In brief
The United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution to lift the U.S. embargo on Cuba with 130 votes in favor, 17 against and 25 abstentions, a sharp decline from 165 in 2025. While Cuban officials condemned the vote as a continuation of Washington’s sanctions, U.S. officials blamed Cuba’s internal policy and accused Cuban delegates of misconduct. African, Latin American and European voices rallied behind Cuba, demanding the UN move against U.S. pressure. The debate highlighted ongoing diplomatic pressure tactics and raised questions about future U.S.–Cuba relations.
On Wednesday in New York, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution calling for the end of the U.S. embargo against Cuba, but the Cuban government said it had lost 35 votes in support compared to last year, a decline that raised questions about evolving global opinion on the island’s economic isolation.
The vote, which ran from October 27 through 28, ended 130‑to‑17 with 25 abstentions, a 34th time the General Assembly has urged the U.S. to lift its decades‑long blockade. In 2025, the resolution secured 165 votes in favour, seven against and 12 abstentions, according to the United Press International (UPI) account that also notes 21 countries did not participate in either vote.
The Cuban foreign ministry, led by Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, condemned the vote as a continuation of sanctions. "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. He further described U.S. fuel restrictions as a naval blockade and accused Washington of collective punishment and genocide.
In contrast, United States officials pointed to Cuba’s internal policies as the cause of the shift in support. While no direct quote from U.S. officials is included in the source materials, UPI reports that Washington blamed the Cuban delegates’ conduct for the outcome, and the U.S. government has consistently criticized Cuba’s governance as an obstacle to removing the embargo.
Regional voices have weighed in on the unfolding debate. African states, as amplified by Prensa Latina and the analysis of Pan‑Africanist Fortune Madondo, called for a united front in favor of Cuba. Madondo warned that U.S. pressure tactics—blackmail, sanctions, visa denials, and support for political opposition—could target African nations in the future and urged the continent to speak with a single voice at the General Assembly.
In Latin America, the resolution’s support tilted in several countries. Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Paraguay voted against the measure, while Chile, Peru, Honduras and the Dominican Republic abstained. Colombia had switched from supporting the resolution in 2025 to opposing it. Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, Nicaragua and Panama remained among the countries in the region that maintained their support for Cuba.
European reactions have not been uniform. Germany, Italy and Latvia moved from support to abstention, departing from their former positions, according to UPI. Meanwhile, Italian voices have been particularly vocal. The Italian academic Luciano Vasapollo and the youth organizations Cambiare Rotta and the Student Opposition of the Alternative have urged Italy to vote in favour of ending the blockade. The National Italy‑Cuba Friendship Association (ANAIC) officially requested that Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani reaffirm Italy’s historical opposition to U.S. sanctions at the upcoming vote. Italian Prime Minister and government officials have not yet announced a final position, leaving the European stance partially unresolved.
Within Argentina’s diplomatic circles, former Peruvian ambassador Hugo Otero urged Latin Americans to defend Cuban sovereignty, citing Peru’s diplomatic history and warning that U.S. actions threaten the independence of all Latin American states. The OTRU's statement, highlighted by Prensa Latina, framed Cuba as a symbol of national dignity and resistance against external domination.
Brazil’s General Abreu e Lima Anti‑Imperialist Committee, too, expressed solidarity with Cuba and Raul Castro, condemning the U.S. blockade as part of a broader strategy to isolate the nation. The committee referred to the arrest warrant against Castro issued by Florida authorities as evidence of Washington’s policy, and it called for a UN vote to end the blockade, alleging it was a form of genocide.
In the wake of the vote, Cuban President Miguel Diaz‑Canel hailed the decision as a "victory for the heroic Cuban people" on X, arguing that it outmatched Washington’s "economic suffocation, threats and abuse." The resolution’s passage, he said, demonstrated that the truth triumphs over deceit and blackmail, and he praised the world’s collective resolution to end the embargo.
Despite the General Assembly’s approval, several questions remain. How will the United States respond to the shift in global sentiment, and will it adjust its diplomatic strategy to reduce pressure on other states? What role will African and European allies play in future U.N. debates on the embargo, given the calls for unified support and the history of shifting positions? And how will Cuba navigate the economic realignment required after a potential lifting of the sanctions, particularly in light of the reported $8.083 billion in damages between March 2025 and February 2026, according to the Cuban ambassador to the Holy See?
While the United Nations resolution marks a symbolic breakthrough, the practical ramifications for U.S.–Cuba relations, international economic policy, and global diplomatic alignments will be examined over the coming months. The stage is set for an intensified debate on the balance between national sovereignty, humanitarian obligations, and international economic politics.
