Published on: 2026-10-29
Source: United Nations – United Nations –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
October 28, 2026 Human Rights
This is already the 34th vote since 1992 in which the UN General Assembly calls for the repeal of the unilateral measure. The resolution once again contains a demand to lift the economic, trade, and financial blockade of Cuba. The Assembly expressed concern that despite decades of votes and appeals, the blockade remains in effect.
The demand to lift the embargo
The UN General Assembly has for the 34th time called for the lifting of the unilateral embargo that the US has maintained against Cuba since 1960. As the authors of the resolution emphasize, it has led to an energy crisis, worsening the humanitarian situation on the island.
130 countries voted in favor of the resolution, 17 against, and 25 abstained. Last year, it was supported by 165 states, seven opposed it, and 12 abstained. This time, the resolution received the lowest number of votes in favor in the past 20 years.
The voting results reflect changes compared to previous years, especially among Latin American countries. Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Paraguay voted against. Chile, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, and Peru abstained.
The voting results on this resolution over the past 34 years clearly reflect changes in international diplomacy. In 1992, when the issue was discussed for the first time, 59 countries voted for lifting the blockade, three voted against, 71 abstained, and 46 did not participate in the vote. The resolution received the greatest support in 2015 and 2017: 191 countries voted in favor, only two against. This occurred during the warming of relations between the US and Cuba under the Barack Obama administration. In 2016, the US abstained for the first time in the vote — marking a historic event. Israel continued to vote against it.
The document presented by Cuba contains a demand to lift the blockade. Havana justifies it with the fundamental principles of the UN Charter: sovereign equality of states, prohibition of interference in internal affairs, and freedom of trade and navigation.
The Assembly is particularly concerned about laws whose effects extend beyond the country’s borders. The Helms-Burton Act of 1996 is specifically mentioned in the resolution. Its application, it is noted, affects not only Cuba’s sovereignty but also the legitimate interests of organizations and individuals under the jurisdiction of other countries, conflicting with international law and the principle of a free market.
The draft resolution also expresses concern over the tightening of US policy since 2017. This occurred after the measures to ease restrictions announced by the American administration in 2015 and 2016. Since 2017, the US, as noted in the document, has intensified the enforcement of the blockade instead of easing it.
Decades of voting have not led to the lifting of the blockade
The Assembly expressed concern that the blockade continues to be in effect despite decades of votes and appeals, negatively impacting the lives of Cubans, including those living abroad. The expectations for normalization of economic relations have not been met.
In the resolution, the Assembly calls on all Member States not to adopt or apply such laws. It recommends that countries where similar rules are in force repeal them or recognize them as invalid as soon as possible.
The document not only condemns the continuation of the blockade but also provides for monitoring compliance with its provisions. The Secretary-General is invited to prepare a report on the extent to which these provisions align with the purposes of the UN Charter and international law norms, and to present it at the next session.
The US stated that there is no blockade
Speaking at the General Assembly, US representative Mike Waltz rejected the very framing of the issue and stated that the cause of the crisis in Cuba is not the embargo, but the actions of the country’s government.
“There is no blockade,” he stated. According to him, if a blockade truly existed, it would be impossible to explain the export of goods from the USA to Cuba. Waltz estimated its volume at more than 876 million dollars for the first eight months of 2026. He also pointed to supplies from Canada, Spain, Mexico, China, Russia, the European Union, and UN system organizations.
According to Waltz, the country’s wealth has not disappeared, but has “simply changed hands” — from the population to the ruling elite. Explaining the US position, the diplomat stated that member states should vote against the resolution. Such a vote, he said, is “the only thing standing between the communist kleptocratic regime and another propaganda victory at the expense of the Cuban people.” He also accused Cuba’s military structures of appropriating the country’s wealth.
Cuba spoke about the damage inflicted on it
Cuba’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla responded to these statements by showing the General Assembly a screen with a calculation of the damage caused by the embargo. According to the data presented, just during the time since the discussion began the previous day, the damage amounted to 22.9 million dollars.
Rodriguez Parrilla stated that the United States has no right to discuss democracy, as the country is ruled by a plutocracy. The minister emphasized that the blockade leads to suffering for the Cuban people and specifically addressed its consequences for the healthcare system. According to him, the infant mortality rate has doubled, and tens of thousands of people have faced delays or cancellations of surgical operations.
He also spoke about cancer medications that cannot reach the island due to the blockade, and about Cuban drugs for treating Alzheimer’s disease and dementia that cannot be exported from the country for the same reason. “Cuba only asks to be left alone (…) Cuba is not a threat; the threat is the blockade,” the Cuban foreign minister concluded.
Please note; This information is raw content obtained directly from the information source. It is an accurate report of what the source asserts and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.