In brief
The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution to end the U.S. embargo against Cuba, but the island nation lost 35 votes in support compared to 2025. The Cuban government condemned the vote as part of a continued U.S. campaign to maintain sanctions, while U.S. officials blamed Cuba’s internal policy for the shift and criticized Cuban delegates’ conduct. Analysts from Africa, Italy, and Latin America urged their governments to stand with Cuba ahead of the vote.
The United Nations General Assembly voted on Tuesday and Wednesday, October 27–28, to pass a resolution calling for the end of the United States’ embargo on Cuba, with 130 member states voting in favor, 17 against and 25 abstentions. The vote, which marked the 34th time the world community has urged an end to the embargo, fell short of the record count of 165 votes in favor seen last year.
In a press release, the United Press International reported that Cuba lost 35 votes in support compared to the 2025 vote, where 165 countries had voted in favor, seven against and 12 abstentions. The shift was also attributed to 21 countries that did not participate in the 2026 vote. The change came as several Latin American states altered their positions: Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Paraguay moved to vote against the resolution, while Chile, Peru, Honduras and the Dominican Republic abstained. Colombia, which had supported the measure in 2025, switched to opposition. Notably, Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, Nicaragua and Panama maintained their support for the Cuban resolution.
European nations also experienced movement. Germany, Italy and Latvia, which had previously voted in favor, now chose to abstain. The altered votes reflect a broadening of opposition and abstention across the Assembly, according to the United Press International report.
During the debate preceding the vote, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla condemned Washington’s sanctions and warned of their humanitarian impact. In a statement posted on X, Rodríguez characterized U.S. fuel restrictions as equivalent to a naval blockade and accused the United States of collective punishment and genocide: “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 consequences fall on people, limit their fundamental human rights, affect third countries and turn the population’s essential needs into instruments of political coercion,” said Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla.
In a separate briefing, Cuban Ambassador to the Holy See Leyde Rodríguez decried the blockade’s economic toll, noting damages of $8.083 billion between March 2025 and February 2026—a figure seven percent higher than that reported a year earlier. The ambassador called the policy “a form of collective punishment” against the Cuban populace and likened the energy restrictions to a naval blockade that could amount to an act of war under international law.
“The damages inflicted upon the Caribbean nation reached a record figure of $8.083 billion between March 2025 and February 2026,” said Ambassador Leyde Rodríguez.
—Prensa Latina, October 22, 2026
U.S. officials reacted differently. United Press International noted that U.S. officials blamed Cuba’s internal policy for the loss of support and criticized the conduct of Cuban delegates at the Assembly. They also suggested that “Washington’s pressure campaign” influenced other governments’ decisions in the vote, although no direct quotes from U.S. officials appear in the source material.
International Calls for Solidarity
Across the world, groups and individuals urged their governments to align with Cuba. In Africa, Pan‑Africanist analyst Fortune Madondo urged African leaders to unite in a single voice against Washington’s blockade. Madondo warned that U.S. tactics—blackmail, sanctions, visa denials and support for political opposition—could be extended to other African states if they failed to support Cuba.
“America is threatening a united stance with no whispers or abstentions in support of Cuba,” wrote Fortune Madondo in articles published by *Modern Ghana* and *Southern African Eye News*.
In Europe, Italian scholar Luciano Vasapollo called for solidarity and for European governments to reject U.S. pressure ahead of the UN vote. He highlighted the humanitarian impact of the blockade on Cuban families and cited the island’s social programs as evidence of its resilience. Vasapollo urged representatives of international institutions to refuse any manipulation of national positions.
“The consequences of this policy extend beyond government-to-government relations, affecting the daily lives of the Cuban population,” said Luciano Vasapollo in an article for *Faro di Roma*.
The National Italy‑Cuba Friendship Association (ANAIC) also pressed the Italian government to maintain its historical opposition to U.S. sanctions. In a letter to Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, ANAIC reminded the Italian ministry of its past support for the Cuban resolution and warned against the influence of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio.
“We therefore cordially invite you to maintain this same consistent approach, without yielding to external pressures or the influence of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio,” the association wrote to Tajani.
These appeals highlight a growing sense of international solidarity with Cuba as the UN vote approaches, though the outcome would still require a majority of member states in favor.
Current Status and Open Questions
The resolution passed by the Assembly, but Cuba’s support slump raises questions about the efficacy of the United States’ diplomatic and economic pressure. Analysts on both sides of the debate disagree on whether the reduction in votes stems from genuine dissatisfaction with Cuba’s internal policies or from external influence by Washington. The UN General Assembly votes tomorrow, Oct. 28 at 6 p.m., so the final tally and the policy’s future will be clear shortly. The Cuban government and its allies remain keen to evaluate how the shift could affect future international negotiations and whether the blockade’s economic toll might prompt further global pushback against U.S. sanctions. The days ahead will reveal the strategies the United States will employ to defend the embargo, and the extent to which the international community—particularly the emerging voices in Africa and Latin America—will continue to rally in support of Cuba. This unfolding situation encapsulates the enduring tension between U.S. foreign policy objectives and multinational calls for economic freedom and human rights.”}
