In brief
The UN General Assembly passed a resolution to end the U.S. embargo on Cuba, marking the 34th time the international community has called for it to be lifted. While the resolution passed with broad support, Cuba lost more backing than in 2025, and some Latin American and European countries shifted their positions. Global voices—from African leaders to Italian scholars—repeatedly urged solidarity with Cuba, while U.S. officials blamed Cuban policy and contested allegations of blackmail.
The United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday and Wednesday approved a resolution calling for the end of the United States’ economic, commercial and financial embargo on Cuba, with 130 countries voting in favor, 17 against and 25 abstaining. The vote, scheduled for 27–28 October, is the 34th time the General Assembly has advanced the same measure, up from 165 favorable votes, 7 opposed and 12 abstentions in 2025, according to United Press International.
Key shifts in voting patterns were noted by UPI. Five Latin American states—Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Paraguay—now voted against the resolution, while Chile, Peru, Honduras and the Dominican Republic abstained. Colombia, which had supported the measure in 2025, switched to opposition; Chile, Peru and Honduras moved from support to abstention; Costa Rica and Ecuador changed from abstention to opposition. Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, Nicaragua and Panama continued to support the resolution. In Europe, Germany, Italy and Latvia abstained, departing from their previous positions.
In Havana, Cuban officials condemned the vote. Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla issued a statement on X that described the U.S. sanctions as an economic war and blamed Washington for an “intense diplomatic campaign” to sway other governments. He said the embargo “restricts access to fuel, medicine and food” and called it a collective punishment. President Miguel Díaz‑Canel, in a post on X, called the vote a “victory for the Cuban people” against Washington’s “economic suffocation, threats and abuse.”
Rodríguez Parrilla critiqued U.S. policy, saying: “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 called U.S. fuel restrictions “equivalent to a naval blockade.”
Beyond Cuba, African leaders urged solidarity. Pan‑Africanist analyst Fortune Madondo, citing publications in *Modern Ghana* and *Southern African Eye News*, warned that U.S. pressure tactics amounted to blackmail and could target other African states in the future. Italian scholar Luciano Vasapollo urged European governments to reject Washington’s influence ahead of the UN vote and highlighted humanitarian impacts, citing data that more than 883,000 Cubans lived in vulnerable conditions by September’s end.
The National Italy‑Cuba Friendship Association (ANAIC) sent a letter to Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani on 22 October, asking the government to reaffirm its historical opposition to U.S. sanctions and to vote favorably on the resolution. The letter named former U.S. senator Marco Rubio’s “relentless hostility” toward Cuba. Former Peruvian ambassador Hugo Otero, speaking in Lima, called on Latin Americans to defend Cuba’s sovereignty and warned that U.S. actions threatened the region’s independence.
While the resolution passed, Cuban ambassador to the Holy See Leyde Rodriguez estimated the blockade’s damages at $8.083 billion between March 2025 and February 2026, a 7 percent increase from the prior year, and a cumulative loss of $178.7 billion over the decades. He described the embargo as a form of collective punishment and likened it to a naval blockade.
Uncertainties highlighted by the sources remain. The U.S. claims that Cuba’s internal policy contributed to the vote’s outcome, while Cuban officials blame external blackmail. The effectiveness of the blockade’s removal in delivering tangible economic relief to Cuban citizens has not been confirmed, and it is unclear whether the resolution will alter U.S. enforcement of sanctions or simply serve as symbolic endorsement. The differing narratives about motives and impact underscore the unresolved nature of the embargo debate.
