In brief
The U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution ending the U.S. embargo with 130 votes in favor, 17 opposed, and 25 abstentions, a drop of 35 supportive votes from the prior year. Cuban authorities condemned the outcome as an extension of Washington’s sanctions, while U.S. officials blamed Cuba’s internal policies. International voices—from African Pan‑Africanist scholars to Italian academics—urged solidarity with Cuba and warned of escalating pressure from the U.S., highlighting humanitarian impacts and the risk of blackmail.
The United Nations General Assembly, on October 28, approved a resolution calling for an end to the United States embargo on Cuba, but the resolution received 130 votes in favor and 17 against, a 35‑vote decline in support compared with the 165 votes received in 2025.
According to United Press International, the definitive vote tallied 25 abstentions and 21 non‑participants, a sharp rise in countries either rejecting or abstaining from the measure. The U.P.I. report noted that Latin American states such as Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Paraguay switched to opposition, while Chile, Peru and Honduras moved from support to abstention. European countries Germany, Italy and Latvia also abstained in a shift from prior endorsement.
The Cuban foreign ministry, citing the U.P.I. coverage, described the resolution as a “continuation of U.S. sanctions” and criticized Washington’s diplomatic campaign to persuade other governments to oppose or abstain. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla expressed his dismay:
"The consequences fall on people, limit their fundamental human rights, affect third countries and turn the population's essential needs into instruments of political coercion,"adding that U.S. fuel restrictions were tantamount to a naval blockade.
United States officials, according to the United Press International piece, blamed Cuba’s internal policy and criticized Cuban delegates’ conduct, framing the vote as an opportunity to condemn what they described as a hostile regime. No direct U.S. quotation appears in the source document, but the U.P.I. report summarizes that Washington “blamed Cuba’s internal policy” and highlighted the conduct of Cuban delegates.
In Africa, Prensa Latina reported on October 25 that African leaders should unite behind Cuba ahead of the upcoming U.N. vote. Scholar Fortune Madondo warned that U.S. pressure tactics amounted to blackmail, arguing that African states might become next targets. Madondo urged African states to adopt a “single voice” with no whispers or abstentions and described U.S. actions as reminiscent of the apartheid regime. The article emphasized that “today Cuba needs our vote” and cautioned that allowing intimidation might jeopardize African sovereignty.
In Italy, Prensa Latina highlighted two voices advocating for solidarity. Academic Luciano Vasapollo called for international solidarity with Cuba, stressing the humanitarian impact of the blockade and citing Cuban social programs that aid vulnerable families. Vasapollo, writing for *Faro di Roma*, urged European governments to refuse U.S. coercion and reiterated that sanctions hinder international exchange, which fuels costs for families in Cuba.
The same outlet also reported that the National Italy‑Cuba Friendship Association (ANAIC) had urged Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani to vote in favor of the Cuban resolution. In a letter dated October 22, the association emphasized Italy’s historical opposition to U.S. sanctions and urged that Tajani remain “consistent” without yielding to external pressures, specifically naming U.S. Senator Marco Rubio as an influence on U.S. policy.
While U.P.I. frames the vote as a loss of support for Cuba, African and Italian commentators present it as an imperative for solidarity and warn of escalating U.S. threats. All outlets agree that the resolution marked a decline in favorable votes and that the future of Cuba’s embargo remains contested, but they differ on framing the implications and on whom they blame—in Cuba, the United States, or broader international actors.
