105. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State1
2846. Subject: 44th Session of UN Human Rights Commission: Cuban Issue: A Major Victory for the U.S. Ref: (A) Havana 1371 (Notal), (B) Caracas 2490 (Notal).2
1. Confidential—Entire text.
2. This is HRC—
3. The U.S. on March 10 joined in the consensus adoption of draft decision sponsored by Colombia, Peru, Mexico, and Argentina which accepted a Cuban invitation to the Chairman of the UNHRC (Sene of Senegal) and five others (geographically distributed) to come to Cuba to examine the situation of human rights in that country. (Text in para 10 below).
4. USDel joined in the adoption of this text only after USDel received assurances from Sene that he would announce to the Commission following the adoption of the decision his interpretation to the effect that the visit would be carried out in UN terms—the group will have free access. It will seek and receive information from all sources, it will submit a report to the 45th Session of the UNHRC, and the investigation will be carried out according to standard UN rules and procedures. The Secretary also provided a financial implications statement—the UN will pay for the trip, not Cuba.
5. Only following Sene’s statement did Ambassador Valladares announce to the UNHRC that given USDel’s understanding that the investigation of the human rights situation in Cuba would be carried out in UN terms, there was no further need to take action on the U.S. text3 and it was withdrawn.
[Page 311]6. USDel is extremely pleased with the outcome as are the other members of the Western Group. The Cubans have paid a high price to evade the adoption of a U.S. resolution on Cuba, the acceptance of a UN investigative team and the placement of Cuba’s human rights situation on the agenda at the 45th Session of the UNHRC. The U.S. resolution had been torn down to a minimum—in real terms, we have gotten much more than we ever expected possible. Cuba has, in practical terms, been placed in the same boat as Afghanistan, Iran, Chile, and El Salvador, with rapporteurs carrying out a full investigation of the human rights situation. This puts us at least one to two years ahead of what our resolution would have eventually accomplished. The Cuban attempt to co-opt the issue by extending an invitation to the HRC on Cuban terms has been turned against them. The invitation has been accepted, but on UN terms. The GOC will undoubtedly seek to sabotage this investigation at every turn as they have already tried (see para 11); the fact is Cuba has suffered a major loss.
7. While Cuba was not prepared to have its invitation altered to meet UN terms (Sene’s announcement came as a surprise to the Cuban Delegation), the positions of some delegations became more fluid as a result of Cuba’s “conciliatory” invitation. To have pushed to a vote on our text would have required our overcoming several possible procedural votes. In the end, we are almost certain that a vote on our text would have resulted in its adoption, but some of the procedural votes would have been risky.
8. We want to get across to addressees that it was only the forceful efforts of all involved, particularly our embassies, that prompted the Cuban invitation—something that as little as two weeks ago Castro said he would never contemplate. What has been created in effect is a group of six UNHRC Special Rapporteurs—something that was worth giving up our text for. USDel is extremely grateful for the efforts of all.
9. Much work lies ahead to ensure that at next year’s UNHRC, Sene’s report will be the basis of a resolution which accurately reflects the human rights situation in Cuba. It goes without saying that the Cubans will pull out all the stops to secure the opposite result.
10. Begin text of Colombian draft decision (informal English translation):
Taking into account the invitation of the Cuban Government, the Human Rights Commission decides:
A. To accept this invitation for the Chairman and five members of the Commission, named after regional consultations, to visit Cuba with the goal of observing the situation regarding matters of human rights.
B. That the President of the Commission, jointly with the other five members of the mission, draw up a report which will be presented [Page 312] for the consideration of the Commission, which will decide the form in which this (information) will be examined. End text.
11. At what was to be the routine closure of the Commission on March 11, Cuba’s four puppets, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and Argentina, tied up proceedings for four hours trying to alter technically the agreement of the previous day. In the end they lost, and by so doing put some frosting on the cake prepared the previous day.
12. Once again, our apologies to all for our incessant requests for lobbying, and our profound thanks for the way those requests were carried out.
- Source: Department of State, Subject Files, Human Rights Files, 1988, Lot 90D46, PREL—UNHRC #12 Cuba 1988. Confidential; Immediate. Sent Immediate for information to USUN New York, USIA the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, Libreville, Banjul, Bogota, Bonn, Brasilia, Brussels, Buenos Aires, Caracas, Colombo, Dakar, Dublin, Islamabad, Lome, London, Manila, Oslo, Paris, Rome, San José, Tokyo, Addis Ababa, Algiers, Beijing, Belgrade, Berlin, Dhaka, Kigali, Lima, Sofia, Gaborone, Lisbon, Madrid, Lagos, Moscow, Baghdad, and Port of Spain.↩
- In telegram 1371 from Havana, March 10, the U.S. Interests Section reported that Castro had consented to an International Committee of the Red Cross visit, not “investigation,” to Cuba, but he later relented. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D880209–0099) In telegram 2490 from Caracas, March 10, the Embassy congratulated U.S. negotiators on their coordination of the Cuban issue at the UNHRC. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D880211–0741)↩
- In telegram 36465 to multiple recipients, February 6, the Department transmitted the draft text of the U.S. resolution on Cuba. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D880102–0469)↩