This past Wednesday, the United Nations General Assembly approved the annual resolution demanding the end of the United States' embargo on Cuba with 130 votes in favor, 17 against, and 25 abstentions. This marks the worst outcome for Havana since the proposal was first introduced in 1992.
At precisely 11:19 a.m., the official voting scoreboard at the UN headquarters in New York displayed an unprecedented decline: in 2025, the resolution had secured 165 favorable votes with only seven opposed; by 2026, it had lost an additional 35 supporters while the opposing votes more than doubled.
The cumulative drop within just two years is even more dramatic when considering 2024, when Cuba garnered 187 votes in favor and only two against. During this period, support decreased by 57 votes, while objections increased more than eightfold.
The 17 nations that voted against the resolution included the United States, Israel, Argentina, Austria, Barbados, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Hungary, Lithuania, Morocco, North Macedonia, Paraguay, Slovenia, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine.
Among these, seven countries had already voted against it in 2025—namely the United States, Israel, Argentina, Hungary, North Macedonia, Paraguay, and Ukraine—while 12 others shifted their stance from the previous year: Austria, Barbados, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Lithuania, Morocco, Slovenia, and Trinidad and Tobago, transitioning from abstaining or supporting to outright opposition.
The 25 countries that abstained from voting included Albania, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Chile, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Latvia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Palau, Poland, South Korea, Moldova, Romania, and Solomon Islands. Notably, Germany, which had consistently supported the resolution since 2002, opted to abstain this time.
The erosion of support had been anticipated. Back in July, a procedural vote to approve an extraordinary debate on the embargo secured only 136 votes in favor, with countries like Trinidad and Tobago and Germany already altering their long-standing voting patterns.
The immediate context of the voting was shaped by a tense debate the day before in the General Assembly. During this, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla approached the podium where U.S. Ambassador Michael Waltz was speaking, prompting Assembly President Khalilur Rahman to briefly suspend the session with a curt "Please return to your seat."
In his address, Waltz presented delegates with photos of Fidel Castro's $40,000 Rolex watches, Hermès ties, Montblanc pens belonging to Díaz-Canel, and properties owned by the Castro family. He also cited a Miami Herald investigation that found the military-run business conglomerate GAESA accrued $18 billion in profits and $14 billion in secret cash accounts.
Despite the historic decline in support, Cuba's Foreign Ministry celebrated the outcome on social media with a graphic declaring "Victory for Cuba" and the slogan "Cuba is not a threat, the blockade is." They claimed that "the vast majority of the international community once again condemned the illegal and criminal U.S. blockade."
The resolution is not legally binding; its approval does not alter or lift the embargo, whose removal is solely dependent on the United States Congress. The most favorable point of comparison for Havana remains 2016, during the thaw with the Obama administration, when the resolution achieved a record 191 votes in favor and none against.
Understanding the UN Vote on the U.S. Embargo Against Cuba
Why did the resolution against the U.S. embargo on Cuba receive fewer votes this year?
The resolution faced a decline in support due to shifting stances of several countries, possibly influenced by changing geopolitical alliances and internal policy reevaluations.
Which countries changed their voting stance from the previous year?
Countries such as Austria, Barbados, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Lithuania, Morocco, Slovenia, and Trinidad and Tobago altered their votes from abstaining or supporting to opposing the resolution.
Is the resolution legally binding?
No, the resolution is not legally binding. Its approval does not change or remove the embargo, which can only be lifted by an act of the U.S. Congress.
What was the reaction of the Cuban government to the vote?
The Cuban government celebrated the outcome as a victory, emphasizing that the majority of the international community still condemns the U.S. embargo, despite the decline in supportive votes.