On 29 October 2025, the United Nations General Assembly adopted, by an overwhelming majority, another resolution calling for an end to the six decades of the United States embargo against Cuba. These results clearly represent a victory for the Cuban Delegation, highlighting the international community’s condemnation of the unilateral coercive measures adopted by the United States against Cuba since 1962. While the resolution remains non-binding, its recurring adoption nonetheless reflects sustained international political pressure. At the same time, this year’s voting pattern raises significant concerns.
This time, the resolution “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba” (A/80/L.6), received 165 votes in favour, 7 against, and 12 abstentions. Compared with last year’s results, in 2024, the 193-member General Assembly had adopted the same annual resolution (A/79/L.6) by 187 votes in favour to 2 against, with 1 abstention. We can observe a decline in affirmative votes and the increase in opposing and abstaining delegations, which marked a shift from previous years’ near-universal backing of the resolution.
A resolution with three decades of history
Since 1992, the General Assembly has been addressing Cuba’s draft resolution entitled “Necessity of Ending the Economic, Commercial and Financial Embargo Imposed by the United States of America Against Cuba”. The resolution was first presented on 24 November 1992 during the 47th session of the UNGA. At the time, the Cuban delegation emphasized that the embargo was not a bilateral or internal United States matter, but a policy that violated international law and extended United States jurisdiction extraterritorially, affecting other States, companies, and individuals worldwide.
The resolution was adopted for the first time in 1992 (A/RES/47/19) with 59 votes in favour, 3 against (United States, Israel, and Romania), and 71 abstentions. Initially, abstentions were high, because some States had not yet anticipated the negative implications of United States laws on their own economic and commercial interests. Over time, abstentions shifted into votes in favour as States recognized the global impact of unilateral coercion. The European Communities (EC), which initially split its vote, began acting as a regional bloc in favour of the resolution from 1996 onward, especially after the EC filed a complaint before the World Trade Organization (WTO), requesting consultations with the United States concerning the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act. In this case, the EC argued that the trade restrictions imposed by the United States on products of Cuban origin were incompatible with the United States’ obligations under the WTO Agreements.
Since 1992, this resolution is introduced annually in the General Assembly, without referral to a committee. Since then, the Cuban delegation has undertaken remarkable diplomatic work – both in negotiations and within the General Assembly Hall –, to secure the broadest possible participation of delegations in the vote. These efforts have resulted in a resolution whose support reflects an almost universal consensus among States, condemning in the strongest terms the unilateral coercive measures imposed by the United States against Cuba, while also calling for the lifting of the embargo that has been in place for more than six decades. On this point, Cuba’s foreign minister, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, recently denounced the United States’ “criminal policy” that has left his country “viciously deprived” of access to financing and technology essential for food and health care. This policy has been broadly condemned for three decades, with the resolution adopted 33 times since its introduction in 1992.
By the mid-2010s, the resolution enjoyed unprecedented backing: a significant peak in favourable votes during 2015 (A/RES/70/5), 2016 (A/RES/71/5), and 2017 (A/RES/72/4), the period in which the resolution received the highest number of votes in favour since its adoption (191 votes).
Furthermore, a closer examination of the voting patterns reveals that 2016 marks a pivotal year for understanding the legal and political significance of this resolution, as it was the first and only occasion on which no votes were cast against it. Indeed, since the resolution’s introduction, this was the first time in history that the United States and Israel chose not to vote against the text, opting to abstain. However, this policy of engagement between the United States and Cuba proved short-lived. Beginning in 2017, President Donald Trump adopted new, stricter coercive measures against Cuba, marking a return to a policy of isolation with severe repercussions for the country’s economy and population.
Regarding abstentions, the voting patterns show that these have declined sharply over the years under review (1992-2025). Notably, abstentions disappeared entirely for three years (2015, 2017, and 2018), and in 2022 only two States abstained (Brazil and Ukraine). A shift in Brazil’s voting position is evident from 2023, following the election of Lula da Silva as President, who has expressed strong opposition to the United States embargo against Cuba. Consequently, in the most recent resolutions, only one State abstained: Ukraine in 2023 and Moldova in 2024, respectively. Ukraine’s abstention in 2023 and absence from the vote in 2024 suggest a cautious approach to maintaining important diplomatic ties with the United States.
Surprisingly, 2025 reflects a striking reversal in this long-standing tradition. Firstly, this year seven States voted against the resolution: Argentina, Hungary, Israel, North Macedonia, Paraguay, Ukraine, the United States, which constitutes a significant shift from the usual pattern, where only two States, the United States and Israel, traditionally opposed it. Additionally, the abstentions have risen to 12 for the first time since 1998. The 12 abstentions came from Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Czechia, Ecuador, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Morocco, Poland, Moldova, and Romania.
Some factors can explain this unexpected scenario in 2025. Firstly, the new political configuration in Latin America, with countries like Argentina and Paraguay deciding to align their votes with the United States and Israel, and others, including Costa Rica and Ecuador, opted to abstain. At the same time, intense lobbying and diplomatic pressure from the United States continue to influence certain States, particularly some NATO member States. In addition, this development also represents a rupture in the European Union’s unified voting pattern, as seven of its member States adopted a different position from the regional bloc (six States abstained and one voted against it), a level of disunity not seen since 1999 (A/RES/54/21). Furthermore, Afghanistan and Venezuela were unable to exercise their right to vote in 2025 due to delays in the payment of their financial contributions to the organisation. Otherwise, they would have voted in favour.
The evolution of votes cast by States on this resolution between 1992 and 2025 indicates the existence of an almost universal consensus (with only seven States in opposition) to condemn the unilateral coercive measures imposed against Cuba. This strongly suggests that many States consider such measures to be contrary to international law and the Charter of the United Nations. What had long appeared to be an ‘irreversible’ trend, however, now seems more vulnerable, as the 2025 vote shows how the pressure exerted by a single State can challenge the outcome of years of sustained diplomatic efforts.
At present, numerous experts and scholars consider the United States embargo against Cuba to be one of the clearest cases demonstrating not only the unjustified persistence of unilateral coercive measures over time, but also their devastating consequences for a country’s population and economy, while negatively affecting its trade relations with other States, entities, and companies. These measures, first introduced in 1960 during the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower with the aim of exerting pressure on the Cuban government, have been continued, and in certain cases intensified, by subsequent United States administrations. They are now condemned almost universally on the grounds of their inconsistency with international law. This resolution is well known for gathering the broadest international support to condemn the use of unilateral coercion in inter-State relations, leading some scholars to argue that an opinio juris against unilateral coercive measures has begun to emerge.
A mirror of today’s global tensions
From 1992 to 2025, voting trends on this resolution have demonstrated a near-universal rejection of unilateral coercive measures imposed by the United States against Cuba. Yet the 2025 outcome underscores a new fragility in multilateral diplomacy, where unilateral pressure and shifting alliances are reshaping international consensus.
The developments of 2025 highlight the increasing complexities of the international legal order, as some States continue to use economic and political pressure to undermine multilateralism.
Despite these challenges, Cuba’s diplomatic effort is unlikely to relent. The country has built strong multilateral backing over the years and continues to find broad support across the Global South, also referred to as the Global Majority.
The 2025 vote serves as a reminder that the struggle against unilateralism – and the defence of multilateral order – remains an ongoing challenge in today’s international system.
Amid shifting alliances, General Assembly demands end to US embargo on Cuba
Credits: UN News
Aucun commentaire :
Enregistrer un commentaire