Vol. 521 No. 3
2 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of occasions he has raised the United States blockade of Cuba with the United States authorities; the outcome of such discussions; if his attention has been drawn, in particular, to the hardship being caused by the difficulties in acquiring certain medical equip- ment from abroad; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17038/00]
The Government is opposed to the United States embargo imposed against Cuba. We are joined in this opposition by our European Union partners. We want to see this embargo end. We have consistently expressed this view to the United States Government and regularly supported resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly calling for an end to the embargo.
It is heartening to note that there has been some recent progress. The United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee has voted to authorise sales of food and medicine to Cuba. The House of Representatives and Senate Appropriations Committees have also backed the measure which is shortly expected to be considered in plenary session. While it is a matter for the United States authorities, the adoption of such a measure would mark a significant further positive step following last year's easing of restrictions on the delivery of food and medicine to non-governmental organisations.
President Castro welcomed the congressional moves last week on the occasion of a visit to Havana by a delegation of US businessmen. He described the congressional debate as an important step in the right direction, though naturally he pointed out that what Cuba wanted was a complete lifting of the embargo. In this, the EU and Cuba are agreed.
European Union policy is defined by the common position on Cuba, which was originally adopted under the Irish Presidency in December 1996. The aim of the common position is not to enforce by external coercion of any kind, but to encourage, a peaceful transition to democratic pluralism, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and a sustainable increase in the living standards of the Cuban people. While opposed to such isolating measures as the economic embargo, the common position nevertheless makes clear that EU full co-operation with Cuba is unavoidably inhibited by the absence of fundamental human and political rights.
The common position is subject to six-monthly review. At the General Affairs Council earlier this week it was again confirmed, because a careful evaluation of the situation in Cuba over the last six months led to the unavoidable conclusion that there had not been substantive change as regards basic political and human rights, and there appeared to be no early prospect of evolution towards a pluralistic democracy. Nevertheless, it was agreed that the Union should deploy further efforts to engage the Cuban authorities in a constructive and frank dialogue in the political, economic and human rights spheres.
At its recent session, the UN Commission on Human Rights, with EU support, adopted a resolution criticising Cuba's human rights performance, and calling on it to co-operate with all human rights mechanisms of the UN. In a comment on the resolution, the EU also expressed continuing concern about the impact on Cuba of the economic embargo. Following the adoption of the resolution, Cuba withdrew an invitation to a European Union Troika at Deputy Foreign Minister level, which was due to visit Havana at the end of April. Cuba also withdrew its application to join the new ACP Convention.
Nevertheless, Ireland and its EU partners continue to believe that confidence-building measures should be pursued with Cuba in the spirit of the common position. It would also be helpful if the current moves to at least modify the food and medicine elements of the economic embargo were to succeed, pending a complete and definitive lifting of the embargo as a whole.
I have no difficulty with the first part of the Minister's reply and I share with him the view on the Cuban blockade that has been expressed on all sides of the House. Unfortunately, the second part of the Minister's reply, where he outlines a great number of conditions, creates problems for me. Does he intend to inform the common position on Cuba that any ship that delivers, for example, even medicines and food to Cuba faces 180 days exclusion from the US? Does he agree that the impact on the economy is such as to make impossible the purchase of vital medicines, even if they have been show-cased by medical exporting firms? Is he not moved by the report following the recent visit by medical personnel from Ireland – wonderful people – who concentrated especially on how the shortage of medical supplies was affecting children?
The existing common position was again confirmed only last week for a further six month period. The Deputy raises concerns about the effect of the embargo, even in the context of the delays in administering medicines that are getting through to the people in Cuba who require them. I take his point. However, the common position is linked to the need for Cuba to institute some internal political reforms. That is consistent with the democratic principles to which the EU has shown an attachment, even recently for example, in relation to the composition of one of its member state Governments in terms of making the point about the need in the performance of Government policy for an unambiguous adherence to these democratic principles.
Only the US and Israel have voted against the UN resolutions for the lifting of the embargo. We seek to ensure that in every respect all humanitarian assistance that can possibly be given, particularly in the area of medicine, would get through. In view of the common position taken by the EU, it would be helpful if the dialogue which the EU is committed to holding with Cuba could achieve some results in some of the areas I have mentioned to ensure that we make real progress on this issue.
I put it to the Minister that there is a perceived inconsistency between the position taken at the UN and the common position. It was a brave and good decision of Ireland to vote the way it did at the UN in relation to the blockade, which is perceived by many countries as illegal in international terms. However, under the common position there is a series of conditions regarding transformations that must occur before the force of a position taken by the UN is vindicated. Does the Minister agree that there is a perceived inconsistency between the rather rhetorical position taken at the UN and that taken in the common position?
I take the Deputy's point about a perceived inconsistency between the EU and the UN positions. I will deal with that perception when the common position next comes up for discussion at EU level.
