The United Nations General Assembly, convened in New York on Tuesday and Wednesday, 27 and 28 October 2026, approved a resolution calling for the end of the United States embargo on Cuba. The vote finished 130 in favor, 17 against, and 25 abstentions, a decline of 35 support votes for Cuba compared with the 165 in favor that the Cuban delegation secured in the session held the previous year.
In 2025 the resolution had passed with 165 for, 7 against and 12 abstentions; by 2026, 21 member states had abstained or failed to take a position. The tally also showed that Latin American countries such as Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Paraguay had moved to opposition, while Chile, Peru, Honduras and the Dominican Republic shifted from support to abstention. In the European bloc, Germany, Italy and Latvia now abstained instead of voting in favor of the measure.
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla denounced the outcome, saying on the Assembly floor that Washington’s campaign to influence other governments amounted to a “war of economic coercion” that turns “the population’s essential needs into instruments of political coercion.” He added that U.S. fuel restrictions equated to a naval blockade and called the sanctions a form of collective punishment and genocide.
In addition to the Cuban delegation’s statements, United States officials blamed Cuba’s internal policy for the shift and criticized the conduct of Cuban delegations in the Assembly. Washington rejected the idea that the bloc was a unilateral liberation effort, asserting that the embargo was a lawful tool of foreign policy aimed at addressing Cuba’s human rights record.
International Reactions
Across Africa, Pan‑Africanist scholar Fortune Madondo urged African states to band together and vote unanimously in support of Cuba, warning that Washington’s tactics of “blackmail” and “threats” could extend to other nations. He quoted U.S. officials, naming former Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz, as employing sanctions, visa denials, and support for opposition parties to alter voting patterns.
In Italy, scholar Luciano Vasapollo called for solidarity with Cuba and urged European governments to reject pressure from Washington. He highlighted the humanitarian toll of sanctions and cited Cuban social programs that illustrate the blockade’s impact on families and its extension beyond the government‑to‑government domain.
The National Italy‑Cuba Friendship Association (ANAIC) formally requested that Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani maintain Italy’s favorable voting tradition on the resolution. The association noted that Italian governments, from Silvio Berlusconi’s tenure to the present, have historically opposed the U.S. embargo and that this stance should not shift under external pressure.
Elsewhere, Cuban Ambassador to the Holy See Leyde Rodríguez stormed a Vatican press conference, proclaiming the U.S. blockade genocidal and detailing an estimated $8.083 billion in damages between March 2025 and February 2026. Rodríguez warned that the blockade was “a form of collective punishment” that suffocated the national economy and likened the energy restrictions to a naval blockade under international law.
“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 Assembly debate.
In response to the ratification, Cuban President Miguel Diaz‑Canel posted on X, calling the vote a “victory for the heroic Cuban people” and framing it as a triumph of truth over “lies and blackmail” from Washington. He echoed Foreign Minister Rodríguez’s sentiment by suggesting that the embargo itself constituted a threat to Cuba, not the Cuban nation.
With the resolution now officially passed, the United Nations has voted to lift the U.S. embargo 34 times, each time marking a formal acknowledgment of the United States’ longstanding sanctions. Cuban leadership continues to paint the vote as a moral vindication, while U.S. officials maintain that the embargo remains a legitimate tool of foreign policy to address human rights concerns in Cuba.
