US embassy cable - 03GUATEMALA890

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 GUATEMALA 000890 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM, PREL, ASEC, IZ, CU, GT 
SUBJECT: EMBASSY DISCUSSES IRAQ AND CUBA WITH HUMAN RIGHTS 
LEADERS 
 
 
1. Summary:  Embassy and USAID Officers met with Guatemalan 
human rights leaders Frank LaRue, Claudia Samayoa and Orlando 
Blanco on April 2 to discuss developments in the 
establishment of CICIACS (septel) and to express Embassy 
disappointment with the participation of members of their 
organizations in a March 27 flag burning in front of the 
Embassy, and their total silence in response to the arrests 
of human rights leaders, journalists and opposition spokesmen 
in Havana.  The human rights leaders took note of our 
concerns, acknowledged that flag burning was inappropriate 
and were non-committal on defending their Cuban brothers. 
End summary. 
 
2.  On March 27 a group of 40-50 demonstrators, carrying 
banners and flags from the major human rights organizations, 
protested in front of the Embassy.  Among other things, they 
burned an American flag and threw red paint on the Embassy 
building.  Banners of the "Rigoberta Menchu" Foundation and 
"GAM" flanked the spot where an unknown woman placed a U.S. 
flag, soaked it in a liquid and set it on fire.  The banner 
of the CALDH human rights group was on a pickup truck a few 
yards back (the pickup had the sound system and was used to 
block traffic). 
 
3.  At an April 2 meeting with leaders of the major human 
rights organizations, PolCouns told them, on instruction from 
the Ambassador, that the Embassy strongly defended their 
right to disagree with us in public and to participate in 
protests against U.S. policies they did not agree with. 
However, we view the American flag as a symbol of all 
Americans, not just the government, and we were all offended 
that our friends in the human rights community should choose 
this means of expressing their opposition to USG policies. 
Furthermore, we had received calls from members of the 
American community in Guatemala -- who are also supporters of 
the human rights groups -- who were outraged that these 
groups were burning our flag in front of the Embassy at a 
time when our troops are laying their lives on the line on 
the sands of Iraq.  PolCouns commented that perhaps for 
Guatemalans the desecration of their national symbols did not 
have the same seriousness Americans attached to such acts. 
Orlando Blanco responded that, indeed, national symbols are 
also important to Guatemalans and they can understand our 
reaction.  DCM and Ambassador reiterated our concerns to 
LaRue at an April 2 reception.  The GAM and Rigoberta Menchu 
Foundation were not present at the April 2 meeting at the 
Embassy. 
 
4. Frank LaRue responded with a defense of the human rights 
organizations' opposition to hostilities in Iraq, and said he 
was unaware that his organization (CALDH) had been present 
with the organization's banners and flags.  He said that 
members of CALDH were authorized to protest, but argued that 
he had not authorized their participation as representatives 
of the CALDH.  When he asked the other human rights leaders 
who had organized the protest, Claudia Samayoa said that 
LaRue's organization (the CALDH) had provided the sound truck 
and the mime.  The other leaders similarly argued against the 
war, but acknowledged that burning the flag had been "in poor 
taste."  They promised to urge members of their organizations 
to not deface national symbols or to protest in ways that 
were offensive to all Americans. 
 
5.  PolCouns then noted, again on instruction from the 
Ambassador, that many governments around the world were 
expressing public concern over the recent arrest by Cuban 
authorities of a large number of human rights workers, 
journalists and those in opposition to the Castro regime, and 
told the human rights leaders that we were surprised by their 
public silence on this matter.  The human rights leaders 
responded that the Cuban situation is "complicated by 
political factors, including the U.S. embargo," and they had 
decided to avoid the controversy altogether by not commenting 
publicly one way or the other.  We noted that the human 
rights situation in Guatemala is also complicated by many 
political factors, but that had not stopped the USG from 
making the defense of threatened human rights workers in 
Guatemala our highest mission priority.  We explained that we 
view human rights workers as a special category of people, 
who because of the risks inherent in their work, require from 
all of us special attention and protection, irrespective of 
"political complications."  That was why the USG has invested 
so much political capital in drawing attention to the need to 
provide better security guarantees for human rights workers 
in Guatemala.  We told them that we hoped they would consider 
providing moral support to their Cuban counterparts.  The 
human rights leaders were non-committal. 
 
6. Comment: The meeting was not confrontational, but laid out 
clearly our rejection that the human rights community would 
express their disagreement with our policies by burning our 
flag and throwing paint on the Embassy building.  It also 
conveyed our disappointment at their inaction to stand up for 
human rights workers imprisoned by the Cuban regime.  At no 
point was there a suggestion that this disappointment would 
affect our joint programs, and the rest of the meeting 
focused on how we can work together to support the CICIACS 
proposal.  But it planted a flag that among friends we must 
disagree without gratuitously causing offense. 
HAMILTON