Other Informations

Additional Information 2005

US denied a chance to meet officials about the US embargo on Cuba 1/04/05

New Volumes of Cuban Book on Human Rights 15/03/05

Cuba Condemns US-Sponsored Resolution at UN Rights Body

Havana, Apr 15 (Prensa Latina) Cuban Foreign Affairs Minister Felipe Perez Roque asserted his country would neither accept nor cooperate with the illegitimate US-concocted-resolution at the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR).

Washington imposed a European Union-cosponsored anti-Cuban resolution by 21 votes in favor, 17 against, with 15 abstentions.

"Cuba does not recognize the legitimacy of the resolution, much less will cooperate in any form with the spurious mandate it establishes," Felipe Perez Roque told the press.

"No-one should expect that the Caribbean island will move a millimeter from its stance or yield its principles," he added.

The Foreign Minister said the Havana Government considered the issue a scandalous, selective and discriminatory manipulation, because there were no just reasons to impose a resolution on his nation.

The Cuban Foreign Minister also referred to the enormous pressures, including blackmail and threats, the US put on UNCHR delegates.

The US proposal was supported by the EU, whom the Cuban delegate to the Geneva-based Commission described as "submissive, servile and incapable of articulating an independent policy."

The document extends the mandate of the representative of the High Commissioner for Cuba, which the Island strongly condemned because it stemmed from pressures exerted by "the world´s most obstinate and largest human rights violator."

PRESS CONFERENCE HOSTED BY H. E. MR. FELIPE PEREZ ROQUE, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA, TO NATIONAL AND FOREIGN PRESS CORRESPONDENTS ON THE OCCASION OF THE VOTING AT THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

14 APRIL 2005

Moderator: Good morning. We would like to welcome you all to this press conference by Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque.

Minister, at this very moment all national press correspondents are present and there are 74 foreign journalists representing 54 foreign media outlets from 21 countries.

So without further ado, I give you the floor.

Felipe Perez: First of all, we would like to thank all national and foreign press correspondents for their presence.

I would like to inform you that just a few minutes ago the United States government managed to impose – by means of brutal arm-twisting and blackmail tactics – a spurious resolution against Cuba. You can see the result of the voting on the screen: 21 votes in favor of the resolution, 17 votes against it and 15 abstentions.

The United States has managed to force the adoption of that text based on the following circumstances:

First, it successfully pressed the government of Saudi Arabia into changing its last year’s vote against the resolution – last year the Saudi government voted against the American-sponsored resolution, but the United States managed to successfully pressure it this year to vote for its resolution.

It is well known that President Bush will host the Saudi Prince Heir in his Texas ranch next April 24.

Secondly, the new government in Ukraine – led by President Yushchenko – also changed its vote against the American resolution of last year to vote for it now. It is also known that President Yushchenko traveled to Washington last week and – at the American government’s urging -- made a written commitment in a public statement with President Bush to support him in the U.S. campaign against Cuba and Belarus. That happened precisely when we are marking the 15th anniversary of the Chernobil Program, whereby over 18,000 sick Ukrainian children as a result of the nuclear accident there have been treated in our country free of charge.

We know that there has been an explosion of public outrage in the Ukrainian media and public opinion because of the new government’s decision to join the U.S. campaign and vote in favor of the resolution condemning Cuba.

In other words, these two countries – which had voted against the American resolution last year – have changed their votes this year based on these peculiar situations and under strong U.S. arm-twisting.

In addition to that, by exerting brutal pressures – which we are very much aware of – particularly upon African countries, where the United States government went all out, the Bush Administration compelled some African countries to vote in abstention. These countries had voted against that resolution last year and have usually opposed U.S. manipulation of human rights against Cuba. Through unbearable pressures exerted by the United States government and their representatives in those capitals, through telephone calls by senior officials, the Secretary of State, the President himself, U.S. envoys especially dispatched to American embassies in Africa; through all this intense lobbying effort, pressures and blackmail, the United States succeeded in having three African countries, which voted last year against the resolution: Burkina Faso, Togo and Swaziland, vote in abstention this time.

What is impressive is that despite U.S. pressures nine African countries stayed firm and once again voted with Cuba against the resolution. These countries were South Africa, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Sudan, Congo, Guinea Conakry and Eritrea for the first time this year, because it had voted in abstention in 2004.

Yet, there were three African countries, which could not withstand American pressures and cast a vote of abstention.

Finally, the United States also managed that Pakistan, which is in the midst of a complex and peculiar geo-strategic situation and after having voted against the U.S. resolution for seven consecutive years, voted in abstention now.

Therefore, the U.S. government had two countries: Saudi Arabia and Ukraine – that used to vote with Cuba against the resolution – suddenly voting in its favor this year, while it also forced the abstention of three African countries: Burkina Faso, Togo and Swaziland; plus an Asian country: Pakistan, all of which used to vote against the resolution. They could not resist U.S. pressures and abstained. Hence the result obtained.

However, Cuba believes that the failure of the so-called “Latinamericanization” of the resolution in Geneva must be highlighted.

On previous occasions, the U.S. government had succeeded in getting the votes of a number of Latin American countries; they even sometimes presented the text themselves and played a very active role. But there are winds of change blowing in this region, particularly after the triumph and consolidation of the revolutionary and Bolivarian process led by President Chavez and the election of a number of governments of progressive persuasion, which have changed the situation in the region. That is why – for instance – this year for the first time no South American country voted in favor of the U.S. resolution.

With the exception of the three traditional votes the U.S. government gets from the Central American countries of Costa Rica, Honduras and Guatemala, which are not worthy of any comments due to their obvious dependence on the United States, and the vote of Mexico; except for these four votes, Latin America has acted with dignity and refused to support this new political manipulation against Cuba.

In addition to the abstentions of Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay, there are also Peru and the Dominican Republic this time. We see these changes in votes as a positive sign, the changes in the vote to abstention by the government of Peru and the new government in the Dominican Republic, which changed the previous government’s vote in favor of the American resolution it cast last year.

After six years, the United States government was forced to present the resolution itself, because it was unable to find any country willing to do that for them.

I must underscore that the majority of the countries member of the Commission did not vote in favor of the draft, they refused to support that draft. A total of 32 countries, in spite of intense American pressure, did not vote for it. Out of the 53 countries members of the Commission, 32 either voted against – heroically voted against the resolution, I would say, given the huge pressures exerted by the United States – or abstained from voting against Cuba. So the majority of the countries members of the Commission did not heed the American call to join in their vote against Cuba. Almost two thirds of the countries members of the Commission on Human Rights did not vote in favor of the resolution against Cuba, despite U.S. requests and arm-twisting.

In order to have another 20 countries to vote with them, the U.S. government has had to renounce to explicitly condemn Cuba, the text that was adopted does not condemn Cuba. The United States has had to abandon, discard the erstwhile strong language of condemnation against Cuba. The resolution has been weakening year after year until it has watered down to the present text.

However, this is a resolution whose tricky text lacks judgment on or critic of Cuba. At any rate, it is discriminatory, meddling and maintains an unjustified monitoring mechanism against Cuba. It also accomplished the American objective of again keeping the Cuban case under Item 9 of the Commission on Human Rights’ agenda, which deals with the most serious violations of human rights. That is really hard to justify and is only possible given enormous American pressures and power, whose ultimate goal is to justify their policy of aggression and blockade against Cuba.

Once again, I wish to highlight that, in order to get the support of another 20 countries, the United States has had to renounce to condemn Cuba and has had to settle for a text, which actually lacks any criticism or judgment on the Cuban reality.

I do believe that that is an indication of the new times, of the international community’s exhaustion over the manipulation of this issue against Cuba, which has been going on for over 15 years.

I would like to point out that the majority of countries from Africa, Asia and the Middle East voted against the U.S. resolution.

The courage of these countries must be recognized and we wish to express our appreciation to the governments that have resisted all kinds of pressures and voted against the American resolution. They constitute the majority in their respective geographic regions. We are talking about China, India, and Indonesia. If their support were to be measured by the number of inhabitants of the countries voting, we could say that the majority of the peoples on this planet have voted for Cuba.

Our appreciation to China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Kenya, Russia, Egypt, South Africa, Sudan, Eritrea, Congo Brazzaville, Qatar, Guinea Conakry, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe for their strong position regarding the manipulation of human rights against Cuba.

I must frankly and clearly say that Cuba does not recognize any legitimacy to that resolution whatsoever. Cuba will not cooperate at all with the spurious mandate that resolution establishes. No one should expect Cuba to depart a single millimeter from its position or to abandon its principled position. Cuba does not accept that resolution and will not cooperate with it. We believe that it is illegitimate as well as the mandate given to the UNHCHR’s personal Representative. Therefore, Cuba will not cooperate, will not allow that Representative to come to Cuba, will not cooperate with her report because we believe that it is a scandalous, selective and discriminatory manipulation of this issue; because there is not a single reason to have a resolution against Cuba on the issue of the most serious violations of human rights and because the country presenting the resolution lacks the moral authority. Therefore, there is not a single cause to justify that resolution.

I already said that the United States government went all out this year because they understood very early on that they would not have the usual support in Latin America, because they realized that only a small number of countries would join them, that their attempt at “Latinamericanizing” this issue was destined to failure. So when they early on became aware of this situation, the U.S. government unleashed all its might and vice particularly on African countries, as well as Arab and Asian nations.

U.S. pressures have been far greater than in any other previous year. The tenacity and insistence with which the U.S. government and senior officers have acted is unprecedented. They made the most vulgar threats particularly against African countries, as I said before. They opportunistically took advantage of the serious social and economic situation facing African countries in order to carry out this dirty move.

For obvious reasons, out of ethics and respect, we will not mention any country in particular. It would be humiliating for them, so we will not name any country. But the public opinion must know that U.S. pressures have reached the extreme of directly threatening an African country several times with affecting its cotton exports to the American market. They threatened it with closing the U.S. market to its cotton exports!

Every African country was threatened on several occasions with denying them the advantages of the African Growth and Opportunities Act, an American piece of legislation that facilitates access to the U.S. market by reducing tariffs to African export items, based on the U.S. government’s selective decision and authorization to determine which countries qualify. Therefore, it is a powerful tool to exert pressure on these countries. All of them were threatened with this issue that is critical to the survival of millions of inhabitants in these countries, who are victims of the unjust international economic order.

The American government warned another African country – and we know because they told us – that if they voted against the resolution, in favor of Cuba, the United States government would not act to prevent the opposition’s violence in that country’s tense upcoming elections.

The American envoy dispatched to that capital clearly said – taking advantage of the situation of weakness of the authorities at that time – that they could not count on America’s influence to prevent the opposition from resorting to violence during elections, if that government voted in favor of Cuba.

Early this morning, the Minister of Finance of another African country was also pressured by phone – this is a country, which last night had confirmed to our delegation that it would vote against the U.S. resolution, as it has done in previous years. Anyone can understand that such decision is supposed to be discussed with the Foreign Minister, but the U.S. government called the Minister of Finance instead. One can only imagine the type of arguments that were used against this African country, which made it change its position and abstain.

The government of a small Asian country was threatened with the return to their territory of a wave of refugees, which would risk its national stability, if they voted against the American resolution.

A Central American country has been frequently threatened with not renewing the yearly authorization granted by the U.S. government to allow that nation’s illegal immigrants to stay in U.S. territory. Every year American authorities have to authorize whether these illegal immigrants are allowed to stay. And they use that as a weapon, they threaten with not granting that authorization, which would mean the return to that country of illegal immigrants residing in the United States under precarious conditions.

Also, final passage in the U.S. Congress authorizing the Central American Free Trade Agreement hangs on Central American countries as a Damocles’ Sword. This is a powerful tool conveniently wielded to keep these countries aligned with the United States.

These are but a few examples that will give you an idea of the way in which this resolution was imposed.

I must say that the European Union (EU) – with its unprecedented sponsorship of the American draft and its traditional vote against Cuba – once again has given in to the aggressive U.S. policy towards Cuba.

The role played by the EU is pathetic. It has had a submissive and servile attitude. It has acted hypocritically and its alignment with the United States against small countries like Cuba is shameful. It shows the EU’s inability to articulate its own and independent policy towards our country.

Once again we believed in the possibility that the EU would outline a policy of its own, but it has been a disappointment.

I must remind you that last 31 January, the EU Council of Ministers, instead of once and for all rectifying their costly previous mistakes in its policy towards Cuba – which is what they had to do – they chose to make a transitional decision temporarily suspending the implementation of the so-called diplomatic sanctions against Cuba, adopted on 5 June 2003.

It is true it was a decision in the right direction, in the direction of normalizing relations; it is true. But as anyone could see, it was contradictory, insufficient and timid: “Yes, but only a little bit. I will move forward, but only half way.” As we all know, this is due to the enormous pressures exerted by the U.S. government through its new satellites in Eastern Europe, particularly the government of the Czech Republic, which blockaded a wider compromise by the EU Council of Ministers.

Cuba, for its part and even before that, had unilaterally, prudently and constructively “unfrozen” – that is the word I will use because it has already been coined by the media – its relations with European embassies in Havana. Then, Cuba put forth serious and audacious proposals to European authorities during my trip to Europe and to the delegation led by Commissioner Louis Michel, including signing a real agreement covering political dialogue and human rights. This agreement would allow mutually respectful and sovereign bilateral exchanges on this issue, as equals because Cuba does not accept lessons or scrutiny by the EU or anyone else. But it included exchanges and cooperation in areas where we really have things to show for, where we have experience and undisputed results. So we were ready to sit down and talk with the EU, to discuss and cooperate in areas like election and penitentiary systems, imparting justice, political, economic, social and any other issues because Cuba places no obstacles or limitations, has no fear to debate and present its reality as long as the EU adopted a position of its own and abstained from supporting this practice in Geneva.

We told them: “So you want a European way with Cuba? Ok, let’s have it! Why don’t you disassociate yourself from that sterile practice and move forward with us?” First, they agreed, but soon after started with their hesitation and backtracking.

But in our view, the EU – with this act of co-sponsoring and supporting the resolution in block, something they had not done before, all 25 of them co-sponsoring the resolution, and with other acts that have taken place in the last few days – renounces to its own interests, does more of the same, it shamefully submits to the United States and has once again chosen the path of confrontation instead of dialogue with Cuba. It has not even done it on its own initiative, but as a pawn of U.S. policy towards Cuba; a policy, which they are not proponents of, but rather simple accessories.

I must clearly say that the EU’s attitude on this issue jeopardizes the process of normalization of relations and dialogue with Cuba. I must also inform that Cuba will in the short-term carefully assess the evolution of EU’s positions and accusations, and will decide – in light of the EU Council of Ministers’ conduct and decisions to be taken no later than July of this year regarding the so-called sanctions – depending on what this Council decides in July, whether it decides to definitively suspend the so-called sanctions, resumes or renews them; depending on what they find, Cuba will decide whether or not it maintains its also temporary suspension of “freezing” EU embassies in Havana.

Their decision is temporary and so is ours. They will adopt theirs, they say, according to what we do, and we will adopt ours also according to what they do.

We are assessing EU’s behavior and will act accordingly. We will review our measures before July.

We have not received a single show of any EU’s genuine and real willingness to move forward with Cuba. On the contrary, they have pathetically ended up becoming accomplices of the U.S. government. While we were making progress on one side, exploring new ways for dialogue and cooperation, the EU hardened its position to unprecedented levels and co-sponsored the resolution against Cuba in block. So then, we know what to expect in the coming months.

The EU co-sponsored that resolution precisely the year when it was in talks with Cuba, when there was a process under way, when certain governments were making headway and recognized that it was commonsense to attempt to reestablish relations with Cuba; but it ended up doing what it has not done ever before: co-sponsoring this resolution with the United States in block, thus becoming its co-authors.

I cannot overlook – and cannot help but highlight – the fact that the Mexican government has opted for confrontation with Cuba and once again the Mexican government has betrayed the fraternal sentiments of its generous people towards Cuba, which were expressed in the Mexican Congress, where the Senate asked the Executive to abstain from voting against Cuba, of Mexican NGOs, which overwhelmingly and constantly urged the Mexican government to rectify and of the Mexican public opinion at large.

To the Mexican people, we express our affection, respect, and appreciation for their determined position. But their feelings are being betrayed, their love and friendship with Cuba are not being represented, other interests prevail.

I must frankly say that the Mexican government, under U.S. pressure, has broken the pledge they had previously made with us in various meetings, at different levels, including meetings between both foreign ministers, to work towards the normalization of bilateral relations based on dialogue and mutual respect, to rectify their position in the Commission on Human Rights and adopt the position of abstention, which was the vote of that government in the first year of its term.

Throughout all this process Cuba has always acted with total transparence and sense of honor, keeping the word pledged, showing huge patience, self-restrain and caution.

I reiterate that the Mexican government does not have any reason to vote against Cuba. More than that, it has no moral authority to criticize Cuba. Really, the Mexican government had better occupy itself in resolving the serious violations of human rights taking place right in Mexico, where hundreds of Mexicans are murdered in its border with the United States every year, they are murdered with the tolerance and encouragement of the same Mexican government that becomes an accomplice to act against Cuba. While Cuba becomes a champion of the right to life of the Mexicans who are murdered in the U.S. border, their government turns a blind eye and votes with the United States against Cuba. And on top of that, it does it behind Cuba’s back and violating already-made pledges.

In all honesty, I must say that the Mexican government has bargained its vote against Cuba in exchange for American support to their candidacy to the post of OAS Secretary-General. It is evident that the Cuban issue was used as a bargaining chip.

But I have to say that Cuba does not admit pressures from the United States or its lackeys and Cuba will forge ahead with determination.

The Mexican government reinforces its isolation in Latin America – the Mexican people should take note of this – and places itself on the list of governments in cahoots with the United States in its attempt to condemn Cuba.

The Mexican government is moving in the opposite direction to the winds of integration blowing in Our America.

Also, I would like to make an announcement: as it is known, major events have been taking place since last year’s Commission on Human Rights. The horrendous and undisputable evidence on the tortures to war prisoners in Abu Ghraib, in the concentration camp the U.S. government has established in Guantanamo Naval Base and in other U.S. detention centers have shaken world’s conscience.

What is more serious is that there is evidence that it is a sanctioned system, rather than violent behavior by individuals. These are not isolated cases of sick torturers, there is ample evidence of a system authorized at the highest levels – and several documents have come to light – in the U.S. government, based on a legal, spurious and fascist interpretation made in the White House that led to the supposed legal authorization to institute this system of torturing prisoners.

Therefore, I am hereby announcing that Cuba has decided to present a draft resolution to the Commission on Human Rights, on the issue of violations of human rights committed at Guantanamo Naval Base.

At 6:00 pm, Geneva time, 12:00 m in Havana, this draft was submitted to the UNCHR’s Secretariat and will be voted on next week.

The purpose of this draft resolution we are presenting today is that UNCHR’s existing mechanisms investigate the situation of the detainees kept in the territory the United States usurps Cuba in the Bay of Guantanamo.

I will now read and then we will circulate this text among press correspondents. It is entitled: “Question of Detainees in the Area of the United States Naval Base in Guantánamo” and it reads as follows:

The Commission on Human Rights,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms through international cooperation,
Aware that all persons are entitled to respect for their human rights as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and bearing in mind that several of these rights do not prescribe, and that their enjoyment cannot be restricted under any circumstances,
Recalling the duty of all States to respect and comply with their obligations under international instruments, including those relating to human rights, to which they are parties,
Recalling also General Comment 31 of the Human Rights Committee, adopted at its 2187 meeting on 29 March 2004,
Recalling the request made to the Government of the United States on 25 June 2004, by four thematic procedures mandate holders of the Commission, with the objective of visiting the persons detained on grounds of terrorism, including in Guantánamo Bay,
Taking into account the declaration made on 4 February 2005 by six special procedures mandate holders of the Commission, reaffirming their serious concern over the situation of detainees at the Naval Base in Guantánamo, despite some positive developments which have taken place on the issue for the last few months,
Taking into account also that a significant number of governments and parliaments from all over the world have expressed their concern in this regard, among them the European Parliament, that in its resolution on Guantánamo adopted on 28 October 2004, called on the United Sates administration to allow an impartial and independent investigation into allegations of torture and mistreatment for all persons deprived of their liberty in U.S. custody,
1. Requests the Government of the United States to authorize an impartial and independent investigation by the relevant special procedures of the Commission on Human Rights, on the situation of detainees at its Naval Base in Guantánamo;
2. Requests also the Government of the United States, for such purposes, -- of conducting an investigation there – to authorize the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, to the Special Rapporteur on Torture, to the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, to visit the detention centers which have been established in that Base;
3. Requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare and submit to the 62nd Session of the Commission – next year --, a report on the situation of the detainees at the U.S. Base in Guantánamo, based on the results of the findings to be conducted therein by mandate holders of the afore-mentioned special procedures;
4. Decides to continue the consideration of this issue at its forth-coming session.
This text, which we will circulate to you at the end of this press conference, with its corresponding translation – has already been submitted by the Cuban delegation.

As you can see, it is a text that only seeks to investigate the facts on the ground. It does not pass any judgment or condemns, it just requests the Commission’s special thematic procedures, which I mentioned, to investigate what is going on, it is their duty: the Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on Torture should draft a report; it requests that the High Commissioner submits a report based on what they find there.

As of tomorrow, the Cuban delegation will start open-ended informal consultation on this text in Geneva with those delegations that so wish, in order to include their views, suggestions and discuss them. We estimate that the voting should take place by the middle of next week.

Given the seriousness of the situation, of which there is much more evidence than last year, we guarantee that this time around we will submit our draft to vote under any circumstances.

So no one should be misled into believing that they will not have to take sides on this text. No government can hide behind political or technical considerations to try and prevent the Commission from voting one way or the other.

There is abundant public information already, because this text was publicized last year. That is why, in this context, Cuba officially requests – and is communicating this officially and directly to – the EU, some of whose citizens have been and even still are detained at the Guantanamo Naval Base concentration camp, …

Therefore, we request – aware that this issue is of interest to Europe – that the EU co-sponsors and votes in favor of this draft. Eight EU countries are members of the UNCHR and without their support it would not be possible to – for instance – condemn Cuba.

The EU’s vote determines that the United States obtains the majority, because if the United States government did not have those 8 votes, the resolution against Cuba could not be adopted. Therefore, we request the EU that it co-sponsors and votes this text in block, the same way they have done it with the U.S. resolution against Cuba. It would be totally consistent with the EU’s alleged concern over human rights around the world and with the demands of the European public opinion. It would show consistency in an ethical issue of universal reach.

We believe we have furnished the EU with the opportunity to give proof of its ethical consistency. In addition, it would fully comply with what the European Parliament (EP) requested European governments in its document called “Preparations for UNCHR Session”. In that European Parliament’s resolution, paragraph 23rd states: “… requests – the European Parliament – that the Presidency sponsors a resolution calling on the United States to clarify without delay the situation of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay as far as meeting international standards are concerned and consequently proceed to try or release them.”

It would be consistent as well with paragraph 30 of that EP Resolution stating that the European Parliament asks that European Council and the European Commission “exhaustively report to the full Parliament on the results of their work in the UNCHR, report in detail on the resolutions and themes they have sponsored”, but EP also asks that they “explain when and why a resolution was not sponsored.”

So, before this EP mandate, asking governments to even explain if in any instance they did not sponsor a resolution and why, we believe it is time for the EU to act.

I am also informing to you that you will be given the fifth issue of a compilation titled: Guantanamo, a Moral and Legal Black Hole, which contains ample additional information on the situation in the Naval Base the United States illegally occupies in Guantanamo.

Finally, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the U.S. government, which for weeks has sought Cuba’s condemnation in Geneva, is the same government providing shelter to an ill-famed international terrorist, Luis Posada Carriles, in its territory.

Posada Carriles has always worked for the U.S. government. When he was involved in the illegal operation run by Colonel Oliver Stone to resupply Nicaraguan contras, he earned double salary: one paid by the White House and the other one by the Department of State. That is public information taken from the U.S. legal system.

More recently, in addition to having been involved in such despicable acts like blowing up a Cuban airliner in midair off Barbados, it is known that Posada Carriles was the organizer of the mercenary network behind the bombings of Cuban hotels, which claimed the life of young Italian tourist Fabio Di Celmo.

Senior U.S. government officers and White House and State Department officials have not said a word yet today to respond to President Fidel Castro’s challenge of last 11 April; while they keep quiet, Posada Carriles publicly seeks asylum with U.S. immigration authorities based on his merits as CIA officer and member of the U.S. Army, and acknowledges he entered U.S. territory a month ago.

The United States is acting with shameful double standards; its human rights and terrorism crusades are mere lies and only serve its interests of world domination.

The European Union also keeps a hypocritical silence. Despite President Fidel Castro’s request to EU governments -- also made on 11 April -- to make a statement on this critical event, involving a terrorist who is even responsible for the death of a European tourist, the European Union has not said a word and also betrays its alleged anti-terror commitment.

The U.S. government’s decision on Posada Carriles’ asylum petition, and the position of other governments regarding this issue, will have huge implications in the international war on terror.

The world public opinion, after Fidel’s challenge, is expectant. The survivors and relatives of victims of terrorist acts clamor for justice and hope that the challenge made by President Fidel Castro is responded.

It is in this context that the Cuban government and people proclaim that neither spurious resolutions in Geneva, nor pressures, blackmail, blockades, threats, lies or campaigns will make us desist from our revolutionary and anti-imperialist road in solidarity with the just causes in the world.

Mauricio Vicens (El País newspaper).- Good morning. Minister, two questions: one is, given what you said, has the dialogue process opened between the European Union and Cuba been interrupted? What is its situation right now after what happened?

Felipe Perez.- It is on the brink of wreckage, it needs the European Union to decide whether – as we say in Cuba – “it will have straight or curly hair.”

Mauricio.- And how is that going to be reflected? What does the European Union have to do to prove it and for Cuba to act one way or the other?

Felipe Perez.- They should know, the European Union knows what it has to do, it knows what it has done wrong and it knows whatever rectification it should make, I hope.

Mauricio.- Are you optimistic or pessimistic?

Felipe Perez.- I am a realist and I am confident that Cuba will forge ahead with or without the European Union, that Cuba enjoys the increasing support and sympathy of the peoples of the world, including those of the European Union.

Mauricio.- Second question. Is this reassessment of relations with the European Union going to be done on a case-by-case basis, distinguishing countries of the European Union that have a different attitude and have been more inclined to dialogue? Or is it going to throw everyone in the same bag?

Felipe Perez.- It depends. We will keep all our options open. We have to look at this issue and decide, taking into account that on the one hand all of them have in effect co-sponsored the resolution in block; but on the other hand, there are countries that have stood out in their calling of being Washington satellites.

But we will keep all our options open and make a decision. However, we appreciate those countries within the European Union defending a path of EU dialogue and cooperation with Cuba. They have to decide whether they are going to defend their position or whether they are going to stay the course of capitulation, which logically has encouraged the enemies of the process to intensify their actions to boycott it.

Mauricio.- Will their support or lack thereof to the resolution to be submitted by the Cuban government, which will be debated next week, be a defining factor to determine further events?

Felipe Perez.- Most of all, it is an issue that will define the ethics of EU leaders. It is an issue that will define the image of EU governments; it is an issue that will decide whether the EU’s self-proclaimed human rights calling really has a universal unbiased approach, that does not act as an accomplice with the powerful.

Since they have already co-sponsored and voted for the resolution on the human rights situation in almost all of Cuba, now we are giving them the chance to extend their human rights concern to the 117 km2 that were left out of the American resolution. So we will be attentive and expectant to see what they will do. We will wait and see if they do as last year, when EU representatives came begging us to withdraw our draft resolution, they begged us to not put them in that difficult and complex dilemma. Faced with our argument of: “But, where is your ethics?” they replied: “Well, it’s such a world and we can’t change it. You have to understand our cross-Atlantic relations with the United States.” So we decided, since we realized that they were not going to lend their support and taking into account that the United States could manipulate the result of that debate, to withdraw our draft resolution. This year, they might as well forget about us doing the same. They will have to take sides. And I do not exclude the fact that there might be countries, which would even want a stronger language, a more critical and inquisitive text, because we will start open-ended consultation tomorrow with other countries in the Commission.

We will see whether the EU will again beg us to withdraw our draft, to avoid putting them in a quandary or they will lead the efforts to adopt a resolution dealing with an issue involving European citizens, who are imprisoned, subject to torture and mistreatment in Guantanamo.

Lucia Newman (CNN).- Yes, Mr. Minister, exactly a week ago President Fidel Castro said he could not care less about the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. So if you could not care less about the Commission, then why have you dedicated so much time, resources and effort to denounce it?

Felipe Perez.- Well, I should underline that we all couldn’t care less as well, in the sense Fidel put it: we couldn’t care less about the scheming, we couldn’t care less about the spurious way in which, by arm-twisting and blackmail, countries are forced into voting, we couldn’t care less that the principal abuser becomes the prosecutor, and we couldn’t care less because neither that resolution, nor any other arbitrary and aggressive measure taken by the U.S. government against Cuba will have the desired effect for their proponents, they will be faced with our people’s resistance.

We dedicate our efforts because we believe that the noble cause of human rights and genuine international cooperation in that area must be rescued from the spurious interests that hold them hostage today serving the vested interests of a clique of powerful countries, of the United States and its acolytes. We would rather have a commission, which really fosters cooperation, respects the independence and sovereignty of countries; a commission, which is no longer a politicized battleground to condemn countries like Cuba that does not submit, surrender, sell out, betray, negotiate its principles or compromise. That is why Cuba is being accused. Because it constitutes an example of dignity, because even though it is a small country, it has not been put to its knees.

So, we couldn’t care less about U.S. scheming, but we do care a lot about duly debating violations of human rights – like the ones taking place in Guantanamo – and about the international community’s cooperation to eliminate them.

Lucia Newman (CNN).- Excuse me. Then, why did Cuba wait until after this vote to submit its draft resolution? Why didn’t it present it before?

Felipe Perez.- Because we believe that the agenda item that is being debated now is the one under which this issue can be properly looked at. Also, this way we are trying to avoid any bias and contamination with the Cuban issue in this debate. This issue is of such significance to the Commission that it must focus all its efforts and attention to deal only and solely with this subject next week and thus closing this year’s session with the perfect finale.

Gerardo Arreola (La Jornada).- Minister, I don’t know whether I understood correctly what you said about Mexico, so I am seeking clarification. I understood that the Mexican government notified the Cuban government of its intention to go back to abstention.

Felipe Perez.- Yes, privately, more than once.

Gerardo Arreola (La Jornada).- Then I would like to know what impact or consequences -- in the view of the Cuban government – will all this have in your bilateral relations and other collateral issues like the debt, migration, etc.?

Felipe Perez.- The consequence is that it revives confrontation and convinces the Cuban government that Mexican attempts at dialogue and normalization of relations were not honest, they were mere tactical moves.

Irma Caceres (Cuban TV).- Minister, in the Commission on Human Rights the Chinese Ambassador made a statement to explain China’s vote, which had a great repercussion in the hall because of his reference to the United States, could you comment on that and give your opinion about the Chinese Ambassador’s statement?

Felipe Perez.- The Chinese Ambassador, who is a prestigious, combative and well-known diplomat in the Commission because of his firm stance in the defense of his country’s positions and the positions of the Third World, made an excellent statement, which we appreciate. He told truths that must be told in that Commission, he expressed his recognition to Cuba’s resilience and example and we are honored for that, really. We are sure our people will have the opportunity to watch his excellent statement on TV later in the day.

Irma Caceres (Cuban TV).- Minister, would you please mention some facts which help explain why Europe has gone so publicly from being a region of great colonizing powers to playing such a submissive role, as you said?

Felipe Perez.- I believe that the fact that the European Union was unable to come up with a common position on the war in Iraq, and that some EU governments, led by the government of then-president Jose Maria Aznar became even accomplices and took that shameful photograph in the Azores, shows that the EU is losing ground in the world. It is an economic giant, but a dwarf as far as political influence is concerned.

I think that the EU’s shameful position in the CHR joining the United States to condemn small Third World countries, like Cuba, while it keeps quiet and turns a blind eye on situations like those in Guantanamo Naval Base and Abu Ghraib, make the EU an ethical and moral dwarf, which is even more serious. I am not talking about European peoples, culture, history and their contribution to it, I am talking about European governments, politicians, some politicians who really have to take a hard look at their behavior.

We do want relations with the European Union; we wish dialogue with it, serious, respectful and mature cooperation, but it has to determine whether it is going to act as an independent bloc of countries or be wrecked in the waters of U.S. interests.

Serguei Novozhilov (ITAR-TASS).- Foreign Minister, I would like to hear your opinion on the recent statements made by the Ukrainian president in the United States about human rights in Cuba.

Felipe Perez.- They are shameful and a stab in the back to the country that has done the most about the Chernobil victims, a stab in the back to the people that have generously welcomed over 18,000 Ukrainians. But that will not diminish Cuban love for the Ukrainian people, or our pride for the historical ties existing between Ukrainians and Cubans. That will not make us either retaliate against their children, who need the assistance of our health professionals and facilities.

We are not a superpower, but we are morally strong, as Fidel said some days ago. That is why we are pained by acts like those, by decisions that some governments of Third World countries adopt against us, as the Africans for instance, but we understand the huge pressures exerted upon them. We do not speak the language of reprisals, threats and blackmail that the Imperial government speaks, but we cannot share the Ukrainian government’s decision, which we describe as shameful.

Serguei Novozhilov (ITAR-TASS).- Second question. In your view, to what extent does the danger of a U.S. direct intervention against Cuba grow after this vote in Geneva? Thanks.

Felipe Perez.- The United States uses the Commission on Human Rights to fabricate the pretext to justify its policy of aggression against Cuba.

Now, its language has also changed. Now they claim that the cause for regime change is not only terrorism or the possession of weapons of mass destruction, but also the need to “liberate” a people. But one thing is a vote in Geneva and another is to come and “liberate” Cubans right here in our homeland, where they will have to capture every Cuban at gunpoint. Then, we’ll see whether they can bring regime change in Cuba, it would be an adventure, whose cost cannot be estimated.

Moderator.- Last question, Andrea.

Andrea Rogriguez (AP).- Good morning, Minister.

Felipe Perez.- Good morning, Andrea.

Andrea Rogriguez (AP).- As you have said, the resolution voted today is not condemnatory.

Felipe Perez.- Yes, but not because the United States did not want it that way, but because they were not able to pass a condemnatory one.

Andrea Rogriguez (AP).- Then why doesn’t the Cuban government allow the human rights observer to come, since you have effectively allowed entry to many other delegations that have come and become interested in many human rights-related issues in Cuba? That is on the one hand.

On the on the other hand, regarding Mexico, I would like to know… The vote seems to show that Mexico has turned its back on MERCOSUR and somehow aligned itself with the United States. Now, my question is: do you believe that Mexico has voted against Cuba in exchange for U.S. support of the Mexican candidate to the OAS or do you believe that there are other elements that come into play here? Thanks.

Felipe Perez.- On your first question, why doesn’t Cuba allow the CHR representative – it is a French jurist named Christine Chanet? Because Cuba does not surrender to pressures and manipulation, because Cuba does not bargain or compromise its principles, because Cuba does not relinquish an iota of its sovereign prerogatives. Cuba does not accept to be put on trial by the most powerful government on this planet, which must be the one accused. Therefore, we do not recognize any legitimacy whatsoever to that resolution. And since the mandate of that representative is under that spurious resolution, she has become a victim of the resolution that gives rise to her post. We cannot cooperate with the American resolution, but we do not refuse to cooperate – as we in fact do – with all other universal mechanisms of the Commission, which are not selective and discriminatory.

I must remind you that Cuba was the first country in Latin America that invited the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. It was not a representative, but the High Commissioner himself, who for instance has not officially visited the United States, has not been officially invited to visit the United States and has not visited half of Latin American countries.

The High Commissioner is a Canadian lady now. When Cuba invited the High Commissioner for Human Rights, it was prestigious Ecuadorian jurist Jose Ayala Lasso, who was later Ecuador’s Foreign Minister. He resigned when in 1999 the Ecuadorian government voted against Cuba in Geneva. So he was the UNHCHR when he came here and then drafted a report saying that there were not massive, flagrant and systematic violations of human rights in Cuba.

Cuba has invited CHR Rapporteurs that exist for every country, but does not accept one that is specific for Cuba. Why only for Cuba?

Why isn’t there a resolution against the United States or Mexico or any other country in Latin America? Why out of the 34 countries in this hemisphere there is a resolution only targeting Cuba? Aren’t there violations of human rights in the United States? Don’t Central American countries violate human rights? Why doesn’t the United States -- which in its annual human rights report, judging everyone except themselves, say worst things about Mexico or Central America – present resolutions against them, but only against Cuba?

That is why we do not cooperate with that resolution, but we invite the UNHCHR and CHR’s Rapporteurs: the Rapporteur of Discrimination against Women, the Rapporteur on the Use of Mercenaries to Violate Human Rights, who drafted a report saying that there was evidence of the use of mercenaries by Posada Carriles. This Rapporteur, Peruvian jurist Bernales Ballesteros, was denied entry into the United States to investigate and fulfill his mandate. He published a report on the complicity and tolerance of Posada Carriles’ actions in Central America.

Cuba usually renders account to the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, to the mechanisms of human rights covenants, which Cuba is party to. We do not refuse international cooperation, on the contrary, but it has to be non-discriminatory and universal.

Now why do we have to comply with a spurious mandate, with a resolution like this imposed by force?

On your second question, I believe that with this decision the Mexican government has not only turned its back on MERCOSUR, but practically on the rest of Latin America. The Mexican government has crossed the Rio Grande border and gone up north. What other reasons they would have to vote as they did? It is up to them to explain, not me. I must say that we do not blame the Mexican people, for whom we only have feelings of sympathy, affection and appreciation. That is the people who welcomed Jose Marti, the same people that welcomed Fidel and other Cuban revolutionaries before sailing aboard the Granma, the same people who opposed the Bay of Pigs invasion, whose former president Lazaro Cardenas volunteered to fight the Bay of Pigs invasion on behalf of the Cubans, that is the generous people to whom we are tied by history and culture.

We will never blame the Mexican people; we will never utter a disrespectful word or phrase. Our respect to the Mexican people, their feelings towards Cuba once again have been betrayed.

Moderator.- Thank you very much, Minister.

Felipe Perez.- Thank you.

Subir

Annan Admits UN Slacking on Human Rights Abuses

Geneva, April 8 (Prensa Latina) UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has stated the international organization is failing to protect against human rights abuses.

Addressing the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva Thursday, Annan asserted the United Nations needs a new human rights body if it is to prevent appalling suffering in the world.

"We have reached a point at which the commission"s declining credibility has cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole, where piecemeal reforms will not be enough," Annan told delegates.

According to Annan, the commission"s ability to perform its tasks has been overtaken by new needs and undermined by the politicization of its sessions and the selectivity of its work.

As part of a package of reforms unveiled last month, the secretary-general proposed a permanent human rights council to replace the present commission.

As a standing United Nations organization, the body would able to meet when necessary, addressing human rights violations as they arise. At present, the commission can only address issues during its annual six-week session.

Council members would be elected directly by the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority and fulfil specific human rights criteria, according to the proposed reforms.

US denied a chance to meet officials about the US embargo on Cuba

April 1, 2005
Takem from New York Daily

GENEVA: A UN human rights expert accused the US of trying to destroy the UN's top human rights forum, after he was

Jean Ziegler told journalists that has sought to meet US State Department officials dealing with the embargo on Cuba last year during a planned mission to Washington and the Caribbean island to examine the food situation in Cuba.

"The government of the United States refused to accept my request," the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food told journalists.

Referring to proposals for reform of the United Nations human rights commission, which is currently meeting in Geneva, Ziegler said: "The (President George W) Bush regime not only wants to destroy the Commission, to reduce it, to bring it back to New York to control it."

New Volumes of Cuban Book on Human Rights

Havana, Mar 15 (Prensa Latina) Two new chapters of the book Cuba and Human Rights are the latest contribution to the effort against lies and deceits, President of the Cuban Parliament Ricardo Alarcon stated here on Tuesday.

One of the volumes addresses US policies towards Cuba by George W. Bush's administration, while the other deals with the strengthening of the economic, commercial and financial blockade Washington has maintained versus Cuba for more than 40 years.

The volumes were launched in the former nursery school Le Van Than, target of a sabotage that jeopardized the life of 570 children and 156 workers on May 8, 1980.

"Very few places are better than this, the target of one of the most abominable terrorist actions against our people, to present these books citing evidence of the US's long history of violence against Cuba and its desire to overthrow the Cuban Revolution," said Alarcon.

As part of their moral double standard, Washington makes tremendous effort to condemn Cuba at the UN Commission on Human Rights, the Parliament leader recalled.

"They are trying to find someone unscrupulous enough to do the dirty work for them and present an anti-Cuban document in Geneva, but as far as we know, they have found no one," he added.

If there is a place in Cuba where human rights are violated, it is the naval base of Guantanamo, "a portion of our territory seized, now a prison and the scene of who knows what terrible tortures," he went on.

Juana Garcia, former educator of the nursery school, also spoke during the presentation of the two latest chapters of the book, published by the Cuban Foreign Ministry.

That not one child died that day, she recalled, was due to the response of the firemen, the police, the authorities of the territory, the neighbors and a group of students in a secondary school nearby.

"I don't know how the US administrations dare to accuse Cuba of promoting terrorism, when the truth is they are the parents and grandparents of such horrendous crimes as that they were about to commit here 25 years ago," she stated.

The first of the five volumes of the collection Cuba and Human Rights was presented a few days ago.

Of the final two pending, one deals with the naval base of Guantanamo, and the other with the Cuban democratic system and Cuba's efforts to build a fairer, more participative, equitable and solidarity-based society.