We would like to give you some fresh news, in addition that what has been published to date.

The main information is that finally, in the end, after great effort and heavy pressure, the U.S. government has found some countries prepared to present the draft resolution against Cuba at the Human Rights Commission in Geneva; in other words, there is now a draft resolution against Cuba that has been presented to the Human Rights Commission. That occurred yesterday, Wednesday (April 10), at 5:45 p.m. Geneva time — 11:45 a.m. in Havana — barely 15 minutes before the time limit established by the commission to present the resolution.

It was registered at the commission by the ambassador of Uruguay in Geneva. Uruguay registered that document within the Human Rights Commission just 15 minutes before the deadline in a suspense-movie finale, and it did so, of course, in the express interest and under the guidance of the U.S. government. It presented the draft resolution that, in real terms, has been in the making since October 2001.

Thus the Uruguayan government has assumed the inglorious role of presenting the resolution against Cuba, replacing the Czech government, which refused to continue doing so, given the taunts and public derision over its attitude for the last three years. So this year it is no longer the Czech Republic, but the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, the Uruguayan government that is presenting the anti-Cuba text.

This text should be put to the vote on April 19. April 19 is the date set to hold the vote on this resolution in the Human Rights Commission, composed of 53 countries.

Registered as cosponsors of this text, in first place are Peru and Guatemala, as well as Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras, which are not members of the Human Rights Commission, despite being registered as cosponsors. It seems to me that comments on these last four would be superfluous. Then come Argentina and Canada, which have also made themselves cosponsors and, finally, at a press conference in San José together with the Uruguayan president, the president of Costa Rica announced that Costa Rica would likewise cosponsor the text.

I have his statement here, a wire story from the EFE agency, datelined San José: "The president of Costa Rica, Miguel Angel Rodríguez, stated today that he is honored and proud to be on the side of Uruguay in the resolution that is to be presented." He stated it and, well, this morning the Costa Rican decision to cosponsor the text was formalized, which was no surprise to Cuba, of course.

Well now, I would like to stress, because nobody should be confused, that this is a U.S. government text, drafted in line with the interests of the U.S. government and meticulously guided throughout, from its birth to its final registration, by the U.S. government.

The Latin American countries that have been involved in this matter would not do something of this nature if they were not under brutal pressure from the U.S. government. Those who have done so have acted with the permission of and under directions from the U.S. government.

We would like to stress this. And I would like to comment, for example, on the official statement from the Peruvian Foreign Ministry.

For example, here is a wire story from Notimex, which states that the Peruvian government admitted today to having presented a draft resolution, along with another nine countries in the region. We have already seen that it was really Uruguay that presented the resolution, with the cosponsorship of Peru and other countries. That has an explanation because up until yesterday, we believed — as you recall — and it was published in the press, that it was going to be Peru. I will refer to that mystery in a few minutes.

A communiqué from the Peruvian Foreign Ministry states that this document is "a constructive formula for promoting democracy in the region," an initiative "based on a constructive formula," and this document is presented as something positive and new; and I would like to clarify this.

This whole history really began in October 2001. Everything began in October 2001.

I have here some documents that we are going to give you at the end. This is document number one that we are going to give you. (HE SHOWS IT)

This document, in English, was handed out to the Latin American foreign ministries by the U.S. government last October. It is an aide-mémoire from the State Department, with which it commences the organization of the anti-Cuba exercise. For example, it is stated in certain parts of the document — paragraphs of the document that I am going to read to you and that we are going to give you at the end — "We understand that some Latin American nations are working on a resolution" — they understand that because they had already talked with some of them, they were organizing the beginning of the process — "we think that a resolution presented by the region would have a very good chance of being approved by the commission" — the State Department said that in October 2001. "We estimate that a short, simple and non-confrontational resolution, possibly based on the Organization of American States Democratic Charter, which focuses on the human rights situation and which solicits a visit to the island to investigate the situation, would have the greatest possibility of success. We would like to support such a resolution," says the State Department. "We trust that you" — the Latin American governments — "will encourage the commission’s regional members to present a resolution of this type and to cosponsor a resolution if an acceptable draft is presented."

Thus began the U.S. pressure, attempting to get this year’s resolution on Cuba presented by various Latin American countries. This is the document, the proof; this was a confidential document handed over to the Latin American foreign ministries by the State Department, but to which we had access, and a copy of that original will be given out to the press afterwards, so that you can study its text.

That was the beginning of this process. The United States begins by giving instructions in Latin America that it is aspiring to a short, non-confrontational, simple text, based on the OAS Democratic Charter, which should be presented by a group of Latin American countries, and that was precisely the final result of all this hustle and bustle — yesterday, with 15 minutes left before the deadline. That’s where it began.

What was the second stage? Then came the U.S. government attempt to get Mexico to head the presentation of that apparently innovative Latin American initiative. That attempt failed when President Vicente Fox announced that Mexico would not present, cosponsor or support any resolution against Cuba at the Commission; that attempt, the golden dream that a country with the weight and authority of Mexico would be the one to head this exercise failed. And here I have then, document number two, which we are also going to give you. Document number two is the text, still in English, that the State Department drafted and which it wanted Mexico to present, and afterwards it proceeded to seek out other sponsors.

The content of this text that you will also be receiving still contains much of the old Czech resolution, which the United States drafted and handed to the Czechs to present, which they did up until this year. This one contains a lot of that; however, it includes two elements that are present in the final text that has just been presented: it calls on the high commissioner for human rights to visit Cuba to investigate the human rights situation, and calls, moreover, on the government of Cuba to allow the high commissioner the opportunity to fully exercise her mandate in Cuba.

In other words, this text that the United States has drafted and which dates back to the end of January or the beginning of February this year, already includes elements that have done away with a supposedly Latin American final initiative. Here it already talks of the high commissioner’s visit, of establishing the visit, which distinguishes it from the already exhausted schema of the Czech text. This is the second document, irrefutable proof of the hoax cooked up by the State Department, with the backing of certain Latin American governments subjected to brutal pressure by the U.S. government.

In the face of that failure by the United States to succeed in its objective, given that the president of Mexico stated that his country was not going to fulfill that role, the U.S. government began to pressure the Peruvian government. Given Peru’s particular circumstances, its situation at that moment, the U.S. government went for the Peruvian government’s jugular.

President Bush brutally pressured President Alejandro Toledo of Peru, as I already explained right here. However, U.S. diplomacy, shoddy and erratic, accustomed to obtaining what it wants by virtue of force rather than intelligence or political work, hurriedly distributed in Washington a text attributed to Peru, the text in English that you already know, and began to discuss it with the Latin American embassies. That was the moment when we informed public opinion and defended the right of the accredited press in Cuba and the international press to exercise their right to receive information on this matter, which was being manufactured in the strictest silence, in great secrecy, so as to prevent the press and public opinion in Latin America and other countries from having access to all this shady business. That is why we gave you that document. It is the document that the United States began to discuss with the Latin American embassies, claiming that it was Peruvian, that Peru was going to propose it and which the United States considered needed to be strengthened in some places.

That text is the document that we handed over to you at the time, with the commentaries by the State Department.

As you recall, the Peruvian government emphatically denied to us that that was the case, that at that point in time the text was a Peruvian one; and we believed it, indeed, we believed that explanation. It even charged the U.S. government with handing off the monstrosity — still not a Peruvian monstrosity but a U.S. text — to them.

Nevertheless, life, or the next few days, demonstrated that Peru was unable to withstand the tremendous pressure of the U.S. government; the Peruvian government ended up yielding to the pressure, force and threats through which the U.S. government imposed this task on them.

The text already contained new elements, the exercise had acquired its more complete form, the creature was approaching its final state and now not only talks of sending a representative from the high commission for human rights — at the beginning it talked sending of the high commissioner herself – but about calling on Cuba to sign the human rights pacts. Remember that the United States said that in all events this text needed to be tougher; it demanded, pressured, negotiated, because it felt that something more could still be done to the text.

Finally, on April 9, Tuesday of this week, the Peruvian government yielded to U.S. pressure and presented the text in an informal way in Geneva; for the first time a paper appeared in Geneva, as up to that moment no paper on the subject of Cuba had been seen over there, given that they were negotiating in Washington. They were still tying up the loose ends, and then came a secret dinner at the residence of the Peruvian ambassador in Geneva — to which Cuba was not invited, but Cuba knew about it, of course — followed by a working breakfast, likewise highly secret with a select group of invitees, and a Peruvian deputy foreign minister in attendance, and finally, a draft text.

That was the first time this was known about, on Tuesday night Geneva time — the afternoon here in Cuba — and that is this document number four which we are going to give you, which is the draft resolution that the Peruvian government presented to certain members of the Human Rights Commission, under U.S. pressure, which was still going on, with final attempts by the U.S. government to go on changing it, making it tougher, because that process was still not completed.

Curiously, in this document there was timid recognition of the progress obtained by Cuba in its people’s exercise of their social rights. It stated, for example, that the Human Rights Commission recognizes the progress obtained by the Republic of Cuba in realizing the population’s social rights, despite an adverse international climate. That’s a bit mysterious, but at least it talked of recognizing the advances obtained. That was the Tuesday variant, still consulting with the State Department; and curiously, included the U.S. draft almost word for word, although the Peruvian government had initially denied it authorship.

In other words, in practice Peru ended up assuming almost word for word that same draft whose authorship it had, rightly, first denied, but which was finally imposed on it; but well, there was at least the attempt to insert the recognition that Cuba had made some effort, some progress in guaranteeing its people’s social rights.

Here it is, for the history of this ignominious farce; the Tuesday document is here.

One version of this draft was leaked to the press and we even learned that it included an express mention of the blockade, it referred to the blockade of Cuba. In the end, we will see, as you are seeing here, that now there is no mention of the blockade; that Peruvian version that appeared in the press, as it was to be presented by Peru, finally didn’t mention the blockade. We’ll see afterwards how the United States made it disappear in a notable act of international magic, along with the Peruvian attempt to mention the blockade of Cuba in this resolution.

The great moment finally arrived. On Tuesday, April 9, at 10:00 p.m. here in Havana, with almost everybody in Latin America sleeping, and in the United States as well, and in Geneva as well — where it was 4:00 a.m. — it appeared that Peru was going to present the text — it was 10:00 p.m. on the day before the deadline — and time was going to run out the next day. It was assumed that Peru was finally the presenter of the text that had even been introduced at a dinner and secret working breakfast there in Geneva, everything prepared. Moreover, at press time for many newspapers in Latin America, and in Peru itself, this was the news, and this was how it was reported: "Peru to present the text..." and that was how it appeared in yesterday’s daily papers in Latin America, Peru as the presenter of the text. Well, everybody was going to bed, newspaper editors, heads of the international pages all going home to bed, and everything was ready.

Then the unexpected happened: the Peruvian Congress passed a resolution or a motion, at nearly 10:00 p.m., by no less than 67 votes in favor, two against and four abstentions; 67 votes in favor! That resolution called on President Toledo "to maintain an independent and autonomous stand" on the issue, "by abstaining in the vote." Just imagine, the text presented, breakfast organized and, suddenly, Congress comes up with that news. A serious problem, everything organized and suddenly comes this news to mess everything up in the end. The Peruvian Congress overwhelmingly approved a call for abstention, to maintain an independent and autonomous position. However, there could be no doubt as to the U.S. government’s resources, imagination and capacity to perform a new and more spectacular act of magic.

Thus, at 10:00 p.m. in Washington and Latin America, the U.S. government once again went out to dig up a new presenter for the text, which had been left an orphan close to the midnight hour, and time was running out, like it was for Cinderella, and somebody had to be found to present it.

Given the impossibility of the Peruvian government presenting it, given the opposition of both Peruvian public opinion and the majority of its Congress, who asked the president not to do so, the United States sallied forth to seek out a substitute, and this is when the great moment for Uruguay arrives. And the government of Uruguay is called onto the stage by the government of the empire, and appears on the scene. The preparations were well organized in the early morning and by 9:00 a.m. here in Havana, it was known that the Uruguayan embassy in Geneva had found itself at dawn with instructions to be, surprisingly, the principal presenter, the principal sponsor of the text. Thus, at 11:45 a.m. — already 5:45 p.m. in Geneva — the birth of that monstrosity, the final resolution, finally made its appearance.

The Uruguayan bustle began at 9:00 a.m. Havana time: looking for new countries, organizing the search for another group of countries, with U.S. diplomacy leading the process; U.S. diplomats who had been constituted as a special task force, influencing, pressuring, convening, organizing, directing and, finally, at 5:45 p.m. there, and at 11:45 a.m. in Havana, came the birth of the infant, and Uruguay officially presenting the text; a text on which Uruguay had not worked, because in the preceding few days it was the U.S. government and the Peruvian government, under the direction of the former, that had been working on the text.

In other words, Uruguay was suddenly converted into the presenter of a text on which it had hardly worked; I think it finally had the time to read it and, finally, present it.

Here is the presentation of the text. What does this version say — number four that has been presented? I will read again exactly the aide-mémoire that the United States distributed from October 2001 onwards, and I am going to compare it with the final text proposed:

"We estimate that a short resolution," — note, a little one — "simple" — four paragraphs of introduction and five little clauses — "non-confrontational" — it abandons the traditional Czech language. When I say "Czech," I mean that it abandons the language of the texts presented by the United States, it’s a new way — "possibly based on the OAS Democratic Charter..." Here it says: "highlighting the various universal declarations and instruments, directed at promoting democracy and human rights, as well as regional instruments like the Inter-American Democratic Charter adopted in 2001" — and that aspiration, that U.S. government guideline is met — "which focuses on the situation of human rights and solicits a visit to the island to investigate the situation, would have the greatest possibility of success."

That text, which had already been pre-manufactured, something like an uncooked McDonald’s hamburger, or a prepackaged meal that has finally seen its birth.

This is the text that they said was needed in October 2001. Now this text merits some commentary, which I am going to make further on.

The United States has been obliged to continue diluting the text in relation to former years, and this is becoming more difficult and more complex, as people become more resistant to passing this disgrace; countries are really suffering, they know that the rest will point an accusing finger at them as an instrument of this maneuver, of these obdurate and spurious interests. So the United States’ hand has been forced, and in fact it had copped on to that by last October and thus was talking of a different type of text. In real terms it isn’t so much interested in what the paper says as in the fact that it exists; in other words, it’s not so important here whether it says more or less, but that a paper exists, what the State Department needs is the paper. Thus, this resolution is not condemnatory, in no part does it say that the human rights situation in Cuba is condemned; it expresses no concern, in no place does it say, "concerned about the situation existing in Cuba," which is usual in this type of text; in no part are there criticisms.

You could say, well, but if this doesn’t condemn, if it doesn’t express concern, if it doesn’t point to any criticism, then why does this paper exist? Why is a resolution on Cuba needed if there isn’t even any expressed concern at what is occurring in Cuba? Why take a resolution on Cuba before the Human Rights Commission? This is a question I am now posing to the U.S. government and the sponsors of this text. Why are they taking a resolution on Cuba before the Human Rights Commission, when we know that the Human Rights Commission, in theory, should be concerned with massive, flagrant and systematic violations of human rights, and this is not the case. But not only that, no criticism is laid out here, no concerns about what is happening in Cuba, so why did they have to present it? Why don’t they present one on another country, about which more or less the same thing could be said as about Cuba?

The answer is obvious. I posed the question, but I have the reply to it. The U.S. government desperately needs this resolution, although it has had to accede, under international pressure, faced with the derision, mockery and discrediting of this exercise; after more than 10 years it has had to accept taking out accusations, lies and falsehoods; it has had to polish it up. The United States needs this paper to maintain the blockade, because it is the ultimate pretext through which the blockade is justified.

Previously it was said that the blockade existed because Cuba was an ally of the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union disappeared. Afterwards it was said that the blockade was being maintained because Cuba had soldiers in Africa, where it was our people, our voluntary combatants who made possible the independence of Namibia, the territorial integrity of Angola, the release of Mandela and the dismantling of apartheid, and they returned from there victorious, with the affection and sympathy of Africa, so that couldn’t be used any longer to explain it.

Afterwards it was said that Cuba supported the guerrilla movements in Central America, but that disappeared as well; the guerrilla movements in Central America disappeared; some became political parties, or currently run municipal and regional governments in their countries. Some of those countries established diplomatic relations with Cuba, the majority, and then well, the blockade could not longer be explained by that either. Then came the justification of the blockade based on "human rights are being violated in Cuba," that "there is no democracy in Cuba," and thus the United States is blockading Cuba to solve those problems.

The United States desperately needs this text, that is the reason why Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that this was a maximum priority for the U.S. government. The United States needs the condemnation of Cuba in Geneva; it needs to maintain the case against Cuba in Geneva like a fish needs water, it can’t live without it. They have acquired an addiction to this issue and thus they need it, and for that reason have been fully bent on producing this document.

This text, really, if one reads it and sees that it neither condemns, nor expresses concern, nor points to problems, raises the first question: "Well, why does a text have to exist to take care of something that, according to the way it reads here, has no problems, has no difficulties and no reason to be presented in Geneva? I already replied — well, there’s something fishy here — Ah! Because in any case it maintains the issue, it will be presented then as a condemnation of Cuba, independently of what’s said.

The second observation that this text merits: there is no mention of the blockade in this text that you are going to receive, not even as a slight allusion. The interest of the Peruvian government and certain other Latin America governments in inserting at least a fig leaf and make a mild reference to the blockade has been left by the wayside. That is what the Czechs wanted last year; as you will recall, the French proposed to include one paragraph on the blockade here, tenaciously opposed by the U.S. government, and which even led to a call from Secretary of State Colin Powell to President Havel, asking the Czechs to withdraw that paragraph, and the Czechs finally withdrew it.

What does this text say now? Remember that before it said "recognizes Cuba’s progress in matters..." Now it says: "Recognizing without prejudice the efforts made by the Republic of Cuba in the realization of the population’s social rights" — and now comes the great cryptic phrase — "despite an adverse international climate." It says that. I don’t know if you understand what that means: "despite an adverse international climate."

Here in the Foreign Ministry, we have been trying to understand since yesterday what this means. We don’t know if it means El Niño or if it refers to the unseasonable passing of Halley’s Comet, or corruption in Nicaragua, or to the crisis in Argentina; we don’t understand what is meant by "despite an adverse international climate," that mysterious phrase which will go down in history as a literary curiosity. It’s a mystery, but it says that. In other words, this text does not dare to mention the blockade of Cuba.

And why doesn’t the Uruguayan government dare to mention the blockade here; or the Peruvian government, or the Latin American governments? Because the United States is not in agreement and the United States is responsible for and at the head of this, and it is the one to decide what is done, despite the fact that it is not in a position to vote for the text this year. Previously, it was trapped in the contradiction that if it accepted inserting the blockade here, then it would have to vote in favor of the text and thus in favor of condemning Cuba, but at the same time, by talking of the blockade, it would be caught in a trap.

Now, the most serious part of the text I am denouncing this morning is that, once again, it creates a mechanism for the Human Rights Commission to monitor Cuba, with this syrupy language, appearing to be very sweet, that resuscitates an issue that had been dead and buried. This document plunges us back into the ’90s, when the United States imposed on that body a Human Rights Commission rapporteur for Cuba, which is an obstinate violation of the Commission’s norms, which call for the establishment of a rapporteur – that is, a person responsible for following a situation in cases of genocide. There have been rapporteurs for Rwanda, with one million deaths, and for Burundi, where there were 800,000 deaths. But the United States managed to impose a rapporteur for Cuba, and that position of rapporteur was eliminated in 1998, when that resolution was defeated through international pressure. The countries refused to continue supporting such a thing.

This document takes the maneuvers concerning Cuba back to the previous century, creating a mechanism to monitor Cuba when it calls for an envoy of the high commissioner for human rights. That is the figure that is utilized now, and this time it is used spuriously, with intentions that really cannot be supported. The institution of the high commissioner for human rights, Ms. Mary Robinson, whose reelection, by the way, has been blocked by the U.S. government because it feels that she has exceeded her mandate and on some occasions has criticized the United States, and she won’t be reelected because the United States is against it. Anyway, this document obliges the Human Rights Commission to send a representative to Cuba, and this representative must draw up a report to be presented to the Commission next year, and the Commission must look at this theme again, because the objective of all of this is to maintain the subject of Cuba on the agenda, to keep on justifying the blockade.

This begs the question: why must they ask for a visit to Cuba by a representative of the high commissioner, when Cuba already received – and was one of the first countries in the word to do so – the high commissioner for human rights, not an envoy but the commissioner himself? Mr. Ayala Lazo, who was Ms. Robinson’s predecessor, visited Cuba, on the Cuban government’s invitation, and wrote a report at the beginning of his term, even though the United States has never received the commissioner. The United States has never officially received the high commissioner for human rights, and neither have more than half of the countries in Latin America received a visit from that office. So why must it be stated in a text that Cuba should do it again, if Cuba has already received the high commissioner? Why manipulate this matter? Why single out Cuba, demanding that it accept a visit from the high commissioner for a second time, when most of Latin America has not done so for the first time, and the United States, which proclaims itself the great defender of human rights, hasn’t done so either? Cuba opposes this kind of distortion, this kind of manipulation of the mechanisms for international follow-ups on human rights.

This morning I want to make it very clear that they are sadly deluded – sadly deluded! – if they think that Cuba will allow an inspector in the service of the U.S. government to enter here, under these conditions, with the goal of justifying the maintenance of the blockade. They’re dreaming – I won’t say they’re having erotic dreams, but rather futile dreams – they are deluding themselves into thinking that we will go along with this farce and thimagess hoax.

Once before, the human rights rapporteur assigned to Cuba, who never entered Cuba, collided with our dignity and our sense of independence. He had to find a different job, another way to make a living, because no one is going to make a living off of this at the Human Rights Commission. Right now, I want to warn anyone who expects to earn a salary, to receive a juicy expense account and perks, allegedly for wandering around Cuba as an inspector, that there is no future for such a post, it is precarious employment, destined to disappear just as its predecessor did.

Why don’t they establish a rapporteur or an inspector, for example, an envoy of the high commissioner to investigate the rampant corruption in Latin America, which is being denounced these days even by recently elected leaders and international institutions? Or the flagrant violation of economic, social and cultural rights, consecrated in international conventions, that are being violated today, such as the right to be able to read and write, or the right to nourishing food? Why doesn’t the U.S. government concern itself with that? Why isn’t there discussion about a visit by the Commission on that theme? Why are they calling for a visit to a country where no problems have been pointed out in that regard? So the lucky person chosen to play that role will soon move onto the rolls of the unemployed. Cuba will not cooperate with that mechanism, Cuba rejects the idea, and those who, in this way, aspire to legitimize a pretext for the United States to maintain the blockade against Cuba are sadly deluded.

In another of its paragraphs, the document asks Cuba, encourages Cuba to sign the international pacts on human rights. There are two pacts: the Pact on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Pact on Civil and Political Rights. But the fact is that Cuba is a party to 17 of the 26 existing international rights instruments, while the U.S. government is party to only 10. The countries of the European Union, all together, have ratified nine of those 26 instruments, but Cuba has ratified 17. And most of the Latin American countries, almost all of them, are members of many less of these instruments than Cuba. So why isn’t the United States, for example, asked to become a party to the Pact on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which the United States does not belong? Why is Cuba asked to do this?

Why are the government of Uruguay and the government of Peru making demands of Cuba and not of the United States? Why has there never been an initiative presented demanding that the U.S. government become a member of the Pact on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights? The pressure exerted on Cuba in this matter, the attempt to manipulate this issue, is a way to increasingly isolate Cuba, which has proven its willingness to examine these themes, to work with a maximum membership in the international instruments, but is kept from doing so.

Why don’t the governments of Uruguay and Peru demand that the U.S. government sign and be a member of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, given that the United States is the only government in the world that has not ratified this very important convention, and the most universal? Why do they make demands on Cuba and not on the United States? Because of the size of its military and economic power? Why? Why is Cuba encouraged and not the United States? I would like the governments of Uruguay and Peru to explain why Cuba and not the United States.

These are the comments I have on that role, for now; we could make more comments, but for now we will limit ourselves to these. That role, like the rest, is destined for the garbage heap of useless and ignominious matters.

But well, I have a curious story that reveals the atmosphere yesterday at the Human Rights Commission and that you’ll probably see later on television.

The moment before the diplomatic representative from Uruguay officially registered the draft resolution about Cuba, and when several Latin American countries – El Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Peru – were going to Uruguay’s seat to sign the document as cosponsors, at that moment the person who was sitting in Uruguay’s seat was none other than Simon Henshaw, a State Department official who concentrates on Cuba. It’s unknown why the man is in Geneva, whether he’s on sabbatical or paid vacation there in Geneva, but he’s part of the U.S. delegation to the Human Rights Commission. No one knows why; he’s the man who specializes in Cuba. One supposes that he is the one who should be busy dealing with the U.S. citizens who are being tried for traveling to Cuba, but right now the man is over there in Geneva. And he was sitting in Uruguay’s seat, vigilant, attentive to every detail. One could say that he was doing volunteer work, supervising the whole maneuver, the details, reminding us that "the master’s eye makes the mill go." The man was there, sitting in Uruguay’s seat, the delegations saw the man there. Although it’s clear that he hasn’t changed nationalities or jobs, it’s not clear what that man was doing there.

This gives you an idea of the atmosphere and the characteristics of this whole questionable and shameful exercise.

Above all, Cuba’s position is one of rejection. Cuba energetically rejects this new maneuver by the United States, this shameful exercise headed by the U.S. government and supported this time by the government of Uruguay, the government of Peru and some other governments, amid disrepute and public debate.

Behavior such as this sparks the disdain of the Cuban people and millions of Latin Americans and citizens of the world, who are very much aware of the truth about all of this, who cannot be confused and who see Cuba as an example of dignity and defense of national sovereignty, an example of social justice and the efforts of a people to achieve human rights for all and by all.

Cuba feels that in any draft resolution, the sole mention of the word "Cuba" is not acceptable for Cuba. There is not a single justification for maintaining Cuba on the Human Rights Commission’s agenda, except the United States’ arbitrary and selfish attempt to continue justifying the blockade. And not even this apparently softer document, which has been presented as being colorless and flavorless, rather like Diet Coke, not even this is acceptable to Cuba.

Cuba does not accept being singled out in Geneva, it does not accept bringing up the case of Cuba there, when the governments of Latin America have never presented a draft resolution about any other country. This is the first time that a text on the situation within a country has been presented by Latin American governments, and it has happened because this year the United States pursued this initiative, this formula for its maneuver, even though flagrant violations in other countries are not presented, and even though no one has ever had the opportunity to point out the human rights violations committed in the United States.

Why hasn’t a resolution been presented in Geneva questioning the United States for its recent Supreme Court decision, denying the most elemental rights of immigrants who go from all over Latin America to the United States? Why isn’t there one? Why hasn’t a single country in Latin America dared to present a text in Geneva, criticizing the United States? It takes a lot of courage to do that. Ah, but some of them have lent themselves to a maneuver against Cuba, under U.S. pressure – that they’ll do. They won’t criticize the big and powerful, but they will criticize the small and honorable.

Cuba rejects this exercise, even more so when we know that the main instigator, the United States, and several of the proponents wouldn’t dare to condemn the human rights violations being committed by the Israeli army in Palestinian territory, when we know that there is a double standard on these issues. For that reason, Cuba rejects the attempt to single it out at the Human Rights Commission, and it rejects the politicized, selective and discriminatory use, for such purposes, of the noble effort to defend human rights. It rejects the politicized use of this whole issue to justify the blockade.

Cuba has no doubt about the authorship of all this. Cuba accuses the U.S. State Department of being the instigator and the leader of this new hoax, fabricated to justify the blockade imposed on Cuba for more than 40 years, right at the time when that policy is increasingly rejected, as it was last year by 167 countries in the UN General Assembly. Within the United States, there is growing opposition to the maintenance of this useless and obsolete policy which also violates international law and international human rights conventions.

Cuba is grateful for the massive displays of public solidarity that it has been receiving these days from the peoples of Latin America.

Cuba thanks the Peruvian Congress, which approved a resolution urging the president to maintain a sovereign and independent position.

Cuba thanks the Argentine Senate, which spoke on behalf of the millions of Cuba’s friends in Argentina, for whom we have only encouragement, phrases of support and respect. Cuba thanks the Argentine House of Deputies which last night, after midnight, finally approved a text, like the one passed by the Senate, asking President Duhalde to abstain. This means that in Argentina, both the House and the Senate – the Congress that under dramatic circumstances chose a president who was not elected at the polls, but instead chosen in the midst of a crisis in Congress – that body that has chosen him, that has given him legitimacy to carry out his mandate, has asked him, in both the Hose and the Senate, by overwhelming majorities, to abstain in regard to the Cuba case, as Argentine public opinion is demanding.

Today we thank the honest journalists throughout Latin America who have written editorials, who have reported on this matter; and we thank the movement of solidarity with Cuba. Yesterday there were mass demonstrations in several Latin American countries: in Peru, there were demonstrations in front of Congress and the Palace of Government, demanding that the government not get involved in condemning Cuba; in Chile, there was a march yesterday; and in other countries in Latin America there have been similar events in recent days. We appreciate the valor of the millions of Latin Americans who respect and trust in the future of the Cuban people and its Revolution; and of the political parties that have clearly expressed their condemnation of this maneuver. We appreciate the voices that have been raised in Uruguay, demanding a stance of national dignity on the Cuba issue, and in the rest of Latin America.

Cuba will confront this maneuver with all its resources. Cuba has the support of the countries that behave with dignity and decorum in Geneva; In this battle, Cuba has the solidarity of the peoples of Latin America and the world. Cuba knows that it embodies a hope of independence and dignity for those peoples, and for that reason Cuba will not give in. It will not accept this exercise and will confront it, knowing that it has right on its side and knowing that it will obtain a moral victory through its independence and its resistance to the empire’s hegemonic intentions.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Those who have questions, please identify yourselves and the media outlet you represent. We remind you that we don’t have much time; I think that given the foreign minister’s ample explanation, there will be no need for a lot of questions.

Felipe Pérez: At the end, we will provide you with a copy of all these materials for your personal files.

Let’s get to the questions, if there are any.

Tracey Eaton (Dallas Morning News): I have two questions. One is: If I counted correctly, there are nine Latin American countries supporting this resolution. So, do you think that those countries are so weak that they would accept U.S. pressure and assume the United States’ position?

Felipe Pérez: I’ve presented the facts and I’ll leave it to you to judge the motives and try to answer the questions I have posed here that have not been answered yet in Latin America.

Tracey Eaton: The second question: You know that there are human rights activists and so-called dissidents here in Cuba, and that some have what they call Project Varela. What do you think of this? Do you think it will gain ground, or what is going to happen with that?

Felipe Pérez: I feel that in Cuba the people and their authorities fight for human rights and defend – in the midst of the blockade, the pressures and aggression of the U.S. government – a colossal project in favor of the Cuban people’s human rights, of all their rights – civil and political, social, economic and cultural. And I feel that the persons you mentioned, who are salaried employees of the U.S. government, belong to a governmental organization, which is the U.S. Interest Section in Havana, which pays them and has them on its payroll. They are employees of the U.S. government. And I don’t think that any of their initiatives and plots to support the policy of a superpower against their own small country can be successful, or be an echo or gain the support among the Cuban people, which is politicized and is constantly increasing its intellectual level and understanding of the Cuban reality and the world. The Cuban people will not be cajoled by tall tales told by a few opportunists and those who live off deceit and lies.

Andrew, this will be your last question in Havana. Your "last tango." (LAUGHS) Where are you going?

Andrew: To England, for the cold and the rain.

Felipe Pérez: Wow, it’s really cold there. You won’t be able to dress like that when you’re there. You know what you’ll be missing. (LAUGHS) What’s your question?

Andrew: Well, an easy question, then. (LAUGHS)

Felipe Pérez: We’ll keep that in mind when you return, (LAUGHS) which I feel is inevitable.

Andrew: Looking toward ex-president Jimmy Carter’s visit, what are your expectations for that visit and what possible impact could it have on Cuban-U.S. relations?

Felipe Pérez: We considered former president Carter’s visit to Cuba very important. We are happy that he has accepted the invitation extended to him by President Fidel Castro to visit our country. We consider him an honorable and sincere man; we consider him an exponent of the best sentiments of the people of the United States, and for that reason we respect him and do not blame him for the blockade or the aggression that our country has had to endure.

We have a positive view of his visit, which we are preparing at this time in coordination with his staff, to assure that the visit turns out really well and that he has the opportunity to really see our society and come into contact with the country. Although he hasn’t visited it before, he really did not make it the center of hostility, and although the measures he took and the government policy he adopted toward Cuba did not change the fundamental elements of the blockade and the policy designed before his administration, we see him as a sincere man and a man with moral values that we respect.

We believe his visit is a testimony to new times, to the growing sentiment in U.S. society and among the people of the United States in favor of normalizing relations with Cuba, as the majority of the Cubans who live in the United States now demand, along with the majority of the people of the United States, who want to visit Cuba, as the U.S. press and the business sector point out almost daily. The only ones opposed to that normalization make up a weakened but nevertheless powerful minority that is trying to maintain that policy of economic asphyxiation and aggression against Cuba.

We hope that the visit will be successful and that former president Carter will return to the United States with memories of the Cubans’ affection, friendship and hospitality, as well as their sense of independence and their dignity. We’re working out the details, the date. We’re adjusting our agenda, we’re discussing all the details for his visit.

Sergio Rinaldi (La República, Uruguay): Two questions, Mr. Minister. On Saturday, in two surveys, 65% of the Uruguayan people stated their opposition to their president’s position. Cuba has just sent our country 200,000 doses of meningitis B vaccine, in the form of a donation. Will Cuba maintain that policy?

The other question is: For the first time, Latin American countries have been the ones to present the draft resolution. Does that fact change the perspective of the situation?

Felipe Pérez: Thank you very much.

I’ll answer the second question first.

We do not believe that the presence of Latin American countries changes the essence of this exercise against Cuba. It continues to be an exercise sponsored by the United States, serving that government’s interest in justifying the blockade, although we do note this as a negative sign that the countries of our region do not have the courage of resist the pressure, and end up giving in. This is the case despite the fact that, inspired by the founders’ dreams of a Great American Homeland, Latin American countries should maintain a stance of defending the rights of a small and blockaded country besieged by the United States. From that viewpoint it is negative, but looking at the essence of what this paper says, of its intent and what it achieves in the public eye, it has to do, above all, with the United States, which is the proponent, the great author and the beneficiary of this paper, destined to be presented to public opinion as a new condemnation of Cuba that justified the maintenance of the blockade.

The Uruguayan people can rest easy and be assured that the Cuban government will meet its commitment to donate all the vaccine necessary, and even transport it to Uruguay, to confront the meningitis epidemic that has caused so much death and sadness among Uruguayan families.

It’s important to remember the history of this donation. It began with isolated outbreaks of the disease in certain regions of Uruguay, leading to a scandalous situation when Uruguayan health authorities concealed from the public the information that the Pasteur Institute in Paris had recommended using the Cuban vaccine to fight the epidemic in Uruguay. It concealed that information to justify blocking the acquisition of the Cuban vaccine, and it was only because of popular pressure and a scandal, which ended in resignations and wholesale replacements of Uruguayan Ministry of Public Health officials, that the Uruguayan government very urgently asked to buy the vaccine, and the Cuban government immediately made the decision to donate the 71,000 doses of vaccine needed at that moment. The Cuban government even turned over Cuba’s available reserves of the vaccine, leaving only the amount necessary to vaccinate the Cuban children who needed it.

I should say that this Cuban effort does not in any way limit our capacity to vaccinate all our children and keep our child population protected against that terrible scourge. And we will keep doing this. We have the production capacity, we have the center that manufactures it, we have the technicians, the scientists and a truly outstanding staff to guarantee this objective.

Time passed and there were outbreaks in other parts of Uruguay’s geography, and the new public health authorities began trying to buy the vaccine, on a commercial basis, from a Uruguayan company, Gautier Laboratories, which represents the manufacturer of the vaccine, Cuba’s Finlay Institute, over there in Uruguay. It was a commercial operation; however, everything began to get distorted, talk began about Cuba’s debt, of discounting it from the pervious debt that Cuba had with Uruguay, which had nothing to do with this matter, and the Cuban government announced in Uruguay that it had decided to donate all the vaccine necessary, first the 800,000 doses to vaccinate in Montevideo and Canalones. Out of those 800,000 doses that the Cuban government said it would donate, and even transport if necessary, amid the controversy and delays, the first 200,000 doses arrived in Uruguay a few days ago, transported in a Cubana Airlines plane and deposited there in the Uruguayan airport by the Cuban government, which donated that vaccine as it would to anyone else.

The Uruguayan people, which the Cuban government and the Cuban foreign minister would never think of insulting or offending – because for the Uruguayan people we only have feelings of friendship, solidarity, affection and gratitude for their solidarity with Cuba – can feel secure and convinced that the Cuban vaccine will be there; that the Cuban government will try to make sure that each Uruguayan family will feel the tranquility of knowing that their children will not die of meningitis, as many have in recent times. So we are maintaining our decision to donate that vaccine. We are offended to hear anyone say that their value will be "discounted" from Cuba’s debt. We don’t want to mix one matter with another. Cuba’s commercial debt with Uruguay, which dates back to another time and has to do with other transactions, is completely unrelated to our noble and generous gesture of donating the vaccine. It’s another topic; we don’t want to mix the two.

We are ready to discuss, negotiate and reach an agreement with the Uruguayan government for payment of the Cuban debt, without mixing that matter with the subject of the Cuban donation. I don’t understand why the Uruguayan authorities refuse to recognize a selfless donation, made by the Cuban government without any ulterior motives. They are attempting to link the donation to the Cuban debt, which is another matter that we are ready to discuss, to come to an agreement and to resolve with the Uruguayan government, through the appropriate channels, without mixing in this matter.

Uruguayans and their families can be assured that even though the Uruguayan government has decided to present that resolution against Cuba in Geneva, and has lent itself to that maneuver in alliance with the U.S. government, the people and government of Cuba clearly distinguish the government of that country from its people, which Cuba considers a sister Latin American nation that can count on Cuba extending its hand in friendship.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. Unfortunately there is no more time for questions, because we have another press conference in 15 minutes at the International Press Center.

Felipe Pérez: You have to go to another press conference, but later on you’ll complain that there’s nothing to report on in Havana.