On October 28, United Nations Member States voted for the 34th time in an annual, non-binding resolution titled Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba. Though largely symbolic, as only the U.S. congress can lift the embargo, the vote reflects broad international opposition to U.S. unilateral economic coercion — a form of power afforded by the United States’ centrality in the global economic system. The resolution has passed nearly every year since 1992, when President George H.W. Bush signed the Torricelli Act (Cuban Democracy Act), tightening the embargo on Cuba following the collapse of the Soviet Union by restricting overseas U.S. subsidiaries’ trade with Cuba, access to U.S. ports for vessels trading with the island, and medical exports.

While the resolution passed by 187 votes, with two against (U.S. and Israel) and one abstention (Moldova) in 2024, support fell to 165 votes in favor in 2025, with seven against and 12 abstentions (Argentina, Ukraine, and Hungary opposed for the first time). In 2026, support declined further to 130 in favor, 17 against, and 25 abstentions. Although the resolution secured majority support, the growing number of opposing and abstaining states points to shifting strategic alignments with Washington and reluctance to challenge U.S. influence. This trend was particularly visible in Latin America, where Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Paraguay voted against the resolution, while Chile, Peru, and Honduras abstained.

Beyond the Vote: U.S. Pressure and the Independence of the UN

This was the second consecutive year the Trump administration actively campaigned to influence the resolution. In 2025, it instructed diplomats to justify their opposition by accusing Cuba of supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine and arguing that the resolution “incorrectly” attributed the island’s domestic hardships to U.S. policy, despite estimates placing the blockade’s economic cost at $8.08 billion over the past year, a 7% increase. This year, U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN Mike Waltz urged Member States to oppose the resolution, accusing the Cuban government of corruption and repression. Washington has consistently sought to frame the vote as a judgment on Cuba’s government rather than an assessment of the embargo’s humanitarian and human rights consequences for civilians. This framing risks conflating opposition to political repression with support for economic coercion. While concerns regarding political freedoms and governance in Cuba remain legitimate, they do not justify the continuation of broad restrictions that disproportionately affect ordinary Cubans. These tensions are further compounded by the large Cuban diaspora in the United States and the recent termination of humanitarian parole for Cuban immigrants, which has led to deportations back to the island and added another dimension to an already strained bilateral relationship.

Tensions escalated during the October 27 General Assembly debate on draft resolution A/81/L.5. After Waltz insisted “there is no blockade,” Cuban Foreign Minister Rodríguez Parrilla raised a point of order under Rule 71 of the Assembly’s rules of procedure. As Cuban delegates approached the podium seeking recognition, Waltz shouted at them to “back up,” adding, “This is America.” The exchange exposed the tension between U.S. territorial authority as host country and the UN’s independence as a multilateral diplomatic forum.

Following the vote and confrontation, the Trump administration moved to expel a Cuban diplomat from the country, further demonstrating Washington’s leverage as host country. The U.S. has repeatedly used its control over diplomatic access to restrict the movements of diplomats it opposes, renewing civil society calls to relocate more UN functions outside New York to protect multilateral independence. Cuban diplomats, for example, remain restricted from traveling beyond Manhattan without State Department permission. 

The Embargo Under International Law: A Challenge to the UN Charter

Member States voting in favor of the resolution to end the embargo cite its opposition to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, arguing that the embargo breaches sovereign equality, non-intervention norms, and fundamental human rights to health, life, and development. UN human rights experts have stated that fuel, food, and trade restrictions exacerbate severe energy blackouts, water shortages, and public health risks, functioning as a form of collective punishment against the civilian population. The restrictions hinder access to basic medical supplies and food, conflicting with fundamental human rights obligations recognized under international law.

The resolution argues that U.S. unilateral sanctions undermine key UN Charter principles, including sovereign equality, non-interference states’ in internal affairs, and freedom of trade and navigation. It also cites the 1996 U.S. Helms-Burton Act, which codified the embargo into federal law and extended its reach beyond US-Cuba relations by targeting foreign companies and countries doing business involving Cuba. The Act has faced legal criticism for its extraterritorial reach, raising concerns over national sovereignty and U.S. interference in other states’ affairs given its explicit objective of promoting regime change.

Escalation of U.S. Pressure on Cuba in 2026

The resolution comes amid a sharp escalation in US-Cuba tensions. Following the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces on January 3, 2026, Cuba lost access to its primary oil supplier of 25 years. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela had maintained a workers-for-oil arrangement, primarily exchanging medical (Cuban doctors have provided essential care in impoverished and rural regions), educational, and military professionals for Venezuelan oil. Cuba’s already fragile energy infrastructure, which relies on imported fossil fuels to meet approximately 60% of its needs, came under further strain when President Trump issued an executive order on January 29, 2026, effectively imposing an oil blockade by threatening tariffs on countries directly or indirectly supplying oil to Cuba. Mexico, which supplied approximately 20,000 barrels daily through state-owned Pemex in 2025, subsequently halted shipments under U.S. pressure. 

The consequences for the Cuban population have been severe. Apagones (blackouts) have lasted days, paralyzing economic activity, mounting trash, spoiling food, and disrupting agricultural shipments. Expanded sanctions have also affected Cuban officials and state enterprises, which employ approximately 2.4 million of Cuba’s 4 million workers. Tourism revenue, once generating $3 billion annually, has fallen roughly 70% since 2018, with further declines during the current crisis. Cuba’s renowned healthcare system has deteriorated: shortages of raw materials have left 300 of the 395 medications Cuba previously produced domestically unavailable, while more than 100,000 people await surgery. Despite U.S. claims that the arrival of one Russian oil tanker in March 2026 disproves the existence of a blockade, its oil supply lasted only one month.

Restrictions have also extended beyond energy and trade. In October 2026, the U.S. tightened the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, effectively eliminating many group educational, professional, and academic trips to the island. Restrictions on U.S. banking access have also blocked “U-turn” transactions involving Cuban entities and nations, further obstructing remittances (a vital source of income for many Cubans), which brought an estimated $1.1 to $2 billion into Cuba in 2024, much of it through informal channels. Meanwhile, Washington continues to signal the possibility of military intervention aimed at regime change, raising concerns about sovereignty and democratic self-determination. 

These measures raise serious questions under international law. As experts have noted, “There is no right under international law to impose economic penalties on third States for engaging in lawful trade with another sovereign country.” UN human rights and legal experts have similarly warned that systematically restricting fuel, energy, and trade to force regime change violates the principle of non-intervention in sovereign states’ internal affairs. The cumulative effects of the longstanding embargo and the expanded oil blockade have deepened Cuba’s humanitarian and economic crisis, with UN experts warning against allowing a “silent Gaza” to emerge on the island.

The Threat of Unilateral Sanctions

Ultimately, the blockade and 66-year-old embargo against Cuba set a dangerous precedent for the use of unilateral sanctions as an instrument of foreign policy, enabling powerful states to exert economic coercion over entire populations in pursuit of political objectives. Unlike sanctions mandated by the UN Security Council, unilateral coercive measures are imposed outside the collective UN framework and are illegal under international law. Their extraterritorial application further extends this coercion beyond the sanctioning state’s borders, pressuring third countries to abandon otherwise lawful trade and economic relations. This often results in overcompliance, whereby businesses and financial institutions restrict transactions beyond what sanctions legally require in an effort to avoid potential penalties. In Cuba’s case, these consequences extend beyond the government, obstructing access to essential fuel, medicine, and other humanitarian resources. The resulting consequences amount to collective punishment of a civilian population for the actions and policies of their government. 

The Cuban case also exposes a fundamental inequality within the international system: states with sufficient economic and political leverage, particularly the United States, can impose far-reaching restrictions on others while facing limited accountability. If left unchallenged, the blockade continues to risk normalizing economic coercion and extraterritorial sanctions as legitimate tools of power, further undermining the UN Charter, multilateral institutions, and the principle that all states, regardless of their power, are equally bound by international law. The repeated UN General Assembly resolutions calling for an end to the U.S. embargo on Cuba demonstrate sustained international opposition to this policy. In response, Member States should refrain from adopting or enforcing unilateral coercive measures and avoid cooperating with sanctions that undermine Cuba’s sovereignty, ability to engage in lawful international trade, and deprive people of resources essential to survival.