On October 28, 2026, the United Nations General Assembly voted once again to call for an end to the United States embargo on Cuba — but the result looked very different from recent years. The resolution passed with 130 votes in favour, 17 against and 25 abstentions, its weakest backing in three decades and the lowest level of support since 1995, according to reports of the vote.
The resolution has been adopted almost every year since 1992, and it still passed by a large margin. What changed in 2026 was not the outcome but the size of the majority behind it — and which countries stepped away from it. That shift is what makes this vote worth explaining, because it says as much about the politics around Cuba today as it does about the embargo itself.
Key Takeaways
- The UN General Assembly adopted the Cuba embargo resolution on October 28, 2026, with 130 votes in favour, 17 against and 25 abstentions.
- Support fell sharply from 165 votes in favour a year earlier, the lowest backing since 1995.
- Germany, Italy and Latvia abstained, reported as the first abstentions by Western states in 34 years, while the resolution remains non-binding and only the US Congress can lift the embargo.
The Numbers Tell the Story
The year-on-year comparison is stark. In 2025, the same resolution drew 165 votes in favour, 7 against and 12 abstentions. In 2026, support dropped by 35 votes, opposition more than doubled to 17, and abstentions more than doubled to 25.
The longer history puts the fall in context. When the Assembly first voted on the resolution in 1992, 59 countries backed it, 3 opposed it and 71 abstained. Support then climbed for years, peaking at 191 votes in favour in 2015 and 2017, during a period of improved relations between Washington and Havana. The 2026 figure of 130 is therefore not just a dip from last year — it is a retreat from the broad consensus the resolution enjoyed for much of the past decade.
- 1992: 59 in favour, 3 against, 71 abstentions in the first vote.
- 2015 and 2017: support peaked at 191 votes in favour.
- 2025: 165 in favour, 7 against, 12 abstentions.
- 2026: 130 in favour, 17 against, 25 abstentions — the lowest since 1995.
Who Changed Sides
The most striking change was among Western European states. Germany, Italy and Latvia abstained in 2026, reported as the first abstentions by Western states in the 34-year history of the annual vote. All three had previously voted in favour of the resolution, so their move to abstain accounted for part of the headline drop in support.
The list of countries voting against also grew and changed. Alongside the United States and Israel, the states voting against included Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Lithuania, Morocco, North Macedonia, Paraguay and Slovenia — most of them voting against for the first time, according to reports of the vote. India, by contrast, voted in favour, arguing that the restrictions should be lifted so Cuba can pursue its development aspirations.
Why Washington’s Pressure Campaign Matters
The vote took place against a major new pressure campaign by Washington against Cuba, including an oil blockade and broad sanctions that reports say have severely strained Cuba’s economy. This year’s Cuban resolution included a reference to the impact of restrictions on fuel supplies to the island imposed by the United States since January — a direct link between the Assembly debate and the energy pressures Cuba is facing.
Cuban officials used the debate to put a figure on the cost. According to figures released by Cuba, the embargo caused economic damage of about $8.083 billion between March 2025 and February 2026, a 7 percent increase on the previous period. Those are Cuba’s own figures, and they were presented in Havana’s case for ending the embargo rather than as an independently verified total.
The United States rejected Cuba’s framing. US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz denied that Cuba was under a blockade and said the plight of the Cuban people was exclusively the fault of what he called a corrupt communist regime. Reports also said the United States expelled a Cuban diplomat belonging to Cuba’s UN delegation around the time of the debate, a further sign of how tense the atmosphere had become.
What the Resolution Does — and Does Not — Do
Despite the annual vote and the attention it draws, the resolution is not legally binding. It reflects world opinion, but it does not change US law, and only the US Congress can lift the embargo. That is why the falling vote total matters politically rather than legally: it weakens the symbolic weight of a resolution that Havana has long presented as near-unanimous backing.
The text itself rests on familiar ground. It cites the UN Charter principles of sovereign equality, non-interference in internal affairs and freedom of trade and navigation, and it expresses concern about laws such as the US Helms-Burton Act of 1996, whose extraterritorial effects, the resolution says, undermine the sovereignty of other states and the freedom of trade and navigation. The resolution also asks the UN Secretary-General to prepare a report on its implementation for the Assembly’s next annual session.
Despite the annual vote and the attention it draws, the resolution is not legally binding.
For ordinary Cubans, the debate is about more than diplomacy. Daily life on the island already runs through workarounds shaped by decades of restrictions, and the fuel pressures cited in this year’s resolution affect transport, power and prices. The Assembly vote does not alter any of that directly, but the shrinking majority behind the resolution shows that the international consensus around how to handle Cuba is shifting.
What to Watch Next
The next markers are already set by the resolution itself and by the vote just cast. The Secretary-General’s report on implementation will come before the Assembly at its next annual session, giving member states another chance to register their positions. The countries that moved from support to abstention or opposition in 2026 will be watched to see whether they stay in their new positions or return to backing the resolution. And the fuel supply pressures referenced in this year’s text, together with the state of US-Cuba relations, will shape the debate when the resolution returns — as it has, almost every year since 1992.