In brief
At the United Nations General Assembly, 130 members voted in favor of a resolution to end the U.S. embargo on Cuba, while 17 opposed it and 25 abstained. The vote marked a loss of 35 supportive votes for Cuba year‑to‑year, amid shifting positions by Latin American, African, and European members and heightened diplomatic pressure. Cuban officials condemned the vote as a continuation of U.S. sanctions, while U.S. officials blamed Cuba’s internal policies and criticized Cuban delegates’ conduct.
The United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution calling for the end of the United States embargo on Cuba on October 28, 2026, with 130 members voting in favor, 17 against and 25 abstentions, according to a report by United Press International. The vote took place in New York, with delegates from 193 member states present, and marked the 34th successive approval of the resolution on this issue.
While the resolution passed, United Press International noted that Cuba lost 35 votes in support compared to the previous year, when 165 voted in favor, seven opposed and 12 abstained. The shift emerged as several countries altered their positions, with Latin American governments such as Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Paraguay voting against the resolution and Chile, Peru, Honduras and the Dominican Republic choosing to abstain.
According to Cuban foreign minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, the measure represents “a continuation of U.S. sanctions” and a “war of waged against the Cuban people.”
He added that U.S. fuel restrictions constituted a blockade and accused Washington of engaging in 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," Rodríguez said in a statement posted on X.
U.S. officials replied that the Brazilian and Mexican delegations cited the rule of law and Cuba’s domestic policy as reasons for supporting the resolution, while criticizing the Cuban delegation’s conduct at the debate. In a statement released by the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. blamed Cuba’s internal policy and the Cuban delegates’ conduct for the opposition to the resolution.
In Latin America, the change in votes was notable. Colombia switched from support to opposition; Chile, Peru and Honduras moved from support to abstention; Costa Rica and Ecuador switched from abstaining to opposing. According to United Press International, the region’s supporters included Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, Nicaragua and Panama, which maintained their backing of the resolution. In Europe, Germany, Italy and Latvia moved to abstention, departing from previously supportive positions.
Against the backdrop of the vote, several voices urged international solidarity with Cuba. Italian academia has emerged prominently: Luciano Vasapollo, a professor at the University of Rome, urged European governments to reject U.S. pressure and highlighted humanitarian impacts on families, citing the example of a mother who received in‑home support for her disabled child. In an article published by *Faro di Roma*, Vasapollo emphasized that economic restrictions hinder access to essential resources and increase costs for families, noting that 883,000 Cubans were registered as living in vulnerable conditions as of September.
On a continental scale, African leaders were called upon to unite. Pan‑Africanist analyst Fortune Madondo, a member of the Fidel Castro Chair in Zimbabwe, wrote that African states should adopt a single stance at the U.N., condemning the U.S. as engaging in “blackmail” through sanctions and other coercive measures. In articles published by *Modern Ghana* and *Southern African Eye News*, Madondo warned that if Africa remains silent, the U.S. could target the continent next.
The Italian government itself received appeals. The National Italy‑Cuba Friendship Association (ANAIC) addressed a letter to Minister of Foreign Affairs Antonio Tajani, urging the government to vote in favor of the resolution, citing Italy’s historical opposition to U.S. sanctions. ANAIC reminded Tajani that, historically, Italian policymakers had upheld an independent stance and that the current proposal aligns with international law.
Additional Cuban voices condemned the blockade as “genocidal.” Cuban Ambassador to the Holy See, Leyde Rodriguez, announced that the economic sanctions had caused $8.083 billion in damages between March 2025 and February 2026 and that cumulative losses over decades total $178.7 billion in current prices. He warned that the remaining energy siege resembled a naval blockade under international law.
Background to the embargo shows that the U.S. imposed sanctions on Cuba in 1960 following the Cuban Revolution, with the embargo expanding over the decades. Critics argue that the embargo has limited Cuba’s access to fuel, medicine and food, while U.S. authorities maintain that the sanctions aim to pressure the government to abandon its “characteristic policy.” The current vote reflects a long‑standing debate over whether the embargo fulfills its stated purpose without harming ordinary Cubans.
Open questions remain regarding how the loss of 35 supportive votes will affect the future of the embargo‑resolution cycle. Will the United States intensify diplomatic pressure on nations that shifted to abstention or opposition? Will the shift indicate a broader global willingness to reconsider the embargo’s ongoing impact? Analysts note that while the resolution passed, the erosion of support suggests a more complex global stance toward the U.S. policy, with continued diplomatic and economic contests anticipated in the coming year.
