More than thirty independent Cuban organizations, both within and outside the island, sent a letter to the European External Action Service (EEAS) on September 17, requesting an urgent review of the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement (PDCA) between the European Union and Cuba.
The letter was a response to the official communication from the SEAE on July 24, 2025, which defended the continuation of the current agreement.
The activist Carolina Barrero explained on social media that “a significant portion of these organizations is located within Cuba, working under extreme conditions of risk and persecution.”
Others, he noted, are based in Europe, the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Latin America, which represents "a broad and significant consensus that European authorities should not ignore."
Criticism of the ADPC and demands for change
The signatory organizations assert that, after nearly a decade of implementation, the ADPC "has not produced substantive progress in democracy or human rights," and that in practice, "it has served to diplomatically legitimize the Cuban regime."
The document proposes to replace the current agreement with a renewed policy that “establishes clear, verifiable, and binding parameters of democratic conditionality,” and demands that political prisoners be officially recognized, avoiding the use of terms like “detainees,” which “renders the political nature of their imprisonment invisible.”
Conditionality, sanctions, and traceability of funds
Among the key points of the letter, it is requested that the new policy guarantees:
1. The official participation of independent Cuban civil society.
2. Individual sanctions under the Magnitsky Act against those responsible for human rights violations.
3. Mechanisms for tracking and controlling European funds to ensure they reach those in need.
"The use of ambiguous expressions like 'detained' runs the risk of validating the official discourse of the regime," the letter states.
Complicity with Russia and request for a meeting
The letter also warns about "the active complicity of the Cuban State with the Russian aggression against Ukraine", including the alleged transfer of more than 7,000 Cubans as fighters.
Finally, the organizations requested an in-person meeting in Brussels with representatives of the EEAS before the next EU-Cuba Joint Council, to discuss these proposals and "ensure a policy consistent with the democratic values of the European Union."
Frequently Asked Questions about the Political Dialogue Agreement between the EU and Cuba
Why do independent Cuban organizations call for a review of the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement with the EU?
Organizations assert that the agreement has not led to advancements in democracy or human rights in Cuba and has instead served to diplomatically legitimize the Cuban regime. They propose replacing it with a policy that sets clear and verifiable parameters for democratic conditionality.
What are the specific demands of Cuban organizations regarding the agreement with the EU?
Organizations are calling for the new policy to ensure the official participation of the independent Cuban civil society, individual sanctions against those responsible for human rights violations, and transparency of European funds to ensure they reach those who truly need them.
What is the EU's stance on the criticisms regarding its agreement with Cuba?
The EU, through its high representative Kaja Kallas, advocates for the continuity of the agreement as a necessary framework for dialogue, although it acknowledges that it has not led to the desired democratic changes. It states that the pact allows for addressing sensitive issues such as the situation of political prisoners.
What role does Cuba's complicity with Russia play in the criticisms of the agreement with the EU?
Organizations and activists accuse the Cuban regime of having an active complicity with Russia, including the alleged transfer of thousands of Cubans as fighters to Ukraine. This contradicts the democratic values that the EU defends, which increases the criticism of the agreement.
Filed under:
