NEW YORK—By a 187-nation majority, the United Nations General Assembly on Oct. 30 voted to approve a resolution calling for the “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial, and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.” The United States and Israel voted no, and Moldova abstained; every other country voted yes.
The same motion has been approved overwhelmingly every year since 1991. No vote took place in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. For over 20 years, only Israel and the United States have voted down the Resolution; annually one or more states have abstained.
In remarks to the Assembly’s delegates, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez explained that the U.S. economic blockade restricts Cuba’s importation of goods and access to international financial resources, also that shortages hurt every aspect of Cubans’ lives. Cuba’s foreign ministry on Sept. 12 issued a comprehensive summary of adverse effects of the blockade.” Appearing here, it supplements this report.
The UN vote this year has special significance. It took place immediately following both Hurricane Oscar, which devastated eastern Cuba, and an island-wide electrical outage lasting several days. The cause of the latter was a lack of oil for generating electricity, restrictions on the shipping of petroleum products, and limited access to international financing, all owing to the blockade.
Now is an extraordinarily difficult time for Cubans and their government. Basic supplies and materials needed for day-to-day functioning are not readily available. Money is short and inflation mounts. The twin culprits are a fall-off in tourism, Cuba’s main source of foreign currency, and the U.S. designation of Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism” (SSOT). The latter entails regulations that persuade international financial institutions and corporations to steer clear of Cuba.
Every year in preparation for its vote on the resolution, the General Assembly arranges for two days of discussion of the measure’s pros and cons. Perhaps reflecting extra stresses weighing on Cuba, commentary during this year’s discussion period came from an unprecedently large group of delegates.
In brief interventions, 59 of them offered reasons why the resolution should pass; almost 30 international organizations or alliances did likewise. These included the Group of 77 and China, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).
The speakers made frequent reference to the SSOT designation and to Title III of the U.S. Helms-Burton law (which discourages foreign investment in Cuba). Many of them variously denounced the blockade as violating international law and Cubans’ human rights, for inhibiting Cuba’s development, and for sticking around as a Cold War left-over. Several delegates extolled South-to-South cooperation and multipolarity. Others offered thanks for Cuba’s assistance during the pandemic.
Meanwhile, U.S. activists and organizations, rallying against the blockade and in defense of Cuba, joined in vigorous demonstrations taking place in Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and elsewhere.
The International U.S.-Cuba Normalization Coalition Committee on Oct. 27-28 again staged its annual “24-Hour Global Picket” to accompany the UN vote. The effort made for a continuous presentation of commentary, advocacy, video presentations, and music from 61 countries. It was initiated by Vancouver-based activists Tamara Hansen and Alison Brodine, and others.
One oddity of the discussion on the Cuba resolution was the contrast between multiple viewpoints offered by nations of the Global South and silence from their northern counterparts, specifically Japan, Canada, and all European nations, save Hungary. (The U.S. representative did speak). The divide may represent the dismissal of the proceedings by nations identifying with U.S. interests, or a fundamental cleavage within the community of nations, or both.
A standout anomaly was that of Argentinian foreign minister Diana Mondino having been fired from her job shortly after she voted in favor of the Cuban resolution. Her boss, extremist right-wing President Javier Milei, was displeased.
After the vote in New York, China’s ambassador in Cuba issued a statement qualifying the result as a “just call from the international community that must be applied immediately and effectively.”
He added, “It’s disappointing and outrageous that the United States voted against the resolution while refusing to end its sanctions against Cuba and insisting on including Cuba on its list of state sponsors of terrorism.
“China and Cuba,” the statement concluded, remain “good friends, comrades, and brothers.”
CONTRIBUTOR
Comments