Cuba: at the UN, the US embargo divides Europe, France must defend the law against extraterritoriality

For the thirty-fourth year in a row, the United Nations General Assembly called on Wednesday, 28 October, for the lifting of the US embargo on Cuba. But the result, reported by the AP and by the Spanish agency EFE, marks a break: 130 votes in favour, 17 against and 25 abstentions. Last year, the text had received 165 votes in favour, 7 against and 12 abstentions.

The facts

According to the AP, three Western countries abstained for the first time in thirty-four years: Germany, Italy and Latvia. Lithuania and Slovenia, two other members of the European Union, voted against, as did the United Arab Emirates. Several Latin American countries that traditionally supported Havana, including Colombia, Costa Rica and Chile, voted against or abstained, without the agency specifying how the votes were split.

The vote came at the end of an unusually tense debate. According to UN News, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez interrupted US Ambassador Mike Waltz on Tuesday, and the President of the Assembly had to briefly suspend the session. According to the AP, Bruno Rodríguez then accused Washington, on the social network X, of telling "crude lies" to justify its "economic aggression".

The humanitarian context is grim. As the AP recalls, Donald Trump announced at the end of January tariffs on any country that sells or supplies oil to Cuba, which has largely cut the island off from fuel and caused large-scale power cuts. Last week, the US president raised the possibility of military intervention. According to UN News, the UN Resident Coordinator in Cuba, Francisco Pichon, warned of a possible humanitarian collapse, and more than 100,000 surgical operations had been postponed in May.

The positions at stake

Washington disputes the very premise of the debate. Mike Waltz told the Assembly that there is "no blockade", according to UN News. He blames the crisis on the Cuban government itself, accused of capturing wealth for the benefit of an elite, and points out that the United States exported more than 876 million dollars' worth of goods to the island in the first eight months of 2026.

The reasons of some Europeans must also be heard. During an urgent debate in July, the European Union, while acknowledging the negative humanitarian impact of the embargo, had argued that the dire situation of Cubans was not solely attributable to it, according to the official United Nations record. Above all, it had criticised Havana for a position on Russia's war in Ukraine that is inconsistent with the United Nations Charter. According to the American website Responsible Statecraft, Mike Waltz in fact highlighted the presence of Cubans fighting alongside Russia to persuade European capitals. The same outlet says that around twenty states reportedly changed their position under US pressure.

Havana, for its part, accuses Washington of threatening tariffs, visa denials and aid suspensions. Responsible Statecraft notes, however, that the Cuban minister presented no concrete evidence for these accusations.

The analysis

The criticisms levelled at the Cuban regime deserve to be heard. Its alignment with Moscow, noted by the European Union, and the state of civil liberties on the island must not be passed over in silence. But the resolution voted on every year is not about the nature of the regime. It is about a principle: can one state impose its sanctions on the rest of the world?

This is where Europe is directly concerned. As UN News recalls, the text targets in particular the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, whose extraterritorial effects also hit foreign companies. That same year, the European Union adopted a so-called blocking regulation to protect its companies against these US sanctions. The tariffs imposed since January on Cuba's oil suppliers follow the same logic: punishing third countries for trade that is perfectly legal in their eyes.

A Europe that splits over this vote weakens its own defence. A Union that challenges US extraterritorial sanctions when they target its companies in Iran or elsewhere can hardly accept the principle when it applies to a Caribbean island. The abstentions of Berlin and Rome, and the votes against by Vilnius and Ljubljana, show that the Union failed to speak with one voice. The reports consulted do not indicate any change in the position of France, which traditionally supports the resolution.

Loyalty to multilateralism, inherited from Gaullist diplomacy, requires distinguishing between two things. One can firmly condemn Havana's alignment with Moscow and defend the rights of Cubans. One can at the same time refuse to let an entire population be deprived of electricity, healthcare and fuel by unilateral measures that bypass international law.

Conclusion

This non-binding vote will not lift the embargo, which only the US Congress can abolish. But it says something about the state of the world: US pressure works, including on European allies. France could propose to its partners a common position resting on two pillars: stronger European humanitarian aid for the Cuban population and firm enforcement of the blocking regulation. Otherwise, the Union risks discovering that the sanctions it tolerates today against others may tomorrow target its own companies.

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.