Headlines, Human Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean

RIGHTS: Vote Against Cuba in UN Commission Could Have Further Repercussions

Gustavo Capdevila*

GENEVA, Apr 14 2005 (IPS) - The vote on Cuba in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights once more ended this year in a condemnation of the Caribbean nation’s human rights record, a result that could have repercussions on the island’s relations with the EU, and even on the OAS leadership race.

Thursday’s vote on Cuba in the 53-member Commission’s annual six-week session passed by a margin of 21 to 17, with 15 abstentions.

Of the 11 Latin American countries represented in the Commission, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico voted to condemn Havana, while Argentina, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Paraguay and Peru abstained. Only Cuba itself opposed the motion, which was backed by the European Union.

The support that the resolution won returned to the levels seen prior to the 2001 inauguration of the government of George W. Bush in the United States.

In 1999, the censure motion against Cuba passed by 21 votes in favour, 20 against and 12 abstentions, and in 2000 by a vote of 21 to 18, with 12 abstentions.

But after Bush took office, the number of votes in favour rose to 24 in 2002 and 2003, before dropping to 22 in 2004, and to 21 this year.

The U.N. Commission has been approving motions critical of Cuba during its annual sessions since the early 1990s, with the exception of 1998, when the resolution was voted down by a margin of 19 to 16, with 18 abstentions.

The resolution against Cuba, which in past years has been presented by the Czech Republic or different Latin American nations – although the U.S. invariably plays a strong role in drafting the document, according to observers – was once again openly sponsored by Washington this year.

Addressing the members of the U.S. delegation, the Chinese representative ironically joked that after more than 20 years of fighting Cuba in the Commission, "you guys must be tired. You deserve a vacation."

The resolution itself is brief, and moderate in tone, in contrast to condemnations that the Commission has handed down against other countries.

That apparently made it possible for the United States to obtain backing from the EU, which recognised Cuba’s progress in education and health, despite what it described as the harmful effects of the isolation to which Cuba has been subjected.

The European delegation referred to the four-decade U.S. embargo against Cuba, which is one of the main focuses of the report prepared this year by French legal expert Christine Chanet, the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ personal representative on Cuba.

The resolution invites Chanet to report to next year’s session "on the current status of the various situations addressed" in the resolutions on Cuba passed by the Commission over the past decade and a half.

The government of Fidel Castro has never allowed Chanet or any other U.N. human rights envoy to visit Cuba.

Chanet’s report this year states that "It is impossible to ignore the disastrous and lasting economic and social effects – compounded in 2004 – of the embargo imposed on the Cuban population over 40 years ago, as well as its impacts on civil and political rights."

Referring to Chanet’s mention of the U.S. sanctions against Cuba, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organisations Affairs Mark Lagon, one of the members of the U.S. delegation, said the embargo has "an exception for food and medicine. In fact, there is a humanitarian exception to the embargo. So the facts that are raised in this allegation are not grounded."

The head of the Cuban delegation, Juan Antonio Fernández Palacios, said "Such attempts to stigmatise Cuba are made because of the example stemming from our truly participatory and popular democracy, because of the example of our accomplishments and because of our indicators achieved in education, health care, full employment and social justice for all, despite the most ruthless and protracted blockade ever endured by a people throughout history."

He added that "The government of George W. Bush has turned (its naval base in) Guantanamo (Cuba) into an international torture centre and (the Iraqi prison of) Abu Ghraib into a living hell. The United States does not have the slightest moral justification to comment on the human rights in any country in the world."

In Havana, the Cuban government reacted angrily to the EU support for the U.S.-sponsored resolution. Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque said "The role played by the EU was pathetic," and the stance it took was "servile."

Pérez Roque said that by co-sponsoring the resolution as a bloc, and with its "traditional" vote against Havana, the EU was subordinating itself to Washington and chose "the route of confrontation with Cuba rather than dialogue."

Cuba said the EU should support its counter-resolution condemning U.S. treatment of prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, which is to be discussed by the Commission next week.

In January, Cuba’s socialist government resumed formal contacts with the EU after a nearly two-year diplomatic freeze triggered by sanctions against Havana adopted by the EU in June 2003 to protest the sentencing of 75 dissidents and the executions of three men who hijacked a passenger ferry in an attempt to sail to the United States.

The EU decided to ease the sanctions in late January.

But Pérez Roque said Thursday that the stance taken by the EU in Geneva "endangers the move towards the normalisation of ties and dialogue" between Brussels and Havana.

"We are assessing the position taken by the EU and will act in consequence," he added.

Referring to next July’s meeting of the EU Council of Ministers, which will discuss the sanctions against Cuba, the foreign minister said "We will review our measures before July. We have not received a single shred of evidence of genuine willingness on the part of the EU to progress" in relations with Cuba.

Pérez Roque also criticised Mexico, which he said "has once more opted for confrontation with Cuba" and "under pressure from the U.S. government" broke its promise to return to abstaining in the vote on Cuba in Geneva.

As it has in years past, Havana lashed out at the Latin American governments that voted to condemn Cuba in the Commission. But while most of the nations will suffer no more than a tongue-lashing, there could be other consequences for Mexico.

Analysts warn that the stance taken by the government of Vicente Fox could hurt Foreign Minister Luis Derbez’s chances of being elected to the post of OAS secretary-general.

Last Monday, the vote for a new OAS chief in the regional body’s Washington headquarters ended in a 17-17 draw between Derbez and Chilean Interior Minister José Miguel Insulza, and a new election will be held on May 2.

Pérez Roque asserted that the United States used Mexico’s vote against Cuba in Geneva as a "bargaining chip" in exchange for U.S. support for Derbez in the OAS.

The leftist Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) leader in the Senate, lawmaker Jesús Ortega, concurred. "The vote against Cuba was aimed at getting the United States to back Derbez’s candidacy," he said in Mexico City.

But the Mexican foreign minister denied any link between his bid for the top OAS post and his government’s vote in the U.N. Commission.

Derbez acknowledged that the position taken by Mexico in Geneva could generate tension with Cuba, and warned that he would not tolerate "offensive remarks" by representatives of the Castro government, or a further deterioration in relations between the two countries.

After years of abstaining in the vote on Cuba in the U.N. Commission, Mexico has consistently voted against Havana in the past four years. This, added to diplomatic incidents and mutual accusations of meddling in internal affairs, led to a chill in once warm relations.

In the past, ties between the two countries were so friendly that Mexico outspokenly defended Cuba, which made it a solitary voice in the region in the 1960s when the rest of Latin America severed relations with Havana and helped force the Caribbean nation out of the OAS in 1962.

Furthermore, it was in Mexico that Castro planned the revolution that overthrew dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959.

"Mexico’s vote against Cuba in the U.N. will be the fuel used by leftist groups in the Americas and the countries that support Insulza to attack Derbez," said Mexican foreign affairs analyst Estela Tello.

"They will say the Mexican vote showed that Derbez is the U.S. candidate in the OAS, and that, if he wins, he will only follow the dictates of Washington," she maintained.

Tello also warned that due to Mexico’s vote in Geneva, Derbez could lose the support of one or more of the Caribbean nations.

Cuba has close ties with its neighbours in that region, and a strong influence over many of them, according to observers.

The United States backed Derbez in Monday’s OAS vote. But since secret ballots were used in the election, it is not clear exactly which countries supported the Mexican candidate.

Insulza is endorsed by the majority of South American countries, including left-leaning nations like Argentina and Brazil, which abstained in the vote on Cuba in Geneva.

*With additional reporting by Patricia Grogg in Cuba and Diego Cevallos in Mexico.