This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

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