Caribbean countries have taken sharply different positions on the United States’ decades-long economic embargo against Cuba, with Trinidad and Tobago voting against a United Nations resolution calling for its removal, while several regional governments abstained or did not participate.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted the resolution on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, with 130 countries voting in favour, 17 against and 25 abstaining. The outcome represents a significant decline in support for the resolution compared with last year, when it received 165 votes in favour, seven against and 12 abstentions.
The vote has brought renewed attention to the diplomatic pressures surrounding Cuba and highlighted differences in how Caribbean governments are approaching their relationships with Havana and Washington.
SEVEN CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES SUPPORT CUBA
Seven Caribbean countries voted in favour of the resolution calling for an end to the US embargo.
They were The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Suriname.
Their votes maintained support for the longstanding international position that the economic, commercial and financial restrictions imposed by Washington against Cuba should be brought to an end.
The annual resolution has historically received overwhelming support from Caribbean and Latin American nations, many of which have maintained diplomatic, economic and cooperative relationships with Cuba.
However, this year’s result demonstrates that the region is not speaking with one voice on the issue.
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO BREAKS WITH CARICOM’S HISTORICAL POSITION
One of the most significant developments was Trinidad and Tobago’s decision to vote against the resolution.
The country joined the United States, Israel and 15 other countries in opposing the measure.
According to reporting by the Caribbean Media Corporation, Trinidad and Tobago became the first Caribbean Community (CARICOM) member state in decades to vote against the annual UN resolution condemning the US embargo on Cuba.
The decision marks a notable departure from the traditional regional approach to the issue.
For years, Caribbean governments have generally supported calls for the embargo to be lifted, even where individual countries have maintained different political and economic relationships with the United States.
Trinidad and Tobago’s vote therefore stands out as a significant development in Caribbean diplomacy.
JAMAICA, GUYANA, HAITI AND THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ABSTAIN
Four Caribbean countries abstained from the vote: Jamaica, Guyana, Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
An abstention is distinct from voting against a resolution. It means a country did not cast a vote in support of or opposition to the proposed measure.
For Jamaica, the decision represents a change from its previous position.
Jamaica’s Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade Minister, Kamina Johnson Smith, acknowledged that the country’s abstention marked a shift in policy. She indicated that the government had been reflecting on the issue and referred to concerns previously expressed by Prime Minister Andrew Holness about Cuba’s worsening humanitarian circumstances and the impact on the wider region.
Holness had also called for dialogue between the United States and Cuba, emphasising the need for stability and improved conditions for the Cuban people.
Jamaica’s position illustrates the distinction between expressing concern about conditions in Cuba, supporting engagement between Washington and Havana, and voting for a resolution demanding an end to the embargo.
The voting record establishes the positions taken by the four countries, but it does not, by itself, establish the reasons behind every government’s decision.
THREE COUNTRIES DID NOT PARTICIPATE
Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica and Saint Lucia did not participate in the vote, according to the supplied voting breakdown.
Their non-participation must be distinguished from both an abstention and a vote against the resolution.
The fact that a country did not vote does not, on its own, establish whether its absence was deliberate, politically motivated or attributable to other circumstances.
Nevertheless, their non-participation adds another dimension to the varied responses across the Caribbean.
SUPPORT FOR THE RESOLUTION FALLS BY 35 VOTES
Beyond the Caribbean, the overall result signals a substantial change in the international voting landscape.
Support fell from 165 countries in 2025 to 130 in 2026 — a reduction of 35 votes in one year.
At the same time, opposition increased from seven countries to 17, while abstentions rose from 12 to 25.
The shift comes amid an intensified US effort to persuade governments to reconsider their positions on the embargo.
Reuters reported that Washington’s diplomatic campaign contributed to more countries opposing the resolution or abstaining, including several European countries that had not taken that position in recent years.
Although the resolution still passed by a substantial majority, the reduced support represents a diplomatic setback for Cuba compared with previous years.
WHAT DOES THE VOTE ACTUALLY MEAN?
The resolution calls for an end to the US economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba. However, its adoption does not automatically remove the restrictions.
The General Assembly’s resolution is non-binding, and lifting the US embargo requires action through the US political and legal system, including Congress.
The vote is therefore primarily a measure of international opinion and diplomatic support rather than a direct mechanism for changing US policy.
For Caribbean countries, the issue carries particular significance because of the region’s geographic proximity to Cuba, longstanding diplomatic relationships and wider economic and security interests.
The different voting positions also raise questions about how individual governments balance regional solidarity, foreign policy priorities and relationships with major international partners.
A REGION WITHOUT A SINGLE VOICE
The latest UN vote demonstrates that Caribbean unity on the Cuba embargo can no longer be assumed.
Seven countries supported the resolution, Trinidad and Tobago opposed it, four countries abstained, and three did not participate.
These positions should not be treated as interchangeable, nor should the voting record alone be used to assign motives to governments.
What is clear is that, despite the resolution’s overwhelming passage, Cuba received considerably less support this year than it did in 2025.
For the Caribbean, the result is a reminder that longstanding regional positions can evolve as governments reassess their diplomatic priorities and international relationships.
The embargo remains in place, but the political landscape surrounding it is changing — and the Caribbean’s latest voting record makes that shift particularly visible.