The United Nations General Assembly has once again passed a resolution calling for an end to the United States' economic embargo on Cuba, but the level of support has fallen to its lowest point in over thirty years. The vote, held on Wednesday, saw 130 countries in favour, 17 against, and 25 abstentions—the weakest backing since 1995. Last year, more than 160 nations had supported the measure.
The resolution, which has been approved almost annually since 1992, is non-binding but is widely seen as a barometer of global opinion on the long-running dispute. This year's outcome reflects a notable shift, with several European Union member states altering their stance. Germany, Italy, and Latvia abstained for the first time in 34 years, while Slovenia and Bosnia voted against the resolution—many of these countries having previously supported it.
European divisions and diplomatic pressure
The changing votes from European nations highlight a broader realignment in international attitudes towards Cuba. While the EU has traditionally been critical of the embargo, individual member states are increasingly influenced by Washington's intensified pressure campaign. The United States has recently imposed new restrictions on oil supplies and broadened sanctions, severely impacting Cuba's economy and leading to widespread shortages of fuel, food, and medicine.
Just before the vote, US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz denied that Cuba was under a blockade, insisting that "the plight of the Cuban people is exclusively the fault of this corrupt communist regime." His remarks drew sharp rebukes from Cuban officials, who accused Washington of mounting a diplomatic offensive to coerce countries into changing their votes.
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla accused the US of seeking to "determine the nation's destiny" and "seize" its wealth. During the session, Rodríguez confronted Waltz directly, calling him a liar, while Waltz shouted for him to step back. The exchange underscored the heightened tensions between the two countries.
In a separate incident, Waltz displayed photographs of Cuban leaders, including President Miguel Díaz-Canel, wearing luxury watches, accusing them of enjoying lavish lifestyles while ordinary Cubans suffer. The Cuban delegation responded by banging on their desks in protest.
President Díaz-Canel took to social media to condemn the US actions, writing on X: "The world has once again spoken out overwhelmingly against the blockade, even despite the most blatant pressure and blackmail from the US to change the course of this vote." He described Washington's tactics as "gangster-like coercion."
The embargo, first imposed in 1960 following Fidel Castro's revolution and the nationalisation of US-owned property, remains a cornerstone of US policy towards Cuba. Despite decades of international opposition, the embargo has persisted, and recent US actions have further tightened its grip. In January, President Trump threatened tariffs on countries supplying oil to Cuba, a move that has drastically reduced fuel deliveries and contributed to widespread power cuts and disruptions to water, internet, and telephone services.
The declining support for the UN resolution may also reflect a broader geopolitical shift, as some nations align more closely with US foreign policy priorities. However, the resolution's passage still demonstrates significant global opposition to the embargo, even as the margin narrows.
For Europe, the vote poses a delicate balancing act. While the EU has consistently called for the embargo's end, individual member states are increasingly wary of antagonising Washington, especially amid ongoing transatlantic tensions over trade and security. The abstentions from Germany, Italy, and Latvia signal a cautious approach, as these countries weigh their economic and strategic ties with the US against their stated principles on international law and human rights.
The outcome of this year's vote is likely to be watched closely in Havana, where the government faces mounting domestic challenges. The Cuban economy is in crisis, with severe shortages of basic goods and services. The government has blamed the US embargo for its woes, while critics point to decades of mismanagement and repression.
As the UN resolution carries no legal weight, its practical impact is limited. Yet it remains a powerful symbol of international sentiment. The declining support, however, suggests that the global consensus against the embargo is fraying, a development that could have significant implications for Cuba's future and for the broader international order.
