In brief
The General Assembly voted 130‑17‑25 in favor of ending the U.S. embargo against Cuba, a drop of 35 votes for the island compared to 2025. While Cuba’s government condemned the outcome as a continuation of U.S. sanctions, U.S. officials cited internal Cuban policy and criticized delegate conduct. The vote underscores shifting international sentiment toward the decades‑long blockade.
In Washington, D.C., Havana’s diplomatic mission grappled with the outcome of the United Nations General Assembly vote that set its course toward lifting the United States embargo on Cuba. On Wednesday, 28 October, the General Assembly approved a resolution to end the blockade by a margin of 130 votes for, 17 against, and 25 abstentions.
In the previous year the vote had swung 165 in favor, seven against and 12 abstentions, meaning Cuba lost 35 votes of support. The shift saw several regional and European states move from backing the resolution to opposing or abstaining, including Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Paraguay in Latin America; and Germany, Italy and Latvia in Europe.
During the congressional debate, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla condemned the vote as a continuation of U.S. sanctions. He said the embargo “restricts access to fuel, medicine and food” and called the U.S. policy an “economic campaign aimed at regime change.”
“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,” he stated on X.
The Cuban government described the resolution as denied by Washington’s “intense diplomatic campaign” and a “blackmail” that violates Cuba’s sovereignty and the rights of its population.
U.S. officials, however, countered that the reduction in Cuban support reflected internal policy choices. They criticized the conduct of Cuban delegates during the session, though the exact nature of those criticisms was not detailed in the press briefing.
Support for the resolution also emerged from outside the United Nations. African analysts, including Pan‑Africanist scholar Fortune Madondo, urged African states to adopt a united stance in favor of Cuba, warning that Washington’s pressure tactics resembled the coercion used in apartheid South Africa. Italian academics, notably Luciano Vasapollo, also called on European governments to reject U.S. pressure and to recognize the humanitarian toll of the embargo on Cuban families.
In Latin America, former Peruvian ambassador Hugo Otero added that Cuba represents a symbol of national dignity and resistance against external domination. He urged his colleagues to defend Cuban sovereignty, citing Peru’s diplomatic tradition of supporting self‑determination in the region.
Beyond diplomatic statements, the Cuban embassy in the Holy See highlighted the economic damage caused by the embargo. Ambassador Leyde Rodriguez announced that losses had climbed to $8.083 billion between March 2025 and February 2026, up 7 percent from the previous year, and that cumulative damages over decades reached $178.7 billion in current prices.
In the aftermath of the vote, Cuban President Miguel Diaz‑Canel declared the resolution a “victory for the heroic Cuban people,” asserting that the embargo “is a real threat” and a form of collective punishment.
While the resolution’s adoption marks a milestone in international pressure against the U.S. embargo, the decline in favorable votes suggests a nuanced shift in global sentiment and signals a changing geopolitical landscape in which states are increasingly scrutinizing the political motives behind external sanctions.
