In brief
The resolution passed with 130 votes in favor, 17 against, and 25 abstentions. While Cuba and many ally states welcomed the outcome, the U.S. and its allies warned of diplomatic costs. The vote drew sharp criticism from the U.S. Senate, calls for continued public accountability, and mobilized civil society groups across Africa, Latin America, and Europe.
On Wednesday, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution ending the United States’ embargo on Cuba, marking the 34th time the international community has urged a lift. The vote, cast between October 27–28, tallied 130 in favour, 17 against and 25 abstentions, compared with the 165 votes for the measure in 2025. Cuban officials celebrated the decision as a triumph for the island’s people, but the resolution also revealed a shift in member‑state support that has significant political and economic implications for Cuba’s democracy and citizens.
United Press International reports that the reduction of 35 supportive votes reflects a growing trend of other nations moving away from hard line positions. In Latin America, Colombia, which had backed the resolution in 2025, switched to opposition; Chile, Peru and Honduras moved from support to abstention; and Costa Rica and Ecuador changed from abstention to opposition. Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, Nicaragua and Panama maintained their support. European countries that previously backed the resolution—Germany, Italy and Latvia—shifted to abstention or opposition, signalling a broader recalibration of foreign‑policy stances toward the U.S. embargo.
President Miguel Diaz‑Canel used the platform to word the vote as a “victory for truth over the lies and blackmail” that Washington has tried to force on the international community, stating, “the resolution’s broad backing as a ‘victory for truth over lies and blackmail’.” His remarks were echoed by Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, who said the U.S. sanctions “restrict access to fuel, medicine and food” and described them as “economic suffocation” that “limit fundamental human rights.” Rodríguez further accused Washington of waging a “consensus…against the Cuban people” in a statement posted on X, adding, “the consequences fall on people, limit their fundamental human rights, affect third countries and turn the population’s essential needs into instruments of political coercion.”
The United States has responded with a narrative of internal Cuban policy failures. U.S. officials in Washington suggested that the reduced support was due to “Cuba’s internal policy” and criticized the conduct of Cuban delegates in the UN. In a press briefing, a U.S. Representative noted that they were “completely invested in protecting our national security and the American people” and that the U.S. blockade was legally justified under international law, while reminding member states of the policy’s importance for U.S. geopolitical interests.
Meanwhile, Cuba’s Ambassador to the Holy See, Leyde Rodríguez, decried the blockade as “genocidal,” documenting an estimated $8.083 billion in damages between March 2025 and February 2026. In his statement, he described the U.S. measure as a form of “collective punishment” aimed at the Cuban populace and emphasized that accompanying measures—such as energy restrictions—had “cross‑cutting effects” on health, education and social welfare. The ambassador appealed for the United Nations to lift the blockade, urging the international community to acknowledge how the embargo interferes with Cuba’s economic recovery and the daily lives of its citizens.
Within Latin America, former Peruvian Ambassador Hugo Otero urged regional solidarity, calling the blockade “a threat to the sovereignty of Cuba and the independence of all countries in the region.” He stressed that Latin American states must uphold the principle of self‑determination and resist external interference that compromises their democratic processes and public accountability. Otero warned that undermining Cuba’s sovereignty was “an assault on the dignity of all Latin American people.”
Across the Atlantic, Italy continued to play an active role, with various civic and academic organisations signalling support for the resolution. The National Italy‑Cuba Friendship Association (ANAIC) addressed the Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, stressing that Italy's historic opposition to U.S. sanctions must persist. Likewise, the Italian youth groups Cambiare Rotta/Communist Youth Organization and Student Opposition of the Alternative released a statement calling on the Italian government to vote “in favour of ending the blockade.” The call highlighted how the embargo undermines Cuba’s development and “the right to self‑determination.” University scholars Luciano Vasapollo and other academics contributed by arguing that the U.S. policy “hinders international exchange, impedes access to essential resources and drives up costs for families,” drawing attention to how sanctions affect ordinary Cuban citizens. The Italian “Network of Communists” urged a standalone, independent vote, warning the government that U.S. pressure, underscored by Senators like Marco Rubio, sought to influence international decision‑making.
Africa also weighed in, with Pan‑Africanist analyst Fortune Madondo urging African states to unite behind Cuba, describing U.S. tactics as “blackmail” and warning that the next target could be any of the 54 African nations. Madondo appealed for a single‑voice position in the General Assembly, stating the U.S. had employed “sanctions, taxes, suspension of cooperation programs, visa denial and support for political opposition during elections” against states perceived as allies of Cuba.
The fiscal and humanitarian toll of the U.S. embargo is a core element in the civic discussion. The U.S. has imposed economic, commercial and financial sanctions for more than six decades, which Cuban officials argue have led to catastrophic losses in health service access, fuel shortages and deficits in educational resources. Meanwhile, critics highlight that the embargo undermines public accountability by restricting the ability of Cuban institutions to engage with international partners, undermining economic development that supports Democratic Governance and citizen participation.
International legal and political repercussions also surface. The United States’ attempt to influence the votes of other member states—through diplomatic pressure and sanctions—has raised questions about the autonomy of sovereign states and their right to self‑determination, as highlighted by U.S. and Cuban opposition. The U.S. Senate has indicated that the embargo remains a legitimate tool for enforcing international law and preventing the spread of destabilizing influences, a position that courts in Washington assert is supported by decades of jurisprudence on sanctions law.
In the wake of the vote, the Cuban government reaffirmed its commitment to protecting its population’s rights and insisting that international institutions recognize the blockade as a violation of human rights and collective justice. Conversely, the United States has maintained that the embargo is necessary for national security, despite the participation of the US Congress in approving continuing sanctions. The United Nations remains a central platform where these competing narratives intersect, highlighting the importance of public accountability, democratic deliberation, and respect for sovereign equality.
