In brief
The U.N. voted 130‑to‑17 with 25 abstentions to lift the U.S. embargo on Cuba, a drop of 35 favorable votes from the 2025 vote. Cuba condemned the move as a continuation of U.S. pressure, while U.S. officials blamed Cuba’s internal policy and criticized the conduct of Cuban delegates. International voices—from African leaders to Italian academics—joined calls for solidarity with Cuba against Washington’s blockade.
The United Nations General Assembly approved on Wednesday, October 28, a resolution to lift the United States embargo against Cuba, with 130 votes in favor, 17 against and 25 abstentions—a 35‑vote loss in support from the 2025 vote, United Press International reported. Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla said the vote marked a “continuation of U.S. sanctions,” while U.S. officials blamed Cuba’s internal policy and criticized the conduct of Cuban delegates.
Background on the vote
The resolution, titled "Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba," was adopted later than scheduled, after the debate that began on October 27. In 2025 the vote had been 165‑to‑7 with 12 abstentions; 21 countries did not participate in 2026, according to the U.P.I. report.
Latin American voting patterns shifted sharply. Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Paraguay voted against the resolution; Colombia had supported it in 2025. Chile, Peru and Honduras moved from support to abstention, while Costa Rica and Ecuador switched from abstention to opposition. Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, Nicaragua and Panama maintained their support, the U.P.I. noted.
European changes mirrored Latin America's. Germany, Italy and Latvia abstained in 2026 after having supported the measure in 2025, the U.P.I. reported.
United States officials said the shift reflected Cuba’s internal policies and the conduct of its delegation. They argued the Cuban leadership had been “pushing the envelope” with its rhetoric, thereby swaying certain countries to abstain or vote against, according to the U.P.I. coverage.
International reactions and solidarity
African leaders and analysts have called for a unified stance. Fortune Madondo, a Pan‑Africanist and member of the Fidel Castro Chair in Zimbabwe, urged African states to support Cuba, saying:
"Let us be categorical and direct from the front lines: a unified stance—with no whispers or abstentions—in support of the Caribbean island at the General Assembly," Madondo wrote in articles published by Modern Ghana and Southern African Eye News.
He warned that U.S. pressure on other nations was “blackmail” using sanctions, taxes, visa denials and backing of opposition parties. He added that if Africa ignored the threats now facing Cuba, other African states could soon face the same intimidation.
In Italy, several voices urged continued support. Luciano Vasapollo, an Italian scholar, called for European governments to reject Washington pressure, citing the humanitarian impact of sanctions and highlighting Cuban social programs. He noted that more than 883,000 Cubans were registered as living in vulnerable conditions as of September 2025.
Italian youth groups Cambiare Rotta, the Communist Youth Organization and the Student Opposition of the Alternative, praised Italy’s historical stance and urged the government to vote in favor of lifting the blockade, stressing the blockade’s hindrance to Cuba’s development and right to self‑determination.
The National Italy‑Cuba Friendship Association (ANAIC) sent a letter to Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani urging a favorable vote, reminding that past Italian governments, including Berlusconi’s, had opposed U.S. sanctions.
In Brazil, the General Abreu e Lima Anti‑Imperialist Committee voiced solidarity, condemning the U.S. blockade and linking a Florida arrest warrant for Raul Castro to Washington’s policy of isolation.
Cuban Ambassador Leyde Rodriguez to the Holy See decried the blockade as genocidal, claiming it had intensified in 2026 and caused $8.083 billion in damages from March 2025 to February 2026—a seven percent increase over the previous year, he said. He noted the cumulative loss amounted to $178.7 billion in current prices and described the energy restrictions as “a naval blockade.”
President Miguel Diaz‑Canel hailed the vote as a “victory for truth over lies and blackmail.” In a post on X, he described the resolution as an affirmation that Cuba is not a threat, but the embargo is. He added that the vote marked the 34th time the international community has called for ending the embargo, which official figures say has inflicted nearly $179 billion in economic losses on Cuba.
While the resolution passed, the U.S. has indicated it may continue to enforce the embargo through other mechanisms. Cuban officials question whether a UN vote will bring a substantive end to sanctions, while U.S. representatives insist the embassy‑controlled policy will still limit trade in certain sectors.
Open questions remain: Will the U.S. withdraw its sanctions or merely renegotiate the terms? How will Latin American and European outlaw organisations respond to the shift in voting patterns? And what will be the enforcement mechanism for any new legal framework at the U.N. level to ensure the embargo’s termination?
