A helpful attitude emerging

Ambassador René Mujíca Cantelar discusses Cuban-UK diplomatic relations with Patrick Pietroni.

René Mujíca Cantelar (RMC): We are moving to a new position generally between the European Union and Cuba that should help to normalise and advance the bilateral relationships, including those between the UK and Cuba, and we are not dissatisfied with these developments. As it is known, there are certain areas of difference between Cuba and the UK that spring from their different histories and political perspectives. For Cuba, the respect of state sovereignty - amongst other international law principles - is paramount as a basis for a fully normal relationship. At the same time our two countries share common challenges and interact constructively in a number of bilateral and multilateral issues. Taking all of those elements into account and the fact that the bilateral channels of communication remain open, I would say that our relationship currently has a potential for improvement that I hope can be realized. In this sense, we would like to see UK policy move more decidedly in concert with the trend towards improved relations between Europe and Cuba. Additionally, there are many issues and fields where I believe that cooperation could improve between the UK and Cuba, such as in trade, investment, science and culture. There is, for instance, a very active involvement in tourism - the UK is Cuba's second largest tourist market, after Canada - and that opens up a number of possibilities.

PP: What about trade and investment?

RMC: The levels of interest and co-operation are improving, for example in the energy and transport sectors - but trade and investment are well below the potential. At present, given the large influx of UK visitors to Cuba, investment in tourism looks like a promising area. We are interested in the building of hotels, marinas, golf courses and the development of the accompanying infrastructure. We have, for example, partnerships in hotel administration with Spanish companies and could explore similar arrangements with UK industry. The opportunities involve not only the construction of hotels and other facilities, but also the training of staff and management service contracts - where the UK could provide valuable co-operation.

PP: Has there been any interest from UK enterprises?


RMC: Yes, definitely, in spite that the overall climate has not been the most conducive in the last few years - with the world economic downturn and all. As you know the Cuba Initiative is a forum (co-chaired by a UK and a Cuban senior, business-related figure) which aims to bring together British business entities that are interested in working in Cuba and to assist them and their Cuban counterparts in developing trade and investment opportunities. As a result of that - and encouragingly- a number of specific business projects are now under way or being considered. My view is that the Cuban market is not yet sufficiently well known in the British business sector. The Cuba Initiative is working to fill this gap. (1)

PP: Would you say the stumbling blocks to further co-operation were political or commercial?

RMC: It is not always easy to separate the two. Each side has its own positions and I already mentioned the international economic woes. The UK is more concentrated commercially towards Europe, North America and Asia. I do not think it sees Latin American markets in general as serious opportunities. In the political context, the more open, active and constructive the relationship is, the easier it becomes to engage commercially.

PP: Has not the emergence of Brazil and Venezuela as global players made a difference?

RMC: My perception is that under the prevailing economic conditions of the last two decades or so the UK has focussed attention on the markets in a few Latin American countries such as Brazil, Mexico and Chile. I think, however, that if one observes the current regional trends in the face of capitalism's global economic, financial and social crisis and the strong push towards new integration approaches in Latin America and the Caribbean … in the long term there will be a broader context of possibilities that should spread throughout the region - including Cuba as an integral and proactive part of these developments.

PP: With regard to Europe, could you expand on how you see the relationship changing since the Council of the European Union altered its position on Cuba in June last year?

RMC: Definitely a change for the better. The decision involved the lifting of the political sanctions the EU had imposed unfairly on Cuba in 2003. This discussion led to an exploration and dialogue aimed at obtaining specific results. In October last year there was a meeting in Paris between Cuban ministers and the 'troika' of the European Union then under French leadership. At this meeting the bases and principles of the dialogue between Cuba and the EU were agreed, which are consistent with international law:

Taking into account those bases - and as part of the political dialogue - various subjects were dealt with such as, for example: the political and diplomatic aspects of the relationship. In this context Cuba reiterated its rejection of the 'common position' of the EU on Cuba, which it finds legally and politically unacceptable. Also the reform of the UN system; human rights in the EU and in Cuba, and international cooperation in this field; the international food and financial crises; and the eventual resumption of EU-Cuba development cooperation were discussed.

PP: Has this understanding led to the lifting of the ban on European Ambassadors in Cuba meeting with Cuban Ministers?

RMC: This was the first of hopefully a series of steps. After the Paris meeting the EU Development Commissioner Louis Michel came to Cuba where he held important discussions, which were framed within the principles agreed, and co-operation between the European Commission and Cuba was resumed. There have thus been some concrete changes but these have to continue to evolve. We are attentive to improving the relationship in the expectation that this is a common goal. The major stumbling block is the EU's 'common position' on Cuba adopted in 1996 - under US pressure - which was imposed unilaterally and contains a very strong and annoying expression of interference in Cuba's domestic affairs - that we find clearly at variance with international law. We expect that at some point the EU will proceed to eliminate this obstacle. The process of change in EU policy has been started in a positive way and needs to be followed up by all its member states.

PP: Could we now discuss Cuba's emerging relationship with the United States - which has also seen a major change with the election of President Obama.

RMC: For the past 50 years Cuba has seen a number of US administrations and presidents come and go without any change in their fundamental policies towards our country - which are in open conflict with the UN Charter and international law. In this case - more than any other - for the past fifty years US behaviour has consistently shunned most lofty principles that its leaders have claimed to stand for. We have had to suffer:

All this history has been taken on by every single US administration, although with particular shades of adherence. The most permanently visible effects to the world have been the sustained US efforts at the political and economic isolation of Cuba and, as you know, for the past 17 years the UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly condemned the US blockade that forms the centrepiece of this policy.

The new US administration inherits, unfortunately, this heavy and unedifying legacy. Therefore our expectations, as you can imagine, are necessarily of a toned down nature. From our standpoint, here is another opportunity for the US to reflect on these policies, to abandon them and establish a normal relationship with Cuba. Whether this time the change will come to pass is hard to predict. Many countries do not agree with the US position, they believe it is mistaken and requires rectification. The benefit to the US of changing its policy towards Cuba would go beyond its relationship with Cuba. But we can wait for as long as necessary.

PP: This comes across as somewhat pessimistic.

RMC: We do not have a negative attitude. As i said, we view it as an opportunity for the US to rectify the wrong policies of the past. But, again, this is not in our hands. From our part the position is on public record - President Raúl Castro has reiterated it, in saying that Cuba is prepared to sit down and discuss all issues with the United States on the basis of equality and respect, without the slightest shadow on our sovereignty. It is necessary for all these US policies - the propaganda, the subversion, the blockade - to be ended unconditionally because they have no justification.

PP: What is the Cuban position on the US base in Guantánamo - which has received such notoriety recently?

RMC: The Guantánamo Base is part of Cuban territory illegally occupied by the US - who maintains a military presence there against the will of the Cuban people and Government. This is an arrogant imposition, an illegal act of force. The use of the base as a concentration camp and torture centre in the past few years - a legal 'black hole' with no semblance of legality or due process - is inadmissible and not justifiable under any pretence. The new administration has agreed to close down that centre. As Cuba has recognized this is one step in the right direction, but it falls short of what is ultimately necessary: closing down the base itself and returning the occupied territory to Cuba. The truth is that in military terms the base is hardly of value to the US and there is no compelling reason to continue to force its illegal presence on Cuban soil. The right thing for the US to do is to dismantle the base and give back this land to Cuba.

PP: Is it a pre-condition?

RMC: No, the Cuban government has rejected pre-conditions from either side in approaching the bilateral issues with the US. But, at the same time, Cuba is not renouncing any of its rights. Removing the historical grievance concerning the Guantánamo Naval Base forms an integral part of what is required for the restoration of fully normal relations between the two countries in the end.

PP: We have discussed changes in the UK, Europe and the US but there have been major changes in Cuba as well - with the illness and resignation of Fidel Castro and the assumption of the Presidency by Raul Castro. How do you see this change?

RMC: I would say it is a development that was not unanticipated, given the biological imperative and Fidel's age. It was unexpected in a way because of his sudden illness. For the Cuban people the figure of Fidel and the outstanding role he has played in our history for the last six to seven decades is very dear. It is hard to see someone like him stepping back at the end of his life, although he remains active and engaged and continues to provide leadership. At the same time, the Cuban people recognise that Fidel and the revolutionaries around him - from various generations - have created a co-operative decision-making process in which each and every Cuban plays a part. Raul Castro in his new role as Head of State will carry on with the tasks of the revolution, so there is continuity in the top leadership of the country. But there is also a continuity that goes beyond the personalities at the top, notwithstanding that Fidel and Raúl have had such a leading role to play for so long; something that is ingrained in the forms of democratic participation from the grassroots upwards developed by the revolution. I think the Cuban people have assimilated all these elements in a mature way, drawing on the strong, revolutionary political culture we have built collectively over the years.

PP: For many in the US and Europe the issue of human rights in Cuba remain one of the 'stumbling blocks' that Cuba has to address. Could you say something about this issue?

RMC: The first thing I would say is that only the Cuban people are qualified and have the right to change the Cuban Government, one way or another if they so decide. The terms that the Western powers often use in relation to Cuba do not represent the views of the Cuban people, nor are they a reflection of the reality of Cuba. They constitute a form of political interference and are in violation of the basic principles of international law. The Cuban people do not need any nods from the outside world: we have fought very bravely to attain our human rights. We believe in the notion of 'all human rights for all human beings' and that is our notion of the 'universality of human rights'. We do not believe that some people are entitled to more rights than other people, or that some rights are more universal than other rights. This is the kind of society we believe in. We recognise that our society is not perfect, but we have advanced towards that goal - of human rights universality - more than any other country. There is, in fact, growing recognition by people all over the world of the monumental achievements that Cuba has made in this area by following a socialist model, although you wouldn't be able to tell by what you hear from much of the dominant corporate media.

The politicisation of human rights goes beyond any one human rights case. It has been used as a means by rich countries to force developing nations to accept interference, and to punish countries that have dared to challenge the status quo. For example, Venezuela: in spite of an absolute acceptance of democratic principles and processes, of the right of all to participate in the decisions that affect their daily lives, the country is still accused of having a tendency towards totalitarianism. I think this is unacceptable political interference. It has little to do with human rights and all to do with punishing and preventing an alternative way that may question and eventually endanger the existing order of things. The international system that has evolved in the last few decades - the one associated with neo-liberalism and economic globalisation - has resulted in a deep crisis which developing countries did not contribute to creating, but which will affect them hugely.

Therefore, the basic requirement for the removal of the above mentioned 'stumbling block' is that the Western powers - that is, rich powers, for we are also part of the Western world - have to stop pretending that they have the monopoly on human rights, that they have reached perfection and have the right to judge the rest of the world.

There are wide disparities in these countries between the pay of men and women, which hasn't been resolved and affects one half of their populations. This is an issue of social and economic rights. The issue of private prosperity and national income increasingly distributed disproportionately to a small section of the population is also a matter of concern for us. We believe this matter should be addressed as a human rights issue.

The laws that have been passed to stem 'international terrorism' have affected civil and political rights. Likewise, the legislations concerning immigration and the related restrictions also threaten the human rights of certain people and groups. Concerns about these issues have been raised by NGOs and UN organisations. I gloss over these issues - which are by no means exhaustive - to illustrate my point that the pretence of certain nations taking the position of arbiters and judging other nations is not grounded in any seamless reality, but is politically motivated to exercise pressure and preserve the status quo. This position of the Western powers has been largely discredited and, as a result, a new Human Rights Council has been established, with new procedures and with all countries having to go through a 'universal periodic review' (UPR). Incidentally, both Cuba and the UK have had their first review under this procedure. Cuba has participated with a sincere and honest approach in this new process, in order to address the promotion and protection of human rights in a meaningful way through international co-operation.

PP: You mentioned the current financial crisis: how has Cuba responded to this and how will it adapt to a possible new model?

RMC: I find an irony in this. Cuba's economic crisis in the 1990's was induced by external factors, as a result of the loss of our economic moorings, due to the dismantling of the Soviet Union. At that time some people claimed that Cuba had to privatise and adopt a 'free-market' economy. They saw that as salvation for the Cuban economy - because they believed it was 'inevitable'; we had after all reached the 'end of history' and everybody was going in the same direction.

Cubans thought differently, we went our own way rather than following any of the neo-liberal policies. Russia experienced a dramatic decrease in her social indicators, but in Cuba these indicators (infant mortality, life expectancy and so on) continued to improve throughout the crisis. There was a sharing of the effects of the crisis in a fair way, not allowing the worst effects to fall unfairly on any one section of the population and not leaving anyone unprotected. We are not in that situation now in Cuba - but the same people who said there was no way forward but privatisation are now saying the answer to the current crisis of capitalism is 'nationalisation', albeit in a particular way - that is, with nationalisation proposed as an emergency tool to support and preserve the existing system.

PP: So you do not think Cuba's economic policy will adopt a more neo-liberal model?

RMC: I think Cuba's economic changes will be aimed at strengthening our socialist model, improving its performance and its efficiency - but not at introducing capitalist institutions in our country. The socialist model has responded to the aspirations of our people. There is no reason to abandon this system. There is also no road map for the improvements that need to be made to it; this is rather a day-to-day process - based on people's participation, human solidarity and internationalism - of identifying which are the best solutions to our own problems and the contributions we can make to the global challenges facing Humanity.

PP: You do not see an emergence of an entrepreneurial culture and private enterprise?

RMC: I wouldn't be that absolute. For one thing, there are certain activities carried out by private individuals, for example, 20,000 small farmers involved in the production of food. We have other small private operators licensed in the country. We need foreign investment capital, technology and markets and we are thus seeking to enter partnerships with foreign companies. But that doesn't mean we see the private economy as the driving engine of the future. We see the socialist state enterprise as being that driving force - with no artificial limitations, because we recognise that we will be interacting with the real world out there that may do things differently to us.

PP: Could I move on to a more personal note. What has been your own personal experience living in England these last three years?

RMC: A very pleasant experience on a personal level. I had a different idea of the British character, gained from movies and my reading of literature. I had no other real knowledge before we arrived and I imagined the British would be more uptight and formal. Our experience here has been very different to that and we have made great friends. Additionally, London is an amazing city. The cultural and diplomatic social life is very intense. The UK is a major international centre of finance and world politics. These circumstances have been very rewarding for me, having previously had the opportunity to enjoy the perspectives of the UN, Washington and the EU. I think I have been very privileged in my career and being in London has added a new angle. We have travelled through England, to Wales, Scotland and expect soon Northern Ireland; it is beautiful country and it has been fascinating to see how the complexity of the UK works, notwithstanding the climate. It is not, however, as cold as we have experienced elsewhere!

PP: Finally Ambassador, what has made you angry?

RMC: I don't think anything makes me angry. I have worked in many different environments. What sometimes disappoints me is the lack of accurate information and understanding that some people show about Cuba: the manner in which certain patterns of thinking, driven by inaccurate information, have deformed the perception of some people about Cuba.

But I am not that much angered by it. I am always prepared to convey the reality of Cuba and what it has achieved. It is just one of the wicked consequences of Cuba being ostracised and stigmatised by US policies for such a long time. It is a reality of the context in which Cuba has to deal with the rest of the world and we have to do our best to counter that reality. Again, it is not that we are perfect or without fault, but that our experience has been so grossly distorted. But I think I have finally begun to perceive a healthy enquiring attitude emerging, and a benign curiosity, towards Cuba - and I am confident that the UK and Cuba can work together for their mutual benefit.

René Mujíca Cantelar has been Ambassador of Cuba in London since 2006.

(1) The Cuba Initiative http://www.cuba-initiative.org/

IJCS Volume 2 Issue 1 June 2009