Editorial | The Cuba UN vote

The seven Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries that resisted US pressure to vote against the UN resolution calling on America to end its economic embargo of Cuba are to be commended.

They are: The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, and Suriname.

These countries acted in accordance with a fundamental principle of the UN Charter that declares the “sovereign equality” of nations and places limits on interference in the internal affairs of states to the gravest of circumstances: when the Security Council concludes they pose a threat to international peace and security, have breached the peace, or engaged in acts of aggression.

Three CARICOM members, including Jamaica, abstained, while one, Trinidad and Tobago, voted against the resolution. Three community members – Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica and St Lucia – did not vote.

In no circumstance could Cuba’s foreign or domestic conduct be deemed a threat to international peace and security. Neither could US sanctions against the Caribbean island be characterised as being in keeping with its obligations to international trade, as set out by World Trade Organization (WTO) regimes, or in compliance with the freedom of navigation. Nor is America’s extraterritorial application of its domestic laws in keeping with international norms.

MORPHED INTO HUBRIS

Put another way, the US blockade of Cuba is not in adherence to international law. It is inherently ideological and political, which has morphed into hubris and disregard for the collective punishment that has been imposed on the Cuban people.

The United States first imposed trade restrictions on Cuba in 1960, the year after Fidel Castro’s Marxist revolutionaries defeated the Batista regime. A full and permanent economic embargo followed in 1962, even before the missile crisis.

The embargo has been sustained for more than six decades, but has tightened since Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency in 2025 and was made even worse earlier this year when Washington enforced an oil blockade on Cuba. Havana is estimated to need 100,000 barrels of oil per day, but domestically produces only 40 per cent of its requirement.

With a severe energy shortfall, curbs on its opportunity to earn foreign exchange and threats, via secondary sanctions, against banks and other firms that do business with Havana, the Cuban economy has been thrown into free fall. Electricity is out for extended periods; factories limp along; and Cuba’s much-hailed public health system has been brought to a crawl. Cuba is in a full-scale humanitarian crisis, which, in this case, has another name: the collective punishment of the Cuban population with the aim of achieving a political end. This is faced by a people whose government has been a good neighbour and extraordinary friend, in periods of crisis, to its Caribbean neighbours.

Even if there is a need for “economic and institutional reforms that promote productivity, enterprise and investment” in Cuba, as was expressed in a resolution passed by Jamaica’s Parliament on Tuesday, that cannot, or ought not to, be the basis for breaching international law, the collective punishment of the Cuban people or an endorsement of externally led or imposed regime change. Which, of course, no CARICOM government, except perhaps Trinidad and Tobago’s under Kamla Persad-Bissessar, would ever contemplate or endorse. At least, we hope so.

BEYOND IDEOLOGICAL COMPATIBILITY

This matter goes beyond ideological compatibility. When small countries remove principle from the process and foreign policy becomes merely transactional, they are in danger of being unable, in any circumstances, to find a place at the table, and of being permanently placed, as Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney, put it, “on the menu”. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that Canada, a middle power that has been at odds with the United States under Donald Trump, voted in favour of the resolution.

Cuba and the United States can negotiate their differences as sovereign equals - not with one facing down the barrel of military or economic might.

None of this is to pretend that acting on principle is easy. Indeed, an open letter by 10 former CARICOM leaders, including Jamaica’s P. J. Patterson and Bruce Golding, that had urged nations to support the UN resolution, warned of the “blandishment and pressures” being deployed by the US to defeat it. That worked to a limited extent, with more countries either not voting in favour of the resolution, abstaining, or being missing in action, than previously, mostly out of fear of the Trump backlash.

However, acquiescence and retreat can ultimately take you only so far, sometimes over the precipice. Sometimes it is important to tell even powerful friends that they are overstepping the mark.