José L. Ponce ( Presenter) - Good morning. Welcome, colleagues, to this press conference by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, arranged to explain the voting at the 59^th session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

The Minister will make an introductory speech and explain the results. He will then take questions from the floor.

As always, please say who you are and use the microphones when you ask your question.

We have 76 journalists from 64 media representing 24 countries, plus our own press which is fully represented.

I will now hand over to the Minister.

Felipe Pérez - A good morning to all the foreign correspondents accredited in Cuba and to the members of the Cuban press corps.

As has been reported, yesterday the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva considered three documents which were voted on by its 53 member states.

The day before, discussion had started under Agenda Item 9 of a draft resolution submitted by Peru, Costa Rica and Uruguay, the debating of which was affected by amendments proposed by Cuba and last-minute amendments tabled by Costa Rica. The addition of flagrant violations of procedure by the U.S. and Costa Rican delegations and, especially, the confusion within the U.S. delegation and certain of its accomplices caused by the amendments submitted by Cuba, created a situation of chaos, confusion and disorder in the middle of the debate, leading to the decision to postpone it for 24 hours.

The debate reopened yesterday and, as mentioned, produced three voting rounds: the first was on the Costa Rican amendment, which is really a U.S. amendment; in other words, it reflects their interests and was drafted by the U.S. delegation and handed to the Costa Ricans for them to present it.

This text was overwhelmingly rejected by the Commission, with 31 votes against, 15 in favor and seven abstentions.

The text in question tried to take advantage of the manipulation and major media campaign surrounding the legitimate judgments that were handed down in Cuba to punish mercenary operations or violent acts of terrorism against vessels, with the objective of getting the Commission to censure Cuba. That was the U.S.'s aim.

Then came the Costa Rican amendment, which included text denouncing Cuba, albeit less directly; but it did say, "Calls upon the government of Cuba to ensure full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular for the freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial, and expressing its deep concern about the recent detention, summary prosecution and harsh sentencing of numerous members of the political opposition, urges the government of Cuba to release immediately all those persons." In other words, it does not express denunciation, but the text obviously implies this perception.

The Commission rejected this text, with twice as many votes against as in favor: 31 nations voted against including the text, 15 were in favor and seven abstained.

The 15 countries that agreed that this text be included were the 10 nations of the Western group, which includes the United States and several EU countries; Costa Rica, number 11; South Korea, number 12; Poland, number 13; Japan, number 14; and Croatia, number 15. That is, the 10 countries of the Western group, the United States, its European allies, plus Canada and Australia, 10; plus two Eastern European countries, formerly socialist, Poland and Croatia which formed part of Yugoslavia, 12; Costa Rica, 13, and two close allies of the United States, Japan and South Korea. These were the 15 countries.

For the rest, of the 53 nations making up the Commission, the 31 that voted against and the seven that abstained did not agree with including this text.

The text submitted by Peru, Costa Rica and Uruguay was also put to the vote. Costa Rica had initially withdrawn as a sponsor, in order to put forward the amendment, but when the amendment was rejected, it hurriedly asked for the floor so as to reassume its role as sponsor of the draft resolution entitled "Human rights situation in Cuba".

That text -- about which we said in advance in an editorial in the Granma newspaper that we knew the United States was well placed to get it through, based on the pressures it exerted and the composition of the Commission -- was approved with 24 votes in favor, 20 against and nine abstentions.

Cuba stood by its amendment, submitted the previous day, calling for the lifting of the U.S. blockade on Cuba, in the knowledge that various countries that are against the blockade would not support it; but above all, to highlight the double standard, the weakness of a group of U.S. allies eager to condemn Cuba, but which lack the courage to recognize the blockade against Cuba as a violation of human rights.

The Cuban amendment on the blockade, as mentioned, was approved by 17 countries, with 26 against and 10 abstentions. It met our objective of showing the hypocrisy of some of those who readily denounce Cuba but lack the courage to vote, there in Geneva, proclaiming the blockade as a violation of the Cuban people’s human rights.

Now, what conclusions do we want to draw about these events? In the first place, Cuba sees Washington's attempt to get Cuba condemned at the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva as an abject failure.

Second, Cuba regards the clear rejection, by a wide margin, of the U.S. proposal submitted by Costa Rica , but which is basically in the interests and at the declared intention of the United States - as we'll see later - the overwhelming rejection of this proposal is a clear sign that the Commission on Human Rights, with the exception of a handful of nations, recognizes Cuba's right to apply its laws; recognizes as legal the measures adopted by Cuba in defense of its sovereignty, punishing, in accordance with the law and applying all the safeguards, a group of people operating in the service of and paid by a foreign power that attacks our country, and applying regrettable but inevitable sanctions against the hijackers of a Cuban vessel who used violent methods, endangering the lives of Cuban and foreign citizens, including women and children, in the course of an action characterized by international instruments as terrorism. We thus regard this crushing rejection - which genuinely surprised the U.S. delegation, with 31 votes against, 15 in favor - as a resounding Cuban victory, a sign of the international community's recognition of our rights and motives. I am very pleased at this outcome.

Third, I think it right to stress that the text was finally approved as a Resolution by a narrow margin, in the midst of a current international situation in which the United States is terrorizing the world with an imperialist policy, with open threats, virtually at the end of the war in Iraq, exactly under these conditions and despite the pressures exerted at the highest level and without the least scruple against the Commission's member states; despite all this, the text approved as a final Resolution, which was the original text submitted there by Peru, Costa Rica and Uruguay on behalf of the United States, is not a condemnation of Cuba.

So I reject the idea that the Commission on Human Rights has condemned Cuba. The United States failed in its objective; the paragraph that included explicit censure was overwhelmingly defeated and the final approved text - as we'll see later - cannot in any way be seen as a condemnation, since that was not possible. The United States cannot get Cuba censured. Cuba's motives, the justice that underlies Cuba's right and the support of the international community prevent the United States and its accomplices from achieving another denunciation of Cuba.

Fourth, we want to clarify that this does not mean, nevertheless, that we accept the Resolution that was finally adopted. We reject it because, even though it does not express condemnation, it is without justification. There is not the least justification for the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva even to consider the situation of Cuba. The proposal against Cuba submitted there, which is as far as the U.S. administration could go under present circumstances, is unfounded, has no legal basis, and is achieved only because of pressures deployed by the United States all over the world to get votes for condemning Cuba, with the aid of certain allies. In no way does it signify a condemnation of our country.

In any case, we reject this exercise, we question the relevance of this Resolution. We reject the fact that three Latin American countries -- Peru, Uruguay and Costa Rica -- involved themselves in this maneuver, well knowing that it is totally unfounded. It is a U.S. text serving U.S. interests. I reject the notion that it aims to establish collaboration with Cuba, as its Latin American sponsors claim. And the pronouncements of the State Department, which I will come back to later, are the proof positive of who the true authors are and that they have had to admit defeat.

Fifth, I want to leave no doubt that the use of blackmail, of pressures from senior U.S. officials, of congress people with Cuban origins who serve the interests of the Miami terrorist mob, including the use of the international financial organizations, has this year reached an unprecedented level. The fierce pressures, arm-twisting, open threats against Third World countries - as reported in an editorial in Granma newspaper yesterday - were the methods employed by U.S. diplomacy to win its pyrrhic victory based on a majority of just four votes for a text that says practically nothing.

Sixth, I wish to emphasized that, regrettably, the EU, an economic, cultural and social giant, has again demonstrated its weakness as a political force, its lack of strategic thinking, its shrinking from playing a key role in world affairs, as well as showing by its actions a pattern of double standards. While it was ready to support the U.S. amendment condemning Cuba for alleged human rights violations at the recent trials in Cuba, held in accordance with the law and applying the relevant safeguards, the Western nations, the EU, Canada and Australia voted against declaring the blockade a violation of the human rights of Cubans, when everybody knows that it is the principal violation of the rights of an entire people.

So we can see again that under present conditions and, above all, in the wake of the war in Iraq, the EU sadly lacks the ability to formulate its own independent policy towards Cuba. In any event, Cuba will remain open to relations with the EU and hopes for the day when a more mature EU, which is clearer in its objectives and responsibilities to the world, will be able to remedy the shameful inadequacies of its present stance on Cuba.

Now then, I have here the statements made by Mr. King Holmes, Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, one of the prime movers of U.S. diplomacy. Mr. King Holmes, whose surname is spelled like that of Sherlock Holmes, announced yesterday - and this was published in the bulletin issued by the U.S. mission in Geneva - that the United States "strongly back a resolution introduced by three Latin American nations before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights condemning the violations of human rights in Cuba," referring to the proposal by Peru, Costa Rica and Uruguay. So I hope that the government representatives from these countries are not going to go on saying they were motivated by the desire to cooperate with Cuba and that the text was not intended to condemn Cuba. While the end result was not censure of Cuba, that does not reflect the intention of its sponsors, but rather Cuba's battle and its support within the international community. The intentions of the main sponsor, the United States, leave no doubt as to what Washington wanted; but on top of that, the day before, Secretary of State Mr. Colin Powell expressed his wish that the Commission on Human Rights would approve a declaration condemning the human rights situation in Cuba.

In a TV interview for the AP agency, Powell said he had spoken on the phone to the foreign ministers of the Commission member states to make clear the importance of a vote of censure against Cuba. How do you imagine these conversations went? A respectful tone, an argued appeal? Or, as actually happened, a series of pressures and threats, by the U.S. ambassadors in all those countries and by other very senior U.S. officials?

However, how did things work out for Mr. Powell? I must really express our regrets to the Secretary of State, for the way his plans came to nothing. Perhaps next time he'll have better luck. Anyway, Cuba is ready to do battle against any such future maneuvers, it will keep up the fight long after the present incumbents of the U.S. administration have gone into retirement.

Here is another dispatch, in this case from the France Press agency, which gives a good account of what happened there in Geneva, after the first session and the amendments put forward by Cuba, whose effect at the Commission - as our newspaper said - was "a bombshell".

The dispatch reports that on Wednesday, Washington gave up on trying to get an explicit condemnation of Cuba at the Commission, which was to vote on the issue the following day – it had already been postponed -- and indicated that in the absence of consensus, it would settle for – settle for! -- the original resolution submitted by Peru, Costa Rica and Uruguay.

According to the dispatch, instead of pursuing a harder line explicitly condemning repression of dissidents, with scant prospects of approval, U.S. officials agreed at a legislative session to support the draft resolution originally submitted.

Now I ask myself, if this text was Peruvian, Costa Rican and Uruguayan, why is it that the discussions about what was to be done were in the United States? I think the foreign ministries of those countries should explain why it wasn't the Peruvian, Costa Rican or Uruguayan congress that made the decisions, the night before, about whether to adopt this or that variant.

Mr. King Holmes, who was summoned there to find out if he had the answer to this "enigma", stated the following: "We had worked hard to strengthen it" – the resolution – "but there is a strong resistance to changing the wording.

"While the resolution itself may not have the language we hoped to achieve, it nevertheless is a slap in the face for [Cuba]." He hoped the international community would reiterate its condemnation of the human rights situation in Cuba, he added.

Because the United States interprets this text -- which the Peruvian foreign minister described last night as not condemning but rather seeking cooperation with Cuba to avoid condemnation -- as a condemnation that justifies maintaining the blockade and the policy of pressures on Cuba. The United States asked Peru to submit it.

According to Mr. Holmes, "We prefer a resolution and the personal representative of the High Commissioner...of any of the alternatives." Something is better than nothing, says the imperial official. "The important point is that we ought to ensure the personal representative of the United Nations’ High Commissioner on Human Rights has a mandate to report on the situation in Cuba." The important thing was to send a clear message.

The night before, they were vacillating. I can see them sitting there debating it: "She loves me, she loves me not," picking petals. "Let's go for it." "Forget it." "What if we go for it and lose?" But in the morning, the final decision was to submit the amendment. The United States made the decision and Costa Rica accordingly stood by the amendment, which -- as we've seen -- was defeated.

Nevertheless, I believe this very clearly shows that what the United States wants, above all, is to keep the Cuba question on the table at Geneva, so it can revive it next year.

Now, what has been their reaction since the vote? The reporters asked them -- this is a NOTIMEX agency dispatch [he holds it up] -- they ask "Don't you regard what happened as a kind of defeat, for you and your allies?" The U.S. State Department spokesman -- Mr. Richard Boucher, the unfortunate one left with the task of trying to explain the disaster after the fact -- insisted that it wasn't a defeat, that the resolution told the world that there is concern over the human rights situation in Cuba. Not true: let's look at the text. I don't think they gave Mr. Boucher time to read the document, which he claimed said one thing and not another. That was what we wanted, he said, and that was what we got. Note that this is the United States speaking, not Peru, or Costa Rica or Uruguay. It is the Americans who are saying this.

In other words, it seems to me that in Geneva the U.S. administration went for the jackpot and lost its wallet. It suffered a humiliating defeat.

The international community has endorsed Cuba's right to hold trials and sentence those found guilty in our courts. There is absolutely nothing in the approved text that questions what has happened in Cuba. There is no truth in the allegation -- which has consequently been rejected by the international community -- that there have been infractions of Cuban or international law in the legitimate defensive measures taken by Cuba. And it wasn't rejected by a narrow margin, like the other, watered-down resolution on Cuba, of a mere four votes. It was voted down 31 to 15 by the members of the Commission.

Now, can the shameful action of Peru, Costa Rica and Uruguay on behalf of the aggressive aims of U.S. government policy be in any way justified? It cannot be justified. Can it be explained? Not in terms of law or the independent action of states. Reasons can be found though, and I'll talk about that later.

Now then, what does the final text - approved by 24 votes to 20 – actually say, this text Washington calls a condemnation? It has three paragraphs. The first says that the Commission on Human Rights .... expresses its satisfaction with the appointment of Ms. Christine Chanet as personal representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights," it expresses satisfaction because this lady has been appointed as representative for Cuba. The second paragraph "urges" the Cuban government to receive the lady and to provide her with all the facilities. And the third says that the Commission "decides to consider this matter" next year. This is what it says, this text that Mr. Boucher describes as a resolution expressing concern, thereby giving them "what they wanted," and the condemnation they hoped for as announced by Secretary Colin Powell. That is what has been approved.

This is where they've ended up. After 14 years, all their efforts, all the pressure of U.S. diplomacy, have produced this ridiculous document. That's the reality.

Now, this does not mean that Cuba accepts even this version. Cuba challenges and rejects this resolution, because Cuba considers it unjustified; because Cuba believes there is no reason at all to include the Cuba question on the agenda of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva which, as we know, is dogged by pressures from a group of powerful nations, by selective, discriminatory and politicized measures instigated primarily by the United States and a group of its allies. So we reject it. But we are also going to say the following:

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, a result of the 1993 Vienna Conference, is a relatively new institution. To date, there have been three high commissioners and, in fact, the High Commissioner for Human Rights has only been in existence for the last nine years. Cuba was the first Latin American nation to invite the High Commissioner to visit, back at the beginning in 1994.

Indeed, the High Commissioner has visited only four countries in Latin America: Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba and Panama. Why do we need a resolution asking Cuba to invite the High Commissioner again, and turn the process into a maelstrom of pressures and manipulation, when only four countries out of the over 30 in Latin America and the Caribbean have been visited?

Mrs. Mary Robinson -- predecessor of the present High Commissioner, Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello, who took office last year -- waited in vain for five years for an invitation from the U.S. government, which has categorically stated that there is nothing to worry about as regards human rights in the United States. They didn't invite her and she wasn't able to visit the country officially, by invitation of the government.

So if she wasn't received in the United States, and just four countries in Latin America, including Cuba, have been visited, why make it an objective to have the High Commissioner or his representative visit Cuba a second time? There is manipulation behind all this; Cuba is not refusing to cooperate with the High Commissioner, quite the opposite; it is not refusing to cooperate with the non-selective, non-discriminatory mechanisms of the Commission or of the Office of the High Commissioner, quite the opposite. What Cuba is not prepared to accept is manipulation of this issue; the unscrupulous use of a United Nations agency to justify a campaign against Cuba whose ultimate aim is to get some document or other, a resolution in Geneva, that will let them go on justifying the blockade against Cuba. That's the aim of U.S. diplomacy, and that's why we do not accept the content of this resolution.

There are those who tell us, "Why don't you get rid of the problem by accepting the visit by the Commissioner's representative?" No, we can't do that; that would be selling short the rest of the Third World nations. We're not just defending the rights of Cuba here, we're defending the right of every Third World country to be treated with respect.

Why, when we already invited the High Commissioner, who came to Cuba and published a report recognizing that there was no situation of human rights violation here? Why, when we already invited a delegation from the Commission on Human Rights, which traveled to Cuba and published a report saying there were none of the massive, flagrant and systematic violations of human rights which the Commission concerns itself with? Why, when Cuba already invited a group of NGOs, which came here headed by Mrs. Danielle Mitterand and issued a report, after visiting the whole country, visiting prisons, like the High Commissioner, like the other delegation? Why us, when we have shown our readiness to cooperate, we who respond to the requirements of the High Commissioner and are one of the countries that are parties to the largest number of human rights instruments -- far more than the very nation that tries to pass judgment on us, the United States? Why should we accept the imposition forced on us by this resolution? That's why we refuse, and that's why we don't accept the resolution approved yesterday either, and that's why I say again here that Cuba will not cooperate with this resolution, which it regards as spurious and illegal and that's why it will not cooperate with the Personal Representative or sanction her visit to Cuba. That does not imply any personal slight on Ms. Chanet, whom we admire and respect, but who is someone who has sadly been brought into in an exercise in which Cuba cannot cooperate.

I reiterate our regard for Ms. Chanet, our willingness to cooperate with and respect for Mr Vieira de Mello, the High Commissioner, a diplomat of Brazilian origins; but Cuba cannot and will not have anything to do with this concoction.

Now, it's clear that only four countries in Latin America have received a visit by a High Commissioner. Why doesn't the United States press first for visits to the countries which did not accept the High Commissioner, not to mention the rest of the Latin American nations?

Neither Peru nor Uruguay, presenters of the resolution on Cuba, have been visited by the High Commissioner. Why all the fuss about a second visit to Cuba, when we were the first country in the region he came to?

That's why Cuba rejects all the manipulation and lies that surround this issue.

Last night, the Peruvian foreign minister said the same thing I said: that the resolution was only three paragraphs long, was basically procedural and meant there was no condemnation of Cuba. But why is there a resolution at all? Why does Peru have to table a resolution on Cuba? Peru has never submitted a resolution on the United States, on the violations of human rights in the United States or anywhere else. Why just on Cuba does Peru - or Costa Rica, or Uruguay - propose a visit by the High Commissioner when he hasn't even been to Peru but has already visited Cuba? Because it is acting under pressure from the United States and in the interests of Washington. That's the reality. It's rough, but it's the reality and the truth has to be told.

Now, do the Latin American governments have the moral authority to concern themselves with the issue of human rights in Cuba, to worry about what’s happening here?

This [he holds up a document] is the report published by the State Department this year on human rights worldwide. There's just one thing: it doesn't include the United States. In other words, it's the only country not addressed. Well, that's a minor detail, and the sort of thing we're used to.

It talks about 180 countries in here, more or less, but one detail is missing: any treatment of their own domestic situation.

Let's see what this U.S. report has to say about Peru; how Washington sees the situation in Peru.

I'm going to read a few bits word for word:

"There were allegations of unlawful or ungranted killings by police."

"Police tortured, hit and otherwise abused detainees."

"Prison security forces abused inmates."

"Torture and abuse of military recruits continued."

"Impunity remained a problem."

"Fifty-six percent of the prison population remains incarcerated by unsentenced."

I've read out some parts of the allegations.

If that is the State Department's view of what's happening in Peru, why doesn't the United States submit a resolution in Geneva about what's happening in Peru?

The report doesn’t say anything that is even similar about Cuba, and the report devotes several pages to Cuba from the State Department. Not a single word is said, because it can’t be said, about there being a tortured person in Cuba, a disappeared person, a murdered person, a victim that has died due to police brutality. The report doesn’t say it. There it is, published. However, the United States is intent, with all of its resources and might, on condemning Cuba; and, having published this about Peru, there is, nevertheless, no resolution against Peru.

But, besides, we think the Peruvian government actually has a lot to tend to in Peru, instead of minding Cuba's business.

According to a report from the Peruvian government to its congress, infant mortality in that country is 43 per 1000 live births.

Seven times more children die in Peru before they are one year old than they do in Cuba. Shouldn’t it be focusing its attention on this, instead of passing judgement on Cuba where six children die for every 1000 live births, rather than 43, the latter figure according to the doubtful statistics of most Latin American countries?

The report says that there are six million Peruvians without access to health care, six of the 25 million. In Cuba, 100% of the population has health care coverage despite the blockade, the hostility and over 40 years of aggressions. Isn’t this a right the Peruvian government should be seeing to, instead of trying to have Cuba receive a High Commissioner that they themselves have not received?

According to the Peruvian government’s report, half of the people in Peru live in poverty. It seems to me that the United States acts with hypocrisy and with double standards when it tries to condemn Cuba by exerting pressure on and using the services of Peru, against which it launches such serious accusations. The United States, however, pretends not to notice these and does not bring them to the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

Now, does the Uruguayan government have well grounded reasons, for example? Well, according to the Uruguayan press – not me – according to the Uruguayan press, "the positions the Uruguayan government adopts in relation to Cuba are elements of reciprocity for President Jorge Batlle, if President Bush intercedes to soften the stance of the IMF, which is holding back funds and demanding a rescheduling of the Uruguayan foreign debt." This was published in late January by all the Uruguayan press.

"According to Uruguayan parliamentary and foreign affairs sources" – who say the things that appear in quotation marks – "members of the American delegation who accompanied the U.S. Undersecretary of State, Paula Dobriansky" – who was there "by chance", on a "brief" stop she made there in Montevideo – "the members of her delegation talked to Uruguayan officials about" – and this is what they are quoted as saying – "‘the United States’ needs: on the one hand, that Uruguay repeat this year in Geneva the same actions it carried out in 2002 and once again present a condemnation against Cuba.’

"The discreet actions of some of the visitors have not been very well received by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the time being."

Those who tell the story say: "When the American visitors explained that, for the moment, Argentina, Peru and Chile were reticent to play a leading role in Geneva, the Uruguayan officials said that ‘only if it were absolutely indispensable’ would the Uruguayan delegation assume that initiative once again."

"The subject was also addressed" – states the Uruguayan press – "in the conversations President Batlle held with Paula Dobriansky, who visited Uruguay on January 28 and 29. The matter was also dealt with in the conversations held by the U.S. ambassador to Uruguay, Martin Silverstein, and in several contacts they had in Washington also.

"The Uruguayan decision was adopted in the context of the negotiations with the International Monetary Fund, as the Cuban issue was part of the requirements the United States presented to grant aid to Uruguay.

"The other objective of maximum interest put forth by Washington, which will have Uruguay as the main player, is to have several Latin American countries present the motion jointly." That is how things stood at the end of January.

As we can see, the main role was finally assumed by Peru. It is fair to admit that Uruguay maintained a low profile, due, in fact, to the domestic situation, to the fact that everyone knows how it was clear to all last year that Uruguay’s actions were due to these interests, and, finally, Peru was the main presenter, although Uruguay and Costa Rica went along with it.

To understand the Peruvian government’s motivations we must remember that, after president Bush visited Lima last year, the tariffs on Peruvian textiles to enter the U.S. market were eliminated. Then there was the matter of several loans, financing from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank being held back for Peru, and after president Bush expressed his wish that the matter should be rapidly resolved, "autonomously" the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank "decided to agree" with president Bush and liberate the funds.

In the case of Costa Rica, we know very well that their policy is focused on achieving a free trade agreement with the United States and, obviously, the favor to the United States facilitates that wish. We must also say that the Costa Rican government receives pressure not only from the American government, but from the Cuban mob in Miami which has an active representation in San José.

After knowing all this, should Cuba give this matter more importance than it really has, except to prove the double standard that permeates all this, the dirty methods of U.S. diplomacy to achieve this objective? No, Cuba has to oppose all this – not only for Cuba’s benefit, but for the benefit of the other Third World countries and for the credibility of this Commission – and that is why it opposes it, and that is why it fights, and that is why it obtains a resounding victory as it did yesterday by rejecting the condemning text, by exposing the maneuver and, after 14 years of struggle, by putting the United States in the ridiculous role of having to be content with a text that doesn’t say anything and that only succeeds in keeping the Cuban issue on the agenda.

Some personalities have said that in Cuba the death penalty has been applied to political dissidents, while referring to common criminals, with very bad criminal records, who hijacked a boat using weapons, who jeopardized the lives of all who were traveling there, who threatened to kill them, who committed acts of terrorism. It has been said that they were political prisoners, it is written in the press, and I have read declarations.

Now, if I were to look for an argument, I would read this here:

"President Bush in Texas held the record for death penalty executions in the history of the United States."

Last winter he stated, and I quote: "I support the death penalty; I believe it is a measure that helps saving lives." I don’t know why, if this is what the President thinks, there are U.S. officials who have the hypocrisy of speaking out because in Cuba the death penalty has been applied, exceptionally, sorrowfully, and compelled by the specific circumstances the country is living through. President Bush has said that it is a measure "that helps saving lives" and that he supports it.

I will continue reading:

"In the six years he was governor of Texas, 152 people were executed." He signed these executions. So I don’t know why no country presents a resolution against this in Geneva.

The American diplomats should be shamed into silence in reference to what has happened in Cuba, because the whole world knows the truth about what is happening over there.

International law and Cuban Law prohibit the application of the death penalty to minors.

Let me read now: "The United States has executed 12 minors since the death penalty was reinstated in that country in 1977." They were minors when the crimes were committed. "Except for the United States, all countries have agreed to observe Article 3.7 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the application of the death penalty to minors under 18 years of age."

The United States is the only country in the world which has not wanted to accept that precept of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

"Eighty-five death penalties were applied in the United States in 2001 and 71 in 2002, while 3,700 persons sentenced to death await their execution on the death rows. Eighty of those who are awaiting their execution were minors when they committed the crimes."

Then, I wonder about this piece of information:

"The black population in the United States is 12% of the total, however they represent 42% of those sentenced to death." It has been acknowledged that the death penalty in the United States is applied to the poor who cannot afford a lawyer, to the black. Almost eight hundred persons have received the death sentence in the United States in the last 25 years.

Where am I quoting this from, a document from the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs? No, I am quoting from an Amnesty International document. Why? Why has this never been discussed in the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva? Can it be done? Does anyone propose it? Has any European country which defends the elimination of the death penalty in the world proposed analyzing this topic in Geneva? No, they have never proposed it. And let somebody come and tell me here (if they have). They have never proposed a resolution calling the United States by its name.

Has anyone in Latin America proposed analyzing this issue in Geneva? No, no one has. Has any of those who have made statements against Cuba in the European governments, referred to this issue this way? No, no, this is not done, it is not done, and they know it well.

And listen to Bush’s statement: "I support the death penalty; I believe it is a measure that helps saving lives." That is his opinion, it is not mine, it is not ours. I don’t support it. We wish, and we hope one day, not to have it. The death penalty is not inherent to our philosophy of life. It is for us today something we resort to only exceptionally, and for really important reasons, something we have had to resort to in order to defend a country that has been under attack for more than 40 years, which they have tried to destabilize and are still trying to destabilize.

I don’t share that view. And it is true we have had to do it now for exceptional reasons to prevent a very dangerous situation in Cuba, a crisis, a migratory incident wished for by the sectors in the United States that want a war with Cuba. To avoid a war, to save lives. And we have had to make a painful decision, that we do not enjoy, on the contrary; but we carry on our shoulders the lives of millions of Cubans and of tens of thousands of Americans that would lose their lives in a confrontation between the two countries, in a war that would last a hundred years. So then, we are acting to prevent the success of that plan intended to bring about a confrontation between the two countries. We have been forced into that blind alley.

If the migratory agreements were observed, if the Cuban Adjustment Act did not exist, allowing any murderer to arrive in the United States and automatically become a permanent resident; if those who have committed crimes by hijacking Cuban boats and aircraft were not allowed into the United States; if there were a "legal, safe and orderly" migratory flow, which was what we agreed on, there wouldn’t be events like the recent hijackings of aircraft and boats.

Why doesn’t the United States return a single hijacker to Cuba, instead of trying to manipulate all of this and of maliciously lying about this matter? Just one returned would be enough.

When, after repeated warnings, Cuba sent two plane hijackers back to the United States in 1980, not a single American aircraft was ever diverted to Cuba again. And this solved a problem that had been invented for use against Cuba as part of the aggressions against our country. Cuba solved that problem and rid the United States of that scourge. It returned two hijackers, after warning it would do so, and it never occurred again. Why doesn’t the United States do the same?

What other than an encouragement to more crimes of this sort is the fact that people can see the hijackers arrive there and be let off scot-free, and the aircraft confiscated? In the United States everybody saw Leonel Macías – a murderer who hijacked a boat with a gun and took it to the United States in the summer of 1993, and now lives free in Miami – murdering an officer of the Revolutionary Navy in Cuba.

If the potential hijackers of boats and aircraft knew that the United States would not allow them to go there, that they would be returned to Cuba, that the Cuban Adjustment Act was abolished, that the United States complied with granting the number of visas promised in the Migratory Agreements -- because, as we have seen, they have granted 700 visas in six months. The other day I said 500 in five months; now I say 700 in six months, and it should be around 10,000 at least.

So then, why must we act the way we have? Because we have been forced to. And the United States’ destabilization policy, along with the U.S. government’s failure to fulfill its obligations, are entirely to blame for the death penalty of these violent hijackers.

Finally, I will take two other matters as examples:

In 1989, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it was not anti-constitutional to execute mentally retarded persons. The United States applies the death penalty not only to minors, but to mentally retarded persons, and mainly to black and poor people; and foreigners, without allowing them consular access to their embassies.

Why hasn’t this conduct ever been examined in Geneva? In Cuba absolutely none of this occurs. Neither minors, nor women, nor mentally retarded persons. The death penalty occurs only exceptionally and under similar circumstances to the current one.

And I am going to read one last thing, from the Amnesty International Report, not something we have made up: Calvin Burdine, a declared homosexual, was sentenced to death in Texas in a trial where he was defended by an assigned counsel, who referred to homosexuals as "queers" and "faggots", who did not interview any witnesses to prepare the defense, and who was seen to fall asleep repeatedly during the trial. This was the defense this defendant had. Has this issue ever been examined? Has anybody ever denounced this problem, any of the governments that have lent themselves to condemning Cuba?

Calvin Burdine remains on death row; his execution has been suspended two times now, when it was only an hour away. And the Amnesty International report finishes by noting that no one knows how many prisoners have been executed in the United States for crimes they did not commit.

I think then that we should demand our right to see more ethical behavior and less hypocrisy and double standards in matters of such a serious and sensitive nature. That is our country’s opinion. Therefore, we reject the manipulation against Cuba, we reject the mere idea that Cuba’s name be presented in the Commission on Human Rights, we oppose this exercise and are not going to cooperate with it. We reject the idea that a country of Latin America has its own reasons to be concerned with Cuba; no one has the moral authority nor real reasons to do so. We denounce all this as an American maneuver, in which some countries have not been able to avoid involvement, some out of complicity and others because they have had no other choice, due to the pressure exerted on them.

But I also want to share an additional piece of information: On March 19, in the Commission on Human Rights, they tried to hold a special session of the Commission to consider the humanitarian and human rights consequences the Iraqi population would suffer as a result of the U.S. aggression against that country. They simply wanted the issue to be discussed, not even to issue a condemnation or to adopt an agreement. They only wanted to talk about the subject, discuss it. A war, bombings, an affected civilian population, and then they proposed: "Let’s discuss what consequences this may have, now that this war is starting, from the humanitarian point of view, for human rights, for the right to life." The United States made great efforts – with Great Britain’s support, in the first place, and that of some others – for this not to occur, and finally they got their way and the proposal to discuss the topic was defeated. The idea wasn’t even to adopt an agreement on it, only to sit in a room and for everybody to give their opinion. That was not possible: 18 countries voted in favor, Cuba among them; 25 voted against; seven abstained, and three countries were absent.

Who voted against? The United States voted against, as was to be expected. Costa Rica voted against.

Costa Rica, who, on the one hand, thought that they had to examine the trials there had been in Cuba, the death penalties, and have someone from the Commission come here, on the other hand, considered that there was no reason to devote a morning, a day, there in the Commission, to discuss what was going to happen to the thousands of Iraqi mothers who would lose their children; the children who would be mutilated and whose families would be killed. That needn’t be done.

Peru also voted against, like the United States. Uruguay voted against, as did all the Western countries which yesterday, however, voted in favor of trying to condemn Cuba in that paragraph that was defeated.

Now then, is this shameful or not? Isn’t Cuba right in objecting to this illegitimate maneuver and its shady motivations? Cuba is in the right and, therefore, it defends itself.

We understand that this really causes hostility and renews the desire of condemning Cuba; but Cuba will continue to fight, not only for Cuba’s rights, but for the rights of the other countries of the world.

Finally I will give you this piece of information:

Resolution adopted in the Commission on Human Rights: "On the situation in occupied Palestine", the Palestinian occupied territories. A resolution was presented there on the violations of the Palestinian people’s human rights by the Israeli army and government. Results of the voting: 51 countries in favor, one vote against. Who? The United States.

So then, the United States, which uses all its resources, makes all its efforts concerning itself with what is happening in Cuba, is not ashamed of voting alone against a resolution that demands respect for the rights of the Palestinian people. Can a great country like the United States, which should play an important role in the world, have any moral authority or credibility (this way)?

The United States government should know that authority and respect can be achieved only by the morality of its actions, by the ethics of its behavior, by the force of reason and not by threatening language or military might, and this is a discredit to its policy. Why isn’t this examined? Why isn’t it stated? Ah! Because people are afraid to speak of this.

Has any European government said these words that I am pronouncing on the United States’ behavior in voting against a resolution that condemns something as evident as the crimes that are daily committed against the Palestinian people? No, they have all kept silent.

Has any of the Latin American countries that have lent themselves to the maneuvers against Cuba throughout these years ever made a public demand? No, they haven’t. They keep silent.

"Resolution on the occupied Syrian Golan", the Syrian territories occupied by the Israeli government. Passed. One vote against. Who? The United States.

"Human rights situation in the occupied Arab territories." Passed. The United States and two or three allies vote against.

"On the Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory", presented by the European Union. Violations of the Palestinian people’s human rights; removal from their houses by force, by means of explosions, heavy equipment, using that territory to set up communities where Israeli citizens will live: 50 votes in favor, one vote against. Who? The United States.

So then, the United States has one standard to judge the behavior of Israel, its ally, and another to judge Cuba. Therefore, we think there is no moral authority nor credibility in the alleged concerns of a country which should first acknowledge its obligation to lift the blockade against Cuba, demanded in the United Nations last year by 173 countries that voted, with three votes against, the United States, Israel and a small Pacific country the United States shamefully forced to also vote against Cuba.

"Human rights situation of Lebanese detainees in Israel": passed. One vote against. Who? The United States.

So I think we are right in thinking that yesterday Cuba gave a new lesson to the empire’s diplomacy, in celebrating as a victory the fact that the United States was not able to have Cuba condemned, and the sign of support and recognition of the actions our country has taken in the last few days, in defense of its sovereignty and to prevent terrorist acts that would contribute to destabilizing the situation and creating a dangerous crisis between the two countries.

That is what I have to say, while I will comment on -- because I have misplaced and didn’t bring with me the press dispatch that talks about it -- the reaction in Miami to what occurred in Geneva. Some are asking for a naval blockade against Cuba; others proclaim that the United States must go from condemnation to concrete action, which is what the extremist, violent groups in Miami are betting on: the creation of conditions for a conflict to break out between the two countries, something we do not want, but will face as we know how to if it takes place.

Well, this is what I can tell you. Although I have been rather serious I must say that I am actually very satisfied with yesterday’s outcome, due to the way we have defeated the amendment that tried to condemn us, although, of course, I am not satisfied with the final passing of a document that, in any case, demonstrates the weakness of the exercise against Cuba today.

Moderator.- Questions.

J.M. Martín Medem (Spanish Television).- Good morning.

You have said that the government of Cuba considers the defeat of the amendment presented by the government of Costa Rica as a sign of recognition of Cuba’s right to enforce its laws in legitimate trials to punish mercenary behaviors and terrorist acts.

Regarding terrorism, during more than 40 years, the application of the death penalty has not prevented the commission of these acts, organized from the territory of the United States and protected by the impunity that those who organize them enjoy there. Why continue to apply the death penalty if, seemingly, it has not served to put a stop to this type of actions?

As to those considered mercenaries, I would like to know why there are people arrested, charged and sentenced while there are others under the same circumstances, free and without any charges: Osvaldo Payá, Elizardo Sánchez, Vladimiro Roca.

Felipe Pérez.- About the first question, I have already said that we see the death penalty as a last resort, totally exceptional, undesired, which we hope one day won’t be in our legislation. It is not inherent to our philosophy of life. But we have been a country under attack, we are a country under attack, we are a country subject to a plan to destabilize us, and we have to resort to any means at our disposal, within our laws and within respect for international law. Because I must say that there are more than 80 countries in the world whose legislation provides for the death penalty. However, Cuba, as a sign that its position on this matter is not doctrinaire, that it does not defend the death penalty as part of its program, when a resolution on this topic is voted on in the Commission on Human Rights, on the elimination of the death penalty, Cuba does not vote against that resolution, it abstains, to show that, although it now applies it and provides for its exceptional use in its legislation, this does not mean that it defends it as a doctrine or as a resort that should always be part of our legislation. It is kept in our legislation for a dissuasive purpose, as a weapon of defense to avoid worse problems.

If a situation like that of 1994 is unleashed here, a migratory crisis, which is what the terrorist groups of Cuban origins in Miami and the ultraconservative sectors in the United States are betting on, and, as I have said, there have been seven hijackings in six months, and several other attempts, and there is potential for more, from people that cannot emigrate to the United States legally and are left with the only alternative of trying to hijack an airplane, an aircraft, and they know it is the way they are going to be received in the United States. Then if a torrent of these acts of terrorism, hijackings, deaths, diversion of aircraft is unleashed here, there will be conditions for a migratory crisis, for an extraordinarily complex situation in the relations between Cuba and the United States.

At the same time, the groups in Miami who encourage these acts are urging the President to consider as an aggression against the United States any uncontrolled emigration from Cuba to that country. There is a very clear plan that we have denounced here, and to prevent that from provoking a war, we are trying to act with great maturity vis-a-vis the irresponsibility and complicity of those who should fulfill their obligations instead of manipulating this issue.

For that reason, we have been forced, put in the blind alley of having to resort to a drastic measure, with great sorrow, because we are human beings, because we have fought for life, because we have risked and lost lives fighting for other people’s lives thousands of kilometers away. Because we fought against apartheid that killed Africans, that violated the rights of the African people, and 2,000 Cubans died there fighting in other lands against colonialism and apartheid. We have a sense of life, because Cuban doctors now save lives in dozens of countries, 3000 of them work free of charge in 21 countries. We have a sense of life and of the protection of life, because we have saved the lives of hundred of thousands of Cubans by reducing infant mortality from 60 per 1000 live births to six over these years. Now then, people who have fought that way for the life of a people and for the lives of others could not have a philosophy contrary to life.

The day Cuba is not blockaded, the day Cuba is not attacked; the day there is no Helms-Burton Act, no Torricelli Act, no Cuban Adjustment Act against Cuba; the day the aggressions, plots and conspiracies against Cuba stop; the day Cuba is left alone to choose its own way, Cuba will not have to resort to drastic measures, which it does not want, but which today it is the duty of its leadership to take in order to save and protect the lives of millions of Cubans, whose future and whose right to life depends on our performance.

Therefore, we, with pain but without hiding to do it, have had to make decisions of this nature.

We have not resorted to the easy alternative of extrajudicial assassination, since –according the Amnesty International report—last year there were extrajudicial executions in more than 30 countries in the world, some of them from our region.

We have not set up death squads to clear the country of criminals or street children.

We have not murdered anyone, but we have enforced our laws rigorously.

We have not set up an illegal police group to assassinate our enemies. Is this clear? We have not set up a paramilitary group, as was set up in a certain country that you, Medem, know quite well; we haven’t done that.

Ah, but we have enforced the law. We wouldn’t have done it if we hadn’t been brought to a situation like this, because the Council of State has the power to prevent a sentence of this nature –ratified by the Supreme Court—from being served. But we have been forced, just as we were forced to enforce laws that were already in effect in Cuba, because the laws under which the mercenaries who act in the service of the power that attacks our people were prosecuted are laws dating from the late 1990s, which had not been applied, in a spirit of tolerance. These laws were our response to the Helms-Burton Act. But we have been brought into a situation in which we have had no other choice, and we have acted.

What I can certainly tell you is that we will not be defeated without a fight. For us, there is no such word as surrender or concessions. We have a very clear sense of the rights that we have conquered, because the first time that there have ever been civil and political rights in this country was at the triumph of the Revolution, which enabled our people to rule the country’s fate and to recover control of this country. We know that hurts some people, but we are not willing to give it up.

It is true that a group of people have been prosecuted and sentenced by the courts and that others have not. But I must say clearly that those who take part in acts of treason against their homeland must be aware that they will have no impunity, that our people will defend themselves with the laws available to them, abiding by our Constitution and existing legislation, as a state subject to the rule of law that we are; our people will withstand the pressures and will continue to withstand the blockade.

Do we want a confrontation with the United States? No. Do we blame their people? No. Do we blame the majority of Cubans living in the United States? No. We know that they are not calling for an invasion of Cuba and a naval blockade.

Do we understand those in this world that have legitimately and honestly expressed concerns and differences with us? We do understand them.

Do we believe in those who maliciously use this issue to make declarations against Cuba? No, we do not respect them; we know them quite well. We know that there are those who have made declarations out of confusion, a lack of information, or a perception different from ours. But we also know that there is a great deal of political opportunism, that there is a great deal of electoral discourse, that there is a great deal of baseness. But the Cuban Revolution and the Cuban people are above all that, and what will prevail will be the memory of the feat of a small country that has managed to remain independent, in spite of the obstacles it has had to confront.

So to answer your first question: a last resort, the desire for a dissuasive effect. To the second one: nobody goes unpunished; those who betray our people, those who put themselves at the service of the power that is attacking our people must be aware that there are laws to prosecute and punish this conduct.

Sergei Novozhilov (ITAR-TASS).- Minister, I would like to ask you about the article that appeared recently in The New York Times. How could Cuba react in the event that the United States should comply with the threat announced in this newspaper yesterday?

Felipe Pérez.- Well, today there is an official note in our newspaper. I guess you haven’t had time yet to see the official note on this topic in our newspaper, regarding what was published yesterday in The New York Times, that U.S. administration officials are preparing a variety of options for the president, who has still not made a final decision, aimed at punishing the Cuban government.

"President Bush" –it says— "is likely to make a public statement soon about the crackdown. Among the measures are the possibility of cutting off cash payments to relatives in Cuba or halting direct flights to the island." There is an official note on this that I really suggest you read carefully. But to answer your question on our reaction, I will just read what it says here:

"Whatever their plans for punishment may be in the economic field, the United States government is left with very few options in the arsenal of actions it can carry out against Cuba. All of the possibilities have been foreseen and will be dealt with. The ones who will be punished will be the many families that have adapted their lives to the economic standards and considerable benefits provided by small remittances in the conditions of Cuba" – and here it is explained why — "... and even worse, the many people, most of them senior citizens, who depend on these remittances. The Cuban economy and its social services can withstand the suspension of the supposedly great benefits of these remittances, or of charter flights."

"Cuba, where not a single person is abandoned to their fate, will also help those who need the assistance of the Revolution because such an inhumane policy leaves them helpless.

"The threatening language used to warn that an exodus of rafters will not be tolerated fully contradicts the enormous encouragement that the authorities of that country have given to hijackers of Cuban planes and boats."

"The alleged measures being announced to ban flights and remittances would also serve to encourage illegal emigration, and none of the blame for this could be placed on Cuba, which strictly and without exception complies with its obligations as described in the bilateral Migratory Agreement.

"We shall then wait for the pronouncements and punitive measures that have been announced. Meanwhile, we shall try to guess and use our imagination to successfully confront, with dignity, strength and efficiency, any form of hostility and aggression, just as the Cuban Revolution has done for more than four decades."

So I can say that nobody has lost any sleep here; there is no one worried here. The Revolution will manage –wisely, with its people’s support—to take appropriate measures to confront a new aggression.

Here I found the paper that was missing.

It is a dispatch from Agence France Presse.

"The Cuban Freedom Council" – a Miami-based extremist group, made up and led by some of the main members of the paramilitary apparatus of the Cuban-American National Foundation —"is advocating the suspension of remittances and all travel from the United States to Cuba." What a "coincidence", this group and government figures are thinking the same thing. A "coincidence." Or maybe it is no "coincidence"? Could it be that the debts of gratitude to those who made President Bush’s victory in Florida possible are being paid? They advocate a suspension of remittances and of all travel; they advocate the "imposition of multilateral sanctions, such as those applied in their time on South Africa," and they advocate "a naval blockade if Castro provokes a massive exodus towards the United States’ coasts."

Along with a plan to foster an exodus, which forces us to take measures such as those explained here, painful, but thinking of the lives of all the others, there are demands for a naval blockade if the plan happened to succeed.

There is a really an incredible lack of scruples and ethics in these close friends and buddies of the main figures in the current U.S. administration, with whom they’ve had relations for many years.

For his part, Cuban-American National Foundation Human Rights Director Omar López Montenegro… There are things that would make you laugh, if these weren’t such serious matters… Because, just listen to this, the Cuban-American National Foundation has a Human Rights director, the group that financed the bombs planted in hotels here, which killed Fabio di Celmo –an innocent young Italian— sentencing him to death without a trial, and wounded some 40 people, including tourists. This really is more than anyone could take.

This character, linked to the group that financed the attempt to plant 40 kilograms of C-4 explosive in a Panamanian university, trying to assassinate Fidel, where hundreds of students would have died, acknowledged that they "would have preferred stronger language" in the resolution adopted yesterday; they would have preferred it. However, he said, "the Fidel Castro government maneuvered by introducing an amendment against the embargo, and that ultimately hindered the objective that we were hoping for."

I’m bringing this up just to recall what another distinguished character, Ninoska Pérez Castellón, daughter of a Batista dictatorship henchman, says: "We have to move on from the stage of condemnation to that of actions and sanctions against Cuba." This is the atmosphere in which our country has to act today, trying to prevent a new escalation in the already deteriorated relations between the United States and Cuba.

Does Cuba consider the United States, as a country, its enemy? No! Does it regard the people of the United States as its enemy? No! Does it feel hate, feelings of revenge? No! Cuba wants normal and respectful relations with the American people, in whom it sees values. Cuba cannot forget that these people, over 80% of them, demanded that the Cuban boy held kidnapped in Miami be returned to his father, to his family in Cuba, and Cuba thanks the American people, and – whereas their government is planning to ban any travel — Cuba advocates the American people’s right to come to Cuba, and the right of the Cubans living there to visit their families. Cuba advocates the right of Cubans living in Cuba to travel to the United States to see their families, and defends the American people’s right to have normal relations with a neighboring country that poses no threat to the United States.

So there are two conflicting positions. But we will continue to defend the American people’s right –violated by their government—and ours.

Andrea Rodríguez (AP).- Good morning.

I would like to sort of revisit the two points mentioned by my colleague Medem. With respect to the executions and the death penalty, doesn’t the Cuban government think that this application and this break of the moratorium on the application of the death penalty discredits it in vast sectors, especially of Latin America, that supported the Cuban cause? That’s on the one hand. And on the other hand, if evidence was produced against the other dissidents or mercenaries –as the Cuban government calls them—are we to assume that neither Elizardo nor Payá have links with the Interests Section?

Felipe Pérez.- Regarding the first matter, Cuba respects the opinions of every person who honestly opposes the death penalty; it understands those who have expressed concerns. However, it rejects those who hypocritically do so for electoral or political considerations. It knows that a measure of this nature entails a cost before those who are truly concerned; it is confident that time will prove us right and will prove that this painful measure, taken as a last resort, was based on the desire to avoid a much greater loss of lives and costs for both countries, averting the unleashing of a new migration crisis that would end up in a war between both countries.

Now, do we think that our prestige decreases before those who use this issue for political reasons? As to those who do it based on the aspiration to score a point for good conduct before the superpower, or for electoral reasons or otherwise, or for hatred towards Cuba; regarding what these people think, we really don’t have the slightest concern. We also know that they have not stated this alleged concern over what has happened in Cuba with regard to the 80 people executed in the United States last year and with regard to everything I already explained here.

About the second question. You must not assume that there is no evidence on other people. I presented evidence here that was submitted and presented in a trial, evidence that was submitted to the court and was part of the proceedings. I cannot present it in the case of persons who have not been brought to justice; but you must not assume that the fact that it has not been presented means that it does not exist.

Francisco Ramírez (Notimex).- Good morning, Minister.

Felipe Pérez.- Good morning, Francisco.

Francisco Ramírez.- In the last few months there was the perception that Mexico and Cuba were working towards loosening the tensions that erupted in the first quarter of 2002. But then there came Geneva and the Cuban government made a detailed evaluation of the reasons behind the vote in the Commission on Human Rights. Mexico and Chile were included among the countries that are unable –according to what Cuba’s communiqué stated—to oppose an alleged annexation of Latin America by the United States.

My question is as follows: Under these circumstances, how could the assessment of Mexico’s reasons and particularly Mexico’s vote in the Commission, explained by the Mexican Representative Mariclaire Acosta, affect relations between the two countries?

Felipe Pérez.- It is Cuba that’s offended. Cuba believes there is not one single reason that justifies the Mexican government’s or the Chilean government’s support of a resolution establishing a monitoring of Cuba’s internal situation, when that does not happen against any other country in our region where there are violations of human rights, including Mexico and Chile, and when no country in Latin America has raised its voice to condemn the violation of human rights in the United States, and especially, not even the violations against immigrants from Mexico and other countries. Therefore, Cuba does not recognize the moral authority of any country in the region that keeps silent about the violation of human rights in the United States to then make statements on what happens in Cuba. So Cuba is the one that feels offended. Cuba believes there is no reason to explain a position that –it is known in advance—will favor the United States’ interest in constructing a pretext to continue to justify the blockade and aggressions against Cuba.

Cuba has always hoped –and still hopes—that her Latin American sister nations will adopt a position in defense of a small Latin American country, situated at the center of the region, which has suffered over four decades of violations, aggressions and blockades.

There are those who say, "Well, while we reject the embargo" –the "embargo", the mild word used to refer to the economic war against Cuba—"we cannot fail to voice our concerns over what happens in Cuba." False, because if you are against the blockade against Cuba, you should oppose the maneuver that is being worked out in Geneva to try to perpetuate the blockade. False. A "fig leaf" to conceal the inability to have an independent position on the Cuba issue, which I recognize as very difficult for the countries of our region, amid a complex and contradictory relationship with a powerful neighbor such as the United States.

Francisco Ramírez.- Minister, please, will there be any consequences?

Felipe Pérez.- Well, I don’t have a crystal ball; I’m just a minister of foreign affairs (Laughter).

Aníbal Arrarte (Opción-Uruguay).- Good morning, Minister.

Minister, the question I wanted to ask you was asked by my colleague Sergei.

Felipe Pérez.- Who asked it? Ah, Sergei. Hey, Sergei, how come you got hold of the question of… (Laughter).

Aníbal Arrarte.- But if you let me step out of context, not as a journalist but as a Latin American born in Uruguay, I feel the need, out of shame –and I am sure I speak on behalf of most Uruguayans, in Uruguay and around the world—to express my regret and apologize for the political nausea repeatedly created, for the second time, by the Uruguayan government and other Latin American and European lackeys, in a shameful maneuver against Cuba, which rather than going against the Cuban government, directly affect their peoples.

May universal shame and contempt fall upon these bootlicking and mercenary governments.

Thank you.

Felipe Pérez.- Thank you, Aníbal. I appreciate it.

We don’t blame the Uruguayan people. We have a clear awareness of what caused the Uruguayan government to execute and lend itself to a maneuver against Cuba. But we know that all this will pass; we know that it won’t be long before the Uruguayan people do justice to Cuba in that sister country’s policy toward us.

Vanessa Bauzá (Sun Sentinel).- Good morning.

Felipe Pérez.- Good morning, Vanessa.

Vanessa Bauzá.- I wanted to know if you could inform us about the situation of the group of people who were arrested in Nueva Gerona, last Friday I think it was, or Thursday, apparently, who also wanted to carry out another hijacking. If the trial has started, what phase is it in?

Felipe Pérez.- Those people, as publicly explained, encouraged by the preceding events, in which it so happened, several times, that people took control by force, that is, hijacked aircraft and vessels, got to the United States, and were set free, and they tried too, no less than with an automatic rifle, several clips of ammunition and knives. This is the result of the irresponsibility and the incentive entailed by the Cuban Adjustment Act and the tolerant and conspiratorial policy maintained by the United States over decades. Those people are still subject to preliminary investigation, prior to the trial.

And there have been other incidents, of which I don’t have exact information, and plans and encouragement, and there will be many more if people see that that is the way to emigrate.

Now I would like to make it clear: I see that the press… I know that often times, and I would say that almost always, it is not the correspondents in Cuba, who have a more exact approach to the Cuban reality, but that in their editorial office, other interests prevail; because many times, when I have come and asked a correspondent, "Why have you said this, if you were there and you heard me explain," they have told me: "It wasn’t me, Minister. I put some other thing and they changed it." But putting that aside, I must point out that they refer to the hijackers as people who were trying to "escape from Cuba." Then comes the manipulation: "Cuba executed some people who were trying to escape from the country." They create the pattern of opinion that someone who emigrates from Cuba is someone who "escapes", whereas someone who crosses the Mexican border into the United States "emigrates".

If the Cuban is in the United States, he or she is an "exile". Those hijackers, on arriving in the United States, become exiles of the Cuban government. The Mexican is called a "migrant". There is a perverse manipulation that seeks to conceal the truth that Cuba, like any other Third World country, has a tendency toward a migration flow; that there are people in Cuba who would like to emigrate to the United States and that they might do it if the United States government complied with the agreements and did not pave the way for these incidents.

Then, every time I see the Cuban called an exile and the Mexican called a migrant -- the Cuban is escaping and the Mexican is emigrating -- I really feel very little respect for the sincerity, the seriousness expected of those whose job it is to express an opinion and inform the public about these things.

I am not blaming anyone in particular and I find you all not guilty; but I am amazed to see how it is repeated that a group of men who do the same thing done by the hijackers who crashed the airplanes into the Twin Towers, who use weapons to take control of an aircraft and take it to the United States, are called "exiles escaping from the regime." This to me is manipulation, and a lack of consideration for the Cuban people, for the people who very nearly lost their lives, for the families of those who have lost their lives in these incidents, throughout the years.

But, anyway, these people, Vanessa, have not been brought to trial yet.

Fernando Rasgver (BBC).- Minister, I just want to clarify a point on the official note. If I understood well, the note says, actually, that if those sanctions the U.S. press is talking about were applied, would the purchase of food from the United States come to an end?

Felipe Pérez.- Does it say so?

Fernando Rasgver.- I understood so. I am asking you.

Felipe Pérez.- Well then, let me see what I understand.

Here it reads: "The Cuban economy and its social services can withstand the suspension of the supposedly great benefits of these remittances, or of charter flights, or any other measure, including the suspension of sales of food." The article does not refer to them, but they could be included in the "variety" of options that was being suggested to the President. "Without access to the slightest bank credit, we have already purchased more than 300 million dollars worth of food from the United States, paying up to the last penny without a second of delay."

Here it reads: "Such measures would only serve to show that, for strictly political reasons, the United States is not a safe and reliable food supplier." It says here that such a measure "would only serve to show that, for strictly political reasons, the United States is not a safe and reliable food supplier."

We will have to teach a course on interpretation just for you, free of charge, through "University For All "(LAUGHTER).

Journalist: But Minister, if you have a supplier that isn’t reliable, you usually don’t buy from it.

Felipe Pérez: Oh! Well, but that would be an anticipation of our decision; maybe you take the risk and you keep on buying from it.

Your question is the following: Does the article say that if these measures are adopted, Cuba will stop buying food? And my answer is: No.

The Note says that if food sales are suspended or banned, this "would only serve to show that, for strictly political reasons, the United States is not a safe and reliable food supplier."

In fact, if the United States bans all food sales, we could no longer buy from them, because they would have banned them all over again.

The article published by the newspaper refers to measures that could be adopted against the sending of remittances, measures to ban direct flights, and a variety of other options. Here it reads, and it’s only sensible, that if food sales, whereby Cuba has already bought more than one million tons of foodstuffs from the United States, something that also benefits American farmers and their families, as well as transportation companies, beyond any political considerations, something that is also in the interest of broad political sectors that have approved such a decision in the Congress as well as in the Senate... If, despite all of this, the United States decides to cut off that trade, well, this would be a confirmation that, in fact, they are not reliable. This was something that was going smoothly, that was benefiting even their own businesspeople and farmers. And now, for political reasons, just to please that mob that is also calling for the implementation of a naval blockade and an attack, they could do away with an opportunity that was proving that trade between our two countries was possible. That opportunity reduced to ashes all that was being said by these groups when the food sales started: "You’ll see that Cuba won’t be able to pay, because Cuba has no money," they said, and Cuba has not delayed any payment, not for a single second, and there is nothing but satisfaction among American businesspeople and farmers, for the seriousness and the professional way in which Cuba has signed the contracts, transported the cargo, and paid for the goods. Cuba has received recognition for that, and that is proof.

Cuba imports one billion dollars worth of food a year. The United States and its farmers would be left out of that market if the United States decides to ban food exports to Cuba.

We are not the ones who blockade the United States, we are not the ones who adopt arbitrary measures against the United States. We are not the ones who are preparing a "variety" of options for our President against the United States. We would certainly use our intelligence to face any measure and any aggression.

Good morning, Arreola.

Gerardo Arreola (La Jornada - Mexico): Minister, Amnesty International, in its most recent report – if my memory serves me correctly it was issued in May, last year -- stated that in Cuba there are 49 persons sentenced to the death penalty. My first question is if you could confirm, dispute, or be more accurate as to this figure.

Amnesty is also asking for the commutation of the death penalty imposed on these persons. My second question is the following: What would be the answer from the Cuban government?

Felipe Pérez: I can not confirm that figure. I do not know that figure right now. But I could reiterate that in Cuba, the death penalty has been applied only as an exception, and it has been so stated in our legislation. It cannot be applied against minors, the mentally ill, or women. And only as an exception can it be applied by a high level court, a provincial court; if the attorney for the defense does not file for an appeal, the case will automatically be considered by the Supreme Court, where there will be a new trial that will review the case. Should the Supreme Court ratify the sentence, after a new trial is held with all due safeguards, namely, medical exams, psychiatric testing, evidence, witnesses, depositions, then the case will automatically be considered by the Council of State, which is entrusted with the power of commuting or not the sentence.

The death penalty has been and still is applied only on an exceptional basis, and never has there been any haste to resort to such a severe measure.

I cannot confirm that figure, I cannot give you my opinion on that because I do not know the figure. But perhaps there may be some people who have been sentenced to the death penalty, whose situation is still being considered during some given stage of their legal process, since in such cases there will not be any execution before the completion of a series of previous steps, such as those I have already explained.

You ask me if the Cuban government would commute the sentences. First of all I would like to state very clearly that the government is not entrusted with that power. The Council of State is the only Cuban entity that can adopt such a decision. The Council of State is made up by 31 members, and the issue needs to be discussed first and then put to the vote.

In this case I can say that the Council of State, the Supreme Court, and all Cuban courts have authorized and resorted to the application of such a measure only on an exceptional basis, when there has not been any other choice.

In this particular case, in which there was a de facto moratorium on the death penalty in place, the circumstances and the moment in which the sentence was applied prevented the Council of State and the Cuban courts from honoring such a moratorium, which was very painful to us indeed, but we were very much aware of the risks that we were trying to avoid.

Such a penalty has never been applied against innocent persons. It has only been applied to persons who have committed serious crimes as described by our legislation and the legislation of more than 80 countries, as I have already explained.

Samuel Hernández (La Isla Grande - Italy): Good morning, Minister. In Italy, there is a press campaign going on against Cuba, mainly against President Fidel Castro. The launching of the book by Asela Caner, which was gong to be attended by Justino di Celmo, was cancelled as a result of that campaign, because the author of the book is Cuban, and Justino di Celmo is a friend of Cuba.

In almost all newspapers there have appeared very subtle attacks that seem to be resulting from a wave of collective hysteria, rather than from the real knowledge about what is going on in Cuba.

The president of the region of Campania cancelled his visit to Cuba; but – and this is the most interesting thing -- non of the businesspeople have so far cut off their relations with Cuba.

Do you think that this unfortunately successful plan designed by the United States and stupidly recycled in the Italian press by European personalities one would practically never suspect, such as Pietro Ingrao and Fausto Bertinotti, could really bring about unpleasant surprises to punish the population and the island as a whole? Would this affect diplomatic relations between Cuba and Italy?

Felipe Pérez: What’s that?

Samuel Hernández: All of this press campaign that is going on...

Felipe Pérez: You are asking me if that would affect relations?

Samuel Hernández: Right.

There is even a debate scheduled to be held next week in the Italian parliament.

Felipe Pérez: Cuba does not want to see its relations with Italy damaged, but it cannot prevent the adoption of measures or decisions by the Italian authorities.

Cuba wants to have normal, respectful, and cooperative relations with Italy as well as with all European countries. It is so sad to see that sometimes the European Union does not have the capacity to design its own policy towards Cuba. But our vocation is to continue to work in order to strengthen and expand those relations.

If Italy or any other country adopts any decision against our own will, well, we could not prevent that from happening. But that will not diminish our feelings of friendship and respect for the Italian people, and for all European peoples.

We have read many of the declarations that have been made, and in some of them there is shameless opportunism. In others, there is a lack of knowledge, expressed from genuine and honest positions. We make a very clear differentiation of each and every one of those who have made such declarations, because we know all those who have expressed their views very well.

María del Mar Marín (EFE): Minister, I had several questions. Besides all the threats you have referred to, regarding the groups based in Miami, when you talked about the war against the United States, I just wanted to know if the Cuban government believes there is a real and imminent danger of a war with the United States. That is one question.

Second, I would like to see if we could go deeper into this issue. Today, the Peruvian government has recalled its ambassador in Havana and I want to know what the current status is of the relations between Cuba and Peru and if Cuba will withdraw its request to join the European Union’s Cotonou Agreement. Thank you.

Felipe Pérez: Well. Those are three questions, aren’t they?

The first question, if Cuba believes there is a real and imminent danger of an attack against Cuba, a war with the United States.

Well, a war with the United States could only take place if there is an attack against Cuba, because Cuba is not planning to attack the United States, it has never considered that possibility and it never will. We feel respect for the American people and we will never think about attacking it. We will defend ourselves, because the UN Charter recognizes the right we have to a legitimate defense, and I recall that the U.S. representative in Geneva said that "Israel has made use of its right to defend itself, enshrined by the UN Charter," when Israel has murdered, bombed, and destroyed the homes of the Palestinian people. Thus, if this right is recognized for Israel, I think that the U.S. government would also recognize it for Cuba. That is to say, a war would only be possible if Cuba is attacked.

María del Mar Marín (EFE): Do you think there is a real and imminent danger of an attack against Cuba?

Felipe Pérez: I do not think there is an imminent danger. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said "not for the time being" (Laughter). When he was asked about that he said, Not for the time being. We are busy now in Iraq and we are only concerned about Syria. Not for the time being, he said, but, well, if in the future we see that there are weapons of mass destruction in Cuba -- which is always the main issue here -- then we will have to take action.

My answer to your question is the following: the Secretary has said, Not for the time being. The second question: The Peruvian Minister announced that Peru’s ambassador to Cuba would be recalled to Lima. You ask me if this would damage the relations between our two countries.

Cuba wants to have normal and respectful relations with Peru, but Cuba feels offended by the Peruvian decision of offering itself to present the U.S. resolution and justify a maneuver against Cuba in Geneva.

Cuba finds it difficult to understand how a sister nation, to which Cuba has only shown gestures of friendship and cooperation, can work in favor of keeping the Cuban issue as part of the agenda in Geneva, and not, as has been claimed, for establishing cooperation with Cuba, but rather – as the United States has stated -- to condemn Cuba, although this attempt was defeated by Cuba yesterday.

If the Peruvian government had not offered itself to orchestrate this maneuver, if the Peruvian government had not presented that resolution, if the Peruvian government had not voted in favor of that draft resolution, there would be absolutely no differences between Cuba and Peru, nor would there have been any controversial issue between our two countries. The controversial issue was raised by the Peruvian government when it decided to present this text against Cuba. Should this practice cease, there would be no conflict between us.

The Peruvian government cannot accuse Cuba of having done anything similar. Cuba has never made any unfriendly gesture towards the Peruvian government. Nevertheless, the Peruvian government has adopted that decision. It would be up to them to explain the reasons why they did so, not us. Cuba feels offended and it has a duty to defend itself against any attempt to single it out and subject it to unjustifiable scrutiny by the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

Regarding Cotonou, you ask me if Cuba is going to request its withdrawal. This possibility is being given serious consideration, for we have realized that some members of the European Union entertain the illusion of conceiving the entry of Cuba into the Cotonou Agreement as a mechanism to try to put pressure and impose political conditionings on Cuba. Cuba’s good faith and aspiration to make, by means of the Cotonou Agreement, not only a fraternal gesture towards the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, but also to promote relations of respect between the European Union and Cuba, has clashed with the opposition put up by some European countries. Recent events have even led other European officials to raise the threat of not accepting the entry of Cuba into the Cotonou Agreement, as a way to put pressure on Cuba. And Cuba will not yield to any pressure. Cuba has had to put up with more than 40 years of blockade and aggressions by the main world superpower, and there is no sensible reason to tolerate any pressure from the European Union or any of its members. So Cuba is considering that possibility but has not made any decision as yet.

Mauricio Vicent (El País): According to the current pace of U.S. visa granting -–700 visas in six months -- 1400 visas will have been granted in a year, which would be a violation of the migratory agreements, because the United Stated was committed to grant a minimum of 20,000 visas every year. If you add to this all the measures that were announced by The New York Times, namely the elimination of remittances, and the fact that no actions have been taken to prevent hijackings, and that the U.S. authorities have been tolerant with hijackers, we could say we are being witness to a violation of the agreements by the United States. Under such circumstances, would Cuba feel free not to comply with the commitments it entered into in these agreements, namely, to promote safe and legal migration? Would we therefore be facing a new migration crisis, or a possible migration crisis?

Felipe Pérez: What is your question? If the adoption...

Mauricio Vicent: If the United States does not comply with its commitments in the migratory agreements, as it seems would be the case, given the number of visas they have not granted, would Cuba feel free not to comply with its own commitments?

Felipe Pérez: Cuba maintains a steadfast commitment to comply with the migratory agreements. That is what Cuba has been doing so far, with no exception whatsoever, while the United States has not complied with them. The United States enforces the Cuban Adjustment Act; the United States enforces a policy whereby anyone who arrives in U.S. territory is automatically admitted, a practice they committed themselves to cease, as described by the text of the agreements; 10 to 12 out of every 100 persons who are picked up at sea are finally admitted into U.S. territory under different pretexts; the United States has allowed the entry into their territory of hijackers who have not been tried in court afterwards. All of that has happened while Cuba has strictly complied with the agreements.

We see those measures over which The New York Times has speculated as a real incentive to illegal emigration.

The Note that was published by Granma reads as follows: "The alleged measures being announced to ban flights and remittances would also serve to encourage illegal emigration." Such a measure will make the living conditions of some people in Cuba even more difficult, at a time when no visas are being granted, when the blockade against our country is being tightened, that being one of the main causes of emigration. And the Note goes on to state that "none of the blame for this could be placed on Cuba, which strictly and without exception complies with its obligations as described in the bilateral Migratory Agreement."

"It is truly absurd and contradictory for the United States to issue threats regarding a massive exodus against a country that, like Cuba, has repeatedly proposed a bilateral cooperation agreement to put an end to migrant trafficking, something that the United States government has not even cared to consider."

This is all I can say about our position. We have not said that now we are not going to comply with the agreements; but we have said that these measures would be an additional incentive to illegal emigration from Cuba, a new encouragement to do so.

Someone has passed me a question, saying that maybe it was not quite clear whether we would continue to buy food if these measures are implemented, instead of a ban. That is to say, if these measures to ban remittences and travel are implemented, will Cuba continue to buy food? Yes, it will. The only way Cuba would not be able to do so is if this is banned too, but Cuba will continue to buy food. Cuba thinks this has been something positive. The Note reads as follows: "Our purchases were limited but nevertheless grew at a rapid pace thanks to the efficiency and seriousness of the American farmers. If we had had access to financing, the damage would be more significant."

In other words, we will continue to purchase food, if that is allowed. Now, if later on that is also prohibited, we have already said here that this would be a confirmation that the United States is not a reliable supplier, and all of these purchases, which have so far been beneficial for both countries, would come to an end.

Any other questions?

Gary March (Chicago Tribune): You know there is a very strong movement in the United States, in the Congress, to change the laws against Cuba, namely the blockade. But now, after actions were taken against the dissidents, whom you describe as mercenaries, this movement has almost been crushed, it has been silenced, and I want to know what you would like to say to the people in the United States, the members of Congress, the American people who are against the blockade, and at the same time are against the actions adopted against the dissidents.

Felipe Pérez: Very well, thank you.

You say that these people are dissidents whom we describe as mercenaries. I say that these are mercenaries whom you call dissidents. It looks like the same thing, but it is not.

We feel respect and sympathy towards the overwhelming majority of U.S. public opinion that advocates the normalization of relations with Cuba. We feel respect for the members of Congress, the senators, the majority of whom in both houses have been in favor of eliminating travel restrictions, allowing remittances without any limits, authorizing trade and credits, and even normalizing relations. We respect them all, we sympathize with their position towards Cuba and we also cooperate with them in the search for a new path towards understanding, tolerance, and respect between both our countries.

The message I have for them is that Cuba has been forced to adopt such measures in the face of the irresponsible attitude of the government of their country, particularly the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, and its chief, Mr. Cason, who in violation of the most elementary standards of diplomatic conduct, has attempted to turn the official facilities of the U.S. Interests Section, as well as his own residence, into the headquarters for subversion against Cuba. We have been forced to adopt such measures, after showing great tolerance throughout all these years, despite the laws in effect, and having adopted a patient and tolerant position. We have been forced into a situation in which we had no other choice. That is to say, what I would like to say to them is that the responsibility for what has happened falls, first and foremost, on the government that encourages that policy, that has yielded to the pressures of the Cuban mob in Miami; and second, on the behavior of Mr. Cason in Havana.

We support them in their efforts to normalize relations with Cuba. Regarding their concern about the mercenaries called "dissidents", we will clarify all their doubts, we will express our views and explain, first of all, that the United States should respect our right to have our own institutions, our own laws, our own standards, and our own system, just as we respect the right of the American people to choose their own system.

We are not trying to change the United States; why should the United States strive to force Cuba to adopt the system that the United States considers is the most appropriate? We respect their rights, just as we want our rights to be respected.

We are not trying to change the law that rules the financing of political parties in the United States, whereby in order to become a Senator, a person is required to have 70 million dollars. Well, this is how the Americans system works.

We are not trying to change the fact that in the United States, only one third of the population votes. This is up to the Americans.

We are not trying to change the new Patriotic Act that restricts the liberties, the civil and political rights of American citizens; this is up to their institutions and we respect their rights. Why can’t our rights be respected? Is it because we are a small country? However, according to the UN Charter, we are all equal and we have equal rights, regardless of our size and our economic or military power.

Therefore, regarding the normalization of relations, we support all those sectors. Regarding the questioning of our laws, we do not accept that, and we will explain our views to them, with respect, as part of a respectful dialogue with all those congress members, senators, and other personalities who, after having advocated the normalization of relations, have now been concerned over what has happened.

We have to clear up their doubts, because they have also been poisoned by a huge mountain of lies, slander, and distortion about what has happened in Cuba.

Tracey Eaton (The Dallas Morning News): Minister, in addition to the seven hijackings in seven months, have you seen any increase in illegal departures that may indicate that a new migration crisis is in the making?

Thank you.

Felipe Pérez: There have been those hijackings, as well as other plans and attempts that we have managed to abort. There has also been an increase in illegal migrant trafficking, based in Miami, a profitable business in Miami, with the use of speedboats that come to the Cuban coasts, pick up illegal emigrants and take them back to U.S. territory. After that, the policy whereby these persons are welcomed and automatically granted permanent residence in the United States does the rest, which no doubt becomes an incentive for other potential emigrants who, otherwise, will not get visas from the Interests Section to legally emigrate to the United States. There has been an increase in actions, plans and incentives for all these types of behavior.

Moderator: One last question. Lucía.

Felipe Pérez: Yes Lucia, to finish up the press conference.

Lucía Newman (CNN): Yes, thank you.

If Mr. James Cason, the head of the U.S. Interests Section, is the main subversive conspirator, promoter, and organizer of dissidence in Cuba, if he – as you say -- has systematically violated all international norms of diplomatic conduct, why hasn’t your government declared him persona non grata, instead of sentencing 75 Cuban citizens to extremely long prison terms, an action that has had a strongly negative impact all over the world?

Felipe Pérez: Thank you, Lucía.

Well, the fact that we have not yet done so does not mean that we will not do it at any given moment. What we have done is to reserve ourselves the right to do it.

We know that the Cuban mob groups, with which Mr. Cason meets on a weekly basis, are wishing for that to happen, because they know that that would be a signal that could be manipulated before American public opinion. They dream of this. They have never liked the decision adopted by President Carter to open this Interests Section, to reach an agreement with us to open it. Declaring Cason persona non grata would be like a gift to all those groups that hope for just that to happen. And probably it will also be a gift to Mr. Cason. There is every indication that he would like to go back to Miami as a hero who has been expelled from Cuba. So far we have not decided to indulge him, but this does not mean that we have totally ruled out the possibility of doing so. We reserve the right to act as we deem necessary to defend our sovereignty.

You have said that these persons have been sentenced to extremely long prison terms. However, I should remind you that such sentences are not as long as the ones imposed, for example, on Gerardo Hernández, a Cuban who is innocent, who was convicted by a court in Miami to serve two life terms plus 15 years in prison. That is to say, he would need to live two lives, be born again, and spend 15 years in prison to be free. That sentence is much longer, as are the sentences of some of the other Cuban political prisoners in U.S. jails who are serving their terms in conditions that openly violate the international standards that proscribe the degrading and humiliating treatment of prisoners. They have often been taken to punishment cells and been unjustly kept there, as a result of a vicious and scandalous legal process, full of violations, and after being convicted to serve sentences that have in fact been inspired by political motivations. This is not the case for these persons, who have not been placed in the "SHU" (Special Housing Unit) or in any punishment cell. None of them has been convicted to serve two life terms plus 15 years in prison, and therefore I believe that the term "long" is relative. It all depends on what you are comparing this to. If you compare these sentences with that imposed on Gerardo, these are minor sentences.

Anyway, we do not feel pleased to see our courts adopting such measures. We would not like these things to happen, but these things do happen as a result of the incentives, the actions undertaken, and the use of American taxpayers’ money to promote subversion in Cuba. It is our duty and our right to defend the stability of our country and its sovereignty. Therefore, those terms are relative. It all depends on what you are comparing them to.

I should say that what we would like to see in the Court of Atlanta, during the appeal process that is in progress, instead of having others trying to teach Cuba a lesson on the organization of the administration of justice administration, is an end to the trials that have led to the unjust imprisonment of five young men who have tried to prevent the commission of terrorist acts which could take a high toll not only on the lives of Cubans but probably on the lives of American citizens, as well as citizens from other countries.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Minister, for the information you have provided.

Felipe Pérez: Thank you.