Nervousness in Havana ahead of the vote on its annual resolution condemning the US embargo
14ymedio, Madrid, October 27, 2026 / For the thirty-fourth time, between Tuesday the 27th and tomorrow the 28th, the United Nations will vote on the resolution presented by Cuba against the United States embargo. As every year, the island’s official media will also carry out a full propaganda campaign on their front pages to support the resolution, which again bears the title: “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.” Something has changed this time, however: much greater pressure from the Donald Trump administration to secure a vote against the Cuban initiative or an abstention.
Havana, as usual, says that the embargo – signed in 1962 by then-President John F. Kennedy after the massive expropriations of the nascent Castro regime – which it systematically calls a “blockade,” “constitutes a massive, flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights of all Cubans” and “seeks the isolation, suffocation, and immobility of Cuba.”
According to the regime’s figures, included in the report it is presenting to the UN, the damages caused by the embargo amounted to $8.0833 billion between March 2025 and February 2026, “7% more than in the previous period,” and that “at current prices, the accumulated losses over more than six decades reach $178.7005 billion.” Havana maintains that, had it not been for this unilateral US measure, “Cuban gross domestic product would have been 10.8% higher in 2025.”
The regime, however, does not say what the value is of the many companies it confiscated from 1959 onwards without compensating their legitimate owners.
The regime, however, does not say what the value is of the numerous companies it confiscated starting in 1959 without compensating their rightful owners. In response, not only the U.S. administration, but also numerous experts, attribute the island’s economic failure to the socialist system. A document presented in Miami two weeks ago by Cuban exile organizations, for example, asserts: “For decades, the Cuban communist regime has used this annual vote to present itself internationally as the victim of foreign aggression and to deflect attention from its own responsibility for the profound political, economic, social, and humanitarian crisis afflicting our country.”
The text, titled “Call from the Cuban Pro-Democracy Opposition to the Governments of the Free and Democratic World,” is an initiative to urge a vote against the Castro regime’s proposal at the UN. It attempts to disprove the existence of a US embargo and accuses the Cuban regime of having mismanaged flows of money and raw materials received for decades from the Soviet Union and Venezuela. Furthermore, it uses data on bilateral trade between Havana and Washington—authorized through exemptions or to the private sector, as the case may be—to deny the existence of limitations, specifically citing fuel shipments, which have been permitted—only from the United States—since January and reached a value of $231.74 million in eight months.
Another of the arguments used by the exile community is the humanitarian aid that the State Department has coordinated this year with the Catholic Church for distribution on the island. This donation began with a $9 million pledge following Hurricane Melissa in October 2015 and has been followed by another $100 million in response to the current crisis. Both have been accepted by the regime, though they accuse Washington of “hypocrisy,” blaming it for “applying draconian coercive measures” while announcing “soup and canned food for a select few.”
Ahead of the vote at the UN General Assembly, the opposition explicitly mentioned the governments of the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and Latin American democracies, and asked: “Do not give the Cuban regime political support that it can later use for its propaganda and to hide the lack of freedoms within Cuba.”
“Do not give the Cuban regime political support that it can later use for its propaganda and to hide the lack of freedoms.”
The quote was similar to the message conveyed by Marco Rubio to Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele in a phone call in which, among other things, he asked for his country’s vote against the Cuban resolution, something he is also believed to have asked of Colombian President Abelardo de la Espriella.
The reports prompted a reaction from the Cuban regime, which issued a statement through the Twitter account of its Foreign Minister, Bruno Rodríguez: “The US Secretary of State, nervous and anxious about yet another defeat at the United Nations, is pressuring and blackmailing heads of state and government of several countries to change their vote against the blockade at the UN General Assembly.”
Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío went even further, lamenting that, “in the year of the greatest intensification of the economic war,” the US is seeking “to blame the aggrieved party, discredit the victim, and thus attempt to change a position that the international community has historically and unequivocally maintained in rejection of the economic blockade.” He added that Rubio “is flitting from country to country, calling heads of state in a desperate effort to intimidate, blackmail, and offer carrots to governments across the globe.”
In late September, a document obtained by the Associated Press and confirmed to the agency by several officials revealed that the U.S. State Department had plans to impose “stricter controls” on Cuban officials traveling to the United Nations for the vote on the resolution, although this has no practical implications, since Havana’s permanent delegation in New York is one of the largest, with 47 officials, according to the NGO Archivo Cuba.
The Cuban regime has historically secured the support of the General Assembly for this resolution, with its best year being 2016, precisely during the period of the thaw initiated by then-President Barack Obama, when it received no votes against and passed with only two abstentions, those of the United States and Israel—which had always voted against it. Since then, although support remains overwhelming, the decline in votes is noticeable. In 2025, the proposal passed with 165 votes in favor, seven against, and twelve abstentions, the worst result to date.
This Monday, during a press teleconference, Rubio stated that “Cuba is a very different case from Venezuela” and that “it needs a drastic change”
This year’s debate will be shaped by the energy crisis exacerbated by the oil blockade imposed by Washington since its intervention in Venezuela in January, which has worsened blackouts and the lack of public services such as drinking water. The tensions between Havana and Washington are also significant; despite contacts acknowledged by both governments, no tangible agreements have been reached.
This Monday, during a press conference held via teleconference, Rubio stated that “Cuba is a very different case from Venezuela” and that “it needs a drastic change.” He emphasized, without elaborating: “The situation is very different, and I’ll leave it at that.”
Last Friday, Rubio invited “those seeking to generate positive change in Cuba” to begin “a discreet collaboration with the CIA,” and the following day, the intelligence agency itself published a seven-step guide for Cubans who want to contact the agency safely and anonymously.
The text accompanying the Instagram post was explicit: “The CIA wants to know the truth about Cuba, and we are looking for trusted individuals who know and can share this truth with us. Your information may be more valuable than you think.”
______________________
COLLABORATE WITH OUR WORK: The 14ymedio team is committed to practicing serious journalism that reflects Cuba’s reality in all its depth. Thank you for joining us on this long journey. We invite you to continue supporting us by becoming a member of 14ymedio now. Together we can continue transforming journalism in Cuba.