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