Although US negotiators, presumably thinking of the reception they will have in Congress suggested that progress had been made, it is clear that the divide with Europe is still very great. For instance, EU demands that any deal on expropriated assets should only apply to new investments or that an international tribunal be established to rule on whether property had been expropriated, were not received well by the US side. As a consequence, EU and US negotiators have agreed to continue talks in the margins of other meetings. However, there appears to be a high degree of uncertainty as to whether the issues can be resolved.
Time is limited.
The EU s leverage, its WTO complaint, expires in April and any failure to press home its case would exhibit not just a lack of resolve over the US Cuba legislation, but would also show, in the macho world of international trade negotiations, weakness in the face of US pressure. The reason for this is that the United States has already made clear that if the EU carries forward such a complaint, it would reject any WTO ruling on the basis that the Helms-Burton legislation is, for the US, a matter of national security. Such a response, it is argued, might bring the whole WTO disputes mechanism into disrepute as almost any nation could then plead national security to reject a ruling. As if these were not high enough stakes, the issue has become further complicated by the position being taken by the US Congress and the European Parliament. In the US, many members of Congress would dearly like to see the EU introduce the case back into the WTO and the US then be forced to use the national security argument.