US embassy cable - 04THEHAGUE2590

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 002590 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EUR, WHA/CCA, IO/UNP 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/08/2014 
TAGS: PREL, ETRD, CU, UNGA 
SUBJECT: NETHERLANDS/EU/UN: PLANNING TO VOTE FOR CUBAN 
RESOLUTION AGAINST EMBARGO 
 
REF: A. (A) STATE 215870 
 
     B. (B) STATE 145203 
     C. (C) THE HAGUE 1692 
 
Classified By: POL Counselor Andrew Schofer for reasons 1.4 (b/d) 
 
1. (C) Poloff delivered ref A demarche October 8 to Jan Jaap 
Groenemeijer, MFA's Policy Advisor on Cuba and Caribbean 
Issues.  Groenemeijer responded that while the U.S. and 
Europeans certainly agree on many aspects of the human rights 
and political situation in Cuba, he did not foresee any 
change in the European pattern of voting in favor of 
anti-embargo  resolutions at the UNGA.  Groenemeijer stated 
that "every year" the Dutch and other Europeans vote for the 
Cuban-sponsored resolution, while issuing strong Explanations 
of Votes condemning the human rights situation in Cuba. 
 
2. (C) Groenemeijer noted that, as discussed in the September 
28 US-EU COLAT consultations in Washington, the U.S. and EU 
share similar goals in Cuba, but differ in how to achieve 
those goals.  Groenemeijer declared that the vote on this 
resolution is not linked to the internal situation in Cuba, 
but rather to the U.S. "unilateral policy" embargoing trade 
with Cuba, which he described as purely a "trade issue."  He 
referenced the US-EU "Understanding" reached during 1996-1998 
which provided for the EU's suspension of its case against 
the Libertad Act before the WTO, but which reserved the right 
to restart the procedure in the future if waivers of Title 
III or other provisions were not continuously granted. 
Groenemeijer emphasized that the Understanding does not 
soften the EU's opposition to the U.S. policy, and indicated 
the EU remains convinced that the Libertad Act is contrary to 
international law. 
 
3. (C) As a footnote, Groenemeijer referred to the recent 
U.S. "country by country" approach of reporting on policies 
and activities in Cuba, which he continued to argue (despite 
having received ref B points as per ref C) could be seen as a 
harbinger of country-by-country discontinuation of Title III 
waivers.  Groenemeijer indicated that he believed the EU 
should remain vigilant regarding the 1996-1998 Understanding, 
and would be prepared to relaunch its dispute before WTO in 
case the waivers are not renewed. 
SOBEL