Photo via scmp.com
UN Condemns Cuba Embargo, But Support Hits 31-Year Low
Vote fell to 130-17 after Trump administration lobbied nations to oppose or abstain, marking the weakest backing since 1995.
What happened
The UN General Assembly on Wednesday voted 130-17 to condemn the US economic embargo on Cuba, with 25 nations abstaining. The tally represents a sharp reversal from last year's 165-7 vote with 12 abstentions—a loss of 35 votes in a single year and the lowest support in three decades. The Trump administration, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and UN Ambassador Mike Waltz, conducted an intense diplomatic campaign to persuade countries to oppose or abstain from the resolution for the first time.
Several Western allies including Germany, Italy, and Latvia abstained for the first time in 34 years. In Latin America, Colombia switched from supporting to voting against the resolution, while Costa Rica and Ecuador moved from abstention to opposition. Argentina maintained its vote against the measure.
Cuban officials accused Washington of threatening countries with tariffs, visa denials, and sanctions if they did not change their positions. The dispute spilled into public view Tuesday when Waltz and Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez engaged in a heated confrontation on the floor of the General Assembly. The annual vote is symbolic and non-binding—only the US Congress can lift the embargo—but it has served as a diplomatic barometer of world opinion for 34 years.
Chanakya's Move
The Trump administration's play is to undermine Cuba's primary diplomatic asset: the annual UN vote as a symbol of US isolation. By converting supporters into abstainers and abstainers into opponents—through explicit pressure (tariffs, visas) and implicit alignment-building—Waltz and Rubio are reframing the vote from a referendum on the embargo to a referendum on Cuba's regime legitimacy. The confrontation with Rodriguez was theater: it signals to wavering nations that the US is willing to break diplomatic niceties, implying that alignment with Washington carries tangible security and economic benefits. The mechanism is coercive rather than persuasive diplomacy. Cuba's counter is to claim moral victory (130 still voted yes) and frame defections as US bullying, hoping to preserve enough regional support to prevent further erosion. The question is whether a third-world coalition, weakened by defections, can sustain the narrative of US isolation or whether the vote becomes what Washington now claims: evidence that the isolation campaign is working.