The United Nations General Assembly has witnessed a significant shift in international consensus regarding the long-standing United States embargo on Cuba. In a recent session, the assembly passed a resolution calling for an end to the embargo, but the margin of support revealed a notable decline, reaching a 20-year low.

The text passed by 130 votes in favour to 17 against, with 25 abstentions. This outcome represents a sharp contrast to last year, when it was adopted by 165 votes to seven, with 12 abstentions. The shifting numbers come at a critical juncture for Cuba, which is currently struggling with a severe energy crisis. This crisis has been further exacerbated by a US fuel embargo, which followed the rendition of Venezuela's president to New York, making life harder for people across the island.

Three Decades of Votes

The annual voting pattern on this resolution serves as a historical barometer for the changing relationship between Washington and Havana. When the assembly first voted on the matter in 1992, only 59 countries backed the resolution, three opposed it and 71 abstained.

The Peak and Decline of Diplomatic Support

Over the subsequent decades, international opposition to the embargo grew steadily. Support peaked during a period of diplomatic thaw under President Barack Obama.

  • In 2015 and 2017, support reached its highest level with 191 votes.
  • In 2016, the United States took the step to abstain for the first time.

However, this diplomatic easing was reversed. The resolution, presented by Cuba, cites the UN Charter principles of sovereign equality, non-interference in internal affairs and freedom of trade and navigation. It specifically names the US 1996 Helms-Burton Act, whose extraterritorial reach affects companies and individuals in other countries, and urges States with similar laws to repeal them. It also says the tougher measures applied since 2017 have reversed the easing of 2015 and 2016.

The Economic and Trade Debate

The debate in the General Assembly highlighted deep divisions between the two nations regarding the true cause of Cuba's economic struggles.

US Arguments Against the Blockade Premise

US Ambassador Mike Waltz strongly rejected the premise of the debate, asserting that Cuba's troubles come from its own Government. He argued that there is no blockade, pointing to active trade channels.

  • The US exported more than $876 million to the island in the first eight months of 2026.
  • Cuba continues to receive shipments from Canada, Spain, Mexico, China, Russia, the European Union and UN agencies.

According to Mr. Waltz, the country's wealth had not vanished but had changed hands from ordinary Cubans to a ruling elite. He accused the military-run business monopoly of hoarding resources. He told delegates that a vote against the resolution was the only thing standing between the communist kleptocratic regime and another propagandistic victory at the expense of the Cuban people.

Cuba's Counter-Claims and Humanitarian Impact

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla responded directly to these assertions. During his address, he utilized an on-screen counter to display what the embargo had cost since the debate opened on Tuesday: more than $22.9 million.

The Foreign Minister blamed the embargo for strangling Cuba's health system. He reported several critical impacts:

  • Infant mortality on the island has doubled.
  • Tens of thousands of surgeries have been delayed or cancelled.
  • Cancer medicines cannot get in.
  • Cuban-made treatments for Alzheimer's and dementia cannot get out.

In response to US criticisms, Mr. Rodríguez said the United States was in the hands of a plutocracy and had no standing to talk about democracy. He concluded with a direct appeal: “What Cuba demands is to be left in peace. Cuba is not a threat, the blockade is.”