Cuba, the European Union and the Rhetoric of Human Rights

The European Union has imposed a Common Position on Cuba since 1966, the official justification for which refers to the situation of human rights on the island. The latest Amnesty International report illustrates the discriminatory and illegal nature of this policy.

Since 1996, the European Union has aligned its foreign policy with that of the United States and has imposed a Common Position on the Cuban government - the only one it has imposed on the American continent. This policy limits political, diplomatic and cultural exchanges because of the situation "of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba."(1) The Common Position constitutes the pillar of Brussels foreign policy toward Havana but also constitutes the main obstacle to the normalization of bilateral relations. Between 2003 and 2008, the European Union also imposed political, diplomatic and cultural sanctions on Cuba because of the human rights situation.

Indeed, the United States formally justifies the imposition of economic sanctions - in force since July 1960 and affecting all categories of Cuban society, in particular the most vulnerable - as the result of the island's human rights violations. From 1960 to 1991, Washington explained that the alliance with the Soviet Union was the reason for its hostility towards Cuba. Since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, various administrations from George H. W. Bush to Barack Obama, have used the rhetoric of human rights to explain the anachronistic state of siege that, far from affecting the country's leadership, forces the elderly, women and children to pay the price of the political differences between the two nations.(2)

A Common Position that is both discriminatory and illegitimate

The European Union's Common Position on Cuba, justified officially because of the human rights situation in that country, is discriminatory insofar as Cuba is the only country in the Americas, from Canada to Argentina, to be so stigmatized. However, according to the latest report from Amnesty International (AI), the Caribbean island is far from being the hemisphere's worst offender in terms of violations of fundamental human rights.(3)

The Common Position is also illegitimate. Indeed, Amnesty International has drawn up a severe and uncompromising assessment of the situation of human rights on the Old Continent. Unlike what it has reported for member states of the European Union, for Cuba, Amnesty International records not a single case of

• assassinations committed by security forces (Austria, Bulgaria, France, Italy, UK, Sweden)
• assassination of minors by security forces (Greece)
• assassination of children with mental illnesses (Bulgaria)
• responsibility for genocide (Belgium)
• acts of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment by the authorities (Austria, Belgium, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Romania, United Kingdom, Slovakia)
• acts of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment by the authorities against minors (Belgium,Bulgaria, Denmark)
• acts of torture authorities supported by the highest level of the state (United Kingdom)
• impunity for security forces guilty of murder (Bulgaria, France, Sweden)
• impunity for security forces guilty of torture and other types of ill-treatment (Belgium, Spain)
• the use of evidence obtained by torture (Romania)
• obstruction of justice and reparations to victims of torture and ill-treatment committed by law enforcement (Germany)
• xpulsion of people, including minors, to countries that practice torture or where there is a risk of persecution (Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Slovakia, Sweden)
• secret detention and transfer of prisoners to countries that practice torture (Germany, Belgium, Lithuania, Romania)
• human trafficking and slavery (Cyprus, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom)
• forced labor (Cyprus)
• suicide of minors in custody (Austria)
• medical, social and legal assistance denied asylum seekers (Belgium)
• legal discrimination against ethnic minorities (Belgium, Spain)
• widespread discrimination against minorities (Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, Hungary)
• discrimination against minorities by courts of justice (Bulgaria)
• forced expulsion and the destruction of the homes of ethnic minorities (Bulgaria, Greece, Romania
• widespread racist aggressions (Bulgaria)
• recurring attacks against sexual minorities (Bulgaria, Italy, Slovakia)
• non-recognition of the rights of sexual minorities by the authorities (Cyprus)
• support for extreme-right movements being used as forces of order during demonstrations (Cyprus)
• recurring violence against women (Denmark, Finland, Malta, Portugal, Sweden)
• recurring violence against young women and girls (Finland, Portugal)
• corporal punishment against children in specialized centers for minors (Spain)
• judicial impunity for perpetrators of sexual violence against women (Denmark, Finland, Sweden)
• detention of juveniles in adult prisons (Denmark)
• detention of minors seeking asylum (Finland, the Netherlands)
• secret detentions (Spain)
• refusal to investigate crimes under international law (Spain)
• violation of the religious freedom of women (Spain, France, Netherlands)
• stigmatization of ethnic minorities by the presidency of the republic and the authorities (France, Romania)
• discriminatory political speeches by authorities (France, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovenia)
• racial discrimination against minorities (Italy, Portugal, Slovenia)
• lack of access to education and decent housing for ethnic minorities (France, Italy, Portugal)
• inhumane conditions of detention (Greece, Ireland, Italy)
• violence of a racist nature (Greece, Hungary, Czech Republic)
• attacks on journalists by the authorities (Greece)
• violence by authorities against minorities and asylum seekers (Greece)
• racial  segregation in education and the exclusion of ethnic minority children in the educational system (Greece, Hungary, Italy, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia)
• the placing of minority children in institutions for the mentally handicapped (Czech Republic)
• racial segregation in access to care (Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia)
• race-based crimes (Hungary, Czech Republic)
• impunity for those responsible for racially motivated crimes (Hungary)
• anti-Semitic crimes (Hungary)
• crimes against sexual minorities (Hungary)
• child rights violations (Ireland)
• abuse of children (Ireland)
• deaths of children entrusted to public welfare services for lack of care (Ireland)
• non-observance of the rights of sexual minorities (Ireland)
• violations of the rights of asylum seekers (Ireland)
• "totally unacceptable and inhumane" living conditions in hospitals (Ireland)
• violation of the right to abortion (Ireland)
• legal interdiction of abortions (Malta)
• refusal to include torture as a crime under the Penal Code (Italy)
• discriminatory legislation against sexual minorities including the criminalization of homosexuality (Lithuania)
• discriminatory government policies and practices of racial profiling (Netherlands)
• forced sterilization of minority women (Czech Republic, Slovakia)
• people arbitrarily erased from populations registers (Slovenia)(4)

Conclusion

From the reports of Amnesty International, it is difficult for the European Union to argue that their Common Position, which dates from 1996 and remains in force today, is justified by the human rights situation in Cuba. Indeed, the major nations of the Old Continent are also clearly responsible for grave violations of human rights, often worse than those committed in Cuba. Thus, the moral authority of Brussels is questionable from numerous perspectives.

The twenty-seven member states of the European Union must normalize their relations with Havana and thereby demonstrate that their foreign policy is not dependent upon that of the White House. By repealing the Common Position and adopting a rational, constructive and independent policy, the EU would take a major step in this direction. Still, Brussels needs to come to understand Cuban idiosyncrasies. For example, the government of the island is open to everything - except to the negotiation of their sovereignty and national identity - when a relationship is based upon dialogue, respect and reciprocity.  This openness was demonstrated by the recent agreement reached with the Catholic Church and Spain that led to the release of all so-called political prisoners. At the same time, Cuba shows itself to be decidedly inflexible - one need only recall the state of relations between Washington and Havana for the past half century - when the language of force, threat or coercion takes precedence over conventional diplomacy.

Translated from the French by Larry R. Oberg

Notes:

1 Conseil de l’Union européenne, « Conclusion du Conseil. Evaluation de la position commune de l’UE relative à Cuba », 15 juin 2009. http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/council_conclusions_UE_cuba_20090615_FR.pdf (site consulted Octobre 2, 2012.

2 Salim Lamrani, Etat de siège. Les sanctions économiques des Etats-Unis contre Cuba, Paris, Editions Estrella, 20113

3 

4Amnistie Internationale, Rapport 2011. La situation des droits de l’homme dans le monde, 2011. http://files.amnesty.org/air11/air_2011_full_fr.pdf (site consulted  Septembre 15, 2011).

Docteur ès Etudes Ibériques et Latino-américaines at the University of Paris Sorbonne-Paris IV, Salim Lamrani is Maître de conférences at the Université de la Réunion, and a journalist who specializes in relations between Cuba and the United States. 

His latest book is The Economic War Against Cuba; a Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade; prologue by Wayne S. Smith; foreword by Paul Estrade; translated by Larry R. Oberg; Monthly Review Press, 2013.