NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.
| The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001. Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date. This site is not updated so external links may no longer function. Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. |
Special briefing by Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs Stuart E. Eizenstat on the Helms-Burton Act, Washington, D.C., July 16, 1997.
Under Secretary Eizenstat: Good afternoon. After months of effort through consultations with the Congress and the Cuban-American community and tens of thousands of miles of travel -- we estimate now over 60,000 - we have succeeded in launching an unprecedented multilateral effort that has changed the whole terms of reference with respect to Cuba. The six-month period from the President's last decision on Cuba has been a particularly productive one. We can now genuinely say that it is Cuba's government that is increasingly isolated in the Western Hemisphere and around the world.
The international pressure on Cuba to initiate true democratic change has continued to increase. It is now at the highest levels at any time since the communist take-over to Cuba. One good indication of this is Castro's own actions, feeling it necessary to increase his diplomatic activity to counter the effects of the President's initiative.
We have worked with three groups -- governments, non-governmental organizations and the private sector. That I would like to briefly outline. There will be a fact sheet with more details for you in each of these areas. In the government sector, following up on the European Union's historic common position taken in December, which publicly conditions any improvement in their relationship with Cuba to specific human rights and democratic changes, a team from the European Union was recently sent to Cuba. They made a finding that there had been no improvements; and therefore in May - in June, excuse me, there was a re-commitment to the common position for an additional six months.
Likewise in April and in May, pursuant to our understanding on the WTO case, the EU went beyond their previous statements in December to suggest that they would also work to get other governments involved in promoting democracy and human rights in Cuba. On April 16th, the UN Human Rights Commission adopted, with a record number of Latin co-sponsors - and, indeed a record number of co-sponsors as a whole, 27 - a very tough U.S.-sponsored resolution on human rights in Cuba.
Spain, which is a particularly important country because of its role in the European Union and its historic ties to Cuba and Latin America has taken a particular lead over this six-month period. The Spanish parliament, chairing the Ibero-American Interparliamentary Conference, in which Cuba has long participated, took the unprecedented step of telling the Cuban National Assembly that it could not attend as a full participant but only as an observer. They held fast after strong Cuban protests to the position that only true democracies should be able to do so. Argentina, as well as other countries, took the lead in calling for democracy in Cuba. In particular, we are starting to focus our attention in Latin America. The president of Nicaragua on June 12th called on Castro to hold free elections through secret ballot. The leaders of Argentina, Nicaragua and El Salvador have all made statements calling on the Cuban Government to begin the process of democratization. In June, I met with the presidents of El Salvador and Nicaragua and with ambassadors from the other Latin governments -- Latin American and Central American governments -- to explore additional measures that they can take to promote peaceful change in Cuba. I will be traveling to Central America in August to pursue this agenda. We will be giving, in the months ahead, special emphasis to work in Latin America.The multinational effort to promote democratic change in Cuba, however, doesn't consist only of government activity. Non-governmental groups, NGOs, have made a growing and important contribution in the past six months. At the end of February, a landmark conference was held in Europe for the first time organized by the Dutch NGO Pax Christi, with about a dozen other European NGOs, under the rubric of the European platform for democracy and human rights in Cuba. This conference is an effort on their part to develop a concerted approach and a coordinated approach to strengthen the independent sector in Cuba and to work more closely with private human rights groups.Just last week, Pax Christi issued a remarkable statement noting the state of spiritual, moral and economic deprivation that the Cubans have to live in and describing government actions of intimidation against human rights activists and the inhumane - and that is their term - conditions faced by prisoners, including hundreds of political prisoners.On April 19th, again, in an unprecedented fashion, the first ever European-based conference on democracy in Cuba was held by the ruling Dutch political parties organized by the Liberal Party International and with the help of Carlos Alberto Montaner. Their communiqué called for the release of political prisoners and called on the Cuban government to allow a peaceful transition toward a democratic society ruled by respect for the rule of law.We have also made continued progress in the private sector, building on what we had done previously. July 1st, the North America Committee of the National Policy Association, which is composed of business and labor leaders from the United States, Mexico and Canada, issued a strong statement delineating a detailed set of principles which should apply to anyone doing business on Cuba. These include respect for due process of law, the right to organize and join a union, and the absence of political coercion in the work place.
The President has reviewed these developments and believes that this multilateral effort that we have been able to launch for the first time in 37 years would not be strengthened by the initiation of law suits under Title III. To make additional progress, we must continue to have the cooperation of our allies by definition. As a result, the President again has decided to suspend the right to file suit under Title III for an additional six months. As the President indicated last January when he suspended the right to file suit at that point - and as we indicated in our understanding with the European Union on April 11th -- the President would expect to continue to suspend, so long as our allies are stepping up their activity in support of democracy in Cuba.
The activities I have described are positive, need to be encouraged and will continue to be closely monitored. We will continue to exert high-level attention to this effort. We have public high-level commitments from our allies, but we will continue to closely consult with them to build and strengthen this multilateral effort. We will follow closely EU implementation of their common position and related steps to promote democracy. We will work closely with our Latin American allies as they develop their efforts to promote democracy in Cuba.
This is the continuation of our efforts to build a multilateral approach. More can and should and will be done. We will not be satisfied until there is a free and democratic Cuba. But as President Clinton said today in his announcement, key countries in Europe and a growing number in Central and South America have made clear that they are no longer conducting business as usual with the Castro Government. That perhaps is the biggest change of all.
This is an issue which is extremely important to the President
and to members of Congress. We have consulted extensively with
the Congress and will continue to do so as this multilateral effort
and initiative develops. Thank you very much. I will be glad now
to take your questions.
Question: Can you cite examples of business deals between
Cuba and any of these countries that you have cited as examples
of progress in your campaign where these business deals have either
not gone through or been canceled?
Undersecretary Eisenstat: Yes. There are at least a dozen
companies which have pulled out of confiscated property or like
CEMEX, refused to go forward with deals or suspended deals as
a direct result of our efforts. In addition, we suspect that there
are scores of other companies which have simply avoided making
investments to begin with, out of concern about the Libertad Act.
But again, there are at least a dozen companies which have withdrawn
or altered their plans in order to avoid determinations of trafficking.
Question: This has been done over the entire course of
the time that you've been working on this.
Undersecretary Eisenstat: That is correct.
Question: What about in the last six months?
Undersecretary Eisenstat: That has continued. We haven't
been able to break down the actual number, but that number continues
to grow.
Question: You made the pointed references to Europe and
Latin America, but unless I missed it, no reference to Canada,
which does have rather extensive dealings in Cuba. Have you had
any progress with Canada?
Undersecretary Eisenstat: No. The only progress we have
had with Canada - and this is a breakthrough - is with their private
sector. We have been very pleased, as I mentioned in my statement,
that the Canadian private business and labor sector joined in
this announcement from the National Policy Association that I
mentioned and called for a set of what we call best business practices
in Cuba. So that has been done; but that is not governmental,
that is private. It is nevertheless a breakthrough. It is the
first time any Mexican or Canadian companies or union leaders
were involved, but it did not involve the government. We have
not seen any progress on the governmental side.
Question: Ambassador Eizenstat?
Under Secretary Eizenstat: Yes, sir.
Question: You have consulted with the Cuban-American community
and with Congress. Do you have the support of either a majority
in Congress or the Cuban-American community for this waiver?
Undersecretary Eisenstat: For what we're doing?
Question: Yes.
Undersecretary Eisenstat: I think we have overwhelming
support for what we're doing. I talked to a number of Cuban-American
leaders just an hour or so ago. I also talked to Pepe Hernandez
from the Cuban-American Foundation. We have talked to Congresswoman
Menendez, Lincoln Diaz-Balart. I think everyone recognizes - now
there are differences in terms of approach for the future, but
I don't think anyone gainsays the fact that for the first time
ever we have really developed a multilateral coalition; that for
the first time ever, we have really gotten European, Central and
South American countries vocally and publicly calling for that;
for the first time ever, we have gotten NGOs and business groups
together. I think everyone recognizes that this approach is working.
Again, there are some who are perhaps going to take other positions
in the future in terms of how they want to proceed, but I don't
think anyone gainsays the progress we have made.
Question: Do they actually support the waiver for six months,
this provision of the bill?
Undersecretary Eisenstat: Certainly, the groups, the people that I talk to have. I can't speak for the Cuban-American Foundation and Pepe Hernandez. He will have to issue a judgment on that himself. I can't speak for members of Congress. I think many of them recognize - I think this is an important statement to make
What this suspension has done is given us the leverage so that we can encourage our allies to work. Without this leverage, if these lawsuits, which would amount to hundreds and hundreds of certified claimants and literally potentially tens of thousands of non-certified claimants went forward, it would substantially impede our capacity -- if not eliminate it -- to organize this multilateral effort and to get other countries engaged. So we have effectively used the very discretion which the statute itself recognizes.
I would like to remind you, the President didn't invent this waiver.
It is imbedded specifically in the Helms-Burton Act and under
two conditions, both of which the President felt were met -- the
first, that a waiver would be in the national security interests
of the country; but second, that by suspending the suits, it would
expedite the transition to democracy. Given the effect we have
been able to have, it seems to me absolutely obvious that this
is occurring and that without it, we would be very much without
a necessary tool to encourage that expedition to democracy. After
all at bottom, that's what Helms-Burton is all about. Yes, ma'am.
Question: Are there any more plans to send out more letters
citing companies or individuals for occupying property?
Under Secretary Eizenstat: We are fully enforcing Title IV at this point in time. There are perhaps a dozen companies which are at various stages of investigation. I don't implement the act, so I can't respond in detail to when and whether letters will go out. But I can tell you that there are ongoing investigations of as many as a dozen companies.
We find, by the way, that when we contact these companies, they
often will either clarify that their position isn't covered or
they will withdraw from the investment entirely. That is one of
the reasons we have had only two determinations. But, again, this
is actively done. When the terms are right and our interagency
community makes its findings, letters have been sent. They will
continue to be sent. I think, Mike, we - there were a couple of
companies during this six-month period - a Brazilian company perhaps
that got -
Person off Microphone: Yes, there was a Brazilian company
and an Israeli company that have gotten letters.
Under Secretary Eizenstat: Yes, a Brazilian and an Israeli
company have, during this six-month period, gotten advisory letters.
That does not mean a final determination has been made against
them, but they have been advised that we believe they may be in
violation of the law.
Question: What is the financial or the estimated financial
impact of that dozen or so companies or deals which you said -
companies which had pulled out of compensated --
Under Secretary Eizenstat: It depends on how you measure
it, because if you look at their profit over a number of years
or the actual investment -- but it would certainly be in the tens
of millions of dollars, easily. I think the Cuban economy is seeing
the results of this effort.
Question: Could you be more specific about the companies
involved in the investment? Could you name them?
Under Secretary Eizenstat: No, because I mentioned CEMEX.
But the others, for reasons of propriety and because this has
to be conducted in a very proprietary manner, have to be kept
confidential. But I can assure you we didn't make the number up
out of the top of our head. We know of at least a dozen instances
in which companies have changed their plans or pulled out entirely
as a result of this.
Question: The House passed a law now, trying to force you
to name the countries. Are you in support of that? Or are you
going to oppose it?
Under Secretary Eizenstat: We have worked with the House, just as we've worked with Senator Helms and the Senate on his provision on visas. But we've worked with the House on the reporting language. We're continuing to seek improvements. We do not have to provide confidential information in ways that might leak out and be very damaging to the companies and damaging to our enforcement activities.
I am hopeful that at the end of the day, we'll be able to reach
a final agreement. But we still need some additional work on that.
So as the provision was originally written, we had very real concerns
about it. We've been working with them to try to deal with those
concerns. They're trying to be responsive to our concerns and
we're trying to be responsive to their desires and those discussions
continue.
Question: I believe at the top you made a reference in
your statement to the pressure that is reflected in some of Castro's
own actions. Can you be more specific?
Under Secretary Eizenstat: Yes, in late Spring and early Summer, they launched an effort to send their diplomats out to counter the efforts that we have made. I don't think that that was a productive effort on their part. There's nothing that we have seen that would indicate any concrete progress in reversing the kind of momentum. But that is primarily what they have done, Charles, and they clearly did it in response to feeling isolated. For example, their foreign minister went to Nicaragua and was met with a very strong statement by the president, calling on them to fulfill their obligations under the Vina Del Mar communiqué and to have free elections. The exciting thing, I think, is that as democracy has grown and taken root in Central and South America, countries are now much more willing to take more vocal and public positions on democracy. And I think the sort of looking at Castro through rose-colored glasses, which one found in various countries in the past, people are now looking at this regime in very cold and objective terms and are recognizing that it is an aberration in this hemisphere to have 34 countries which are legitimate democracies and one which continues to be not only totalitarian, but in very brutal ways - documented by independent experts - and including groups like Pax Christi which have no ax to grind -- we have no connection with a group like this - document the brutality of their treatment toward any dissidents, any of those trying to speak out.
Question: I'm sure you're aware of STET, the Italian company,
and ITT in trying to reach an agreement. Do you favor this kind
of agreements? Are they contemplating the law in your interpretation
--
Undersecretary Eisenstat: Well, I can't speak on the STET
case, specifically. I can say that the act itself envisions where
a company is using Americans' confiscated property, if that company
and the owner can come to an agreement, the act envisions that
that should be done. That would be completely consistent with
the act in a positive development for any companies that did it.
Again, I cannot comment on STET per se, but you asked a general
question. In general, the act envisions it. We would consider
it a positive step to the extent that any companies did do that.
There might be a variety of reasons. I mean, for example, the
American owner may feel that his or her property is better protected
and will not go to waste if this is done. There may be a whole
variety of issues or they may be getting compensation for it,
which they would like to have.
Question: And a follow-up. If there was such a negotiation
going on, would you consider delaying or giving a grace period
to the enforcement of Title IV in order for these negotiations
to go on?
Undersecretary Eisenstat: Well, that's a difficult question.
I would have to answer it on a case-by-case basis. We would have
to look at the case, the factual situation, how far down the line
the situation was, not necessarily, but possibly depending on
what the situation was. Again, we actively pursue these Title
IV cases. If the American owner said to us, don't go forward,
I'm in negotiations, we would have to take that into consideration.
Just the mere fact that there are discussions is not itself going
to lead to a grace period. So, we would have to look really at
the particular circumstance and make a judgment at that point.
Question: Would you sum up your impressions of how the
allies feel about the United States attempting to impair trade
with Cuba? It isn't inconsistent, is it? I mean, you began with
a statement about how they support more than ever your efforts
to bring democracy to Cuba. That isn't inconsistent, is it? I
mean Britain and Canada and others could support democracy and
also think you have no business keeping them from selling kitchen
tables to Cuba. Could you get into that a little bit?
Undersecretary Eisenstat: Sure.
Question: Do you think the allies are behind you on Helms-Burton?
Do you think the allies are behind the U.S. in what it is trying
to do by trade with Cuba?
Undersecretary Eisenstat: They're way behind us. They're way behind us on Helms-Burton.
(Laughter.)
Question: Well, do you think they are in disagreement with
you -- in agreement with you on democracy, but in disagreement
with you on what you're doing?
Undersecretary Eisenstat: The allies and our friends in
Central and Latin America are very much increasingly with us shoulder
to shoulder on the promotion of democracy and human rights --
and if I may say so, in public ways that have never been the case
before, never been the case before, and not just rhetorically.
I mean the EU's common position is legally binding and it conditions
any improvement in political and economic relations on express
changes designated - release of political prisoners and so forth,
in Cuba.Now, has that translated into support for Helms-Burton
or for our embargo? The answer is no. That is one of the reasons
we had the negotiation with the European Union back in April which
led to our understanding of the suspension of their suit while
we tried to negotiate this international understanding on expropriated
property in return for which we said if we got such a discipline
and it were implemented, we would seek waiver authority under
Title IV.
Question: Sir, do you support the Freedom from Religious
Persecution Act -- that's the Specter-Wolf Act -- specifically
as it applies to religious persecution in Cuba? And I understand
the persecution has increased in the last year or so. Can you
comment?
Undersecretary Eisenstat: Well, I don't want to comment
on all the details of that act. But certainly we are broadly supportive
of any efforts that attempt to deal with those countries like
Cuba which violate religious freedoms. This is an area in which
there is beginning to be some very modest openings. As a result
of the efforts of the Vatican, there is the beginning of some
effort at a little bit more of freedom of movement for the Catholic
Church in Cuba. This is, again, an indication that when people
speak up and they are vocal, as the Holy See has been, that progress
can be made in the religious persecution area. We take religious
persecution absolutely as seriously as we do crack down on secular
dissidents. They are one and the same.
Question: You don't think this act would be --
Undersecretary Eisenstat: I really would have to look at the terms of the act. I am not trying to throw cold water on it, but I do not know all the terms of it. What I am saying is to the extent that it promotes religious pluralism, freedom of religion, obviously those are goals we would certainly support. Whether every detail of the act is something we can support, I would, frankly, have to look at it.
Thank you very much.
[end of document]
Return
to the DOSFAN Home Page.
This is an official U.S. Government source
for information on the WWW. Inclusion of non-U.S. Government links
does not imply endorsement of contents.