|
Open Letter Mr Louis Michel, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belgium, President
of the European Union Dear sirs, We are writing to you on behalf of a joint committee comprising various organisations from - up to now - eight member-countries of the European Union in order to inform you of a series of petitions concerning relations between the European Union and Cuba. We believe this moment is well chosen to inform you of these petitions, bearing in mind that: On 27 November the General Assembly of the United Nations defined its position concerning a resolution relating to the trade blockade on Cuba, still being enforced by the United States. Assembly members condemned this blockade for the tenth time in succession, by a virtually unanimous vote. Under the Belgian Presidency of the European Union efforts are still being made to re-initiate an improvement in European-Cuban relations. In his role as Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs and President of the European Union, Mr Louis Michel made a diplomatic visit to Havana at the end of August to open the dialogue and to admit Cuba to the Cotonou Convention. We pledge our continuing support for the current presidency in their efforts aimed at improving relations with Cuba before the end of its tenure, as has been the objective of the meetings in New York and Havana at the end of November. In Italy, Spain, Germany, England, Ireland, Austria, Belgium and France petitions have been collected that cover a number of different points of view. Despite the varied opinions that the signatories of this petition might have on Cuba, they unite in support of the following position. We believe that the Belgian presidency is in a position from which it can take further action aimed at creating a sustainable, transparent and respectful European-Cuban relationship. This position, and most if not all of the following demands, have been signed by more than 30.000 people. Therefore, we call for the undertaking of the following activities: 1. The successive resolutions of the UN General Assembly, along with those approved by the European Parliament and successive general assemblies of the European Liaison Committee of more than nine hundred European NGOs (CLONG)- which have, on numerous occasions, condemned the trade blockade on Cuba - must be converted into definite action. 2. In order for this to happen, the "Common Position"-which, since its adoption in December 1996, has, because of a consistently restrictive interpretation, led to a policy of imposing conditions that has already proved to be ineffective-must be recognised as an unacceptable stumbling block. If we observe the bilateral relations of the individual member-states we can state that the EU policy on Cuba is neither "common" nor a "position," and we therefore call for its abolition. 3. This concrete action should lead to the signing of a bilateral agreement on Cuban development. Cuba is the only Latin American country that does not have such an agreement with the European Commission. This action should also be aimed at the inclusion of Cuba in the Cotonou Convention. Cuba is, to this day, the only one of all the ACP countries not to be a signatory of the convention. It is only correct and just that the admission of Cuba to the convention should follow the same conditions as those attaching to the admission of the other signatory countries. Cuba has already announced that it will sign the convention in its entirety, but some countries still refuse to accept its inclusion. One of the reasons mentioned by these countries is the prejudice that Cuba "couldn't" comply with some clauses of the convention anyway. In EU logic, doesn't a multilateral agreement provide better ways of applying the present political dialogue? According to the signatories, membership of the Cotonou Convention cannot however depend on the results of the "political dialogue." 4. The European Commission has formally rejected the extraterritorial laws Toricelli, Helms-Burton and section 211. However, this did not prevent either the European Commission nor the European Union from signing the Birmingham Agreement in May 1998, through which the EU and the Commission gave its weighty approval to the fundamental principles of the Helms-Burton law. The European Union should reconsider this decision and explicitly condemn these unacceptable laws. Moreover, the European Union should not treat these laws only as if they were part of a trade conflict, but as a conflict that damages the principles of sovereignty and independence of EU foreign policy. 5. We call on the European Commission to cease its attempts to prevent the building up of good relations between European NGOs and Cuban partners. The following two examples illustrates this policy: The "non-paper" that attempted to develop a new political interpretation of the "Common Position", pre-conditioning NGO collaboration to purely political criteria, and the political efforts of reviewing technical evaluations towards a less "positive" appraisal for NGO cooperation in Cuba. We hereby call for the Belgian Presidency to remain vigilant and to explicitly condemn a policy for which the European Commission has never received a mandate. 6. More generally, we ask that the European Commission adopt a policy on Cuba that does not depend on the policy of confrontation adopted by the United States, recognising the sovereignty of this country to choose its own model of development and its own policy. Since 1996 it has been impossible to ignore the fact that all too often pressure from the United States has influenced the European Commission and the European Union. Equally, Cuba has waited a long time for a signal from Europe that would bear witness to the fact that the European Union is at last ready to follow policies that are independent of those of the United States. The European Union should follow its own independent policy in good faith. New European-Cuban relations would be an excellent chance to demonstrate its preparedness to do so. We are sure that you will take these opinions seriously. To this end we would be happy to receive a reply stating your reaction to this letter and the propositions that are put forward in it. Yours sincerely,
|