As Cuba struggles with prolonged electricity blackouts, fuel shortages and an increasingly severe humanitarian crisis, two Arab countries have found themselves at the centre of a political controversy after voting alongside Israel against a United Nations resolution calling for an end to the decades-old American embargo on the Caribbean nation.
Morocco and the United Arab Emirates were among just 17 countries that opposed the resolution, which passed overwhelmingly in the UN General Assembly on Wednesday with 130 votes in favour and 25 abstentions.
The vote sparked widespread criticism on social media, where commentators questioned why the two Arab governments had chosen to oppose relief from economic restrictions imposed on a country thousands of kilometres away.
For many critics, the controversy extends beyond diplomatic alignments. It raises questions about whether political relationships with Washington and Israel are being prioritised over the humanitarian consequences of an embargo that has affected generations of Cubans.
130 Nations Back Cuba, but Morocco and UAE Choose the Opposition
The General Assembly vote reaffirmed international opposition to the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States on Cuba since 1962.
Despite overwhelming support for lifting the restrictions, Morocco and the UAE joined Israel and other countries in voting against the resolution.
The decision prompted criticism from social media users who argued that opposition to Cuba’s political system should not translate into support for economic measures that affect its civilian population.
Several commentators called for a clear distinction between political disagreements with the government in Havana and the suffering experienced by ordinary Cubans.
They argued that the embargo’s economic and social consequences have affected millions of people, regardless of their political beliefs or relationship with the Cuban government.
Others interpreted the Moroccan and Emirati positions as attempts to maintain favour with the United States and Israel, accusing the two governments of placing diplomatic considerations above humanitarian solidarity.
Those interpretations reflect criticism expressed online rather than any officially established explanation for the two countries’ voting decisions.
Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez welcomed the resolution’s passage, describing it as a victory for the Cuban people, who continue to face the consequences of American economic restrictions and political pressure.
Cuba’s Crisis Is No Longer Just About Trade
The diplomatic controversy comes as Cuba faces deteriorating living conditions linked to severe shortages of fuel and essential supplies.
Washington has maintained a trade embargo against the island for more than six decades, but pressure on the Cuban government has intensified under US President Donald Trump.
Since January, the Trump administration has imposed what amounts to an effective blockade on fuel supplies reaching Cuba, sharply reducing the country’s access to energy imports.
The consequences have become increasingly visible.
With fuel imports falling dramatically, electricity outages now regularly last several days, including in the capital, Havana.
Shortages have also affected food, water and fuel supplies, pushing the country towards a humanitarian crisis.
For Cubans already living under longstanding economic restrictions, the tightening of fuel supplies has created an additional burden, affecting access to basic services and essential resources.
The humanitarian consequences have become a central argument among those opposing the continuation of American sanctions.
United Nations experts have repeatedly characterised the US fuel blockade and related sanctions as violations of international law and the human rights of the Cuban population.
American officials, however, defend the restrictions as a means of pressuring Cuba’s communist-led government, which Washington describes as a “corrupt dictatorship”.
The Cuban government rejects those accusations, maintaining that the American characterisation is false.
Washington Sees a Diplomatic Victory Despite Losing the Vote
Although the resolution passed with 130 votes in favour, the United States pointed to the number of countries that had shifted their positions as evidence of changing international attitudes.
Speaking to journalists following the vote, US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz welcomed the movement of countries away from their previous positions.
“I’m pleased that so many countries now, including major economies such as Korea, Germany and others, have changed their positions,” Waltz said.
He argued that the diplomatic effort was beginning to produce results.
“Diplomacy takes time, but now that the number of countries changing their positions has tripled, we expect that number to continue growing,” he added.
His comments offered a different interpretation of the vote from that presented by Havana.
For Cuba, the resolution represented another demonstration of widespread international opposition to the American embargo.
For Washington, the countries that opposed the resolution or altered their positions provided grounds for optimism about its diplomatic campaign.
The disagreement illustrates how even a non-binding UN vote can become a contest over political influence and international legitimacy.
Why the UN Vote Cannot End the Embargo
Despite the overwhelming support for Cuba, the resolution does not compel Washington to remove its economic restrictions.
The UN General Assembly has adopted resolutions calling for an end to the American embargo every year for more than three decades, with the exception of 2020, when the process was interrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Yet those repeated votes have produced little practical change.
The General Assembly’s position carries political and diplomatic significance, but it does not have the legal authority to overturn the American embargo.
The power to lift the longstanding trade embargo ultimately rests with the US Congress, meaning the overwhelming majority expressed by UN member states cannot, by itself, bring the restrictions to an end.
That distinction has become particularly relevant as Cuba confronts the consequences of tighter American pressure.
While the international community has repeatedly expressed opposition to the embargo, the economic measures remain in place, and their impact continues to be felt by the island’s population.
A Vote That Exposes Political Priorities
The controversy surrounding Morocco and the UAE has drawn attention to the political calculations behind their decision to oppose the resolution.
Both countries joined a small minority of UN members voting against a measure supported by 130 governments.
For critics, the issue is not whether they approve of Cuba’s communist government, but whether disagreements with that government justify maintaining restrictions whose consequences extend to millions of ordinary people.
Their votes have consequently become a subject of broader debate over Arab diplomatic alignments, particularly relations with Washington and Israel.
The reaction also reflects a wider tension surrounding economic sanctions: governments frequently present them as instruments of political pressure, while civilians face many of their practical consequences.
For Cuba, the latest UN vote represents another diplomatic victory without an immediate change in American policy.
For Morocco and the UAE, it has generated criticism over a decision that placed them alongside Israel in opposing international calls to end an embargo that has lasted more than 60 years.
