The United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution calling for the U.S. embargo on Cuba to be lifted with 130 votes in favour, 17 against and 25 abstentions, marking the 34th time the international community has urged an end to the blockade. The vote, held on Wednesday, represented a loss of 35 votes of support for Cuba compared to the previous year.
In 2025 the resolution had received 165 affirmative votes, seven opposed and 12 abstentions, and an additional 21 countries did not participate. Several Latin American states altered their positions: Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Paraguay cast votes against the resolution; Chile, Peru, Honduras and the Dominican Republic abstained. Croatia, Costa Rica and Ecuador moved from abstaining to opposition; Chile, Peru and Honduras shifted from support to abstention. Mexico, Brazil, Uruguay, Nicaragua and Panama maintained their affirmative vote.
In Europe, Germany, Italy and Latvia decided to abstain after previously supporting the resolution, further reducing the bloc’s support for Cuba. The shift was noted by the Cuban delegation led by Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, who condemned the “economic and humanitarian consequences” of U.S. 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," said Rodríguez during the pre‑vote debate.
A statement posted on X by Rodríguez also accused Washington of launching an economic campaign aimed at regime change. Local Cuban officials described the sanctions as a naval blockade, claiming they amounted to collective punishment and genocide.
U.S. officials in Washington responded to the vote by blaming Cuba’s internal policy for the shift and criticized the conduct of Cuban delegates, alleging that they had been influenced by U.S. pressure to change the vote. The U.S. State Department officials’ views were echoed by commentators in African and European media ahead of the vote.
Black‑mail accusations surfaced from African analysts and commentators. In Harare, Fortune Madondo, a Pan‑Africanist associated with the Fidel Castro Chair, urged African states to unite in a single voice for Cuba, describing U.S. tactics as “blackmail” and warning that other African countries could be targeted next. Madondo cited threats such as sanctions, visa denial and political opposition support as part of Washington’s strategy.
Italian academic Luciano Vasapollo called for European solidarity with Cuba, urging European governments to reject Washington pressure. In an article published in *Faro di Roma*, he highlighted humanitarian consequences of sanctions and described the blockade’s impact on Cuban families, citing a figure of 883,000 people living in vulnerable conditions as of September‑2025.
The National Italy‑Cuba Friendship Association (ANAIC) sent a letter to Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani calling on Italy to continue its historical opposition to U.S. sanctions. The letter referenced the Chamber of Deputies Foreign Affairs Committee’s acknowledgment of the dire situation faced by Cuban citizens, attributing it to U.S. measures, and warned that U.S. Senator Marco Rubio had been hostile toward Cuba in the U.S. political arena.
"We therefore cordially invite you to maintain this consistent approach, without yielding to external pressures or the influence of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio…", the ANAIC statement said.
In the Latin American region, former Peruvian ambassador Hugo Otero urged Latin Americans to defend Cuba’s sovereignty during the debate. He framed Cuba as a symbol of national dignity and argued that the U.S. and its allies sought to control Cuban territory, calling this a threat to regional independence.
In Brazil, the General Abreu e Lima Anti‑Imperialist Committee released a statement supporting Cuba and criticizing the arrest warrant issued by Florida authorities against former Cuban leader Raul Castro, linking it to Washington’s hostile policy. The committee also denounced U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio for pressuring other governments to vote against the resolution.
Representatives in Vatican City offered further condemnation of the blockade. Cuba’s Ambassador to the Holy See, Leyde Rodriguez, held a press conference on October 22, describing the U.S. embargo as a genocidal policy. Rodriguez cited a study showing $8.083 billion in damages sustained between March 2025 and February 2026, an increase of seven percent from the previous year. He described the blockade as a form of collective punishment aimed at suffocating the national economy and compared it to a naval blockade under certain international law conditions.
"The damages recorded during the most recent period analysed were seven percent higher than the peak reported a year earlier, while the cumulative losses over decades of the blockade amount to $178.7 billion in current prices," said the ambassador.
Following the vote, Cuban President Miguel Diaz‑Canel praised the resolution on X, calling it a “victory for the heroic Cuban people” and condemning U.S. pressure as “blackmail.” He highlighted the ongoing economic suffocation and the “truth over those who rely on lies and blackmail.”
"It is a triumph of the truth over those who rely on lies and blackmail to subject an entire nation to collective punishment," Diaz‑Canel wrote.
The resolution’s passage was accompanied by divergent assessments of the United Nations’s role. While some commentators hailed the vote as a moral stand for the Cuban people, others questioned the extent to which U.S. influence and diplomatic pressure had shifted some states’ positions.
The primary unresolved elements centre on the motivations behind the shifting votes, the exact nature and impact of U.S. diplomatic pressure claimed by Cuban officials and observers, and how the resolution will shape future U.S.‑Cuba relations and sanctions policy.
