CUBA EMBARGO FALLS TO NO-ACTION MOTION; RESOLUTION PASSES WITH 183 VOTES REF: STATE 184220 Classified By: Ambassador John R. Bolton, per 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) Summary: Australia's push to amend the 61st General Assembly (GA) Resolution on "The Necessity of Ending the Economic, Commercial and Financial Embargo Imposed by the United States of America Against Cuba" failed due to a no-action motion raised by Cuba with a 127-50-5 vote. The GA adopted the resolution for the 15th time in a 183-4-1 vote, with the same four countries as last year voting against the resolution (U.S., Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau. Micronesia abstained again). Cuban FM Roque condemned both the U.S. for attempting to re-colonize Cuba and Australia for being in the pocket of the U.S. The EU voted against the no-action motion but in favor of the resolution, while delivering an explanation of vote that criticized Cuba's human rights record. End summary. ¶2. (U) Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque submitted his country's resolution to the General Assembly calling for an end to the U.S. embargo against Cuba. After itemizing the embargo's damage to the Cuban economy, Roque alleged that the "Permanent Committee of the U.S. Government for Cuba's Reconstruction," was a new "colonization" plan for Cuba. Roque called Cuba Transition Coordinator McCarry a "new Paul Bremer" and claimed the USG had coerced Australia into submitting an amendment on human rights to the embargo resolution. The FM said the Australians lacked the moral authority to condemn violations of human rights due to their record on indigenous rights and support for secret prisons and detainees in Guantanamo Bay. Denouncing the Australians as accomplices of U.S. imperialism, Roque closed by urging countries to support a Cuban no-action motion on the Australian amendment. ¶3. (U) USUN Western Hemisphere Area Advisor Ambassador Ronald Godard delivered the U.S. explanation of vote (reftel). Aside from Cuba's incendiary remarks, several nations including India, Laos, South Africa on behalf of the G-77 and China, and St. Lucia speaking for CARICOM stated that the extraterritorial and unilateral nature of the embargo violates universally accepted principles of international law. The Syrian Permrep said that the embargo "violates basic freedoms and the human rights of the Cuban people" and called upon the Security Council to take "necessary measures to stop the embargo, economic sanctions and aggressive policies." Malaysia and Syria both noted the cumulative affect of an 86.1 billion dollar loss to the Cuban economy since the U.S. trade embargo began in 1964. Mexico, Viet Nam, Iran, Namibia and Tanzania also spoke in support of the resolution. ¶4. (U) After 14 countries spoke in favor of the resolution and the U.S. against, Australian Permrep Hill announced their support for the ending of the embargo, but presented the following amendment to the floor: Begin Text: Noting that such laws and measures were motivated by valid concerns about the continued lack of democracy and political freedom in Cuba, calls upon the Cuban government to release unconditionally all political prisoners, cooperate fully with international human rights bodies and mechanisms, respect the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and comply fully with its obligations under all human rights treaties to which it is State Party. End text. Referring to Australia's previous years, Explanation of Vote that criticized Cuba's human rights record, but failed to produce results, the Australian Permrep said, "our objective USUN NEW Y 00002156 002 OF 002 in this exercise is to find a way to end the embargo." Hill expressed hope that this amendment would persuade Cuba to live up to its human rights commitments, thus obviating the need for continued U.S. trade sanctions. ¶5. (U) Once the amendment was submitted, Cuba called for a recorded vote on its motion to take no action on Australia's amendment. South Africa and China argued in favor of the no-action motion, stating that amendments concerning Cuba,s human right's record were not germane to a GA resolution and should be handled by the GA's third committee or the Human Rights Council. Ambassador Godard gave the USG explanation of position, saying that since there was no Human Rights Council resolution on Cuba, this was the sole opportunity for the GA to take a stand against Cuban government abuses. Australia's Permrep underscored that the General Assembly is the appropriate body for such a debate and repeated that Australia is only asking that Cuba live up to commitments it had already made under international human rights treaties. Notable countries voting against the no-action were EU member states, New Zealand, Korea, Japan, Palau, Micronesia and Canada. The five abstentions were: Samoa, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Kiribati and Tonga.) ¶6. (U) Speaking on behalf of the European Union, Finnish Permrep Lintonen began by explaining that the EU opposes no-action votes on principle because they are contrary to the spirit of the GA. Lintonen said the EU has taken a position that certain bilateral measures imposed by the USG on Cuba harm EU economic interests and therefore voted for the resolution. Noting that the EU remains "deeply concerned" over Cuban human rights abuses, he called on the Cubans to release all political prisoners. Eleven countries including Brazil for MERCOSUR, gave explanations after the vote in support of the resolution. In their right of reply, the Cubans criticized the Australians again for being a "pocket imperialist" of the United States and berated the European Union for their complaints on the Cuban human rights record. 7.(C) Comment: EU votes against the no-action motion helped register significant opposition among UN Members to Cuba's human rights record. Nonetheless, Finish reps told Poloff that the EU would have abstained on the Australian amendment because of the suggestion that the embargo was motivated by valid concerns over Cuba's human rights record -- language which some EU members believed might legitimize the embargo. The Australian Mission to the UN, which had reservations about offering the amendment, dutifully and ably did so under instruction from Canberra. The Australians added the language on the embargo to protect against claims that the amendment was not germane to the resolution. After the vote, the Australians suggested that next year, USUN might want to pursue a country-specific resolution on Cuba's human rights record rather than try to amend the embargo resolution again. End Comment. BOLTON