In a recent UN General Assembly vote, most countries opposed the United States' unilateral sanctions on Cuba, emphasizing violations of international law. The debate highlights tensions between state sovereignty and coercive measures. Despite pressures, only seven nations voted against Cuba's resolution and twelve abstained.
The debate over the United States' unilateral sanctions against Cuba has resurfaced with the annual vote in the UN General Assembly, a key moment in Cuban diplomacy to maintain unfavorable international opinion toward this policy. Though non-binding, the result represents symbolic victories for both sides of the political spectrum. Cuban public opinion rarely delves deeply into the legal and democratic grounds for judging sanctions against a state.
The discussion often focuses on whether the sanctions justify the Cuban government's failures or ignore past events like nationalizations and confiscations. However, the piece by La Joven Cuba questions the selective use of international norms, invoking Article 2.1 of the UN Charter, which establishes sovereign equality and prohibits external interference in internal affairs.
If a significant sector of Cubans supports the sanctions due to the lack of democracy in Cuba, the question arises: why seek progress through antidemocratic mechanisms that violate international law? Accepting such violations would open the door to impunity for any state to impose sanctions under similar pretexts, normalizing coercive actions.
The sanctions on Cuba are punitive, unilateral, and broad in scope, without UN Security Council authorization, and aim to promote regime change rather than respond to specific illegal acts. UN Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970 states: “No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason, in the internal or external affairs of another State.” Similarly, Resolution 3281 (XXIX) of 1974, Article 32, prohibits economic or political measures to coerce another state.
Despite White House pressures resulting in seven votes against and twelve abstentions, most governments, including US allies in Europe and Latin America, voted against the measures. As Lee Schlenker summarized for Responsible Statecraft: “other US allies in Europe and Latin America, critical of Cuba’s political and economic system, have maintained a firm stance against the imposition of unilateral coercive measures, which—they argue—violate international law, impoverish the Cuban people, and do little to incentivize human rights or economic reform on the Island.”
In 2016, no country voted against the anti-embargo resolution, and the United States abstained, improving the lives of millions of Cubans through diplomatic gestures. Any solution to the Cuban crisis must respect international law, promoting normalized relations, the end of sanctions, and Cuba's removal from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. This does not absolve the Cuban government of responsibilities for citizen participation, economic well-being, and structural reforms. Responsibility is shared between government management and the effects of sanctions.